+1 if SWTOR was buy 2 play I would still be playing it & be probably more than happy to pay for expansions as I wanted them.

Originally posted by MigPosada

Originally posted by Deto123

Originally posted by Morv

Originally posted by Skaara55

After waiting for this game for about 3 years now it just makes me sad that they released a rushed unfinished game that can only be matched by Vanguard's failure. It is nothing more than a expensive single player game with a subscription fee. I have never felt so ripped off as I do with this game. I know for a fact I will never buy anything from Bioware again. Just too many levels of fail.

/Agreed

Lol, single player game, it has more grouping then most MMOs, nice job just spewing out the same garbage all the haters say.

So far from true it s not even funny.

Well, it may not be the nicest wording, but I agree, it's not hating, it's just that Bioware really did focus on personal stories. That was their vision for the game, and they fulfilled it.

So, it's natural for people wanting a massively multiplayer experience to get disappointed.

So you're saying because they focused on their own things, it's an unfinished game that was rushed and is a bigger flop than vanguard?

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by MigPosada

Originally posted by Deto123

Originally posted by Morv

Originally posted by Skaara55

After waiting for this game for about 3 years now it just makes me sad that they released a rushed unfinished game that can only be matched by Vanguard's failure. It is nothing more than a expensive single player game with a subscription fee. I have never felt so ripped off as I do with this game. I know for a fact I will never buy anything from Bioware again. Just too many levels of fail.

/Agreed

Lol, single player game, it has more grouping then most MMOs, nice job just spewing out the same garbage all the haters say.

So far from true it s not even funny.

Well, it may not be the nicest wording, but I agree, it's not hating, it's just that Bioware really did focus on personal stories. That was their vision for the game, and they fulfilled it.

So, it's natural for people wanting a massively multiplayer experience to get disappointed.

So you're saying because they focused on their own things, it's an unfinished game that was rushed and is a bigger flop than vanguard?

Yeah, it's a ridiculous assumption. I'll admit that the "massive" in the cities and towns of SWToR leaves something to be desired but I've been grouping more in SWToR than I have in a long time.

Vanguard and SWToR do not share the same issues.

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by MigPosada

Originally posted by Deto123

Originally posted by Morv

Originally posted by Skaara55

After waiting for this game for about 3 years now it just makes me sad that they released a rushed unfinished game that can only be matched by Vanguard's failure. It is nothing more than a expensive single player game with a subscription fee. I have never felt so ripped off as I do with this game. I know for a fact I will never buy anything from Bioware again. Just too many levels of fail.

/Agreed

Lol, single player game, it has more grouping then most MMOs, nice job just spewing out the same garbage all the haters say.

So far from true it s not even funny.

Well, it may not be the nicest wording, but I agree, it's not hating, it's just that Bioware really did focus on personal stories. That was their vision for the game, and they fulfilled it.

So, it's natural for people wanting a massively multiplayer experience to get disappointed.

So you're saying because they focused on their own things, it's an unfinished game that was rushed and is a bigger flop than vanguard?

No, but the single player tag is not that far fetched.

Originally posted by MigPosada

 

No, but the single player tag is not that far fetched.

It only applies if that's how you're playing, there's a lot of content you can't do within level range unless you're grouped. Those who aren't grouping are missing a lot of what the game is offering.

On top of that I came to this game with many others from older games I've played, hasn't been single-player for me at all.

Originally posted by Sovrath

 

Yeah, it's a ridiculous assumption. I'll admit that the "massive" in the cities and towns of SWToR leaves something to be desired but I've been grouping more in SWToR than I have in a long time.

Vanguard and SWToR do not share the same issues.

Exactly I'm all about people pointing out these issues, as well as other issues TOR actually has, on the flipside sensationalist comments like that are just mind-boggling. Not a huge fan of hyperbole...

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by MigPosada

 

No, but the single player tag is not that far fetched.

It only applies if that's how you're playing, there's a lot of content you can't do within level range unless you're grouped. Those who aren't grouping are missing a lot of what the game is offering.

On top of that I came to this game with many others from older games I've played, hasn't been single-player for me at all.

And that's a very weak way to justify the massively multiplayer tag. I agree, they are all hyperboles, but we can understand where they come from.

+1, well as much as i like the SW IP ( although i never played SWG ) but i had high hopes for TOR

but so far, it can't bring back the "eagerness" to do well once i had like when i was playing WoW, i dont even do raid yet in SWTOR, and i dont even feel like it or care if i will ever raid in TOR or not, it's that plain for me

although i would say that i will sub for another month just for the sake to finish my Imperial Agent story line

but once i finished that, i dont think i have the desire to play it again,  i wish i will like it, but i can't

the quest are a nightmare of all the typical classical kill quest, which killed it the most for me

Originally posted by MigPosada

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by MigPosada

 

No, but the single player tag is not that far fetched.

It only applies if that's how you're playing, there's a lot of content you can't do within level range unless you're grouped. Those who aren't grouping are missing a lot of what the game is offering.

On top of that I came to this game with many others from older games I've played, hasn't been single-player for me at all.

And that's a very weak way to justify the massively multiplayer tag. I agree, they are all hyperboles, but we can understand where they come from.

Wasn't saying what you said was hyperbole, you just gave your perspective on your experience. You didn't try and sensationalize it.

It is hard to justify a monthly fee for TOR. Consider this, Allods is a better game then TOR hands down one of the most popular mmorpgs even amonst mainstream games, Gpotato has 20 million average users I have to figure Allods accounts for a good chunk of that and its gotten to the point WOW is borrowing from them. So that begs the question why play a fee for a themepark not as good as WOW when there is already a free Themepark wow clone that is actually better than WOW, I mean even perfect world isn't bad, could be better but it has better customization options than TOR. I mean Themeparks are largely hands off in the first place and the WOW style themepark is so formulaic that it's just not justified. Something sprawling and massive like the EVE real economy and constantly changing tech and updates I can still see it, but even WOW should go FTP sometime soon, which they will probably do after their new FTP monster comes out. TOR was just 6 or 7 years too late.

Originally posted by hikaru77

Men, we wil get content updates for swtor almost every single month, can u imagine how much do we  will have to pay for DLCs with a B2P model?. 1.1 is tomorrow, then in march we will have the 2nd content patch and is just the beginning

First off, even accepting the premise that a B2P game would put out DLCs, you would obviously pay less than a subscription.  With a P2P game you're paying $15 per month whether you get anything or not.  With a B2P game, even if the DLCs were a full $15, you'd pay in January and March in your example, but not for February.  Also they would be voluntary purchases so a person wouldn't even have to pay if they didn't want to.

But the thing is, because a B2P game's purchases are voluntary and manual (a person needs to purchase rather than just continue paying a subscription automatically) they're a much tougher sell.  People apparently think nothing of paying $15 per month for a subscription every month, but if you had to buy that update as a DLC every month people would complain all over the place at yet another DLC cash grab coming out.

We don't know what GW2 will offer, but GW1's solution was to offer really large expansions every 6-12 months.  They didn't double the size of the original game, but they weren't that far off.  And they cost $50, a little over half the price of a subscription even if they were every 6 months.  And, as I said, they were voluntary.  If you didn't buy them, you could still access the core game.

And before you think that B2P doesn't support their game, GW1 still puts out adjustments and bug fixes at a rate of about 1 update per week to this day, despite not having put out paid content since 2007.

Originally posted by itgrowls

Originally posted by Kidon

well my opinion is that Telepizza food should be free, but hey they can ask money for it and people will still pay

actually what he was describing is considered asking twice for money, like asking to pay for the pizza once then asking for a monthly subscription to continue eating it. it's not what you said at all.

You will have to pay every time you want the best pizza, you cant pay one and get 3, that you can buy and the supermaket (aka subpar game GW2).

Originally posted by Skaara55

I expected to return here flamed to all hell. Imagine my surprise when people are agreeing with me.

They should have just made another kotor as Bioware is obviously not ready for mmo's and their lack of experience is seriously showing. Now they have delayed the content patch right before early access subs are coming up.

This is another KOTOR, just one with lots of people running around in the background.  I am happy to play for a few months to see where the story goes but I am not sure what there is to stick around for, just like a single player game....

That is why a B2P model is best.  I would log in still after I finished just to run around for a bit but I won't stick around and sub for that right.

Originally posted by dubyahite
Here's a reason why this game is worth a sub for you. Less than one month after launch, when not a single persons sub has kicked in, they are already releasing their first content patch.
 

Ah I remember sweet promises from EA for UO and I think Warhammer that every 3-4 months a booster pack would be released ....

What did they deliver .... one a year? With content people said should have been for free.

Maybe ... MAYBE ... Bioware is better, but I want to see serious content updates before praising unknown patches and promises.

Originally posted by obii

Originally posted by dubyahite
Here's a reason why this game is worth a sub for you. Less than one month after launch, when not a single persons sub has kicked in, they are already releasing their first content patch.
 

Ah I remember sweet promises from EA for UO and I think Warhammer that every 3-4 months a booster pack would be released ....

What did they deliver .... one a year? With content people said should have been for free.

Maybe ... MAYBE ... Bioware is better, but I want to see serious content updates before praising unknown patches and promises.

There is no Bioware, only EA...

Then you are DOOMED :P

I think b2p would have been a better solution and a f2p SWTOR would sort of have been a wow killer, as everyone would have at least tried it.

I said it many times not (and got flaked here)

If this game was B2P it would be super mega hit for Bioware/EA

This was a smart thing to do , on so many levels...

1. Most of Bioware/RPG fans - are not familiar with sub games, and have problems with the concept.

2. RPG nature of the game makes it to slow and casual to play on steady bases. Therefor people dont feel like subbing

3. There is much larger market for B2P

4. Storyline content is perfect for B2P , and pushing small payed packages

5. Rumours say this was the original development plan

EA/B , could probably make 10x times more money (at least)if they went B2P

But greed won , like always.

Now the game will be just one more wasteland MMO

I sort of agree with the OP, it was obvious the majority of the focus in the game was centered around the single player experience (cinematic cutscenes, class story line, voice overs, companions, etc.) with a multiplayer aspect sort of tagged on. As a B2P single player game? It probably would've sold a decent amount.

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by MigPosada

Originally posted by Distopia

Originally posted by MigPosada

 

No, but the single player tag is not that far fetched.

It only applies if that's how you're playing, there's a lot of content you can't do within level range unless you're grouped. Those who aren't grouping are missing a lot of what the game is offering.

On top of that I came to this game with many others from older games I've played, hasn't been single-player for me at all.

And that's a very weak way to justify the massively multiplayer tag. I agree, they are all hyperboles, but we can understand where they come from.

Wasn't saying what you said was hyperbole, you just gave your perspective on your experience. You didn't try and sensationalize it.

Did you see who writes what? That wasn't me.

I didn't write anything about Vanguard and all that other stuff. I was simply pointing out the game weak spots after someone elses comments. You are hitting the wrong guy XD.

Anyway, I can reiterate my argument: Bioware focused on personal stories, the other game aspects were secondary, because they really wanted to go in that direction. They did a very good job at that, but it made the game weak as a massively multiplayer experience.

There's no sensationalization on that.

I said the same thing during beta.  Financially speaking I now think the subscription route is in their best interest.  They have a great IP and rabid fans that will subscribe.  They can fix their issues and likely increase their subscriber base with the starting point being those who subscribe after the 30 days, not those who bought the game but never subscribed.

Just because I'm not happy with what's being offered under subscription, that doesn't mean others aren't.