Originally posted by Kuppa

Originally posted by jdnewell

Originally posted by Kuppa

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

MAybe its just me, but with that many AAA+ games available for free (tough a subscription is advisable)  and other upcomming games free of subscription with only the price of the box to play,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

$60 boxprice and $15 monthly costs, just seems to much for this game to me. Yes, the game would be worth devoting time too, and discovering the lands, but in these times of economical trouble the price might just be to high to pull people away from cheaper alternatives.

 

So they should either lower the boxprice with atleast 50% or remove the subscription requirement.   The game currently just doesn't have the quallity to convince me to buy it at that price. Espescially comming from funcom, only showing us small part of the game with tortage still fresh in my memmory.

Well that's you.

 

To me, Kingsmouth area alone has more content than an average Mass Effect game.  So $60 to play for a month and experience all the areas is an excellent deal.  And if i either get through it all or stop liking it after that time, I simply won't pay the monthly sub.  Good deal either way.

Kingsmouth area more content than an entire Mass Effect game?????? Did I miss something here.....

I think what he meant was it will take you longer to complete Kingsmouth than it does to finish a ME game, and in that he is correct as a play throught of ME titles takes me around 30 hours roughly

Was I playing a different Kingsmouth or something? Cause I played around 10-12 hours(very slowly mind you) and I am pretty close to leaving Kingsmouth......

Impossible, took me 2 days straight in cb to finish Kingsmouth, had put in at least 30 hours over the weekend to do it. If you did all that you are missing tonnes.

Leaving aside the shortcomings I believe the game has (and I have decided against playing at launch) who says that a monthly sub fee must be $15/EU14/BPS10 automatically?

I think this game (and some of the others released these last few years) would be better offering a sub fee closer to $10. It would probably reduce the comparisons to other games charging $15/mo and make the pricepoint a positive instead of a negative.

Sub fees (in the original UO/EQ/SWG period) were set at $15/mo because bandwith and server maint fees and infrastructure costs were much, much higher back then. A couple devs have stated in various articles that those costs are about 10% now of what they were back then, and yet, the sub fee is the same.

I just don't understand it: if companies are willing to and can afford to put games out F2P and eat all the overhead for 80-90% of the average F2P MMO playerbase that pays nothing, why the resistence to lower a sub fee from $15/mo?

I think a lower sub fee instead of all this F2P/cash shop nonsense could work for many games...

Originally posted by Burntvet

Leaving aside the shortcomings I believe the game has (and I have decided against playing at launch) who says that a monthly sub fee must be $15/EU14/BPS10 automatically?

I think this game (and some of the others released these last few years) would be better offering a sub fee closer to $10. It would probably reduce the comparisons to other games charging $15/mo and make the pricepoint a positive instead of a negative.

Sub fees (in the original UO/EQ/SWG period) were set at $15/mo because bandwith and server maint fees and infrastructure costs were much, much higher back then. A couple devs have stated in various articles that those costs are about 10% now of what they were back then, and yet, the sub fee is the same.

 

I just don't understand it: if companies are willing to and can afford to put games out F2P and eat all the overhead for 80-90% of the average F2P MMO playerbase that pays nothing, why the resistence to lower a sub fee from $15/mo?

 

I think a lower sub fee instead of all this F2P/cash shop nonsense could work for many games...

If you cant afford 15 dollars dont be playing video games.

Originally posted by DarkDemon69

Originally posted by Burntvet

Leaving aside the shortcomings I believe the game has (and I have decided against playing at launch) who says that a monthly sub fee must be $15/EU14/BPS10 automatically?

I think this game (and some of the others released these last few years) would be better offering a sub fee closer to $10. It would probably reduce the comparisons to other games charging $15/mo and make the pricepoint a positive instead of a negative.

Sub fees (in the original UO/EQ/SWG period) were set at $15/mo because bandwith and server maint fees and infrastructure costs were much, much higher back then. A couple devs have stated in various articles that those costs are about 10% now of what they were back then, and yet, the sub fee is the same.

 

I just don't understand it: if companies are willing to and can afford to put games out F2P and eat all the overhead for 80-90% of the average F2P MMO playerbase that pays nothing, why the resistence to lower a sub fee from $15/mo?

 

I think a lower sub fee instead of all this F2P/cash shop nonsense could work for many games...

If you cant afford 15 dollars dont be playing video games.

I don't disagree with you, and I play P2P titles exclusively, but my point is who says $15/mo has to be "the number".

For several "mostly" AAA titles, with "limited innovation and creativity", a lower price point on the sub fee might have encouraged a few more people to stay around longer. Without as manycomparisons to other "better" games charging $15/mo. "Well this game is not quite as good as ____, but at least the sub fee is $10 instead of $15."

Originally posted by DarkDemon69

Originally posted by Burntvet

Leaving aside the shortcomings I believe the game has (and I have decided against playing at launch) who says that a monthly sub fee must be $15/EU14/BPS10 automatically?

I think this game (and some of the others released these last few years) would be better offering a sub fee closer to $10. It would probably reduce the comparisons to other games charging $15/mo and make the pricepoint a positive instead of a negative.

Sub fees (in the original UO/EQ/SWG period) were set at $15/mo because bandwith and server maint fees and infrastructure costs were much, much higher back then. A couple devs have stated in various articles that those costs are about 10% now of what they were back then, and yet, the sub fee is the same.

 

I just don't understand it: if companies are willing to and can afford to put games out F2P and eat all the overhead for 80-90% of the average F2P MMO playerbase that pays nothing, why the resistence to lower a sub fee from $15/mo?

 

I think a lower sub fee instead of all this F2P/cash shop nonsense could work for many games...

If you cant afford 15 dollars dont be playing video games.

You missed his entire point, I'm afraid.  When you can pay $15/month for Wow which is well established and popular, then you invite a direct comparison to WoW when you charge the same price as they do. 

If TSW was $9.99/month people would look at it more as, "well, it's only $10 so why not?"  Not every online game just automatically deserves a $15/month price tag.

[mod edit]

Originally posted by DarkDemon69

Originally posted by Kuppa

Originally posted by jdnewell

Originally posted by Kuppa

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

MAybe its just me, but with that many AAA+ games available for free (tough a subscription is advisable)  and other upcomming games free of subscription with only the price of the box to play,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

$60 boxprice and $15 monthly costs, just seems to much for this game to me. Yes, the game would be worth devoting time too, and discovering the lands, but in these times of economical trouble the price might just be to high to pull people away from cheaper alternatives.

 

So they should either lower the boxprice with atleast 50% or remove the subscription requirement.   The game currently just doesn't have the quallity to convince me to buy it at that price. Espescially comming from funcom, only showing us small part of the game with tortage still fresh in my memmory.

Well that's you.

 

To me, Kingsmouth area alone has more content than an average Mass Effect game.  So $60 to play for a month and experience all the areas is an excellent deal.  And if i either get through it all or stop liking it after that time, I simply won't pay the monthly sub.  Good deal either way.

Kingsmouth area more content than an entire Mass Effect game?????? Did I miss something here.....

I think what he meant was it will take you longer to complete Kingsmouth than it does to finish a ME game, and in that he is correct as a play throught of ME titles takes me around 30 hours roughly

Was I playing a different Kingsmouth or something? Cause I played around 10-12 hours(very slowly mind you) and I am pretty close to leaving Kingsmouth......

Impossible, took me 2 days straight in cb to finish Kingsmouth, had put in at least 30 hours over the weekend to do it. If you did all that you are missing tonnes.

tonnes??

Originally posted by Kuppa

Originally posted by DarkDemon69

Originally posted by Kuppa

Originally posted by jdnewell

Originally posted by Kuppa

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

MAybe its just me, but with that many AAA+ games available for free (tough a subscription is advisable)  and other upcomming games free of subscription with only the price of the box to play,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

$60 boxprice and $15 monthly costs, just seems to much for this game to me. Yes, the game would be worth devoting time too, and discovering the lands, but in these times of economical trouble the price might just be to high to pull people away from cheaper alternatives.

 

So they should either lower the boxprice with atleast 50% or remove the subscription requirement.   The game currently just doesn't have the quallity to convince me to buy it at that price. Espescially comming from funcom, only showing us small part of the game with tortage still fresh in my memmory.

Well that's you.

 

To me, Kingsmouth area alone has more content than an average Mass Effect game.  So $60 to play for a month and experience all the areas is an excellent deal.  And if i either get through it all or stop liking it after that time, I simply won't pay the monthly sub.  Good deal either way.

Kingsmouth area more content than an entire Mass Effect game?????? Did I miss something here.....

I think what he meant was it will take you longer to complete Kingsmouth than it does to finish a ME game, and in that he is correct as a play throught of ME titles takes me around 30 hours roughly

Was I playing a different Kingsmouth or something? Cause I played around 10-12 hours(very slowly mind you) and I am pretty close to leaving Kingsmouth......

Impossible, took me 2 days straight in cb to finish Kingsmouth, had put in at least 30 hours over the weekend to do it. If you did all that you are missing tonnes.

tonnes??

He's probably from one of those cRaZy Countries that use the metric system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne

Originally posted by HeavyTraffic

 

If TSW was $9.99/month people would look at it more as, "well, it's only $10 so why not?" 

I don't think that kind of logic holds up too well in the MMO world.  I can't think of any MMO that i'm not already playing that i would play if it was $10 instead of $15.  I wouldn't go back to Rift or TOR or AION or EVE.  Nor would I try WoW if they suddenly told me that I could play it for $2 a month.  

$15 is a pretty low price compared to other forms of enterntainment and most people that actually like the game and find it entertaining will probably pay it.  On the other hand, I doubt that anyone that doesn't like the game and doesn't find it to be fun will play it just because it's $5 cheaper than WoW (or whatever).

F2P is a different beast altogether as the "Free" thing will encourage trial.   I just don't see there being an "i like this game enough for $8 but not enough for $11" mentality.    I could be wrong.

Originally posted by HeavyTraffic

Originally posted by DarkDemon69

Originally posted by Burntvet

Leaving aside the shortcomings I believe the game has (and I have decided against playing at launch) who says that a monthly sub fee must be $15/EU14/BPS10 automatically?

I think this game (and some of the others released these last few years) would be better offering a sub fee closer to $10. It would probably reduce the comparisons to other games charging $15/mo and make the pricepoint a positive instead of a negative.

Sub fees (in the original UO/EQ/SWG period) were set at $15/mo because bandwith and server maint fees and infrastructure costs were much, much higher back then. A couple devs have stated in various articles that those costs are about 10% now of what they were back then, and yet, the sub fee is the same.

 

I just don't understand it: if companies are willing to and can afford to put games out F2P and eat all the overhead for 80-90% of the average F2P MMO playerbase that pays nothing, why the resistence to lower a sub fee from $15/mo?

 

I think a lower sub fee instead of all this F2P/cash shop nonsense could work for many games...

If you cant afford 15 dollars dont be playing video games.

You missed his entire point, I'm afraid.  When you can pay $15/month for Wow which is well established and popular, then you invite a direct comparison to WoW when you charge the same price as they do. 

 

If TSW was $9.99/month people would look at it more as, "well, it's only $10 so why not?"  Not every online game just automatically deserves a $15/month price tag.

 

[mod edit]

 

 

In my opinion, and I played WoW for YEARS and YEARS, but TSW even in its current state is worth MORE than WoW on a monthly sub. :)

This same statement goes for SWTOR too, TSW in its current state is worth more on a monthly sub than it to me.

By your logic, and the poster before you, I agree you have your right to your opinion too. You believe TSW isnt up to the same standards as the games you like more. Not everyone agrees with your assessment on those same games. Use your logic with other peoples assessments of quality, dont argue they are wrong because they dont like the same games you do. A [mod edit]

Originally posted by jdnyc

The game is cheaper than any other MMO to come out in the last five years that was made by a major studio.

 

What?  How is this game cheaper than other MMO's?  They set the same price as EA did for SWTOR and it cost a heck of a lot more to make TOR than it did TSW.  I'm also pretty sure that no other MMO has come out with a standard version that cost more than $60 so again I ask you, how is this game cheaper than any other MMO? 

to the OP

I'm ok with the $60 box price but I think $50 is more inline with the quality of this game.  I can live with the sub fee but to also add a cash shop on top of that is really pushing it especially when you see the mixed reviews that TSW is getting.  Personally, I wont be paying that kind of money.  I'll wait for the end of summer and get the game for $30 or less after it has had a bit of time to be tweaked.  I dont see any value in jumping in at launch and paying full-price and dealing with launch bugs and server load issues myself but to each his own. 

Originally posted by Talonsin

Originally posted by jdnyc

The game is cheaper than any other MMO to come out in the last five years that was made by a major studio.

 

What?  How is this game cheaper than other MMO's?  They set the same price as EA did for SWTOR and it cost a heck of a lot more to make TOR than it did TSW.  I'm also pretty sure that no other MMO has come out with a standard version that cost more than $60 so again I ask you, how is this game cheaper than any other MMO? 

 

to the OP

I'm ok with the $60 box price but I think $50 is more inline with the quality of this game.  I can live with the sub fee but to also add a cash shop on top of that is really pushing it especially when you see the mixed reviews that TSW is getting.  Personally, I wont be paying that kind of money.  I'll wait for the end of summer and get the game for $30 or less after it has had a bit of time to be tweaked.  I dont see any value in jumping in at launch and paying full-price and dealing with launch bugs and server load issues myself but to each his own. 

So what you and others are saying is the game is worth the money, you guys are just too cheap to pay for it? ANd for others who think 60 dollars is too much, thats what ALL games cost jesus why must everyone expect entertainment for free.

The days of charging this kind of money for online games has past.

Companies like Blizzard wonder why they are loosing so many players per quarter, yet are still asking the same sub price as they were 6 years ago (when wow was pretty much the only option for an mmorpg). At the same time as putting out lower quality content to cut their own costs.

People don't have as much money to spare any more and they are not going to pay when there are free alternatives, even if they have to pay now and then for exp boosters etc.

Originally posted by NasherUK

The days of charging this kind of money for online games has past.

Companies like Blizzard wonder why they are loosing so many players per quarter, yet are still asking the same sub price as they were 6 years ago. At the same time as putting out lower quality content to cut their own costs.

People don't have as much money to spare any more and they are not going to pay when there are free alternatives, even if they have to pay now and then for exp boosters etc.

Free alternatives run you more per month if you want to succeed than P2P monthly subs. And you get a crap game with a crap community.

Originally posted by DarkDemon69

Originally posted by NasherUK

The days of charging this kind of money for online games has past.

Companies like Blizzard wonder why they are loosing so many players per quarter, yet are still asking the same sub price as they were 6 years ago. At the same time as putting out lower quality content to cut their own costs.

People don't have as much money to spare any more and they are not going to pay when there are free alternatives, even if they have to pay now and then for exp boosters etc.

Free alternatives run you more per month if you want to succeed than P2P monthly subs. And you get a crap game with a crap community.

Well, wow isn't free and has mostly a crap community now :P

Originally posted by NasherUK

The days of charging this kind of money for online games has past.

Companies like Blizzard wonder why they are loosing so many players per quarter, yet are still asking the same sub price as they were 6 years ago (when wow was pretty much the only option for an mmorpg). At the same time as putting out lower quality content to cut their own costs.

People don't have as much money to spare any more and they are not going to pay when there are free alternatives, even if they have to pay now and then for exp boosters etc.

My old guildies are still playing SWTOR and they've made like 5 toons on a server and dinged 3 of them to cap.

Then the server died and they completely rerolled on another server and levelled up toons again.

The lenghts Star Wars fans go for the awful game is really sickening :j

---

Originally posted by Talonsin

---

Originally posted by jdnyc
The game is cheaper than any other MMO to come out in the last five years that was made by a major studio.
 

---

What?  How is this game cheaper than other MMO's?  They set the same price as EA did for SWTOR and it cost a heck of a lot more to make TOR than it did TSW.  I'm also pretty sure that no other MMO has come out with a standard version that cost more than $60 so again I ask you, how is this game cheaper than any other MMO? 
 
to the OP
I'm ok with the $60 box price but I think $50 is more inline with the quality of this game.  I can live with the sub fee but to also add a cash shop on top of that is really pushing it especially when you see the mixed reviews that TSW is getting.  Personally, I wont be paying that kind of money.  I'll wait for the end of summer and get the game for $30 or less after it has had a bit of time to be tweaked.  I dont see any value in jumping in at launch and paying full-price and dealing with launch bugs and server load issues myself but to each his own. 

---

Help me out here.....

The Old Republic at launch was $59.99 for the box, and TSW is 49.99

How is it not cheaper than TOR was at release? Maybe it's a good thing you feel that $50 is more inline for the quality, since that's exactly what you are paying, no?

Originally posted by Talonsin

Originally posted by jdnyc

The game is cheaper than any other MMO to come out in the last five years that was made by a major studio.

 

What?  How is this game cheaper than other MMO's?  They set the same price as EA did for SWTOR and it cost a heck of a lot more to make TOR than it did TSW.  I'm also pretty sure that no other MMO has come out with a standard version that cost more than $60 so again I ask you, how is this game cheaper than any other MMO?

Because TSW is $49.99 at launch and SWTOR was $59.95 at launch?

No they didn't set the same price as EA did for SWTOR.

That means it's $10 cheaper than SWTOR.  So again, I ask YOU - how is this game more expensive or the same price than any other MMO that's come out in the last five years?

Originally posted by Baikal

 

---

Help me out here.....

The Old Republic at launch was $59.99 for the box, and TSW is 49.99

How is it not cheaper than TOR was at release? Maybe it's a good thing you feel that $50 is more inline for the quality, since that's exactly what you are paying, no?

actually you can take the 10 bucks savings and put it towards a second month sub if you want.