Originally posted by TiamatRoar Given that Archeage did poorly in other regions too, I don't think Westernization is the root problem/concern of the game.
I totally agree with this. It is the basic design of the game that would need to be totally redone. Also using this anti-hack software they do is a recipe for disaster because any game that I have played with that software was hackable.
Castle sieges need to be balanced to where attackers have a chance
Labor system I would leave in place as it is the core part of the game even when it was a subscription game - I personally think it's a brilliant alternative to item decay in how its implemented in AA
The client and server code needs to be brought up to western standards of security
Add planting and gathering templates - so that you can plant or gather with a single mouse click
Add class save templates so that I don't have to redo all my point spending each time I switch
I'd make Auroria give honor for all faction kills
Basically what you are saying the game needs a total redesign.
What people like you two are apparently clueless to, is that the "western players' mindset" is NOT about "gimme gimme". It is about "NOT ALLOWING PLAYERS TO BUY THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS..." It is "NOT ABOUT BUYING ENTITLEMENT." Is that such a difficult concept to comprehend? That players should have to actually EARN their place within MMORPGs? I can not possibly spell it out any simpler for anyone whom still believes the same BS both of you spewed out.
Does that mean the Free to Play business model can not make money? No, it does not. They can still make boat tons of money, but there are proper ways of doing so. But that actually has to do with proper game design tied in with a cash shop. That takes actual thought. But these companies' only thoughts are how to swindle as many players out of as much money as possible, rather than having any self worth. I know, because I know exactly how to implement a proper Free to Play design, still make money, and still make certain that those players with "money", "time" and "skill" are balanced out.
The Western approach for gaming (going back to the early 80's) has been sell game achievements for money, while trying to deny this to others. This has resulted in a market that sells basically anything for money, while those that receive all the benefits deny that it happens (and try to prevent others from achieving the same success). This is an unfortunate mirror to our current society, where we have the same class struggle over wealth.
Those who have time ,and not a lot of money, prefer a flat (all you can use) schedule of fees. They get more value from this, as time is less precious than money. Those who have more money, and less time, prefer a tiered schedule of fees, as the money is less valuable than time. As games have changed from mass market (10M+) to niche markets (300-500k) it has proven to be much more effective to sell primarily via a tiered schedule (vs flat). This has led to a disenfranchisement of the masses, who are seeing the value of their time being eroded as compared to the value of others money. This is a result of the market realizing that most MMO's are not going to be WoW sized, and the companies changing the business model to better fit the reality.
The best trade off that those who value time can propose, is to avoid direct item/service sales, and instead charge for time directly (the original model for MMO's). This puts the value on time, which is the same for everyone. However, this makes their preferred play method, extremely expensive.
What people like you two are apparently clueless to, is that the "western players' mindset" is NOT about "gimme gimme". It is about "NOT ALLOWING PLAYERS TO BUY THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS..." It is "NOT ABOUT BUYING ENTITLEMENT." Is that such a difficult concept to comprehend? That players should have to actually EARN their place within MMORPGs? I can not possibly spell it out any simpler for anyone whom still believes the same BS both of you spewed out.
Does that mean the Free to Play business model can not make money? No, it does not. They can still make boat tons of money, but there are proper ways of doing so. But that actually has to do with proper game design tied in with a cash shop. That takes actual thought. But these companies' only thoughts are how to swindle as many players out of as much money as possible, rather than having any self worth. I know, because I know exactly how to implement a proper Free to Play design, still make money, and still make certain that those players with "money", "time" and "skill" are balanced out.
The Western approach for gaming (going back to the early 80's) has been sell game achievements for money, while trying to deny this to others. This has resulted in a market that sells basically anything for money, while those that receive all the benefits deny that it happens (and try to prevent others from achieving the same success). This is an unfortunate mirror to our current society, where we have the same class struggle over wealth.
Those who have time ,and not a lot of money, prefer a flat (all you can use) schedule of fees. They get more value from this, as time is less precious than money. Those who have more money, and less time, prefer a tiered schedule of fees, as the money is less valuable than time. As games have changed from mass market (10M+) to niche markets (300-500k) it has proven to be much more effective to sell primarily via a tiered schedule (vs flat). This has led to a disenfranchisement of the masses, who are seeing the value of their time being eroded as compared to the value of others money. This is a result of the market realizing that most MMO's are not going to be WoW sized, and the companies changing the business model to better fit the reality.
The best trade off that those who value time can propose, is to avoid direct item/service sales, and instead charge for time directly (the original model for MMO's). This puts the value on time, which is the same for everyone. However, this makes their preferred play method, extremely expensive.
Free-to-play with pay-to-win and achievement sales aspects originated from the East. Even R2Games' business presentation has that in its title and disclaims that it didn't invent the strategy but was merely copying it from the eastern model.
What people like you two are apparently clueless to, is that the "western players' mindset" is NOT about "gimme gimme". It is about "NOT ALLOWING PLAYERS TO BUY THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS..." It is "NOT ABOUT BUYING ENTITLEMENT." Is that such a difficult concept to comprehend? That players should have to actually EARN their place within MMORPGs? I can not possibly spell it out any simpler for anyone whom still believes the same BS both of you spewed out.
Does that mean the Free to Play business model can not make money? No, it does not. They can still make boat tons of money, but there are proper ways of doing so. But that actually has to do with proper game design tied in with a cash shop. That takes actual thought. But these companies' only thoughts are how to swindle as many players out of as much money as possible, rather than having any self worth. I know, because I know exactly how to implement a proper Free to Play design, still make money, and still make certain that those players with "money", "time" and "skill" are balanced out.
The Western approach for gaming (going back to the early 80's) has been sell game achievements for money, while trying to deny this to others. This has resulted in a market that sells basically anything for money, while those that receive all the benefits deny that it happens (and try to prevent others from achieving the same success). This is an unfortunate mirror to our current society, where we have the same class struggle over wealth.
Those who have time ,and not a lot of money, prefer a flat (all you can use) schedule of fees. They get more value from this, as time is less precious than money. Those who have more money, and less time, prefer a tiered schedule of fees, as the money is less valuable than time. As games have changed from mass market (10M+) to niche markets (300-500k) it has proven to be much more effective to sell primarily via a tiered schedule (vs flat). This has led to a disenfranchisement of the masses, who are seeing the value of their time being eroded as compared to the value of others money. This is a result of the market realizing that most MMO's are not going to be WoW sized, and the companies changing the business model to better fit the reality.
The best trade off that those who value time can propose, is to avoid direct item/service sales, and instead charge for time directly (the original model for MMO's). This puts the value on time, which is the same for everyone. However, this makes their preferred play method, extremely expensive.
Free-to-play with pay-to-win and achievement sales aspects originated from the East. Even R2Games' business presentation has that in its title and disclaims that it didn't invent the strategy but was merely copying it from the eastern model.
Selling achievements and power for money originated long before the term Pay2Win. The only difference was that in the past, no one cared about the have nots. It was only with the implementation of F2P, that non paying players could compete with players who had spent (be it a little or a lot). This opened many games to the masses, and created a social issue (when it was smaller numbers, it was not seen as mainstream).
The eastern business model is one of volume sales (vs higher margin sales). Examples of this is League of Legends, Farmville, and Candy Crush. It is true that it is much more common to attempt a much larger volume of sales (for small amounts) across a large playerbase. in the East than in the west. The reason for this is the method that the money is collected. In the West there has been a focus on retail sales, which require a minimum cost to be covered, and where the majority of the revenue goes to the retailer. In the East the focus has primarily been online sales, and sales via LAN shops, where they are collecting larger single transactions, and the sales themselves are via microtransactions.
The model used by ArcheAge is not the classic eastern model, but rather a hybrid model used as a conversion from P2P. They are not the first game to use this model (either in the east or west), and it is what is classically called an 'energy' model for many browser, facebook, and mobile games.
There really isn't anything new here business model wise. They just took stuff that is common in other games (both east and west) and applied it to ArcheAge when the P2P model failed. It was an odd mix when it initially happened, and was not popular then either.
Make it sub-based with action combat ala TERA/Neverwinter. Further tune the combat so it's not all about stun-locking and 100-0 people without them being able to do anything.
Spend resources fixing hacks and exploits. Spend resources fixing problems because of hacks and exploits.
Get rid of hackshield and either use something that works or nothing at all.
"As games have changed from mass market (10M+) to niche markets (300-500k)..." You have this backwards. Once upon a time was niche markets... Mass markets were not even heard of or dreamt of until WoW... Not as far as MMORPGs go.
That's not actually true.
Origins was purchased by EA because of the amount of money Ultima Online was making with its 250K subscribers.
A $39 game (if I recall, may have been more) = just under $10,000,000
250K paying $10.99 a month = $2.747.500 = $32.970.000 a year which was massive at the time
Now factor in that Everquest had double that + averaged almost 2 expansions per year. It was making Sony around 150 million a year...the game was the very reason so many other companies started making MMOs, they were cash cows.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
i am afraid they can't change the biggest problem of Archeage. The whiney gimme gimme generation of western game "players".
Originally posted by fiftyplusgeek
Oh yeah, and this as well. It seems more prevalent in AA than any other game I've played.
What people like you two are apparently clueless to, is that the "western players' mindset" is NOT about "gimme gimme". It is about "NOT ALLOWING PLAYERS TO BUY THEIR ACHIEVEMENTS..." It is "NOT ABOUT BUYING ENTITLEMENT." Is that such a difficult concept to comprehend? That players should have to actually EARN their place within MMORPGs? I can not possibly spell it out any simpler for anyone whom still believes the same BS both of you spewed out.
Does that mean the Free to Play business model can not make money? No, it does not. They can still make boat tons of money, but there are proper ways of doing so. But that actually has to do with proper game design tied in with a cash shop. That takes actual thought. But these companies' only thoughts are how to swindle as many players out of as much money as possible, rather than having any self worth. I know, because I know exactly how to implement a proper Free to Play design, still make money, and still make certain that those players with "money", "time" and "skill" are balanced out.
Holy shit, dude. Lay off the coffee. You're gong to pop a vein.
Oh, and what game did you work on that taught you how to implement a proper F2P design? I'm curious.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Going back to development, How could this game been made better? What changes would need to be made to do so?
Talking pre-Trion World's hands on the Archeage development.
What would need to be changed to have been a better game on world wide release?
In hindsight? Not give any new projects to Trion as they've most definitely turned in the wrong direction in terms of managing the games they currently have. It's probably too late for ArcheAge as long as Trion holds the rights to it.
Trion was always the worst decision. Why give a somewhat sandboxy game to the company that made one of the most copy pasted soulless WoW clones in recent memory?
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I think AA would have benefitted from something other than Farmville as the only option for resources. The farm thing is cool and all, but if you want to kill creatures in the wild for Hides you are out of luck. No the mobs are just for quests.
Other than that it's an ok game for the most part from what I have seen so far.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Castle sieges need to be balanced to where attackers have a chance
Labor system I would leave in place as it is the core part of the game even when it was a subscription game - I personally think it's a brilliant alternative to item decay in how its implemented in AA
The client and server code needs to be brought up to western standards of security
Add planting and gathering templates - so that you can plant or gather with a single mouse click
Add class save templates so that I don't have to redo all my point spending each time I switch
I'd make Auroria give honor for all faction kills
Basically what you are saying the game needs a total redesign.
Other than "The client and server code needs to be brought up to western standards of security," I was thinking you'd accidentally quoted the wrong post.
Another route, is making decisions based on the perspective of intending to maintain the integrity of one's work (in this case an RPG with the intention of creating an MMORPG). Whereas such has not been implemented yet, there is no question that given an MMORPG designed properly, this would be the direction the industry will eventually go. No other MMORPG would stand as competition with this direction of the "Free to Play" business model taken... not unless it was actually a better MMORPG. The current business model we see, would without any doubt be dead and buried, as the majority of the playerbase would abandon those games still using today's version..
There are multiple successful implementations of the F2P business model. Several of them have been ongoing for over a decade. I would say that these have maintained the integrity of the developers work, as they are still supported by the developer after all of this time.
P.S. This is not where the industry chose to go, but many are coming around to it now (due to market changes).
I told you so just doesn't quite cut it for me, anyway, ArcheAge went down the crapper way before it's release. The day they decided to go F2P was the death of a unborn MMO. A shame really, ArcheAge had a LOAD of potential when it was intended to be P2P, but once they put it F2P they removed a ton of cool features and slapped some generic F2P garbage with game experience enhancing cash shop. So yeah, nothing special to see here.
On a side note, if you're still looking for a new MMO to call home, you might want to try FF14 : ARR. Quite honestly, I'd give that game the best come back MMO of the year, perhaps even of the decade. I've played on launch 2013, until a few weeks before Christmas, left it because they were missing some key features. But as the months went by, they added a CRAP LOAD of features. I returned on September 25th 2014 after a 9 month break, I expire on Christmas Day, and I'm enjoying the game sooo much that not only have I upgraded my account to the collectors edition but I've also gotten myself a 6 month sub plan.
Crafting has gotten a huge boost, PvP is simply amazing, and classes ... gearing up all your classes will keep you busy for a long time, let alone crafts and the hundred+ achievements that can be unlocked. Final Fantasy 14 : A Realm Reborn, is a game to be reckoned with, and with a new expansion coming out in Spring 2015 it will just add to it's awesomeness. Blizzard's WoW has some serious competition and SE's FF14 is growing in subs every month! It's worth a look if you never played or have played on launch and left like me.
I was never a huge fan on graphics on a MMO, I'd much rather have game play, but SE delivered on both fronts. I'm using a old duo core and the graphics are simple amazing, can see the texture on my leather gear! And I'm upgrading to a i7 in a few days (waiting on my other parts to be delivered).
So in conclusion, about ArcheAge, besides shutting the game down and start from scratch, there isn't much that can be done to it. Westerners prefer quality over quantity, and if that means P2P, we will play for a quality game. But if you're just throwing a generic game with the same mechanics as every F2P before it but with top of the line graphics, even if it's F2P we won't stay longer than a month. If WoW / FF14 : ARR sucked, they wouldn't have millions of subs each. Just a thought.
I would love to see one "successful" MMORPG using the F2P business model at all within the MMORPG industry. I do not define "success," nor "integrity," based on how much money the MMORPG is pulling in.
The Game Companies absolutely chose the current path of F2P, so do not even attempt to BS that point. It is the players fighting among themselves that allows it to continue, such as, "scapegoating of true F2P players for the business model." The Game Companies chose to go the direction that was recognized would yield the most profit. Period.
And do not attempt extreme replies in the "but MMORPG companies need to get paid too" category. I am not disagreeing with that part, I am disagreeing with tactics and outright greed involved.
It is true that you have not defined success. Normally success would mean something like:
The accomplishment of aim or purpose.
The attainment of popularity or profit.
A person or thing that achieves desired aims or prosperity.
However, this may not be in any way related to what you are specifying as success. Let me give a simple example: Runescape. This F2P game has been around for over a decade. It has many happy players, and may happy developers. The game makes enough money to sustain itself and grow. They are one of the defining founders of the F2P model in the west. They would meet most peoples definition of 'success'. How about you?
Holy shit, dude. Lay off the coffee. You're gong to pop a vein.
Oh, and what game did you work on that taught you how to implement a proper F2P design? I'm curious.
The game I worked on is MY OWN, initially intended to be a Tabletop RPG, and still will begin to that end. The ultimate goal for that intended RPG is to become an MMORPG.
The "Free to Play" business model is one of those concepts that anyone with half a brain can see is the future of MMORPGs. To this end there is no question. The question from that realization is how to implement a "Free to Play" business model.
One route is to swindle as many customers out of their money as possible, such as we have all too often seen, and such that has given the model a bad stigma as being synonymous with "Pay to Win."
Another route, is making decisions based on the perspective of intending to maintain the integrity of one's work (in this case an RPG with the intention of creating an MMORPG). Whereas such has not been implemented yet, there is no question that given an MMORPG designed properly, this would be the direction the industry will eventually go. No other MMORPG would stand as competition with this direction of the "Free to Play" business model taken... not unless it was actually a better MMORPG. The current business model we see, would without any doubt be dead and buried, as the majority of the playerbase would abandon those games still using today's version.
And no. You are not curious. But I was already aware of that before replying.
Oh, but I AM curious. I'd love to see this masterwork of yours that makes you such an expert.
Holy shit, dude. Lay off the coffee. You're gong to pop a vein.
Oh, and what game did you work on that taught you how to implement a proper F2P design? I'm curious.
The game I worked on is MY OWN, initially intended to be a Tabletop RPG, and still will begin to that end. The ultimate goal for that intended RPG is to become an MMORPG.
<blah...blah...blah>
Oh, but I AM curious. I'd love to see this masterwork of yours that makes you such an expert.
Comments
I totally agree with this. It is the basic design of the game that would need to be totally redone. Also using this anti-hack software they do is a recipe for disaster because any game that I have played with that software was hackable.
Basically what you are saying the game needs a total redesign.
The Western approach for gaming (going back to the early 80's) has been sell game achievements for money, while trying to deny this to others. This has resulted in a market that sells basically anything for money, while those that receive all the benefits deny that it happens (and try to prevent others from achieving the same success). This is an unfortunate mirror to our current society, where we have the same class struggle over wealth.
Those who have time ,and not a lot of money, prefer a flat (all you can use) schedule of fees. They get more value from this, as time is less precious than money. Those who have more money, and less time, prefer a tiered schedule of fees, as the money is less valuable than time. As games have changed from mass market (10M+) to niche markets (300-500k) it has proven to be much more effective to sell primarily via a tiered schedule (vs flat). This has led to a disenfranchisement of the masses, who are seeing the value of their time being eroded as compared to the value of others money. This is a result of the market realizing that most MMO's are not going to be WoW sized, and the companies changing the business model to better fit the reality.
The best trade off that those who value time can propose, is to avoid direct item/service sales, and instead charge for time directly (the original model for MMO's). This puts the value on time, which is the same for everyone. However, this makes their preferred play method, extremely expensive.
Free-to-play with pay-to-win and achievement sales aspects originated from the East. Even R2Games' business presentation has that in its title and disclaims that it didn't invent the strategy but was merely copying it from the eastern model.
The game itself isn't bad and i kinda like it. Remove the labor system and the flaw into the code that allow people to use heavy cheat and it's cool.
Selling achievements and power for money originated long before the term Pay2Win. The only difference was that in the past, no one cared about the have nots. It was only with the implementation of F2P, that non paying players could compete with players who had spent (be it a little or a lot). This opened many games to the masses, and created a social issue (when it was smaller numbers, it was not seen as mainstream).
The eastern business model is one of volume sales (vs higher margin sales). Examples of this is League of Legends, Farmville, and Candy Crush. It is true that it is much more common to attempt a much larger volume of sales (for small amounts) across a large playerbase. in the East than in the west. The reason for this is the method that the money is collected. In the West there has been a focus on retail sales, which require a minimum cost to be covered, and where the majority of the revenue goes to the retailer. In the East the focus has primarily been online sales, and sales via LAN shops, where they are collecting larger single transactions, and the sales themselves are via microtransactions.
The model used by ArcheAge is not the classic eastern model, but rather a hybrid model used as a conversion from P2P. They are not the first game to use this model (either in the east or west), and it is what is classically called an 'energy' model for many browser, facebook, and mobile games.
There really isn't anything new here business model wise. They just took stuff that is common in other games (both east and west) and applied it to ArcheAge when the P2P model failed. It was an odd mix when it initially happened, and was not popular then either.
Make it sub-based with action combat ala TERA/Neverwinter. Further tune the combat so it's not all about stun-locking and 100-0 people without them being able to do anything.
Spend resources fixing hacks and exploits. Spend resources fixing problems because of hacks and exploits.
Get rid of hackshield and either use something that works or nothing at all.
That's not actually true.
Origins was purchased by EA because of the amount of money Ultima Online was making with its 250K subscribers.
A $39 game (if I recall, may have been more) = just under $10,000,000
250K paying $10.99 a month = $2.747.500 = $32.970.000 a year which was massive at the time
Now factor in that Everquest had double that + averaged almost 2 expansions per year. It was making Sony around 150 million a year...the game was the very reason so many other companies started making MMOs, they were cash cows.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Holy shit, dude. Lay off the coffee. You're gong to pop a vein.
Oh, and what game did you work on that taught you how to implement a proper F2P design? I'm curious.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Trion was always the worst decision. Why give a somewhat sandboxy game to the company that made one of the most copy pasted soulless WoW clones in recent memory?
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I think AA would have benefitted from something other than Farmville as the only option for resources. The farm thing is cool and all, but if you want to kill creatures in the wild for Hides you are out of luck. No the mobs are just for quests.
Other than that it's an ok game for the most part from what I have seen so far.
Other than "The client and server code needs to be brought up to western standards of security," I was thinking you'd accidentally quoted the wrong post.
There are multiple successful implementations of the F2P business model. Several of them have been ongoing for over a decade. I would say that these have maintained the integrity of the developers work, as they are still supported by the developer after all of this time.
P.S. This is not where the industry chose to go, but many are coming around to it now (due to market changes).
I told you so just doesn't quite cut it for me, anyway, ArcheAge went down the crapper way before it's release. The day they decided to go F2P was the death of a unborn MMO. A shame really, ArcheAge had a LOAD of potential when it was intended to be P2P, but once they put it F2P they removed a ton of cool features and slapped some generic F2P garbage with game experience enhancing cash shop. So yeah, nothing special to see here.
On a side note, if you're still looking for a new MMO to call home, you might want to try FF14 : ARR. Quite honestly, I'd give that game the best come back MMO of the year, perhaps even of the decade. I've played on launch 2013, until a few weeks before Christmas, left it because they were missing some key features. But as the months went by, they added a CRAP LOAD of features. I returned on September 25th 2014 after a 9 month break, I expire on Christmas Day, and I'm enjoying the game sooo much that not only have I upgraded my account to the collectors edition but I've also gotten myself a 6 month sub plan.
Crafting has gotten a huge boost, PvP is simply amazing, and classes ... gearing up all your classes will keep you busy for a long time, let alone crafts and the hundred+ achievements that can be unlocked. Final Fantasy 14 : A Realm Reborn, is a game to be reckoned with, and with a new expansion coming out in Spring 2015 it will just add to it's awesomeness. Blizzard's WoW has some serious competition and SE's FF14 is growing in subs every month! It's worth a look if you never played or have played on launch and left like me.
I was never a huge fan on graphics on a MMO, I'd much rather have game play, but SE delivered on both fronts. I'm using a old duo core and the graphics are simple amazing, can see the texture on my leather gear! And I'm upgrading to a i7 in a few days (waiting on my other parts to be delivered).
So in conclusion, about ArcheAge, besides shutting the game down and start from scratch, there isn't much that can be done to it. Westerners prefer quality over quantity, and if that means P2P, we will play for a quality game. But if you're just throwing a generic game with the same mechanics as every F2P before it but with top of the line graphics, even if it's F2P we won't stay longer than a month. If WoW / FF14 : ARR sucked, they wouldn't have millions of subs each. Just a thought.
add some aesthetics, cause playing in a clunky world doesn't feels nice. especially if you add grind mechanics.
add dynamic combat, they should knew that the tab targeting is extremely outdated .
those 2 factors never let me to try the game more than a beta weekend ...
It is true that you have not defined success. Normally success would mean something like:
The accomplishment of aim or purpose.
The attainment of popularity or profit.
A person or thing that achieves desired aims or prosperity.
However, this may not be in any way related to what you are specifying as success. Let me give a simple example: Runescape. This F2P game has been around for over a decade. It has many happy players, and may happy developers. The game makes enough money to sustain itself and grow. They are one of the defining founders of the F2P model in the west. They would meet most peoples definition of 'success'. How about you?
Oh, but I AM curious. I'd love to see this masterwork of yours that makes you such an expert.
And...crickets.
Let me put on my big surprise face.