Originally posted by DevilSeph Another advert to Gw2 ... here it starts again
It is likely the most played b2p MMO out of all of them....they don't need free advertisement.
And author, Destiny? Please stop with this game. In fact, until it comes to the PC it does not even exist as far as I am concerned.
Actually, Destiny is the most played game on the list, sorry to disappoint. Oh and, yes, that is without a PC version. That's just the cold, hard facts, regardless of whether you believe it to exist or not.
Actually, the only cold, hard fact I see is that you don't post anything to substantiate your claim.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I have a hard time seeing how anyone other than the most hardcore gw2 fans could think that gw2 is better than ESO much less significantly better as the article states. The only way that makes any sense to me is if they were trying to compare gw2 to the launch state ESO with all those bugs.
Maybe this is just a difference in taste but then I see the part where the author gushes over all things gw2 has added including the living story and I'm suspicious.
I have a hard time seeing how anyone other than the most hardcore gw2 fans could think that gw2 is better than ESO much less significantly better as the article states. The only way that makes any sense to me is if they were trying to compare gw2 to the launch state ESO with all those bugs.
Now you know how some of us feel about the hardcore ESO fans and how it's hard to understand that they think ESO is better. It's a two way street my friend. Who is right? Who cares? That's why it's called "preference".
To the author who is new to MMO's it appears, GW1 is not an MMO. The developers have cleared this up.
Also, MMO is defined. It cannot be disputed. It is a description, not a genre. Destiny does not fit that description. Your whole argument for containing two multiplayer games in an MMO article is stupid.
Destiny ist not realy B2P cause you cannot play all the content without buying DLC it is a hidden subfee.
No it is B2P. You can play all the content you purchase.
Same goes for GTA, Assassin's Creed, Battlefield, Civ, Crusader Kings, a Harry Potter book or a loaf of bread. You get what you pay for at the price you pay for it. That is what B2P is. The business model is very widespread and pretty universal.
ArenaNet themselves were clear about that. This nonsense was hilarious a couple of years ago, now it's just sad.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Originally posted by rojoArcueid Replace The Crew and Destiny with Guild Wars 1 and its three separate campaigns and you have a much better list full of games that are totally worth purchasing.
Agreed. I think GW1 deserves a place on the list for setting the trend in mmos so long ago and proving the concept works. It still has a lot of charm and some of its mechanics are unique in the implementation (shutdown, interrupt, and the like as class roles). Classes like mesmer that brought a whole new dimension to crowd control.
I love 1 - 3, but right now ESO and LotRO are the main games I'm playing.
The hater posts are hilarious. I love watching them twist in their skin. They say nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The problem is, GW1 is so old now, and it's practically in maintenance mode now.
It is totally in maintenance mode, but it's still a good game.
Originally posted by dumpcat "MMO – but by most definitions it does qualify. If games like Neverwinter, Guild Wars 1, and other similar lobby-esque systems qualify for the MMO tag, Destiny should as well." Actually GW1 was never considered an MMO even by it's own devs, and only people new to the genre think Neverwinter or Destiny are MMOs.
Neverwinter is an mmo. It has persistent public zones. They are accessed through a map, but that doesn't make it lobby based. It makes the game map based. Players can go meet each other out in game zones and play together. The difference between GW1 and Neverwinter is that players could only ever meet in hubs and once they entered an instance it was private to that group.
Ok, I will try to get this through to you... an MMO is a game that has a massive amount of people playing the game together. By together, I mean they can all interact in the same virtual environment at once. Neverwinter has a hub, but its gameplay is severely limited in the amount of players in one instance. Its not an MMO! Just like Guildwars wasnt. Which the developers and players have tried to explain to your type for years. Just like how Bungie tried to explain that Destiny is not an MMO.
Don't pretend to understand things you clearly don't. To argue something so out of your element is crazy.
Originally posted by DevilSeph Another advert to Gw2 ... here it starts again
It is likely the most played b2p MMO out of all of them....they don't need free advertisement.
And author, Destiny? Please stop with this game. In fact, until it comes to the PC it does not even exist as far as I am concerned.
Actually, Destiny is the most played game on the list, sorry to disappoint. Oh and, yes, that is without a PC version. That's just the cold, hard facts, regardless of whether you believe it to exist or not.
Actually, the only cold, hard fact I see is that you don't post anything to substantiate your claim.
Ok, I'll play.
As of January 2015, Destiny had 16 Million Registered users and was the 3rd best-selling game in 2014. By August of 2013, Guild Wars 2 had sold 3.5 million copies. So, in 2 years it's sold 3.5 million copies. From 2012-2013 the Q4 revenues were down to $32 million from $112 million in the previous year (when it was released) which shows a significant drop-off year-over year. HOWEVER! Even if we assumed flat sales, Destiny would likely be selling 3:1 over GW2.
Number of concurrent players at PEAK for GW2 was just shy of 500k. The number of concurrent players, in Beta, for Destiny was 800k, and that was beta.
I have a hard time seeing how anyone other than the most hardcore gw2 fans could think that gw2 is better than ESO much less significantly better as the article states. The only way that makes any sense to me is if they were trying to compare gw2 to the launch state ESO with all those bugs.
Now you know how some of us feel about the hardcore ESO fans and how it's hard to understand that they think ESO is better. It's a two way street my friend. Who is right? Who cares? That's why it's called "preference".
Actually I rage quit after the first month of ESO from all the bugs and was usually the one running around pointing out that the 800k subscribers that ESO fans claimed from the superdata was a gross overestimate because they were wishfully assuming that somehow box sales wouldn't be included under total revenue. But I tried it again because it was well.. free... and found it to be not that bad. However, every time I've tried to go back to gw2 it's always just seemed awful.
For some reason my primary game now is WoW, so maybe I just have terrible taste.
To the author who is new to MMO's it appears, GW1 is not an MMO. The developers have cleared this up.
Also, MMO is defined. It cannot be disputed. It is a description, not a genre. Destiny does not fit that description. Your whole argument for containing two multiplayer games in an MMO article is stupid.
So that would be "an online role playing video game in which a very large number of people participate simultaneously". That was the first definition that came up that didn't simply say massive multiplayer online (the Merrian Webster version).
So - by your own argument - GW1 and Destiny are both mmos.
The developers .... NCSoft were more than happy to target GW1 at the mmo audience back when the game launched (with the beta-weekend access boxes). These days .... publishers don't want their games being called mmos; bad juju.
Now the definition wouldn't stop me arguing that they are - or that they are not. All I would do however is demonstrate that the definition is very broad.
Plants and animals are classified by the presence or absence or certain features. There are some very, very broad definitions at the top and then it starts to spread out. A lot. The same concept holds true for games. Almost as soon as you say an mmos must have x you will include some and exclude others.
An example. GW1 uses instances so is not an mmo. OK then by that argument neither is EQ1 as it also uses instances (a server is simply an "instance" or copy of a game world after all. And you can do the same with crafting, character grind, gear grind, story, economy on and on. And there are examples of games that had some but not all.
Hence you end up with a very broad definition. And whilst you may not want to consider GW1 and Destiny to be mmos - as you yourself said - it cannot be disputed that they are. They fit the definition.
(And as you put the thing in capitals a few posts up don't let the dictionary hit your toe on the way down).
Originally posted by DevilSeph Another advert to Gw2 ... here it starts again
It is likely the most played b2p MMO out of all of them....they don't need free advertisement.
And author, Destiny? Please stop with this game. In fact, until it comes to the PC it does not even exist as far as I am concerned.
Actually, Destiny is the most played game on the list, sorry to disappoint. Oh and, yes, that is without a PC version. That's just the cold, hard facts, regardless of whether you believe it to exist or not.
Actually, the only cold, hard fact I see is that you don't post anything to substantiate your claim.
Ok, I'll play.
As of January 2015, Destiny had 16 Million Registered users and was the 3rd best-selling game in 2014. By August of 2013, Guild Wars 2 had sold 3.5 million copies. So, in 2 years it's sold 3.5 million copies. From 2012-2013 the Q4 revenues were down to $32 million from $112 million in the previous year (when it was released) which shows a significant drop-off year-over year. HOWEVER! Even if we assumed flat sales, Destiny would likely be selling 3:1 over GW2.
Number of concurrent players at PEAK for GW2 was just shy of 500k. The number of concurrent players, in Beta, for Destiny was 800k, and that was beta.
Isn't the current requirement for "factual forum information" to have a link, in game screen shot, xfire stats, statement of disclosure from all involved parties, attestation of credibility from a federal dignitary, and a poorly drawn internet meme or it didn't happen?
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
Originally posted by rojoArcueid Replace The Crew and Destiny with Guild Wars 1 and its three separate campaigns and you have a much better list full of games that are totally worth purchasing.
Agreed. I think GW1 deserves a place on the list for setting the trend in mmos so long ago and proving the concept works. It still has a lot of charm and some of its mechanics are unique in the implementation (shutdown, interrupt, and the like as class roles). Classes like mesmer that brought a whole new dimension to crowd control.
I love 1 - 3, but right now ESO and LotRO are the main games I'm playing.
The hater posts are hilarious. I love watching them twist in their skin. They say nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The problem is, GW1 is so old now, and it's practically in maintenance mode now.
It is totally in maintenance mode, but it's still a good game.
Originally posted by dumpcat "MMO – but by most definitions it does qualify. If games like Neverwinter, Guild Wars 1, and other similar lobby-esque systems qualify for the MMO tag, Destiny should as well." Actually GW1 was never considered an MMO even by it's own devs, and only people new to the genre think Neverwinter or Destiny are MMOs.
Neverwinter is an mmo. It has persistent public zones. They are accessed through a map, but that doesn't make it lobby based. It makes the game map based. Players can go meet each other out in game zones and play together. The difference between GW1 and Neverwinter is that players could only ever meet in hubs and once they entered an instance it was private to that group.
Ok, I will try to get this through to you... an MMO is a game that has a massive amount of people playing the game together. By together, I mean they can all interact in the same virtual environment at once. Neverwinter has a hub, but its gameplay is severely limited in the amount of players in one instance. Its not an MMO! Just like Guildwars wasnt. Which the developers and players have tried to explain to your type for years. Just like how Bungie tried to explain that Destiny is not an MMO.
Don't pretend to understand things you clearly don't. To argue something so out of your element is crazy.
Why do you come off so hostile? Relax a little. lol.
By your logic, 99% of MMO's are not an MMO, because they have instancing. Private dungeons are a form of instancing, or instanced pvp matches.
There's really no difference, whether there's 10 people in one are, or thousands spread across the world.
Wow, this post has shown me that a majority of people are idiots.
They either don't read or they just don't inform themselves before talking about a topic.
The state of gamers today is pretty sad. They are in such a hurry for the "next" thing that reading is now considered too much to ask of them.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Wow, this post has shown me that a majority of people are idiots.
They either don't read or they just don't inform themselves before talking about a topic.
BUY - TO - PLAY
So don't bring up WOW or Eve... that's P2P
Don't bring up LOTRO or Rift... don't bring up DCUO... those are F2P...
God.. people annoy me.
Haha! I was thinking the same thing. Most of the time people are okish. But the skim or don't even read and comment people are out in full force with this article.
The top three are quite good for B2P games. I don't agree with the lack of sandbox features in ESO but I can see why some people wouldn't be bored to tears with it.
Originally posted by Lekyii Calling MMO to Destiny is an insult to the MMO genre, how can a game without in game chat, in game guild/party support, call itself Massive Multiplayer Online
It was discussed prior to Destiny coming out that it wasnt an MMO but it was a co-op game... yet there were those who still cant get the IQ above 4 to understand the difference.
I have a hard time seeing how anyone other than the most hardcore gw2 fans could think that gw2 is better than ESO much less significantly better as the article states. The only way that makes any sense to me is if they were trying to compare gw2 to the launch state ESO with all those bugs.
Now you know how some of us feel about the hardcore ESO fans and how it's hard to understand that they think ESO is better. It's a two way street my friend. Who is right? Who cares? That's why it's called "preference".
For some reason my primary game now is WoW, so maybe I just have terrible taste.
You got something right.
Kinda fun to read TESO fanboys tears in this thread though xD
Originally posted by Lekyii Calling MMO to Destiny is an insult to the MMO genre, how can a game without in game chat, in game guild/party support, call itself Massive Multiplayer Online
It was discussed prior to Destiny coming out that it wasnt an MMO but it was a co-op game... yet there were those who still cant get the IQ above 4 to understand the difference.
It was discussed prior to Destiny coming out that it wasn't a coop game but it was an MMO .... yet there are still those who can't get the IQ above 4 to understand the difference.
See what I did there!
As I said above I can argue it both ways. I can argue that WoW (today) is mostly a coop game if you like. (Click on menu, queue for instance, never interact with anyone, just a gear grind at max level).
And as far as in- game chat options go, notwithstanding the fact that there have been changes made to Destiny, if in game chat is a requirement for an mmo then that means that: UO, EQ1, AC, AO, DAoC, FFx and others were not MMOs. Hmm .....
Originally posted by Scot At least 3 of the five where P2P MMOs that went B2P, that shows you the quality that goes into a P2P game.
So by that thought process since GW2 is doing well it should go P2P? Nah, I don't think the payment model really has anything to do with the quality of a game. Look at SWTOR, it was considered terrible after it's launch, it went f2p, and now it's recommended by many. For some reason people think a game has failed because it's payment model changes, and that is not always the case. An example is Wildstar. It is a good game but the players let down the developers by running from the hardcore raid requirements that were put in place. The developers thought to bring back the hardcore aspect of gaming which everyone was always ranting about wanting! When they gave it to them they couldn't handle it and quit. Now there are no players so the developers have changed many aspects of the game. Now all they need is players! The best way to do that would announce the game going F2P/B2P and they would more than likely have a new success. Of course this is just my thoughts!
Your thoughts are as good as anyone else's, no need to remind us that what you say is not holy writ.
I don't think MMOs should switch to P2P, once the genie is out of the bottle you can't put it back in. More money goes into a P2P game, that gives it a better quality build. I did not think SWTOR was that bad, more a question of lost opportunities, like making a PvP arena redundant by bringing in short session PvP. A switch to B2P for any game is a reasonable option, a switch to F2P leads to a solely cash shop led approach. Relying purely on a cash shop distorts gameplay, which becomes cash shop centric. Take Marvel Heroes, the whole end game is waiting for the next super to be added, buying it to play what you have played before.
Without MMOs that launch as P2P or B2P the genre would be in a terrible state, that's my main contention.
Originally posted by DevilSeph Another advert to Gw2 ... here it starts again
It is likely the most played b2p MMO out of all of them....they don't need free advertisement.
And author, Destiny? Please stop with this game. In fact, until it comes to the PC it does not even exist as far as I am concerned.
Actually, Destiny is the most played game on the list, sorry to disappoint. Oh and, yes, that is without a PC version. That's just the cold, hard facts, regardless of whether you believe it to exist or not.
Actually, the only cold, hard fact I see is that you don't post anything to substantiate your claim.
Ok, I'll play.
As of January 2015, Destiny had 16 Million Registered users and was the 3rd best-selling game in 2014. By August of 2013, Guild Wars 2 had sold 3.5 million copies. So, in 2 years it's sold 3.5 million copies. From 2012-2013 the Q4 revenues were down to $32 million from $112 million in the previous year (when it was released) which shows a significant drop-off year-over year. HOWEVER! Even if we assumed flat sales, Destiny would likely be selling 3:1 over GW2.
Number of concurrent players at PEAK for GW2 was just shy of 500k. The number of concurrent players, in Beta, for Destiny was 800k, and that was beta.
Isn't the current requirement for "factual forum information" to have a link, in game screen shot, xfire stats, statement of disclosure from all involved parties, attestation of credibility from a federal dignitary, and a poorly drawn internet meme or it didn't happen?
*eyeLoL*
Yes, I suppose it is. You know, because people have a difficult time using Google still, like this information is somehow tucked away in some deep, dark corner of the web for nobody to ever find. I would be more than happy to provide a link if the information wasn't more readily available than porn.
As far as credibility goes, what's credible? Shoot, even if I gave you a signed, sealed letter from the President of Murica, I'm sure someone would dispute that somehow. The nice thing about the Internet is that you don't have to trust any information reported. You can simply say it's all bullocks and go about your merry way.
You're right though, the most credible source of information must have a rage face or kitten attached to it. That is the new hallmark of truth. Yay us!!!
I've softened a bit recently to the B2P model, very recently, but I still prefer the subscription model. 1, 2 and 3 have done a good job with the model so far, but unfortunately instead of all the development team's resources going to just straight content for the game, a lot of effort is spent on thinking up and implementing cash shop items, so because of this P2P will forever be better. Oh and ESO>GW2
Comments
Actually, the only cold, hard fact I see is that you don't post anything to substantiate your claim.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
I have a hard time seeing how anyone other than the most hardcore gw2 fans could think that gw2 is better than ESO much less significantly better as the article states. The only way that makes any sense to me is if they were trying to compare gw2 to the launch state ESO with all those bugs.
Maybe this is just a difference in taste but then I see the part where the author gushes over all things gw2 has added including the living story and I'm suspicious.
Now you know how some of us feel about the hardcore ESO fans and how it's hard to understand that they think ESO is better. It's a two way street my friend. Who is right? Who cares? That's why it's called "preference".
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
GW1 is not an MMO. Get this in your skull man.
Also, Destiny and The Crew are not MMOs.
To the author who is new to MMO's it appears, GW1 is not an MMO. The developers have cleared this up.
Also, MMO is defined. It cannot be disputed. It is a description, not a genre. Destiny does not fit that description. Your whole argument for containing two multiplayer games in an MMO article is stupid.
No it is B2P. You can play all the content you purchase.
Same goes for GTA, Assassin's Creed, Battlefield, Civ, Crusader Kings, a Harry Potter book or a loaf of bread. You get what you pay for at the price you pay for it. That is what B2P is. The business model is very widespread and pretty universal.
ArenaNet themselves were clear about that. This nonsense was hilarious a couple of years ago, now it's just sad.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Ok, I will try to get this through to you... an MMO is a game that has a massive amount of people playing the game together. By together, I mean they can all interact in the same virtual environment at once. Neverwinter has a hub, but its gameplay is severely limited in the amount of players in one instance. Its not an MMO! Just like Guildwars wasnt. Which the developers and players have tried to explain to your type for years. Just like how Bungie tried to explain that Destiny is not an MMO.
Don't pretend to understand things you clearly don't. To argue something so out of your element is crazy.
I know. Its so frustrating. I want to click an article about 5 buy to play MMO's and 2 out of the 5 are not.
Here is a link where even bungie tries to explain to deaf ears, that Destiny is NOT an mmo.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/is-destiny-an-mmo-bungie-weighs-in/1100-6416234/
Why should developers have to explain this? ITS NOT A GENRE. ITS A DEFINED DESCRIPTION.
Ok, I'll play.
As of January 2015, Destiny had 16 Million Registered users and was the 3rd best-selling game in 2014. By August of 2013, Guild Wars 2 had sold 3.5 million copies. So, in 2 years it's sold 3.5 million copies. From 2012-2013 the Q4 revenues were down to $32 million from $112 million in the previous year (when it was released) which shows a significant drop-off year-over year. HOWEVER! Even if we assumed flat sales, Destiny would likely be selling 3:1 over GW2.
Number of concurrent players at PEAK for GW2 was just shy of 500k. The number of concurrent players, in Beta, for Destiny was 800k, and that was beta.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Actually I rage quit after the first month of ESO from all the bugs and was usually the one running around pointing out that the 800k subscribers that ESO fans claimed from the superdata was a gross overestimate because they were wishfully assuming that somehow box sales wouldn't be included under total revenue. But I tried it again because it was well.. free... and found it to be not that bad. However, every time I've tried to go back to gw2 it's always just seemed awful.
For some reason my primary game now is WoW, so maybe I just have terrible taste.
So that would be "an online role playing video game in which a very large number of people participate simultaneously". That was the first definition that came up that didn't simply say massive multiplayer online (the Merrian Webster version).
So - by your own argument - GW1 and Destiny are both mmos.
The developers .... NCSoft were more than happy to target GW1 at the mmo audience back when the game launched (with the beta-weekend access boxes). These days .... publishers don't want their games being called mmos; bad juju.
Now the definition wouldn't stop me arguing that they are - or that they are not. All I would do however is demonstrate that the definition is very broad.
Plants and animals are classified by the presence or absence or certain features. There are some very, very broad definitions at the top and then it starts to spread out. A lot. The same concept holds true for games. Almost as soon as you say an mmos must have x you will include some and exclude others.
An example. GW1 uses instances so is not an mmo. OK then by that argument neither is EQ1 as it also uses instances (a server is simply an "instance" or copy of a game world after all. And you can do the same with crafting, character grind, gear grind, story, economy on and on. And there are examples of games that had some but not all.
Hence you end up with a very broad definition. And whilst you may not want to consider GW1 and Destiny to be mmos - as you yourself said - it cannot be disputed that they are. They fit the definition.
(And as you put the thing in capitals a few posts up don't let the dictionary hit your toe on the way down).
Isn't the current requirement for "factual forum information" to have a link, in game screen shot, xfire stats, statement of disclosure from all involved parties, attestation of credibility from a federal dignitary, and a poorly drawn internet meme or it didn't happen?
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
Why do you come off so hostile? Relax a little. lol.
By your logic, 99% of MMO's are not an MMO, because they have instancing. Private dungeons are a form of instancing, or instanced pvp matches.
There's really no difference, whether there's 10 people in one are, or thousands spread across the world.
The state of gamers today is pretty sad. They are in such a hurry for the "next" thing that reading is now considered too much to ask of them.
Haha! I was thinking the same thing. Most of the time people are okish. But the skim or don't even read and comment people are out in full force with this article.
The top three are quite good for B2P games. I don't agree with the lack of sandbox features in ESO but I can see why some people wouldn't be bored to tears with it.
It was discussed prior to Destiny coming out that it wasnt an MMO but it was a co-op game... yet there were those who still cant get the IQ above 4 to understand the difference.
Played: UO, LotR, WoW, SWG, DDO, AoC, EVE, Warhammer, TF2, EQ2, SWTOR, TSW, CSS, KF, L4D, AoW, WoT
Playing: The Secret World until Citadel of Sorcery goes into Alpha testing.
Tired of: Linear quest games, dailies, and dumbed down games
Anticipating:Citadel of Sorcery
You got something right.
Kinda fun to read TESO fanboys tears in this thread though xD
It was discussed prior to Destiny coming out that it wasn't a coop game but it was an MMO .... yet there are still those who can't get the IQ above 4 to understand the difference.
See what I did there!
As I said above I can argue it both ways. I can argue that WoW (today) is mostly a coop game if you like. (Click on menu, queue for instance, never interact with anyone, just a gear grind at max level).
And as far as in- game chat options go, notwithstanding the fact that there have been changes made to Destiny, if in game chat is a requirement for an mmo then that means that: UO, EQ1, AC, AO, DAoC, FFx and others were not MMOs. Hmm .....
Your thoughts are as good as anyone else's, no need to remind us that what you say is not holy writ.
I don't think MMOs should switch to P2P, once the genie is out of the bottle you can't put it back in. More money goes into a P2P game, that gives it a better quality build. I did not think SWTOR was that bad, more a question of lost opportunities, like making a PvP arena redundant by bringing in short session PvP. A switch to B2P for any game is a reasonable option, a switch to F2P leads to a solely cash shop led approach. Relying purely on a cash shop distorts gameplay, which becomes cash shop centric. Take Marvel Heroes, the whole end game is waiting for the next super to be added, buying it to play what you have played before.
Without MMOs that launch as P2P or B2P the genre would be in a terrible state, that's my main contention.
*eyeLoL*
Yes, I suppose it is. You know, because people have a difficult time using Google still, like this information is somehow tucked away in some deep, dark corner of the web for nobody to ever find. I would be more than happy to provide a link if the information wasn't more readily available than porn.
As far as credibility goes, what's credible? Shoot, even if I gave you a signed, sealed letter from the President of Murica, I'm sure someone would dispute that somehow. The nice thing about the Internet is that you don't have to trust any information reported. You can simply say it's all bullocks and go about your merry way.
You're right though, the most credible source of information must have a rage face or kitten attached to it. That is the new hallmark of truth. Yay us!!!
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
"David is a freelance writer", now i can see why make ads.}