Originally posted by prototypo

I logged a good amount of time in the solo game and i just couldnt keep re-rolling alts when it felt so lonely, a simple multi player function would have made this game the one to beat for some time now but with this F2P coming out i guess i gotta stick with other RPG's for now cause i aint supporting no CS, especially considering the majority of them dont have the players interest at heart.

 

No offense, but what business has a player or even a customers intrest at heart. People need to quit beleiving companies when they say they are interested in what the community has to say. Companies are about making a profit, always have always will be. So regardless of if this is a cash shop driven game or a Sub model game, they have to make there money or you simply dont get to play. As they say in the real world, nothing is free. And even when it says it's free, there is always the small print. And by the way, I play Allods and enjoy it. Not because of how much they want me to spend, but because I enjoy playing games. I don't make these game's my life, i just simply let them in for my enjoyment. Cheers :)

Originally posted by Sinborn

Eh, MMOs are sorta synonymous with multiplayer gaming with a lobby, inventory and trade system. Stop freaking out over the terminology, peeps.

That's not the case, actually.  The defining feature that makes a game an mmo is having a persistent world.  Matchmaking lobbies are not persistent worlds.  If this game ended up having 1 world where everyone played together, then it would fit the definition of an mmo.

Originally posted by prototypo

I logged a good amount of time in the solo game and i just couldnt keep re-rolling alts when it felt so lonely, a simple multi player function would have made this game the one to beat for some time now but with this F2P coming out i guess i gotta stick with other RPG's for now cause i aint supporting no CS, especially considering the majority of them dont have the players interest at heart.

 By simply playing the game, and never using the cash shop you would be not supporting it. In fact, you would be doing the exact opposit. You would be supporting the idea that you can play and have fun without the need to use the cash shop.

I dont really understand the reluctance to F2P. I mean, all of us complain about the quality of games. Yet, a vast majority of us demand that developers charge us monthly to play. I dont know, I just think that if im going to play a 'low quality' game, id rather not be charged monthly and have the option to pay for things I deem worthy of my cash.

Originally posted by Arioc

Sounds kinda like they're just taking the single player experience and adding multiplayer to it and calling it an MMO. I have my doubts, but I'll reserve judgement till I hear more.

 

 Yeah, i hope not! that would just be lazy. Will we still see the open world game, with "dungeons" people can enter together, as they said they would have? So tired of watching game companies do a 180 on game directions, leaving almost nothing as what they said they would have.

Originally posted by Arioc

Sounds kinda like they're just taking the single player experience and adding multiplayer to it and calling it an MMO. I have my doubts, but I'll reserve judgement till I hear more.

 

 Yeah which isn't enough to compel me to play.

I am thinking more like in the spirit of mythos kind of mmo but much better.

Wow, the forced grouping crowd is out in force tonight.  If a game doesn't have forced grouping, then it's not a real grouping game, despite all of the grouping going on even in solo friendly games like World of Warcraft.  You just can't satisfy a forced groupie with anything short of mass slavery of the player base.

For all the people saying they enjoyed the single player game but they're not even going to play this game: it's going to be F2P why wouldn't you at least give it a shot?  I try tons of F2P games just out of boredom.  I never stick around with any of them and never spend any money, but if it's F2P why not?  Especially since the single player game was awesome.

Originally posted by Nephaerius

For all the people saying they enjoyed the single player game but they're not even going to play this game: it's going to be F2P why wouldn't you at least give it a shot?  I try tons of F2P games just out of boredom.  I never stick around with any of them and never spend any money, but if it's F2P why not?  Especially since the single player game was awesome.

 I can't speak for others, but I guess I am just not that bored. I've only got so much time, money isn't the only finite resource being used here. I'd rather play something I really, truly enjoy with people I love playing with. So far, and it's relatively early still, I am not liking what I am hearing on this front, and neither are the other peeps I game with.

Originally posted by Nesrie

Originally posted by Nephaerius

For all the people saying they enjoyed the single player game but they're not even going to play this game: it's going to be F2P why wouldn't you at least give it a shot?  I try tons of F2P games just out of boredom.  I never stick around with any of them and never spend any money, but if it's F2P why not?  Especially since the single player game was awesome.

 I can't speak for others, but I guess I am just not that bored. I've only got so much time, money isn't the only finite resource being used here. I'd rather play something I really, truly enjoy with people I love playing with. So far, and it's relatively early still, I am not liking what I am hearing on this front, and neither are the other peeps I game with.

I can see that.  But even if it simply amounted to a single player game with multiplayer functionality, a Torchlight 2 if you will since none of the original content itself would be rehashed from the first game according to what they've said so far, I think it would be worth my time.

Great.  I was peeved when Mythos got shelved.  If they do something akin to that, I'll be a happy cat.

Originally posted by Nephaerius

I can see that.  But even if it simply amounted to a single player game with multiplayer functionality, a Torchlight 2 if you will since none of the original content itself would be rehashed from the first game according to what they've said so far, I think it would be worth my time.

 Which of course, is fine for you. And if that is what you want, and that is what they deliver, that's great. Thing is, when we go after an MMO, it's for the MMO experience, the whole package, not a singleplayer game with a multiplayer tacked onto it. I wouldn't even appreciate that IF it were just sold as a standalone game and not an MMO.

I have so many games I enjoy on a single-player level, so many on a multiplayer level and one maybe two MMOs at any given time holding my interest. Torchlight  MMO as described isn't going to satify my singleplayer want as there are richer experiences to be had with less hassles (F2P solo not appealing to me at all), there are games designed for a multiplayer experience from the ground up this Torchlight MMO wouldn't compare real well too and there are MMOs I am hoping that will bring me that MMO flavor that even standalone mulitplayers can't deliver.

I am not seeing their idea match any of these niches real well for me. People who enjoy the F2P experience plus the ability to jump around from F2P game to F2P game because the costs can be nil, especially if you don't stick around, might love this setup. What they plan on offering the rest of us is, well we'll just have to see. It's just not appealing right now to me.

This is great news for me.  Torchlight is my current favorite single player and I've been looking forward to the multiplayer version for a long time.

I'm also glad they are making the game soloable as well as having a group mode.  I like the idea of having decent rewards no matter if I'm with my family and friends or by myself.

People get hung up on semantics.  If Torchlight allows a lot of people on the server at once then it's MMO enough for me.  Isn't that why we called them MMOs in the first place?  Adding MMO to the title just lets people know they can all log on to the server and meet up.  Why does it need to have a more complicated definition?

Originally posted by Torvaldr

This is great news for me.  Torchlight is my current favorite single player and I've been looking forward to the multiplayer version for a long time.

I'm also glad they are making the game soloable as well as having a group mode.  I like the idea of having decent rewards no matter if I'm with my family and friends or by myself.

People get hung up on semantics.  If Torchlight allows a lot of people on the server at once then it's MMO enough for me.  Isn't that why we called them MMOs in the first place?  Adding MMO to the title just lets people know they can all log on to the server and meet up.  Why does it need to have a more complicated definition?

Agreed.

 Bit of mixed info coming from this, article says " hitting store shelves this Thursday" yet up top it says (est.rel 2011), so which is it? :P

 Either way, I've been wanting to try this since I heard about the mmo version shortly after buying the orignal torchlight, but seeing how PWE will be controlling the cashshop it leaves me with little faith.. they really couldn't have chosen a worse "f2p" company to handle this.

 With PWE games it does pay to start as soon as a game is available though, since overtime the cashshop's become more and more important, and the community also inflates market/cashshop prices higher and higher as time goes on, eventually making it impossible to afford good gear and cashshop currency/items with in-game gold.

 So to actually have any ammount  FREE fun at all you really need to play while a game is still fresh/new, and if you plan on sticking around for awhile, my suggestion is to buy all the cashshop currency you can while it is cheap (with in-game gold), save it for 4-6months, then sell once prices stabilize at around 400k/100ZEN (seems to be the standard leveling off point).

 Unfortunatly that is about the only way it's possible to play FREE, stay on par with the cashshop crowds, have a useful character and still be a relevant part of the community..

Originally posted by Torvaldr

This is great news for me.  Torchlight is my current favorite single player and I've been looking forward to the multiplayer version for a long time.

I'm also glad they are making the game soloable as well as having a group mode.  I like the idea of having decent rewards no matter if I'm with my family and friends or by myself.

People get hung up on semantics.  If Torchlight allows a lot of people on the server at once then it's MMO enough for me.  Isn't that why we called them MMOs in the first place?  Adding MMO to the title just lets people know they can all log on to the server and meet up.  Why does it need to have a more complicated definition?

 There was this company that tried this and is gone after trying to tack on a weak multiplayer experience onto an single-player game and then try to get an MMO price for it. Monte Cristo and the game was called Cities XL. Cities XL went down in record time, and Monte Cristo is closed down. It's not getting "hung up on semantics" when you are trying to decide, are they making an MMO or just trying to cash in on MMO pricing without the MMO. It's been done before.

Originally posted by Nesrie

Originally posted by Torvaldr

This is great news for me.  Torchlight is my current favorite single player and I've been looking forward to the multiplayer version for a long time.

I'm also glad they are making the game soloable as well as having a group mode.  I like the idea of having decent rewards no matter if I'm with my family and friends or by myself.

People get hung up on semantics.  If Torchlight allows a lot of people on the server at once then it's MMO enough for me.  Isn't that why we called them MMOs in the first place?  Adding MMO to the title just lets people know they can all log on to the server and meet up.  Why does it need to have a more complicated definition?

 There was this company that tried this and is gone after trying to tack on a weak multiplayer experience onto an single-player game and then try to get an MMO price for it. Monte Cristo and the game was called Cities XL. Cities XL went down in record time, and Monte Cristo is closed down. It's not getting "hung up on semantics" when you are trying to decide, are they making an MMO or just trying to cash in on MMO pricing without the MMO. It's been done before.

That's a poor comparison imo considering that Cities XL required a purchase price and a subscription fee.  This game is F2P w/ a CS.  You do not have to have purchased the original Torchlight or a copy of "Torchlight MMO" in order to play.   While I personally am not a fan of F2P, I usually stick to a p2p mmo as my primary game (none I'm into atm though) I don't think this game will be a failure by any means even if you and I never touch it.  Because of this I imagine the results will differ from those of Cities XL.

Originally posted by Nesrie

Originally posted by Torvaldr

This is great news for me.  Torchlight is my current favorite single player and I've been looking forward to the multiplayer version for a long time.

I'm also glad they are making the game soloable as well as having a group mode.  I like the idea of having decent rewards no matter if I'm with my family and friends or by myself.

People get hung up on semantics.  If Torchlight allows a lot of people on the server at once then it's MMO enough for me.  Isn't that why we called them MMOs in the first place?  Adding MMO to the title just lets people know they can all log on to the server and meet up.  Why does it need to have a more complicated definition?

 There was this company that tried this and is gone after trying to tack on a weak multiplayer experience onto an single-player game and then try to get an MMO price for it. Monte Cristo and the game was called Cities XL. Cities XL went down in record time, and Monte Cristo is closed down. It's not getting "hung up on semantics" when you are trying to decide, are they making an MMO or just trying to cash in on MMO pricing without the MMO. It's been done before.

  But it's not like this torchlight game is launching a new f2p company, they simply sold the rights to Perfect World Entertainment, so this game is just being injected into an already thriving gaming community.

 So weither it's MO or MMO really doesn't matter when it's being made available to an wide already existing audience.

Originally posted by Nesrie

Originally posted by Torvaldr

This is great news for me.  Torchlight is my current favorite single player and I've been looking forward to the multiplayer version for a long time.

I'm also glad they are making the game soloable as well as having a group mode.  I like the idea of having decent rewards no matter if I'm with my family and friends or by myself.

People get hung up on semantics.  If Torchlight allows a lot of people on the server at once then it's MMO enough for me.  Isn't that why we called them MMOs in the first place?  Adding MMO to the title just lets people know they can all log on to the server and meet up.  Why does it need to have a more complicated definition?

 There was this company that tried this and is gone after trying to tack on a weak multiplayer experience onto an single-player game and then try to get an MMO price for it. Monte Cristo and the game was called Cities XL. Cities XL went down in record time, and Monte Cristo is closed down. It's not getting "hung up on semantics" when you are trying to decide, are they making an MMO or just trying to cash in on MMO pricing without the MMO. It's been done before.

 100% agree, but uh, as a free to play title, what does this have to do with Torchlight?

Originally posted by Unreal024

 100% agree, but uh, as a free to play title, what does this have to do with Torchlight?

 Well let's see. According to F2P supporters, F2P games are just as good as P2P games except with a different pricing model, which means a direct comparision should be used. Are you saying, hey, it's F2P so it will be less quality anyway therefore we shouldn't compare them, and if they do what Monte Cristo did it would be perfectly fine because it's F2P? If that is the case, if we should all lower our standards so F2P games get a pass on pretty much everything they do, please let me know. Otherwise, i am going to hold them to a similar standard as a P2P title. F2P gives them the ability to rake in more money than if they went simply sub, therefore, they are indeed trying to get an MMO price for their work as opposed to a stand-alone, one time box fee title. Which means, they should actually produce an MMO to get an MMO price.

Also, I never said it would be a failure. Then again, no one thought Cities XL would fail either right until pricing info was released and the beta was played.