Originally posted by Odysses One thing I can see in this thread is the dividing line of those that can afford $15 a month and those that can't. Clearly Turbine is marketing the game at older D&D fans that have much more disposable income then most of teenage or early 20's gamers that play alot of other MMORPG's. $15 bucks a month is drop in the bucket, a movie and a half, a pizza or few dvd rentals. The point being if $15 a month is the basis of your arguement to play on online persistent world game, then I don't think you are the player that was targeted by Turbine. The simple fact is older gamers have more money to spend so that is much less of an issue. I would venture to say the avg income demographic for DDO will probably easily be net income over $2500 a month. Content and Community will be the deciding factors on what keeps older casual gamers subscribbed.
Alas, the youre too broke to pay 15 dollars flamers have arrived. Again, i'm a 30 year old software engineer w/ a bmw payment and a mortgage. My post is about how i spend my money not whether or not i can. This i'm not worried about 15 bucks thing is whack. Yes 15 bucks is how much i spend on lunch each day, yes 15 dollars is a quarter of what i make in an hour, yes 15 dollars is a drop in a bucket, NO TURBINE DOES NOT DESERVE MY 15 BUCKS. Again, the age ol' well you must be broke crap is not a valid statement for justifying why i wont play this game. Simply the content is not worth 15 bucks. a month for a year. When i look at the total cost to play the game to completion, i'm seeing a 15 dollar a month fee, and an initial cost of 50 dollars. For a year to play that's a grand total of 230 dollars. NWN2 is on the bubble and will be 50 dollars. PERIOD. If you want to talk about money spent lets talk about that. 230 vs 50 almost 5 times more money for chat. Look at the FPS market, all multiplay is free. If its instanced and multi, it should be free IMHO. In a year i spend a butt load of money on games, if i'm going to push 4 other games to the side for a massive, i want it to be worth 4 other games.
2nd, the well don't play argument sucks too. No shit i'm not going to play. I come to these forums to see whether or not i want to play games. Everyones oppinion is important for that reason alone. If i see a bunch of people griping about the kind of stuff that makes me hate games, i don't buy them. If i save one guy from putting a dime down on this heap, i have done my job. I hope that you would do the same for me.
Mydasx
My post is not intended as a flame. Being that you can afford a BMW and a mortgage, you should understand marget demographics. You claim that the content is not worth $15 a month is strictly your opinion. Speaking as a over 30 gamer that can afford a $15 MMORPG, I think that it is worth it at present. Still the whole basis of your arguement appears to be cost. This will not be the deciding factor on Turbines target audience playing the game. It will come down to content and community. If Turbine delivers on content, the D&D community will thrive and develop the community on its own. Also I think this game will have a very high subscription turnover ratio. Meaning alot of players will subscribe for a couple of months and unsubscribe when they play through the content and become bored. The game is very accessable and easy to get into so I don't think it will have any problem getting former players to resubscribe when they have alot of new monthly content added. I know from my days in AC1 back in 99-01 that Turbine was very good at adding monthly content.
AH HA! I agree. Its about whether the content is worth 15 bucks a month right? I think, No persistant world to interact w/ other players, no free roaming mayham, no economy model, no mounts, no crafting = not much content. Look, being the worlds greatest dungeon crawler, maybe, MAYBE if the content and dungeons are really awesome would cover it, but come on DDO's dungeons seemed IMHO pretty uninspired. Adding a couple more places for me and my PnP pals to crawl on, is pretty weak. Again if this was NWN, we could create the dungeons. The content is limitless and free. The argument about how much money it is is just for the flamers like monk really the argument should be a critical look at the standard 15 bucks for a Massive w/ the content provided by the devs.
My post is not intended as a flame. Being that you can afford a BMW and a mortgage, you should understand marget demographics. You claim that the content is not worth $15 a month is strictly your opinion. Speaking as a over 30 gamer that can afford a $15 MMORPG, I think that it is worth it at present. Still the whole basis of your arguement appears to be cost. This will not be the deciding factor on Turbines target audience playing the game. It will come down to content and community. If Turbine delivers on content, the D&D community will thrive and develop the community on its own. Also I think this game will have a very high subscription turnover ratio. Meaning alot of players will subscribe for a couple of months and unsubscribe when they play through the content and become bored. The game is very accessable and easy to get into so I don't think it will have any problem getting former players to resubscribe when they have alot of new monthly content added. I know from my days in AC1 back in 99-01 that Turbine was very good at adding monthly content.
Less we forget, AC2. Not many MMOGs fail to the point of totally discontinuing service. But it happened. They have a bad track record due to this.
Now no one can argue this fact. But in Turbine's defense, everyone deserves a second/third chance. Unless it's SOE, they screwed themselves way beyond recognition.
Originally posted by mydasx HA HA HA HA. I just looked at your friggin user. You started using this forum in December. You must be elite and old school. And by old school, i mean, wait, doesnt that mean you have to be old. Oh... Guess that just makes you a poser. Well done. Owner i mean, jackass.
Nope i have been on these forums for years, just been BANNED alot from users like you making me angry, i dont get angry anymore. I get even =p
"I just don't think you are who you proclaim yourself to be" You are one of those people that are who ever they say they are online. Its ok, the real world can be so harsh...
Originally posted by Odysses Meaning alot of players will subscribe for a couple of months and unsubscribe when they play through the content and become bored. The game is very accessable and easy to get into so I don't think it will have any problem getting former players to resubscribe when they have alot of new monthly content added. I know from my days in AC1 back in 99-01 that Turbine was very good at adding monthly content.
I was bored on day 2. Just seems uninspired. Nothing new here. And AC2 was a disaster.
Fair enough, riddle me this, if i play NWN for more then one month. How much does that cost me?
True, but that really IS a case of apples and oranges. NWN is a single player game with multiplayer support. The "base game" is single player. You don't expect to pay a monthly fee for a single player game.
DDO is not a single player game with multiplayer support because you really DO need to play with other players in order to play through the content, so that's different from a game like NWN (or even a game like GW, because in GW you could hire NPCs to round out your party and play it single player if you wanted to, which you cannot do in DDO).
It's all a question of what you find enjoyable and value for money. To be honest I find almost all offline games dull and boring. I find that the $50 I spend on one of them typically doesn't lead to as much fun as the $65 I may spend playing an online game for 2 months, because I tend to play the online games more ... I like playing with other players more than I like playing alone in a single-player game, so I don't see offline games as offering that much value to me, because I just invariably do not end up playing them as much as online games.
hmmm. So, i guess all those counterstrike and bf2 players must be lucky. They're multiplayer "instanced" games are free to play monthly. NWN persistant worlds allow worlds to be built. The intention of the developers is not one i would presume, other then to make money writing games.
Originally posted by mydasx hmmm. So, i guess all those counterstrike and bf2 players must be lucky. They're multiplayer "instanced" games are free to play monthly. NWN persistant worlds allow worlds to be built. The intention of the developers is not one i would presume, other then to make money writing games.
It is not free, people have to pay for their OWN servers to play those games. I know cause i own a server for CS:S =p NWN is a fun game, but dont try to hold one DnD brand up against another, thats like comparing Star wars movies.
My post is not intended as a flame. Being that you can afford a BMW and a mortgage, you should understand marget demographics. You claim that the content is not worth $15 a month is strictly your opinion. Speaking as a over 30 gamer that can afford a $15 MMORPG, I think that it is worth it at present. Still the whole basis of your arguement appears to be cost. This will not be the deciding factor on Turbines target audience playing the game. It will come down to content and community. If Turbine delivers on content, the D&D community will thrive and develop the community on its own. Also I think this game will have a very high subscription turnover ratio. Meaning alot of players will subscribe for a couple of months and unsubscribe when they play through the content and become bored. The game is very accessable and easy to get into so I don't think it will have any problem getting former players to resubscribe when they have alot of new monthly content added. I know from my days in AC1 back in 99-01 that Turbine was very good at adding monthly content.
Less we forget, AC2. Not many MMOGs fail to the point of totally discontinuing service. But it happened. They have a bad track record due to this.
Now no one can argue this fact. But in Turbine's defense, everyone deserves a second/third chance. Unless it's SOE, they screwed themselves way beyond recognition.
In fairness to Turbine, that was Microsofts baby and they bailed on the game after they rushed it out the door. AC1 was a true Turbine project that microsoft published after it was already devoloped. If your going to judge them on past games, AC1 should be the game that Turbine is judged by. They only bought the franchise back to clean up any legal problems with the engine. The DDO and LoTRO engine is very similar to the AC2 engine and now Microsoft won't be throwing any lawsuits their way because of that. At the end of the day DDO will be judged on its own merits and not on any past games that Turbine made.
[quote]Originally posted by mydasx [b]hmmm. So, i guess all those counterstrike and bf2 players must be lucky. They're multiplayer "instanced" games are free to play monthly.[/quote]
But not MMOs in any sense of the word at all. If you want to play FPS type games online for free, go for it. I hate FPS games, so I don't really pay much attention to how they are marketed and priced ... I'm not their market.
NWN persistant worlds allow worlds to be built. The intention of the developers is not one i would presume, other then to make money writing games.
But NWN is a single-player game in its base with support for allowing your own content to be built there. It's hard to argue that it's anything else. I'm not making any assumptions about how the developers want to make money, I'm looking at the game, which has a large single-player campaign as the main focus of the product that is delivered (complete with expansions with more single-player content), together with support for players wanting to make their own games if they wish to. Again, if you want to do that, and host games like that, more power to you, but again, it's not an MMO in any way, stretch or form, so again we're back to apples and oranges.
Much of the debate boils down to different ideas about what constitutes an MMO, and what doesn't, and this is a very personal thing. I don't think anyone will convince anyone else from their various perspectives on that issue, to be honest. Games like DDO, which push the limit of what is considered an "MMORPG" by virtue of their design are naturally going to be flamed to high heaven for doing that, and I suppose that's natural enough. Ultimately, we thankfully each have our own gaming choices to make in terms of how to spend our money, and people who don't find DDO entertaining will surely find other things to entertain themselves easily enough. There are people who DO find DDO entertaining, however, and flaming them is rather pointless, imo.
As I see DDO panning out, much will depend on content additions. If these are made regularly I think the game could persist with a smaller but loyal fanbase. If they aren't, things will be hard for DDO because of the ability to play through the given content relatively quickly (if not in a month then in 2 months, if one plays more casually). That doesn't mean it won't be entertaining along the way, but it does mean that if new content isn't added soon it won't be a long-haul type game ... which to be honest, as I wrote above, is fine with me, because I only have room for one long-haul game, EVE Online.
My post is not intended as a flame. Being that you can afford a BMW and a mortgage, you should understand marget demographics. You claim that the content is not worth $15 a month is strictly your opinion. Speaking as a over 30 gamer that can afford a $15 MMORPG, I think that it is worth it at present. Still the whole basis of your arguement appears to be cost. This will not be the deciding factor on Turbines target audience playing the game. It will come down to content and community. If Turbine delivers on content, the D&D community will thrive and develop the community on its own. Also I think this game will have a very high subscription turnover ratio. Meaning alot of players will subscribe for a couple of months and unsubscribe when they play through the content and become bored. The game is very accessable and easy to get into so I don't think it will have any problem getting former players to resubscribe when they have alot of new monthly content added. I know from my days in AC1 back in 99-01 that Turbine was very good at adding monthly content.
Less we forget, AC2. Not many MMOGs fail to the point of totally discontinuing service. But it happened. They have a bad track record due to this. [url=http://ac2.turbine.com/] Now no one can argue this fact. But in Turbine's defense, everyone deserves a second/third chance. Unless it's SOE, they screwed themselves way beyond recognition.
In fairness to Turbine, that was Microsofts baby and they bailed on the game after they rushed it out the door. AC1 was a true Turbine project that microsoft published after it was already devoloped. If your going to judge them on past games, AC1 should be the game that Turbine is judged by. They only bought the franchise back to clean up any legal problems with the engine. The DDO and LoTRO engine is very similar to the AC2 engine and now Microsoft won't be throwing any lawsuits their way because of that. At the end of the day DDO will be judged on its own merits and not on any past games that Turbine made.[/b][/quote]
AC2 was developed by turbine and not microsoft, its beyond the point if the game was published too early or not, no ammount of extra work would have made the game anything but s mediocre experience. Turbine and not microsfot were the ones that developed the patches, and what did those patches fix? nothing at all, for 3 years the game remained the spectacular crap fest that it was at launch and theres no one else to blame than turbine.
D&DO reeks "Budget title" even worse than RF online, theres absolutly no effort to provide quality content. A game that is based solely on quests cant have 120 quests only, many of those using the same goals, monsters and tilesets, its just slopy work... the days of AC1 are long gone, and it seems more and more that AC1 was just a freak acident, because after AC2 and D&DO we are seeing the true nature of what turbine is capable of producing.
AC2 was developed by turbine and not microsoft, its beyond the point if the game was published too early or not, no ammount of extra work would have made the game anything but s mediocre experience. Turbine and not microsfot were the ones that developed the patches, and what did those patches fix? nothing at all, for 3 years the game remained the spectacular crap fest that it was at launch and theres no one else to blame than turbine. D&DO reeks "Budget title" even worse than RF online, theres absolutly no effort to provide quality content. A game that is based solely on quests cant have 120 quests only, many of those using the same goals, monsters and tilesets, its just slopy work... the days of AC1 are long gone, and it seems more and more that AC1 was just a freak acident, because after AC2 and D&DO we are seeing the true nature of what turbine is capable of producing.
Here your just spouting off non factual information. Do you understand how the developer/publisher relationship works? Microsoft wanted AC2. They contracted Turbine to develop the game since they had previously worked together during AC1. The relationship was not that great from a number of sources who have spoken out on it. Microsoft always felt they could make a better MMORPG then AC1 hence AC2. Turbine was to develop the game to Microsofts specifications, not Turbines. Turbine wrote they engine and developed the art assets per Microsofts requirements. The only thing Microsoft actually wrote themselves was the chat code, which it could be argued is what ultimately killed the game off more then anything else. Turbine developed the original AC1 without any input from Microsoft. It was pretty much a finished product before Microsoft was involved. Microsoft bought the rights and published the game supplying the online infrasture.
After Microsoft pulled support for AC2 they started developing Mythica internally which would later be cancelled. Turbine bought back the rights to AC mainly for AC1 because that was their creation and for the Engine they had developed for AC2, which was already being used for the 2 future projects they had been working on DDO and LoTRO. There have been a number of people that have speculated that AC2 was nothing more to Turbine then a proof of concept to land future MMORPG licenses. I did play AC2 after they took it over from Microsoft and the game did become much better but it still wasn't enough to dig them out of the deep whole that they were in.
Every point you have made about DDO not having quality content is just opinion. I would say that a number of people would not agree with that. You would have a much better arguement if you waited 2 to 3 months and actually saw what happens with the game. Instead of spouting off a bunch of factually incorrect, strongly biased opinionated information to your fellow forum readers.
You have been issued a temporary ban by one of our moderators.
Warning Category: Flaming Span: 03/08/2006 - 03/11/2006 [3 days] Reason: You have previously received two warnings for your behaviour on the forums. As this is your 3rd warning you are receiving a 3-day temp ban. In future please avoid flame wars with other members and simply report the posts and leave it at that rather than making posts to flame them back.
Thank you,
The Staff MMORPG.COM
With my posts being deleted, and the point of this thread being abscured. Its cool, cause everyone that was going to read it has read it already anyways.
Just htought i would put this in here to show my lack of talking to my own thread.
But NWN is a single-player game in its base with support for allowing your own content to be built there. It's hard to argue that it's anything else.
Are you insane? Did you ever play NWN at all? Hard to argue that it's anything else but a single player game?
NWN was created so that a DM could create a world/adventure and then his group could play... group, not single player. Even the modules that Bioware released had henchman you used if you couldn't get your friends to play.
Seriously, NWN is by far a better eletronic version of D&D than DD0 is by about 1000 times. I didn't expect to be able to build my own dungeons with DD0 but I certainly expected to be able to explore the wilderness somewhat and seeing as there is none at all well, you figure it out.
DD0 is a crappy online version of Baulder's Gate with the exception of there is less content.
I donbt know so much about all of that from hte poster above, i think DDO is a great game, and has its niche audience, and even knowing i play DDO now, im still awaiting patiently the release of NWN2 =p
Originally posted by Maldach This sentence alone is why I won't play this game. Every other MMO out there gives a WORLD to play in. DDO one lousy city. Sorry, not cutting it.
MMO = Massively Multiplayer Online (Game)...
It doesn't say anything about a world. DDO Is Massively Multiplayer. They've taken a different spin. Which is a really nice get away from the large number of MMO clones out there.
The original poster has it right.
It's obvious that a great many folk are so accustomed to the run-of-the-mill MMO that they are having a hard time getting out of their comfort zone. DDO is pleasantly different in many respects. Not perfect but there is plenty to gripe about all of them.
Comments
Alas, the youre too broke to pay 15 dollars flamers have arrived. Again, i'm a 30 year old software engineer w/ a bmw payment and a mortgage. My post is about how i spend my money not whether or not i can. This i'm not worried about 15 bucks thing is whack. Yes 15 bucks is how much i spend on lunch each day, yes 15 dollars is a quarter of what i make in an hour, yes 15 dollars is a drop in a bucket, NO TURBINE DOES NOT DESERVE MY 15 BUCKS. Again, the age ol' well you must be broke crap is not a valid statement for justifying why i wont play this game. Simply the content is not worth 15 bucks. a month for a year. When i look at the total cost to play the game to completion, i'm seeing a 15 dollar a month fee, and an initial cost of 50 dollars. For a year to play that's a grand total of 230 dollars. NWN2 is on the bubble and will be 50 dollars. PERIOD. If you want to talk about money spent lets talk about that. 230 vs 50 almost 5 times more money for chat. Look at the FPS market, all multiplay is free. If its instanced and multi, it should be free IMHO. In a year i spend a butt load of money on games, if i'm going to push 4 other games to the side for a massive, i want it to be worth 4 other games.
2nd, the well don't play argument sucks too. No shit i'm not going to play. I come to these forums to see whether or not i want to play games. Everyones oppinion is important for that reason alone. If i see a bunch of people griping about the kind of stuff that makes me hate games, i don't buy them. If i save one guy from putting a dime down on this heap, i have done my job. I hope that you would do the same for me.
Mydasx
My post is not intended as a flame. Being that you can afford a BMW and a mortgage, you should understand marget demographics. You claim that the content is not worth $15 a month is strictly your opinion. Speaking as a over 30 gamer that can afford a $15 MMORPG, I think that it is worth it at present. Still the whole basis of your arguement appears to be cost. This will not be the deciding factor on Turbines target audience playing the game. It will come down to content and community. If Turbine delivers on content, the D&D community will thrive and develop the community on its own. Also I think this game will have a very high subscription turnover ratio. Meaning alot of players will subscribe for a couple of months and unsubscribe when they play through the content and become bored. The game is very accessable and easy to get into so I don't think it will have any problem getting former players to resubscribe when they have alot of new monthly content added. I know from my days in AC1 back in 99-01 that Turbine was very good at adding monthly content.
AH HA! I agree. Its about whether the content is worth 15 bucks a month right? I think, No persistant world to interact w/ other players, no free roaming mayham, no economy model, no mounts, no crafting = not much content. Look, being the worlds greatest dungeon crawler, maybe, MAYBE if the content and dungeons are really awesome would cover it, but come on DDO's dungeons seemed IMHO pretty uninspired. Adding a couple more places for me and my PnP pals to crawl on, is pretty weak. Again if this was NWN, we could create the dungeons. The content is limitless and free. The argument about how much money it is is just for the flamers like monk really the argument should be a critical look at the standard 15 bucks for a Massive w/ the content provided by the devs.
Mydasx
Less we forget, AC2. Not many MMOGs fail to the point of totally discontinuing service. But it happened. They have a bad track record due to this.
http://ac2.turbine.com/
Now no one can argue this fact. But in Turbine's defense, everyone deserves a second/third chance. Unless it's SOE, they screwed themselves way beyond recognition.
EQ1 - Shaman & Cleric 1999-2003
Others Played: AC1, AC2, AO, EQ2, EVE(Beta Tester), SWG(pre-NGE/CU), Guildwars, TSO, MxO(Beta Tester), Lineage 1, Lineage 2, WOW, COV/COH, DDO, Vanguard(Beta Tester), DAOC, Tabula Rasa
Nope i have been on these forums for years, just been BANNED alot from users like you making me angry, i dont get angry anymore. I get even =p
I dont believe you.
"I just don't think you are who you proclaim yourself to be" You are one of those people that are who ever they say they are online. Its ok, the real world can be so harsh...
True, but that really IS a case of apples and oranges. NWN is a single player game with multiplayer support. The "base game" is single player. You don't expect to pay a monthly fee for a single player game.
DDO is not a single player game with multiplayer support because you really DO need to play with other players in order to play through the content, so that's different from a game like NWN (or even a game like GW, because in GW you could hire NPCs to round out your party and play it single player if you wanted to, which you cannot do in DDO).
It's all a question of what you find enjoyable and value for money. To be honest I find almost all offline games dull and boring. I find that the $50 I spend on one of them typically doesn't lead to as much fun as the $65 I may spend playing an online game for 2 months, because I tend to play the online games more ... I like playing with other players more than I like playing alone in a single-player game, so I don't see offline games as offering that much value to me, because I just invariably do not end up playing them as much as online games.
hmmm. So, i guess all those counterstrike and bf2 players must be lucky. They're multiplayer "instanced" games are free to play monthly. NWN persistant worlds allow worlds to be built. The intention of the developers is not one i would presume, other then to make money writing games.
It is not free, people have to pay for their OWN servers to play those games. I know cause i own a server for CS:S =p NWN is a fun game, but dont try to hold one DnD brand up against another, thats like comparing Star wars movies.
The wise munk speaks! to true mate to true
"Those that run away will fight another day" - Vegitus
Less we forget, AC2. Not many MMOGs fail to the point of totally discontinuing service. But it happened. They have a bad track record due to this.
http://ac2.turbine.com/
Now no one can argue this fact. But in Turbine's defense, everyone deserves a second/third chance. Unless it's SOE, they screwed themselves way beyond recognition.
In fairness to Turbine, that was Microsofts baby and they bailed on the game after they rushed it out the door. AC1 was a true Turbine project that microsoft published after it was already devoloped. If your going to judge them on past games, AC1 should be the game that Turbine is judged by. They only bought the franchise back to clean up any legal problems with the engine. The DDO and LoTRO engine is very similar to the AC2 engine and now Microsoft won't be throwing any lawsuits their way because of that. At the end of the day DDO will be judged on its own merits and not on any past games that Turbine made.
[quote]Originally posted by mydasx
[b]hmmm. So, i guess all those counterstrike and bf2 players must be lucky. They're multiplayer "instanced" games are free to play monthly.[/quote]
But not MMOs in any sense of the word at all. If you want to play FPS type games online for free, go for it. I hate FPS games, so I don't really pay much attention to how they are marketed and priced ... I'm not their market.
But NWN is a single-player game in its base with support for allowing your own content to be built there. It's hard to argue that it's anything else. I'm not making any assumptions about how the developers want to make money, I'm looking at the game, which has a large single-player campaign as the main focus of the product that is delivered (complete with expansions with more single-player content), together with support for players wanting to make their own games if they wish to. Again, if you want to do that, and host games like that, more power to you, but again, it's not an MMO in any way, stretch or form, so again we're back to apples and oranges.
Much of the debate boils down to different ideas about what constitutes an MMO, and what doesn't, and this is a very personal thing. I don't think anyone will convince anyone else from their various perspectives on that issue, to be honest. Games like DDO, which push the limit of what is considered an "MMORPG" by virtue of their design are naturally going to be flamed to high heaven for doing that, and I suppose that's natural enough. Ultimately, we thankfully each have our own gaming choices to make in terms of how to spend our money, and people who don't find DDO entertaining will surely find other things to entertain themselves easily enough. There are people who DO find DDO entertaining, however, and flaming them is rather pointless, imo.
As I see DDO panning out, much will depend on content additions. If these are made regularly I think the game could persist with a smaller but loyal fanbase. If they aren't, things will be hard for DDO because of the ability to play through the given content relatively quickly (if not in a month then in 2 months, if one plays more casually). That doesn't mean it won't be entertaining along the way, but it does mean that if new content isn't added soon it won't be a long-haul type game ... which to be honest, as I wrote above, is fine with me, because I only have room for one long-haul game, EVE Online.
quote]Originally posted by Odysses
[b]
Originally posted by miccav
Originally posted by Odysses
My post is not intended as a flame. Being that you can afford a BMW and a mortgage, you should understand marget demographics. You claim that the content is not worth $15 a month is strictly your opinion. Speaking as a over 30 gamer that can afford a $15 MMORPG, I think that it is worth it at present. Still the whole basis of your arguement appears to be cost. This will not be the deciding factor on Turbines target audience playing the game. It will come down to content and community. If Turbine delivers on content, the D&D community will thrive and develop the community on its own. Also I think this game will have a very high subscription turnover ratio. Meaning alot of players will subscribe for a couple of months and unsubscribe when they play through the content and become bored. The game is very accessable and easy to get into so I don't think it will have any problem getting former players to resubscribe when they have alot of new monthly content added. I know from my days in AC1 back in 99-01 that Turbine was very good at adding monthly content.
Less we forget, AC2. Not many MMOGs fail to the point of totally discontinuing service. But it happened. They have a bad track record due to this.
[url=http://ac2.turbine.com/]
Now no one can argue this fact. But in Turbine's defense, everyone deserves a second/third chance. Unless it's SOE, they screwed themselves way beyond recognition.
In fairness to Turbine, that was Microsofts baby and they bailed on the game after they rushed it out the door. AC1 was a true Turbine project that microsoft published after it was already devoloped. If your going to judge them on past games, AC1 should be the game that Turbine is judged by. They only bought the franchise back to clean up any legal problems with the engine. The DDO and LoTRO engine is very similar to the AC2 engine and now Microsoft won't be throwing any lawsuits their way because of that. At the end of the day DDO will be judged on its own merits and not on any past games that Turbine made.[/b][/quote]
AC2 was developed by turbine and not microsoft, its beyond the point if the game was published too early or not, no ammount of extra work would have made the game anything but s mediocre experience. Turbine and not microsfot were the ones that developed the patches, and what did those patches fix? nothing at all, for 3 years the game remained the spectacular crap fest that it was at launch and theres no one else to blame than turbine.
D&DO reeks "Budget title" even worse than RF online, theres absolutly no effort to provide quality content. A game that is based solely on quests cant have 120 quests only, many of those using the same goals, monsters and tilesets, its just slopy work... the days of AC1 are long gone, and it seems more and more that AC1 was just a freak acident, because after AC2 and D&DO we are seeing the true nature of what turbine is capable of producing.
All ur Mountain Dew is belong to me.
Here your just spouting off non factual information. Do you understand how the developer/publisher relationship works? Microsoft wanted AC2. They contracted Turbine to develop the game since they had previously worked together during AC1. The relationship was not that great from a number of sources who have spoken out on it. Microsoft always felt they could make a better MMORPG then AC1 hence AC2. Turbine was to develop the game to Microsofts specifications, not Turbines. Turbine wrote they engine and developed the art assets per Microsofts requirements. The only thing Microsoft actually wrote themselves was the chat code, which it could be argued is what ultimately killed the game off more then anything else. Turbine developed the original AC1 without any input from Microsoft. It was pretty much a finished product before Microsoft was involved. Microsoft bought the rights and published the game supplying the online infrasture.
After Microsoft pulled support for AC2 they started developing Mythica internally which would later be cancelled. Turbine bought back the rights to AC mainly for AC1 because that was their creation and for the Engine they had developed for AC2, which was already being used for the 2 future projects they had been working on DDO and LoTRO. There have been a number of people that have speculated that AC2 was nothing more to Turbine then a proof of concept to land future MMORPG licenses. I did play AC2 after they took it over from Microsoft and the game did become much better but it still wasn't enough to dig them out of the deep whole that they were in.
Every point you have made about DDO not having quality content is just opinion. I would say that a number of people would not agree with that. You would have a much better arguement if you waited 2 to 3 months and actually saw what happens with the game. Instead of spouting off a bunch of factually incorrect, strongly biased opinionated information to your fellow forum readers.
Dear MMO_Munk,
You have been issued a temporary ban by one of our moderators.
Warning Category: Flaming
Span: 03/08/2006 - 03/11/2006 [3 days]
Reason: You have previously received two warnings for your behaviour on the forums. As this is your 3rd warning you are receiving a 3-day temp ban. In future please avoid flame wars with other members and simply report the posts and leave it at that rather than making posts to flame them back.
Thank you,
The Staff
MMORPG.COM
With my posts being deleted, and the point of this thread being abscured. Its cool, cause everyone that was going to read it has read it already anyways.
Just htought i would put this in here to show my lack of talking to my own thread.
Are you insane? Did you ever play NWN at all? Hard to argue that it's anything else but a single player game?
NWN was created so that a DM could create a world/adventure and then his group could play... group, not single player. Even the modules that Bioware released had henchman you used if you couldn't get your friends to play.
Seriously, NWN is by far a better eletronic version of D&D than DD0 is by about 1000 times. I didn't expect to be able to build my own dungeons with DD0 but I certainly expected to be able to explore the wilderness somewhat and seeing as there is none at all well, you figure it out.
DD0 is a crappy online version of Baulder's Gate with the exception of there is less content.
http://www.greycouncil.org/
I donbt know so much about all of that from hte poster above, i think DDO is a great game, and has its niche audience, and even knowing i play DDO now, im still awaiting patiently the release of NWN2 =p
MMO = Massively Multiplayer Online (Game)...
It doesn't say anything about a world. DDO Is Massively Multiplayer. They've taken a different spin. Which is a really nice get away from the large number of MMO clones out there.
The original poster has it right.
It's obvious that a great many folk are so accustomed to the run-of-the-mill MMO that they are having a hard time getting out of their comfort zone. DDO is pleasantly different in many respects. Not perfect but there is plenty to gripe about all of them.
Fej