Originally posted by Daxamar

Originally posted by boxsnd
ESO, AA, and now this. 2013 is gonna be awesome!

Awesome, indeed! +1

Except this game will come out in maybe 4 years. Pathfinder online anyone? estimated release 2017.

Unofficial sequel to DAoC?

TAKE MY MONEY MR JACOBS! ALL OF IT!

Mark Jacobs said it best re: F2P vs Subscription! I really wish ALL game developers thought this way!

What business model (i.e., free-to-play, buy to play, subscription) are you looking at for this game?

Multi-tiered subscription with no free-to-play option but with (maybe) some cosmetic items for housing. I think F2P and buy-to-play have their places, but we are trying to create a very niche-oriented MMORPG that won't benefit from using those models. I'd rather have 30K people paying and playing monthly than hundreds of thousands playing for free and hope to convert 5%. This game is geared to doing one thing spectacularly, and that one thing is RvR. I believe there is a core group of players who have been waiting for this type of game, and our Kickstarter campaign will either prove or disprove this notion.

Source:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/02/05/rvr-unchained-mark-jacobs-returns-to-camelot/

Please take your time and do it right Mr. Jacobs. Remember why we loved DAOC back before Trials of Atlantis.

Some of those being....

RvR, No instanced Dungeons, No Gear Grind, Great Crafting, A live NON-INSTANCED world to explore, Darkness Falls, Multiple Classes to choose from (No Mirrored crap--Yes harder to balance but it was better), Real Dragons!

Originally posted by Wighty

Mark Jacobs said it best re: F2P vs Subscription! I really wish ALL game developers thought this way!

What business model (i.e., free-to-play, buy to play, subscription) are you looking at for this game?

Multi-tiered subscription with no free-to-play option but with (maybe) some cosmetic items for housing. I think F2P and buy-to-play have their places, but we are trying to create a very niche-oriented MMORPG that won't benefit from using those models. I'd rather have 30K people paying and playing monthly than hundreds of thousands playing for free and hope to convert 5%. This game is geared to doing one thing spectacularly, and that one thing is RvR. I believe there is a core group of players who have been waiting for this type of game, and our Kickstarter campaign will either prove or disprove this notion.

Source:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/02/05/rvr-unchained-mark-jacobs-returns-to-camelot/

Finally, someone who gets subscription models. I don't care for Mark, but he is right on the money with this.

Originally posted by Wighty

Mark Jacobs said it best re: F2P vs Subscription! I really wish ALL game developers thought this way!

What business model (i.e., free-to-play, buy to play, subscription) are you looking at for this game?

Multi-tiered subscription with no free-to-play option but with (maybe) some cosmetic items for housing. I think F2P and buy-to-play have their places, but we are trying to create a very niche-oriented MMORPG that won't benefit from using those models. I'd rather have 30K people paying and playing monthly than hundreds of thousands playing for free and hope to convert 5%. This game is geared to doing one thing spectacularly, and that one thing is RvR. I believe there is a core group of players who have been waiting for this type of game, and our Kickstarter campaign will either prove or disprove this notion.

Source:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/02/05/rvr-unchained-mark-jacobs-returns-to-camelot/

No Free to play option, Now I'm totally interested.

Originally posted by Aeonblades

Originally posted by Wighty

Mark Jacobs said it best re: F2P vs Subscription! I really wish ALL game developers thought this way!

What business model (i.e., free-to-play, buy to play, subscription) are you looking at for this game?

Multi-tiered subscription with no free-to-play option but with (maybe) some cosmetic items for housing. I think F2P and buy-to-play have their places, but we are trying to create a very niche-oriented MMORPG that won't benefit from using those models. I'd rather have 30K people paying and playing monthly than hundreds of thousands playing for free and hope to convert 5%. This game is geared to doing one thing spectacularly, and that one thing is RvR. I believe there is a core group of players who have been waiting for this type of game, and our Kickstarter campaign will either prove or disprove this notion.

Source:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/02/05/rvr-unchained-mark-jacobs-returns-to-camelot/

Finally, someone who gets subscription models. I don't care for Mark, but he is right on the money with this.

Yes, Finally!

That statement alone gives me hope. I feel exactly the same as he does when it comes to subscription over free to play.

Originally posted by Vorthanion
I completely agree with the sentiments towards the F2P model of designing content.  Subscriptions force the developer to make the best content possible to retain players, while F2P uses cheap tactics that usually make the gameplay worse in order to boost the costly shortcuts and services in the shop just to make the game more playable.

 Amen, I don't support F2P games with even the bandwith it takes to DL them. I think its the worst thing to happen to this genre.

Excited to see how they implement housing here, its usually thrown into games as an after thought so I never really get involved with it. I'am also curious to see how they will implement the no PvE into the game. Deticated crafters also peak my interest here, always love crafting. Not to mention, 3 faction warfare. Ahh I love faction warfare.

Originally posted by Aeonblades

Originally posted by Wighty

Mark Jacobs said it best re: F2P vs Subscription! I really wish ALL game developers thought this way!

What business model (i.e., free-to-play, buy to play, subscription) are you looking at for this game?

Multi-tiered subscription with no free-to-play option but with (maybe) some cosmetic items for housing. I think F2P and buy-to-play have their places, but we are trying to create a very niche-oriented MMORPG that won't benefit from using those models. I'd rather have 30K people paying and playing monthly than hundreds of thousands playing for free and hope to convert 5%. This game is geared to doing one thing spectacularly, and that one thing is RvR. I believe there is a core group of players who have been waiting for this type of game, and our Kickstarter campaign will either prove or disprove this notion.

Source:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/02/05/rvr-unchained-mark-jacobs-returns-to-camelot/

Finally, someone who gets subscription models. I don't care for Mark, but he is right on the money with this.

Yes, agreed. And I think this is a mindset we will see becoming ever more prevailent amongst developers here in the West.

Indicators suggest that the cash shop bubble might indeed have peaked and a new faith in subs is here as a reliable more ethical model.

I am not a big PvPer but I would support this just to throw my money behind a sub game.

damn my heads going to explode this guy sounds like me if I were to make a video game. I like this guy he is all about his pvp.

eso

archeage

now this I can't keep spending money like this I need one of these games to be it to take my attention for longer then 2 months.

Man..... Now I have a new "My most eagerly awaited release" And its only heading in to a "Kickstarter" stage... *sigh*

But, I have been waiting for DAoC2 for so long, Atleast now there is something to actually wait for.

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by Aeonblades

Originally posted by Wighty
...

Finally, someone who gets subscription models. I don't care for Mark, but he is right on the money with this.

 

Yes, agreed. And I think this is a mindset we will see becoming ever more prevailent amongst developers here in the West.

 

Indicators suggest that the cash shop bubble might indeed have peaked and a new faith in subs is here as a reliable more ethical model.

 

I am not a big PvPer but I would support this just to throw my money behind a sub game.

I think this will be the mindset of the INDY developers... AAA titles and major publishers still demand those huge numbers as a barometer to see how they place in comparison with other titles.

The indy developer who knows and targets their audience will have far more retention becasue they know their niche and are developing the game around that niche. The minute you start trying to spread yourself too thin is when you fall into issues...

Scrabble is a niche game, so is Monopoly... but Scrabopoly would just be a hot mess...

After reading the interview, I think my only concern is his comment about their being almost no PvE. I am not saying that is a bad thing or not, but those of us that beta tested and played DAoC at lauch can tell you, that was the way DAoC started out, it had what was an obvious lack of focus on PvE (everything was geared toward getting you into the RvR)

But after awhile they realised their player base wanted something to do now and then that wasn't in the frountier. Not sure if that was because they were trying for 100's of thousands in subs back then or not. If that was it, then obviously his comment about being cool with 30k will keep them from that prob.

Originally posted by Vorthanion
I completely agree with the sentiments towards the F2P model of designing content.  Subscriptions force the developer to make the best content possible to retain players, while F2P uses cheap tactics that usually make the gameplay worse in order to boost the costly shortcuts and services in the shop just to make the game more playable.

Subscription base forces no such thing from devs but it does force you to pay for the same thing repeatedly. Would you buy a book where you had to pay for each additional page after the first chapter? They both use cheap tactics and with sub based mmos/f2p/b2p youre still buying the expansions so what are we even paying for with the sub? I'll stick with GW2 and/or Defiance over just about any sub-based game as they do everything a sub-based game does but better in my opinion.

Originally posted by Darth-Batman

Originally posted by Vorthanion
I completely agree with the sentiments towards the F2P model of designing content.  Subscriptions force the developer to make the best content possible to retain players, while F2P uses cheap tactics that usually make the gameplay worse in order to boost the costly shortcuts and services in the shop just to make the game more playable.

Subscription base forces no such thing from devs but it does force you to pay for the same thing repeatedly. Would you buy a book where you had to pay for each additional page after the first chapter? They both use cheap tactics and with sub based mmos/f2p/b2p youre still buying the expansions so what are we even paying for with the sub? I'll stick with GW2 and/or Defiance over just about any sub-based game as they do everything a sub-based game does but better in my opinion.

 

You are the exact target audience he is NOT trying to capture... have fun in GW2 and Defiance