If you really want to see what true gouging looks like, take a gander at the genre of MMORTS.

I assure you, you'll never see people spend more money on a game than that. I remember playing one years ago. Clash of the Kingdoms, and there were people dropping thousands of dollars at a time for CHANCES at premium generals, premium mounts, weapons, etc, and then spending even MORE money on things like exp bonuses, build rate bonuses, build space, etc.

Seriously, if you want to see how much WORSE it can be, take a leap over to www.koramgame.com and try it out (it's "free" to play, in the sense that if you want ANYTHING good, you'll be spending money, period)

How can Final Fantasy 14 not be on this list?

Name me any other game that was so mediocre that the game company had to buy-back it's own product to prevent people from using it. Then they had a formal written apology to their fans, fired the entire dev team, re-hired a new development team, and had to essentially re-make their game for the last 2 years (after the initial 4 years of development) to make it a (hopefully) on-par title (not even an exceptional game).

There's really not a game that comes to mind that failed that badly. The only reason it's even still possible is because SE refuses to let their flagship title fail. 

Other than that, I'd have to say Vanguard, or Age of Conan. They were absolutely abysmal.

I liked this editorial a lot.

I think in today's day and age, people are far more prone to video game addiction. With growing economic disparities affecting people on a global scale, one of the few mediums of entertainment that hasn't really fluctuated in price too dramatically has been the video game industry.

A good night out can cost you hundreds of dollars. For a lot of folks, especially the younger demographics (who typically can only work minimum wage-jobs), spending hundreds of dollars going out can be daunting. However, for $59.99, possibly less given the free-to-play popularity surge in the past few years, you have access to a game/games that have near-endless replay value. Couple that with a serious digitalization of social interaction (Facebook, Twitter, Skype, etc), some people essentially PREFER interacting with people via the comfort of their own homes and via headset to socializing. When you take all that into mind, I think it's a lot easier to get really passionately involved in games, especially those as time-consuming as MMORPG's.

While I would say I'm far from an addict, I definitely do use video games as a social medium. I met several friends via games over the years, many of whom I've ultimately met up with in real life! Most of us have grown out of certain genres and play styles, and we've kept in touch. But there have been a handful who ultimately just got enveloped by games/a certain game. A regular person who used to play Diablo 3 with me many years ago got so obsessed with trading and gold-selling and MFing that he'd be playing legitimately 14 hours a day. He failed out of school,quit his job, and essentially doesn't even eat sometimes. It's sad because you can't communicate to these people that "it's just a game dude..."

I suspect there will be studies on this more in the coming years as well, especially given the rising popularity of competitive gaming (such as the LoL tourneys, DotA2 tourneys, etc)

I personally think the biggest thing holding this game back is that people WANTED Final Fantasy 11: Part 2.

They wanted a game with similar classes, but an upgrade to combat, server-responsiveness (ala no 56k cap), graphical upgrades, new storylines, etc etc.

What they GOT was a corner-cutting, half-assed, nobody-asked-for-these-"upgrades" bastardization of their beloved franchise.

It's a problem you see more and more and more these days. Companies take a perfectly good game, and try to re-invent the wheel. What seems to always happen is that they make "changes" that the original fanbase hates, in turn, alienating those players. But then the new features don't appeal to new players either, because they attribute a certain playstyle with that game genre.

I think it's a problem you can see more and more with AAA titles.

FFXI -> FFXIV

Diablo 2 -> Diablo 3

Planetside -> Planetside 2

Dragon Age -> Dragon Age 2

When you mix these horrid changes (like the leve system; the single worst idea in MMO history) with terrible coding/a bad development team, the hands-down worst release in the history of MMORPG's, and then have to publicly apologize for just how bad your game is.... well, that'll keep a LOT of folks from even going near your game, no matter how many times you re-vamp it.

Originally posted by jcdenton2k

I'm certain you didn't read the article, just judging by your first paragraph. If you did, you managed to misunderstand the article, and include personal trolling, rather than real replies. Zzzzzzzz.

There are some really good, well-thought-out posts here.

However, I'd just like to say, to the particularly angry, aggressive, hostile posters in the thread. This is an editorial. It's my perception of things. I realize that we're obviously blessed to have so many video game historians, as evident by this thread, however, this is not a scientific feature. I'm not here to do an in-depth, empirically-sound article. If that's what you're looking for, you're going to drive yourself into a frenzy. 

Opinion piece, people!

I just wanted to chime in because I could actually feel some people's blood pressure elevating in this thread!

Originally posted by kaiser3282

On the other hand we have WoW. Lets see at $15 a month x approx 10m subs = Thats $150m per month. $1.8 billion per year, just sin subs alone. That not even account for their own cash shop as well as the cost of expansions (likely another couple hundred million per year average, bringing them to around $2 billion or more per year). Theyre making piles of money, yet are still charging the same fee as they did when the game was brand new. They could easily get by and make a shitload of money at half that cost, yet you dont see that happening after all these years. Id consider that to be greed more than anything else.

To be fair, Blizzard is a part of Activision now. Activision is run by one of the biggest tyrants in the industry.

Google "Robert Kotick". Read up on him. Or read here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128252

Originally posted by Yavin_Prime

I agree with what you're saying but at some point I have to draw the line. Star Trek Online, my current haunt is F2P and the community seems stable. I'm even in a very active Fleet (guild) with friends I've had since launch... these are the closest freinds I've had in an online game since Ultima Online or the first version of Star Wars Galaxies.

 

F2P is just another evolution in the gaming world. Before F2P there was just Subscription. Before Subscription there was just SInge Player or Multiplayer/LAN. Before that it was Pen and Paper games. In another 5 or 10 years you'll be complaining about the next big evolution in gaming. If you want a community you need to build it. As you said there are always going to be trolls, ragers, and flamers. Build your social walls, type /ignore, and have some fun meeting people like yourself who want to enjoy their favorite game (be it F2P or P2P).

 

The better title to your article would be, Greed is killing Gaming.

 

In my opinion, greed and free-to-play go hand-in-hand. As others said, there's no such thing as "free", no matter how well it's designed.

F2P "evolved" in my mind because developers said to themselves "Why get $12.95 a month from 200,000 people when we could snatch up anywhere from $5-100 a month from MILLIONS of players?"

Originally posted by Gruug

I agree with the article up to a point. Not quite 100% but close. I think that F2P is the worst thing for gaming and in the end will kill most quality titles from ever reaching any kind of audience. Why? Because F2P is meant to be marketed to "everyone" and not be great for anyone. Companies want to get as many people to come play so that they can get a FEW to pay. I would rather have a good quality game that I pay for up front rather then a ho-hum game that is diluted for the masses.

Of course, f2p is a lie. It is not free.....someone HAS TO PAY for it to survive. And if some pays, it can't be free.

 

 

This is a really good example, in my mind, of my thoughts on this subject.

Let's compare gaming to fire. In my opinion, F2P games burn like wildfires; they have no real direction, eat up as much area as possible in a short time, and blanket whole areas. There's no real direction or focus, it picks up with the wind, carries it in different directions towards different people, and after awhile, it becomes contained. P2P games burn like controlled fires; they can start off small, and their direction and size can be dictated and directly influenced via interaction. It's easier to limit damages and direction of the fire, and similar to a bonfire, you can pick who is involved (to a degree) and how many people get to see it.

Like Gruug said, F2P caters to EVERYONE. As a result, it saps any sense of originality or unique aspects right out of a title, because anything I might like, someone else might NOT like. It butchers creativity and innovation, because if the companies take a risk that people don't like, their customers leave in droves for the next best thing. F2P reminds me, in a sense, of a blue-chip stock. Nothing new, stay-with-what-works, little gains here and there but nothing substantial.

P2P can be catered towards very specific niches in the market. Eve Online is a great example; the community is essentially player-run, and has a very set and established group of players who have been around for YEARS! I'd dare to say it has one of the most established communities ever created in an MMORPG. It's tried multiple new things, but it stays true to it's loyal and dedicated fans, relying on the product to sell itself, moreso than a cash shop to fund it's development.

These factors are reasons why I'm not a fan of F2P. I like feeling cared about and special in my games! Hahaha. I don't like being "Oh, well, there's another number....". When I'm paying for my game monthly, I know that I'm not only paying for it, but I'm funding the contiual development of a game I enjoy, a team that I feel is on the right track, and an atmosphere I want to be a part of. It's like a cover charge at a club, really. In a sense, just by slapping "P2P" on a title, you're weeding out a lot of players off the bat (the ones who won't pay to play, who can't for whatever reason, etc)

Also, a key point I didn't touch on specifically has been mentioned by a few of you. It's the attitude of developers that does have a lot to do with this as well. For any of you who want a glimpse into what kind  of person some of the gaming industry's largest CEO's are like, I recommend this read: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128252

Originally posted by Dihoru

"Who can blame gamers, after titles like Final Fantasy XIV, Star Wars Galaxies, Dragon Age II, Call of Duty: Black Ops"

So let me get this straight you're saying Star Wars The Old Wallet Rape is better than Star Wars Galaxies (even post-NGE) ? Dear God Sir remove your cranium from your boss's rectal orifice,  your site is losing more credibility by the day defending the TORtanic.

I'm still reading through comments, but you seem to mis-read my post.

Let me clarify for everyone in this thread: I DID mean to say Star Wars Galaxies.

Let me explain this. SW:toR, to me, was nothing epic or revolutionary. I only ever played it a handful of times in beta and at friends' houses before I decided I hated the game. SWG, on the other hand, despite all it's flaws, was fun for me. The community was absolutely AMAZING, because it consisted of dedicated MMORPG players, and Star Wars Fanatics who, no matter how bad the game was, were determined to enjoy it. For anyone who ever hated on SWG, you never went to a lively cantina, you never stumbled across a campsite where you made friends out on foreign planets, you never got to be a part of the limitless planet exploration. For all the things that SWG did wrong (see: just about everything) the game did succeed in one aspect; it had a soul. People interacted, talked, role-played even. There was a community of players who, despite the boundaries of inferior programming, bug-testing, and optimizing, managed to make an atmosphere that was still tolerable.

If you're one to disagree with the notion that SWG did do some things well, that's fine, as I stated that in the article. However, please don't read my article, and then bring in totally unrelated, irrelevant hatred of SW:toR.

I'll continue posting as I read through this :)

I generally feel that bases could be 20% smaller, and it would be more feasible to navigate too.

Some of these bases arte just outrageously gigantic for a 5 minute capture-and-hold. You'll spend half of that time just walking between points.

One thing I didn't touch on yet was MAXes, and that's because I want to give them a bit more time to touch on them. Considering my favorite aspect of the original Planetside was that of "MAX Crashing", and my favorite unit was the Dual-Cycler MAX for the TR, I would say they're incredibly underwhelming thus far.

However, there have been slews of patch changes, incorporating additional content. I'm going to wait and see if any adjustments are made in the next month, and depending on the action/inaction, I'll re-touch on that aspect of the game.

I do apologize for not being more "new player friendly", however, I wanted to leave some basic research up to the readers :)

Originally posted by Po_gg

F2P won't 'kill gaming', only changing it. 'Only', in huge brackets.

And it's not even some a sudden change, it's quite logical: the playerbase is changing, so the industry follows it. Sure, this change won't be good for us, older ones, but they don't really care... As time goes, we're going slowly out of the market, and the new kids won't mind microtransaction, or f2p, or (sadly) the pay-to-win concept. Actually they're almost 'trained' for it, that they can buy anything right away, and for only a small price (music, xbox marketplace, psn store, etc)

 

But not that's what I wanted to comment, sorry Derek but I laughed at the piracy part so much :) No wonder the first comment by montin was a correction to it right away. What you mentioned with DRM's was the exact opposite, maybe that was the only era where the publishers were able somewhat to fought back.

Piracy was there at Speccy, it was _huge_ at the Commodore era (heck, I could count on one hand the original C64 programs I saw during the 80's), then the BBS's in the early 90's, then with the www. introduction piracy literally exploded... A buddy of mine was a retailer then, with ties to the publishers, the selling numbers were sad... (at least in Eu). Same with the consoles :I

So "Digital piracy had migrated from just music to movies and then to video games." is a  really funny statement...

Well, I can only go off of what I've experienced and witnessed first-hand in relation to this. 

Unfortunately, this is a specific instance of age bearing down on my insight. To my credit, I did specifically say I wasn't sure when it started, but I PERSONALLY started to take notice of it with the peer-to-peer sharing programs, like Kazaa and Napster and such.

Originally posted by itsneo

Originally posted by rumpleman

Ugg... why does everything have to be so absolute?

 

"Free to play is killing gaming", "this game is dead", or "that game failed".

When in all actuality, lots of people are gaming. Some would argue that there are more gamers than ever before. And those games that people often quote as "dead" or have "failed" are still making money or they wouldn't be online.

 

Just because "you" don't like a particular game or aspect of a game, does not mean the sky is falling. If you want things to change, make a stand and stop spending money on the games you dislike.

 

/endrant

edited typo's

I agree with this statement, F2P is not the enemy.. we are.  The problem is not the buisness model, its the player base.  WE force the companies into being more creative with their buisness models because WE are more choosy, we have more games than ever to dedicate our gaming time to.  WE have other finacial responsiblities, WE are more and more becoming more demanding, have more expectations, some unrealistic.    WE, the gaming community sub-culture as a whole are the issue here.  WE are killing games.   WE are all as unique as the next fellow in game genre's, gaming playstyle, preferences, likes and dislikes and, frankly, now that there are MILLIONS of gamers, and for this conversation I am going to exclude console gamers as, well, this is MMORPG.COM.. so we will stick to MMO's, WE have come to expect ALL our demands be met or we simply move on to the next game.  

I might add, I am rather disappointed in this article, it's poorly written.  The examples used to justify your opinion are weak and in all honesty, self-saticfying.   I mean.. The Sims?  Who even played that?  Kidding, I know allot of people did, it was a distraction from other MMO's when one was needed, like SL, or IMVU, or some other SOCIAL, and or REAL LIFE/VIRTUAL LIFE line blurring games are.  

Look, Free to PLay is not the enemy, subscription based business models are no longer the BEST models to use, Cash Shops, Pay for Power, or Pay to Win, how ever you wish to coin it, is here to stay.   This article would be better served if you were not forcing your opinion on us as fact.  You failed.    And I wont even begin to touch on my personal choice of business model because I'd like to think it varies.    BUT..   if given the choice I would have to say it is totally dependant on the title.    Allow me to elaborate;

Lets take a title like the recently released Guild Wars 2, and its predecessor Guild Wars 1.  Here is a business model that clearly has worked, pay for the game, no sub fees, pay for expansions, and a cash shop you CAN  use if you so desire for consumables, social items etc...    While I PERSONALLY think this is a great model, and perhaps even IDEAL, I would like to say that a PERFECT model in my view would include the above with an OPTIONAL subscription.  Subscribing has its bennifits, so I would hope there'd be some real advantage to subbing to a game with this model, say, sub based content, or items, exp buffs, etc.. 

Now, lets look at the subscription only model, keeping it recent,  games like Rift, WoW (yes I know wow is free for 20 levels, so is Rift), TSW, etc..  All pay for client, pay for subscription, and pay in cash shops.  All fine and dandy untill you burn through all the content and get bored, a new title is released, cancel sub, play new title, get bored, and re-sub to your favorite game.    Lets be frank.. While wow may be the king of subcriber accounts, it was NOT king of the mmo's, if one uses percentages, wow may have had the largest number of subscribed accounts, but it also has the largest percentage of canceled subbed accounts as well.  Simply because of its numbers.    But my point in bringing this up is only to show that subbed based business models are not always the best way to keep your players long term.  

Next, lets look at the Free to Play model, and the massive number of titles in the business model, and lol, all the titles that have converted to it  from a sub based model, those that are about to (swtor, AoC, and Aion are just 3 examples) .  I use these three because I subbed to all of them at one point.  There are also a slew of titles upcomming that will be FREE to PLAY..   Why?  An attempt to KILL the gaming industry?  LOL come on..   the only thing that can kill the industry would be we all stop playing games, and that's not likely to ever happen, even as we grow older, we, er I at over 40, are still gaming.  And younger generations are joining in on the fun.  Free to Play just opens the doors to more and more gamers, who, perhaps do not have the cash for subscriptions but do, perhaps from time to time have a few extra bucks they can sink into a cash shop or micro-transaction shop as they are better known as in the industry, for some gear or consumables, or bag expansions, what have you.

I do not claim to be a profesional writer, nor is my spelling all that accurate, and lacking a spell checker in this forum post, pretty sure you will find many.  Nor to I claim to be an expert in the gaming industry, I do however claim to be a gamer, and as a true gamer, perhaps old-school gamer, business model means absolutley NOTHING to me..  What matters, and what should matter is whether or not I enjoy the game, that is what will keep me playing.  If I am no longer challenged, I move on.   Hell I paid over a 100 bucks for all of WoW's expansion, bought 6 months of game time, and I played 2 weeks.  Did I give it a fair chance? Perhaps not, but no game that lets me go from level 1 to 85 in three solid days is worth my time.  And I am not singling out WoW here, so fan boys and haters need not troll, but its true of ANY title..   Sorry TSW, loved the game, just blew through it too fast, same is true with swtor, and many other titles.  

In closing, articles like this, frustrate me, passing one's opinion off as fact is, well, shameful. The FACT is, we are all very different, and the opinions on this subject are as varied as we are unique.  I do not believe that any one opinion, be it mine, or anyone ones will be the answer to the gaming industry woes.  The Fact is, some people do not like to pay subscriptions, some perfer it thinking they get ALL the game has to offer for a montly fee, some like a mix, some like Box Priced games with no subs and a cash shop to support the developers and still, some prefer a mix of all three.   There is no industry killing business model.  There is however game killing players who move on for lack of .. well content, a game that keeps their attention, and I have been at this a loong time, very looooong time.   I can say with some certainty, no matter the business model, if you love a game, you stay and play, if you get bored and move on to other games , you WILL come back to the one game you loved most, provided it is still online.    Lets put the game killing chat behind us and own up to our own faults first.  WE are the game killers.  

 

thanks all.  cheers.

In regards to the GW2 business model vs the Rift business model, I would argue strongly against your claims that it is ideal.

When you are subscribing to a game, you are paying not only for the game, access to it, etc, you are also paying for customer service. Perhaps you haven't explored the G2 forums across the web as much, but you should. There are rampant claims of botting and hacking taking place, all because there is a minimalist approach to stopping it. Similar issues could be noted in games like Diablo 3, where hacking and botting had run rampant for months. While it's true that the GW2 and D3 teams are doing what they can to combat these problems, the lack of an in-game game moderator allows these to carry on until their CSR tickets are resolved. In the case of D3, botting is so profitable that people and botting groups went on record via youtube, claiming they owned 50-100 botting accounts which were effectively paying for themselves.

This is not to say such exploits do not occur in P2P games; anyone who ever suffered through the travesty of Age of Conan can certainly tell you about exploits. Indeed, it is the failure of the P2P games that, in my opinion, has given rise largely to the F2P business model; you can't charge for a service you aren't providing.

By comparison though, the F2P model has produced large-scale fronts of cheating, botting, hacking, etc. If you need any proof, simply search the forums for many of the top F2P games. There are exceptions to the rule, of course. You rarely hear about cheating in League of Legends, DotA2, or the MOBA genre (as it's monitored more tightly, IMO, and games in served in session rather than continuous)

As for games switching from P2P to F2P, they aren't trying to kill the gaming industry. It's a matter of basic economics. While the games aren't as popular as they were, they still have a decent sized playerbase. Rather than closing up shop and folding, those games can still generate revenue. But let's not be fooled; those games aren't bringing anything new to the table anymore either. They're on life-support, fighting to stay competitive and popular. Funding those games with the F2P model isn't going to evolve the industry, it stagnates it by letting titles that couldn't match up staying on the marketplace.

Perhaps my biggest gripe with F2P is the community aspect. When you're paying for something, you're going to be more involved with it. Look at how many F2P MMORPG are out there. Did you make any lasting friendships in those games? Do you feel like you're involved with your server? No. And you won't. Because people can come and go freely with little-to-no regard for the other players in the game. P2P games like Final Fantasy 11 and Eve Online, in my opinion, were the finest community-driven MMORPGs ever made. You were paying to play the game, but more importantly, to be a part of the community it brought. And that's an element I have yet to see *ANY*  F2P game even come close to recreating thus far.

Originally posted by Lithuanian

Of course, f2p is to blame. It is f2p that has done every single evil in history since Adam and Eve (for sure, Devil was f2p...). If not f2p, there would be no evil, no bad games, no half-done games, no rude players, no scamming, no gold-farming at all.

The author is terribly wrong on two main topics:

1) focusing on Sims and some 2 other games. Looks like there are more online games than 3 on the market and errors of "Sims" are not necesserily errors of all other games. That is, if John is blonde Lithuanian and he instantly forgets where his glasses are - does it mean all blonde Lithuanian males instantly forget where their glasses are?

2) author has not played any other MMORPG except ones he mentioned. I would like to invite him to play some titles. First example - Istaria. No cash shop, no pay-to-win. You may win with Human race and without plot and every single item is obtainable in-game: most crafted, some - looted from monsters. I also would like to invite the author to the Lord of the rings online: you may purchase xp boosts, mounts...explansion packs by grinding for Turbine points. You may enjoy their shop without spending a cent - Turbine points only. Of course, you are more than encouraged and reminded about being "VIP", but you can bypass it.

The author also does not see (i.e. does not want to see) bad games that were either P2P or B2P.  It's just F2P that is bad.

Finally, the author makes another logical mistake: he fails to see difference between f2p and p2w. Explaining: if player can enjoy full game content without paying in real cash, it is free-to-play; if player cannot enjoy full game content without paying real cash - it's pay-to-win.  Example: in game A, player can go anywhere, do any quest for free (however, player can be of limited race or have no personal house) - game A. is f2p. In game B player can't go anywhere, do some quests (player may also be limited in housing), but he may "unlock" anything with in-game currency/points - game B still is free-to-play. in game C, player can't go anywhere, do some quests, may also be limited in housing, but he may "unlock" anything with real currency - game C is pay-to-win.

These are not only inaccurate, but unfounded assumptions to make. You're blatantly discounting the fact that is is part 1 of this series. To say I haven't played other games could be verified with the basic browsing of this site.

I'd like to really request that if you're going to hate on the piece, by all means, pick it apart for what it IS, not what it ISN'T.

Hello all!

I just had some time to read through all the comments, and I'd like to touch base on a few general points.

1) This is part one of a multi-part article. I'm attempting to start off with some background information, history, and personal experiences with F2P, DLC, "pay2win", etc etc. I noticed a few of you were particularly hostile, and seemingly even offended by this. However, please be patient and recognize that, for many gamers out there, they haven't had the years or the experience of gaming that you may have. Background and history is necessary in order to get to the present!

2) This article will continue to grow and evolve. Check back frequently.

3) The title was designed to be catchy... it seems to be working well :)

4) I'm really pleased with the level of discussion this article has brought about, and will be typing a more in-depth reply to certain posts tomorrow/the next few days (I'm still working on a different piece atm)

5) This is an editorial; it is opinion-based, though I am doing what I can to incorporate facts, history, and background to supplement my opinion. 

With that all said, please keep posting, and I'll be back to post in this article in the next few days :)

Derek C.

Originally posted by AdamTM

Originally posted by Cymdai

snipped

5. i agree that the game is buggy as shit

6. ground vehicle control needs a lot of work

7. there is a dropdown menu for chat next to the text-box, also you can go into the squad menu and there into communications submenu to join specific channels.

8. the developers have stated they will not add any red outlines on enemies as they want to teach you the visual recognition of enemy infantry and vehicles just like in a real combat situation.

All 3 factions have very distinct outlines and visuals to highlight that.

Also adding outlines on enemies would completely invalidate camo-paint.

9. Radar is combined by your LOS, your squads LOS, radar, facility radar and other friendlies LOS.

Because vehicles have larger hitboxes, usually they are always spotted by someone or something.

You can also spot enemies with a radial menu on the Q key as well as give commands with it.

10. terrain needs work.

11. cloakers knifing: there is a cert for that.

12. IA is only a way to quickly deploy yourself into the general area of interest when you log in, its not supposed to work as a way to strategically reinforce an assault or defense, it would make sunderers and galaxies obsolete and pointless.

This is still a problem, in my opinion, currently. In particular, it is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge pain in the ass to try and see the NC in a lot of the bases, because the walls and banners and computers are blueish. I've run right past NC guys repeatedly because they are so non-descript in comparison to say, the TR, who stick out like sore thumbs. Perhaps some compromise could be reached, where close-quarters combat has a faint glow aorund them or something.

The radar really does need a smaller scope though. While I get what they were going for with being able to see what your team can see, I'd like a more "relevant" rader. I.e. I don't need the red triangles marking enemies 800m away. Put those enemies on the map, but leave them off the radar so that I can just focus on immediate/proximal threats, not distant ones that aren't even factors just yet.

As I understood it, the NDA was lifted recently...?

Correction: It was lifted 3 weeks ago.

Source: http://www.planetside2forum.com/threads/1041-PlanetSide-2-Beta-NDA-is-now-lifted

Hello there, I just recently got into the beta and I wanted to take a second to write out my review of this game after the first day. Review isn't really the right word... it's more of a "Here are the IMMEDIATE things that caught my eye.

Day 1

The +'s:
- The game is utterly gorgeous. I had no framerate issues, though occasionally I would see someone skipping around a lot.
- I like the way vehicles work. I don't like how impossible it is for me, as a new player, to do anything about vehicles.
- The iron sights are definitely awesome. Kudos.
- I like the instant action button a lot; traveling takes forever, and being able to just warp to fights is a great feature.
- I actually LIKE the class system. It prevents one-man wrecking crews, which is lovely.
- Hit detection is pretty spot on.
- I like that MAX's are actually terrifying now; no more "Lolz I have 3 decimators AND a minigun" nonsense

The -'s
- I have a very, very hard time identifying friendly units from enemy units. Especially the NCR; I can barely see them in a lot of situations.
- I literally can't make any sense of the map. I legitimately cannot see anything on the map, I can barely see my icon for it, and in general, I get lost a LOT when using the map (especially in buildings)
- I am not sure yet, but did I see that it requires HUNDREDS of cert points to get unlocks? Is that like a straight month of playing for a Tier 1 upgrade...? I don't know if I read it wrong, but it looked like I needed 500 for an armor upgrade...
- I don't know how to chat with anyone other than the /say and the /squad options.
- Sometimes, my vehicle just seems to flip upside down and explode. And this happened a lot >.>
- Buggy physics can be frustrating when trying to climb a mountain.

I'll update this thread with more thoughts as I continue to play today <img data-cke-saved-src="http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" src="http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" mcesmilie8"="" alt=":D" title="Big Grin :D">

Day 2

This won't be as bullet-pointed, but these are things I wanted to discuss more in-deph.

Firstly, I really can't stress enough how aggravating and stressful the map system is in this game. I legitimately *cannot* use the map to navigate inside of bases. I'm playing on max settings at 1920 by 1200, and even ALL the way zoomed in, I still can't make out what's what. I also hate that there isn't an auto-run button; why is that? As overly-large as the world is, is aan auto-run key out of the question? Also, the map needs to be scaled down a bit in scope, maybe by 35 percent. I understand that massive battles are the game's calling card... but that's exactly why players don't want to spend 3 minutes walking between fights, dying, respawning, and walking ANOTHER 3 minutes. This is actually my largest source of burnout in the game; the painstaking amount of walking around I do in this game without any actual action is mind-numbing. I'd also imagine this gets EXTREMELY tiring the more you play the game, as this is my second day and I'm already exhausted of all the walking.

Next, I want to touch on how painful it is to identify enemies and friendlies. On the one hand, you have the colored triangles above people's heads. However, the range on this is entirely too far; why am I seeing vehicles through full mountain passes, or enemies over 500 meters away? This needs to be adjusted by class, giving them variable radar ranges. Secondly, the triangles are entirely too small, and in large fights, they're actually distracting and can lead to friendly-fire incidents. Enemies needs to appear as an entirely different color at close range. For example, give TR players DISTINCTIVE red outlines, give NC players DISTINCTIVE blue outlines, and give VS players DISTINCTIVE purple outlines. Using red and blue triangles, when there are red and blue teams... this is just a simple logistical error. Radars also need to have their range reduced to roughly 40 meters for infantry, and 80 meters for vehicles. The point of snipers is that they have that long range... I don't need to see a guy with a heavy machine gun spotting me from 400 away, solely because of a Red triangle above my head. To compound this point ever further, it's damn near impossible to use the radar effectively in indoor situations/base assaults, and it needs a total rework for close quarters combat. 

Following up on this, the terrain is downright infuriating quite frequently. I don't enjoy slowly and painfully scaling a hill, only to slide all the way down. I'm a firm believer that, if you don't want someone to go somewhere, then make it totally inaccessible. There's LOTS of paths leading up, yet I find myself hitching and getting stuck on these said paths far too frequently. There's also the matter of getting "stuck" frequently when doing jumps as infantry. I don't want to get started on the random insta-barrel-roll-suicide problem I have encountered while using the ATVs, which seem like gravity-defying, clunky pieces of garbage (no uphill capabilities whatsoever).. I find the terrain navigation mechanics for many of the land vehicles to be borderline game-breaking in their scope.

A huge, HUGE conceptual flaw is the "timers" for base battles. I don't know who drew this up, but they clearly don't understand that PROLONGED, INCHES-GAINED FIGHTS are what make this game fun. Penalizing people for not capturing a big base fast enough is ludicrous, and a blasphemy to the Planetside franchise. Some of the absolute best battle in Planetside 1 took place for HOURS... HOURS! This is because you might capture a tower, but never come close to capturing the base for hours at a time. As a result, you'd have those EPIC 300 v 300 fights raging on. With the current system you can't have these battles. Why? Because if a team doesn't meet the "time limit" for capturing a base, all the progress they made in the last hour is immediately removed by automatically returning said-captured-points to the defending team. I would go as far as to say that players don't WANT this timer, because it essentially handicaps the potential for a large-scale, ongoing battle.. This is a game-breaking, conceptual and developmental flaw.

Other points I want to make, but don't care to expan on a whole lot at this time:

- the game needs a /stuck command; it happens entirely too much to not exist

- MAXes need to be immunue to Snipers. Snipers already have a major advantage against infantry; they shouldn't even be denting a MAX's armor.

- The knife seems beyond buggy. I don't use it anymore because of how oddly unresponsive it feels.

- Cloakers should be able to knife while stealthed. No shooting is fine, but no knifing, really?

- Instant action should have a timer similar to the way the HART used to have; this way, when people IA in, there are meaningful reinforcements on the offensive/defensive side, not just 1-2 scragglers looking for some easy experience points,

I'll post more tomorrow, but this is where I stand presently.

Originally posted by Grahor

I don't understand the problem, people.

 

Lots of farmers = lots of _very cheap_ gold and loot on auction house. Those who have even a little money and don't have patience trying to farm coveted Trousers of Awesomeness with exact stats they need can buy it cheap and are happy. Those who don't want to buy anything and don't use AH are not affected at all and are happy. Farmers earn themeselves a living and are happy. Blizzard gets its cut and is happy. Everyone is happy! Where is the problem?

 

Yeah, you will not be able to become a farmer yourself and get rich selling Trousers of SuperAwesomeness. So, I guess, the demographics of wannabe farmers who are not as industrous as other farmers have a valid reason to complain. But other than that - come on!

 

So, there is going to be a million bots farming 24/7 in a _single player game_. So there is going to be a million Trousers of Awesomeness for sale for $0.01 in the AH. Who _exactly_ is going to be negatively affected by that? Nobody, that's who.

The problem is that I wanted to play my game legitimately, earn my gear by playing the game, and progress with my friends. Even if gear costs $0.01 a piece, guess what, that's $0.01 more cents than I should have to spend in the first place. I don't want to have to spend *any* more money to get gear, period; that's what my $60 was for in the first place.