I don't think he was indicating a problem with the standard you are holding these games to by comparing them.  What I think he was getting at and what you indicate in your post is that it was the pricing model, and more specifically subscriptions that caused Cities XL to fail.  Torchlight is operating under a different pricing model therefore I think it will avoid the pitfalls met by Cities XL.  Perhaps if Cities XL had been F2P with a CS it would have succeeded as well.

Originally posted by Nesrie

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.

 My point has nothing to do with the quality of the game, simply the pricing model. You were comparing it to Cities XL, a game which tacked on some multiplayer and tried to charge monthly for it. Runic is not doing that with Torchlight, even if it is just the singleplayer with multiplayer tacked on, they arent charging a box price, and they arent charging a monthly fee, I dont see them trying to cash in on MMO pricing without the MMO as you put it a few posts up.

As I said I agree with what you said, its the main reason I never gave Hellgate a shot.

Edit: Nephaerius beat me to it.

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.

Diablo 2 seemed to fare pretty well and it was a single player game with a limited multiplayer option.  I have never heard of Monte Cristo or Cities XL; maybe their game wasn't that good.  A big difference here is the people developing Torchlight have a lot of experience and set out to make a fun game.

If Runic's multiplayer component sucks then their MMO will probably fail.  Dungeon Runners was pretty fun for a while, even if it was a bit dorky, but grouping wasn't very fun.

Torchlight is a well written, fun game with elements of Diablo and Fate (obviously since the designers were associated with both of those titles).  A lot of the players have asked, at least on their forums, for a multiplayer version.  This seems like a natural evolution.  The game design lends itself to solo and group play.

The pricing itself is excellent since it's Free2Start.  An interested player can find out for themselves if they like it.  A family member or some friends can try it with them.  If people like that kind of game (I have friends that still play D2) then it seems like a winner of a deal.

If PWE botches or gouges on the cash shop and players don't like it then that's another deal.  But then that is another deal and doesn't mean that Torchlight isn't an MMO or that the idea behind it wasn't sound.  There are a lot of games that had a great idea behind them that was then executed horribly in some manner or another at one point(Vanguard and Ryzom come to mind).

I'll wait to judge the execution after I play it.  Until then I like the idea a lot.

Originally posted by Unreal024

 

 My point has nothing to do with the quality of the game, simply the pricing model. You were comparing it to Cities XL, a game which tacked on some multiplayer and tried to charge monthly for it. Runic is not doing that with Torchlight, even if it is just the singleplayer with multiplayer tacked on, they arent charging a box price, and they arent charging a monthly fee, I dont see them trying to cash in on MMO pricing without the MMO as you put it a few posts up.

As I said I agree with what you said, its the main reason I never gave Hellgate a shot.

 

Edit: Nephaerius beat me to it.

I don't believe in F2P. It's a marketing gimmick and everyone knows it. If they are using a cash shop, the game will be designed to get players into a cash shop so they can, you know, get paid. Whether it's a subscription model or a cash shop, it should still be an MMO, not some singeplayer game with mutiplayer tacked onto it. If for no other reason than this, the game could be an MMO because the company itself is calling it an MMO. There is a difference between a singplayer game with multiplayer slapepd on top of it and an MMO.

If it's similar to Dungeon Runners, I may bite... I suppose it depends on character costumization and how bad the item shop is.

Originally posted by Nephaerius

I don't think he was indicating a problem with the standard you are holding these games to by comparing them.  What I think he was getting at and what you indicate in your post is that it was the pricing model, and more specifically subscriptions that caused Cities XL to fail.  Torchlight is operating under a different pricing model therefore I think it will avoid the pitfalls met by Cities XL.  Perhaps if Cities XL had been F2P with a CS it would have succeeded as well.

 Well yes, greed is what caused Cities XL to fail. The problem is, and perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should be, is that greed can manifest itself as easily in a cash shop as it does in a subscription model. I don't know what kind of prices we'll be seeing in a cash shop for Torchlight. I am also not sure they'll have enough meat in the game to actually shift it from a singplayer game to an MMO, which I know is subjective. Those two are large unknowns for me, and concerns because I have seen what people are saying would be great here, a single player game with a multiplayer slapped on it. Cities XL failed in part because fhat multiplayer was half-ass and incomplete, buggy, unsatisfying and too expensive. But they did take a singple player game and slap on a multiplayer, called it an MMO and then charged for it like an MMO. They also took a single-player game, forced players to connect to their server (even singleplayer) and then said give us money for this waek multiplayer thing we have going.

On the positive side, Torchlight was a least a solid game on it's own accord. Cities XL wasn't even that because they stripped out core components of a city builder game from the single-player game to get people to subcribe for basic things like public transporation... AND they had cash shop sort of set-up.

Well, I guess it all just comes down to how important the word MMO is to you. All of this is really a moot point untill we know more about the game. Im basing all my opinions off of Mythos, a game that Torchlight may or may not be alot like. I very much considered Mythos an MMO, others may not have. Runic is calling it an MMO, so I have to go with that, if it turns out that its not what most would think of as an MMO, ill still play it. MMO doesnt mean a thing to me, just another word thrown around alot on the Internet since WoW became popular.

Edit: Id like to add that I think alot of this is from thinking that the singleplayer began development before the MMO. Seeing as how they began work on the MMO before even deciding to make a singleplayer it doesnt worry me much that we will just see the singleplayer with multiplayer tacked on. Now, we may get a very crappy hub based singleplayer game like DDO or Hellgate was, but im hoping that since these guys were working on Mythos well atleast have an overworld in between the cities, even if it is instanced to crap.

Originally posted by just2duh

 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

 

The article says that PC Gamer will be hitting store shelves this Thursday. :P

TBH, I don't know why anyone expected more from the Torchlight MMO than an extension of the current engine to enhance and support group play. I thought that was pretty clear from the get go. Now whether it will be lobby or persistent world is what I think matters more - I want something a little less like Warrior Epic when it comes to a persistent MMO feel.

Nonetheless, adding multiplayer to my beloved Torchlight would be awesome; I have the people to play with.

 Torchlight was on purpose like new take on Diablo from it's creators,but without the battle.net element.  Now it's coming out with  new one with a battle.net.

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?

Even the single player game is mindless short-lived fun, personally I can't sit through it for more than an hour. Hence, I can't think of playing this for months.

Maybe it'll be good for hopping in for a quick dungeon run with a few people once in a while.

Originally posted by Unreal024                                                                                                                                                                     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.

And that's why the freeloaders can have all the F2P welfare games they want while I'll stick to a monthly subscription.

They can have their "low quality" games for "free" (LOL), and the rest of us can pay a nice flat rate for quality.

Where the argument comes in is when the freeloaders start crying on forums because they want to play a "great" game, but they want it to be F2P so their welfare asses can play it.

Once a game is announced as F2P, I don't bounce into their forum and demand they make it a subscription game. I just tell 'em "so long, won't see any money from me".

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.

 

 I agree sounds exactly like it, a solo game with a chat box in it.  We'll hafta see the game to be sure but it sure quacks that way.

Originally posted by eyeswideopen

 

And that's why the freeloaders can have all the F2P welfare games they want while I'll stick to a monthly subscription.

They can have their "low quality" games for "free" (LOL), and the rest of us can pay a nice flat rate for quality.

Where the argument comes in is when the freeloaders start crying on forums because they want to play a "great" game, but they want it to be F2P so their welfare asses can play it.

Once a game is announced as F2P, I don't bounce into their forum and demand they make it a subscription game. I just tell 'em "so long, won't see any money from me".

 Eh, call me a freeloadeer if you will, at one point in time or another ive been subbed to WoW, LotRO, Ryzom, Fallen Earth and Cities XL planet offer (crap), currently subbed to LotRO again. Out of those and all the other up and comming subscription based MMOs, none of them seem very quality to me, but thats my opinion.

Pretty sad if you just automatically assume that a game must be low quality if its free to play. Personally from what ive seen from Torchlight and Mythos, I think there is a pretty good chance at this being quality. But to each thier own, I wish you luck in finding something with a monthly flat rate thats actually worth it.

Out of all the free to plays ive tried I havnt given a single one any money, none of them were quality. So for me, yes they were "free", not quite sure what your laughing at. After I try Torchlight and IF I think its quality, it may be the first one I give money to, maybe not. If the cash shop is just rediculous you wont see me using and supporting it, but im sure that not using it wont mean I cant have any fun with the game.

Reply back if you want, I dont care, ive poset enough in this topic and have no interrest in getting into a pissing contest over F2P and subscription.

Go Torchlight!

Originally posted by Unreal024

 

Pretty sad if you just automatically assume that a game must be low quality if its free to play. 

Out of all the free to plays ive tried I havnt given a single one any money, none of them were quality.

 You see a problem with these two statements?

Torchlight is a pretty quality game at a low price. I mean they never tried to get a high price for it right. They knew they did a quality Diablo clone, and priced it accordingly. Kudos to them for doing that. On the other hand, if it's around a 20-30 dollar (I forget its original price, if it was always about 20) are they going F2P because they want more or expect less than a sub could get them. Numbers show that the F2P can get a company more money, not less. So if they are looking at this game and saying hey, I think we can get more than 15 a month for this, my response to that is for what. I'll use what someone else mentioned already, a singleplayer game with a chat box, some barely there grouping mechanism that isn't necessary because the entire game is solo? No thank you. 

It's not about F2P vs P2P, it's trying to figure out the motivation for Mythos choice and then finally have the cash shop revealed to let us all on their little secret. Despite some popular belief that F2P devs just want to give their game away for free, that's not the case. They want to be paid, and I just want to know, how much they are expecting to get out of someone who is actually going to devote time and money to their game and is it worth it.

Originally posted by Nesrie

Originally posted by Unreal024

 

 You see a problem with these two statements?

Torchlight is a pretty quality game at a low price. I mean they never tried to get a high price for it right. They knew they did a quality Diablo clone, and priced it accordingly. Kudos to them for doing that. On the other hand, if it's around a 20-30 dollar (I forget its original price, if it was always about 20) are they going F2P because they want more or expect less than a sub could get them. Numbers show that the F2P can get a company more money, not less. So if they are looking at this game and saying hey, I think we can get more than 15 a month for this, my response to that is for what. I'll use what someone else mentioned already, a singleplayer game with a chat box, some barely there grouping mechanism that isn't necessary because the entire game is solo? No thank you. 

It's not about F2P vs P2P, it's trying to figure out the motivation for Mythos choice and then finally have the cash shop revealed to let us all on their little secret. Despite some popular belief that F2P devs just want to give their game away for free, that's not the case. They want to be paid, and I just want to know, how much they are expecting to get out of someone who is actually going to devote time and money to their game and is it worth it.

Fine, ill post again. I guess I should have clarified why I havnt thought any of the F2P ive played were quality. It all has to do with the graphics, I simply cannot stand magna and anime style graphics. Ive not really had a problem with the way any of them have played. Im still not ready to assume that every F2P is crap just because I havnt found one to my taste yet.

Untill we know more about Torchlight and its cash shop we cant really discuss it though, it may be for convenience or the entire game may be built around making you use the shop. We simply do not know, so untill we do we cant really say wheather Torchlight will be worth the money or not.

All I know is there is a western styled F2P on the horizon and im excited to see how it turns out.

Anyone who played Mythos back before the studio collapsed should know what this team is capable of doing for a MMO. Mythos had all of the best aspects of Diablo in a Guild Wars-like setup (persistent town, multiple instances, personal "dungeons," etc). I enjoyed Mythos more than Hellgate and while I look forward to the re-release of Mythos, it was the talent (and personality) of the Mythos dev team that made the game such a pleasure to play.