Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

As opposed to a game purposely being made slow to get you to pay another month, or putting in a bunch of things that slow down your levelling or combat just to get you to sub another month.

IMO there are a number of f2p games that are better than many p2p games now.

The first time I played WoW it took me a solid week of farming to get the 100 gold needed to get a mount.  Completely unfun, but the rest of the game was fun so I kept at it.  When I did get the mount there was no sense of achievement, nothing special or unique.  I will never play that way again.

No, it doesn't work that way. If a sub game slowed down game play to get you to sub again, it wouldn't work for more than a month. Maybe 2 if your not too sharp. And usually it's with promised updates/content, not game play.  I've seen it happen. Back when Age of Conan launched, FC used to promise new content just after the next billing cycle (since it was near launch they knew the majority of their players had the same or very similar billing cycles) . It got to be a joke and it didn't work. With sub games, the drive is to make the game fun enough to keep you subbed. Granted I'm sure they have lots of tricks, but the point is, ultimately the game must be fun to play or people walk. Its the f2p games that have to gear the game play to drive players towards the shop because it's their only source of revenue. They literally have no choice.

Regarding your mount, I don't know about now, but back when I played WoW you couldn't get your mount til you were level 40, and if you didn't have 100g by then, it was your own fault, and if you couldn't figure out how to get a 100g except by grinding, again, your own fault. Given how easy it was to have 100g by level 40 and the ways to make that 100g besides grinding, it's hard to say it was a scheme to drive continued subs. If it was the risk of losing subs from pissed off players is too great. Its a much safer bet to just try to get them to resub because they like playing.

So I've been playing Age of Wushu lately, having fun. It's f2p with cash shop which I normally hate, but so far it's ok because it's not in my face and I've been playing fine without spending money.

However another reason to dislike cash shops came to me when I joined a guild. In a game I play for free, I'm put in a postions where I may have to trust strangers with assets that are potentially worth real money. And you know what? That is not fun. Takes a lot of the fun (the reason I play) out of the game. The guild wants contributions of materials. And as I was gathering some and handing them in I realized that in giving away what is worth potentially real money, it took the play out of the realm of play. 

It really changes the way I look at the game, and that is a shame.

Not a surprise, but I voted sub w/no cash shop. When I'm in game, I just want to play.

A couple of things.  You are aware that the letters RP in the genre title MMORPG stand for role playing?  And I don't say that meaning that you should role play, but to question why you would fail to understand it's an intended component of the game?

And by RP I don't  mean you need to be standing around speaking in Shakespearian dialect. I mean just the base level that the character you created and named has it's own identity. It is on a base level A characater. That you create, control and develop.

And I reject the claim you don't understand immersion.  Do you want a rich graphical environment or white space with a stick figure?  Smooth fluid character animations or jerky clunky movements? What we're really discussing is a matter of degree. How much immersion do you want? You're happy with a certain amount, and you'd be less happy if your gaming experience fell below that threshold.

Lastly when it comes to old timers, I'll say this: The genre has changed. MMORPG's were originally percieved to be world simulators. The way MS Flight Simutalor was a flight simulator. The goal and expectation was a simulation that over time would provide a deeper and richer fidelity to what was being simulated, the same way the increasing version of MS Flight Simulator delivered a more realistic flying expereince. Granted it was a pretty far fetched goal considering the scope of what was being simulated, but the expectation was they'd keep working on it. But the genre changed and world simulation is no longer the goal and naturally people who were invested with the older style miss it.

What's to be baffled by?

Originally posted by topographic

Originally posted by Paradigm68

Originally posted by zymurgeist
They gave players what many asked for and got crucified for it. Now players are screaming bloody murder because the "economy" is collapsing.  ARPG's shouldn't have economies. If you want to enjoy the game don't use the auction houses. It was never necessary. It just takes longer. Now the big push by players is to make the game even less challenging. Another bad idea.

When did players ask to lose the fun of finding loot valuable to themselves due to the randomizing of the loot tables done in a way to drive players to the AH?

Nice to hear the lead game designer admit what mant of us have been saying, and some refused to admit.

1. Go to battle.net > Diablo III > Forums > General Discussion
2. Search for "auction house"
3. Sort by date
4. Navigate to post page 4,651
5. Read posts, working your way back toward page 1 (or at least get to post page 4,600)
6. [sarcasm] Come back here and tell us players didn't get what they asked for [/sarcasm]

Players didn't ask for the loot tables to be changed so you're encouraged to go to the AH thus removing the fun of actually finding loot.

Originally posted by zymurgeist
They gave players what many asked for and got crucified for it. Now players are screaming bloody murder because the "economy" is collapsing.  ARPG's shouldn't have economies. If you want to enjoy the game don't use the auction houses. It was never necessary. It just takes longer. Now the big push by players is to make the game even less challenging. Another bad idea.

When did players ask to lose the fun of finding loot valuable to themselves due to the randomizing of the loot tables done in a way to drive players to the AH?

Nice to hear the lead game designer admit what mant of us have been saying, and some refused to admit.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Paradigm68

Offering many styles of game play.

One of the things that always baffled me in mmo culture is the common theme of  "Since I don't like that particular gamestyle/gameplay, it shouldn't be in my game!"  I understand that complaint in a regular video game where the scope of play is generally narrow as a default of the type of game the desingners made, but it doesn't make sense in an MMO, where you want as many people playing in as many ways as possible to provide the real depth of an MMO: Community.

For example, I'm not into crafting. But I want a game with as rich, complex, interesting and intelligent as possible because  I want the people who do like that, in my game. Those people in my game make my game more fun to be in.  Same goes for every other mmo dynamic.

 

Nah .. it is more like "since i don't like that gameplay, i don't care if it is in my game".

And why would people who like something else make it more fun? It is not like you are going to group with them to craft.

I've seen plenty of posts of people arguing against including game mechanics they don't like in the game, especially things like crafting or housing, even though they wouldn't be required to craft or have a house. It often is "Since I don't like that particular gamestyle/gameplay, it shouldn't be in my game!"

To me an MMORPG is a world simulator and to that end I like having many different kinds of people in the gameworld, playing many different kinds of ways. It fills the game out, it provides depth. Grouping is hardly the only reason to interact with other players. As the point of the post is asking, playing an MMORPG where everyone is doing the same thing lacks depth.

Offering many styles of game play.

One of the things that always baffled me in mmo culture is the common theme of  "Since I don't like that particular gamestyle/gameplay, it shouldn't be in my game!"  I understand that complaint in a regular video game where the scope of play is generally narrow as a default of the type of game the desingners made, but it doesn't make sense in an MMO, where you want as many people playing in as many ways as possible to provide the real depth of an MMO: Community.

For example, I'm not into crafting. But I want a game with as rich, complex, interesting and intelligent as possible because  I want the people who do like that, in my game. Those people in my game make my game more fun to be in.  Same goes for every other mmo dynamic.

Originally posted by zwei2

Originally posted by Loktofeit

The evolution of the RPG part has been happening since CRPGs started. I agree that the MMO part has been evolving as well, but it's possible it looks like the RPG part has been stagnant  because we reject the evolution as not even being an RPG.

The core 'RPG' functionality diverges a good bit as advancement - the main aspect of most RPGs - takes various forms.

• player skill (ex:Puzzle Pirates, Vindictus)
• character skill(ex:EQ, WOW,LOTRO)
• world story(ex:SWTOR,LOTRO)
• player story(ex:UO, EVE)
• social status(ex:Furcadia, Kaneva, Sociolotron)

What you have describe about rejecting the evolution makes sense. Perhaps this is part of the reason why anything considered "innovative" is trashed hard by players who believe it is not to be expected in a RPG, thus ended up stalling the whole MMORPG line, while the rest of the MMO series have free reign because there is no angry mob to stop them from branching out to different paths.

The rpp portion has atrophied and will fall off like a vestigal limb.  While players are indeed free to rpg as much as they like, the environments in which to do so have become less and less encouraging for rp. For me, mmorpg's were world simulators the way flight sim games were flight simulators. And the expectaion was that over time that simulation would become deeper, richer and have more fidelity. More immersive. That didn't happen. Instead the world simulation was deemphasized.  Now mmorpg's are no longer wold simulators, they're just video games. Which isn't necessarily bad, unless you wanted a simulator.

They need to finish implementing WIS. People who're happy without it, are already playing. If you want to broaden the playerbase, they need to broaden the scope of the game so it's not just flying spaceships. Give people not interested in that an option of filling out the game in other roles, spending their time in other ways.  I know a lot of EvE fans don't want it. I don't even want it, but we're talking about how to attract new people. And I personally like having different people with different playstyles in my game as it makes it a broader and deeper gameworld to play in. Implement WIS and broaden the scope of the game

Originally posted by Elikal

Originally posted by Paradigm68

This is a tweet from SimCity: "We have no intention of offlining SimCity any time soon but we'll look into that as part of our earning back your trust efforts."

So yes that sounds likr it is possible. Probably around when the revenue stream from the online community dries up, they'll relase a standalonge patch/client to wring out some more earnings.

We look into it, PR bla bla for: We have your money, kthxbye.

Oddly enough, I wish it were 'we have your money, kthxbye' that would be the offline people are asking for. Problem is it's we have your money, now we're going to force you to stick around so we can nickle/dime you.

Originally posted by Wighty

"We are building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way; to get to a higher level," said EA CFO Blake Jorgensen. "And consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of business."

This is why SimCity has always on internet connection. It's not anti-piracy drm. Its because every costumer who buys the game and isn't connected is potential lost revenue. Just like with Diablo 3. Sure you may not use the RMAH but the chance of you using it is a lot higher if you are connected than if you're not connected at all.

There is no benefit to the player at all with the always on connection required by these games. Just restrictions to gameplay and an opportunity to spend more money.

This is a tweet from SimCity: "We have no intention of offlining SimCity any time soon but we'll look into that as part of our earning back your trust efforts."

So yes that sounds likr it is possible. Probably around when the revenue stream from the online community dries up, they'll relase a standalonge patch/client to wring out some more earnings.

"There are a number of ideas for how to address this long term that don't include removing the auction house outright"

At least they acknowledge the AH is a cause of the problem.

Originally posted by FARGIN_WAR

Can't say I'm very much suprised. Don't very much care as Maxis lost me as a customer back when they released the ridiculously content gutted, yet mysteriously still full priced The Sims 3.

However I do have to ask how this kind of so called protection saves these companies any money. Sure they will probably stop people from pirating their game, but what about the added development cost of extra personnel to create and maintain the servers, which will have to continue to be maintained the entire lifespan of the game, and the inevitable flood of angry support tickets and calls the support staff have to handle when things like the server queues happen.

In my personal experience people who pirate affordable items such as games and music never intended to become a customer in the first place so these DRM measures do not effect them. Sadly however actual customers who feel they are being asked to jump through pointless hoops to play a game they've already payed for have a high potential to become ex-customers.

It isn't about anti-piracy. It's about keeping customers connected to their network so they can be marketed to and sold to. Just like Diablo 3. Every offline player represents potential lost revenue. Even if the players want to play standalone, force them to be connected so there is a chance they may buy something from the cash shop.  The days of buying a game are ending. You're purchasing a temporary seat in the publisher's store.

Originally posted by Skooma2
The OP makes a point, albeit unintentionally, that you can never really catch up to those who have been around a long time.  And, that is what is keeping me from even trying the game.   I wouldn't join a marathon where all the other runners have had a 15 mile head start.

The mistake you're making is in thinking of it as one 15 mile race. That is not accurate. Think of it more as twenty 1 mile races. Yes, people who've played longer than you will have more completed races than you, but in each particular race, not always so far ahead.