Originally posted by MightyPit

Originally posted by Koroshiya

if he is against F2p then he is ignorant.

How much money I spent on DAoC?  5 years @ 15 a month = 900 bucks.

I spent about 1/3rd of that in 3 months of GW2, Tera.  I also subbed to Tera AFTER it went f2p because I wouldn't try it until it did.  Lots of people today are moving away from sub based games because NO developer has ever delivered on their full list of promises, yet we still get buggy content, shitty patches and bad balancing all while paying 15 a month.

I think the reality is, he doesn't like F2P because he is scared.  He is scared his game won't hold up to the hype of what DAoC used to be, it won't hold up and he won't make "any" money.  The reality is, people like to be micro-spent to death, I am guilty of this too.  Look at the xbox, ps3 BS that happened at launch.  People cried over how expensive the PS3 was because of its initial price tag, yet when the 360 was bought with all the same compenents it was 100 more... the difference?  PS3 users didn't get to pick and choose what they wanted on their plate, Xbox did.

How does that work in mmo's?  The same way.  If I am spending 15 bucks a month, I won't be spending money on anything else in the game because I feel like you are already getting money, in games like Guild Wars 2, where in reality you can't buy a "win" button I still spent money WEEKLY for other things.  It's sad because the subscription is exactly why I won't play Camelot Unchained.  I think the non sub model is better for players, better for developers (and yes, I worked at SCE for 10 years, Playstation Underground forum handle was Faetyl for anyone who doesn't believe me, I dealt with the online cheating systems and cheat devices with SCERT) so until developers stop trying to earn their paycheck by forcing payment of me monthly, I would rather reward them for allowing me to pick and choose when I want to spend my money.

If they make a game worth my time, ill invest a hundred every 3-4 months in f2p games.  Its sad that just like ToA he is going to miss the boat on the community, and the genre and end up being a game that loses face when it has to switch to f2p 3 months down the road.

While I think that F2P is a accepted business-model and with a big gaming audiance you can make a lot of money with it, I am glad that MJ decided to make a sub-based game.

This are the reasons:

- I played some F2P games. I tend to buy some stuff quite early in the game, even if I stop playinig after a short while. I always regret that I spend the money before. ( I had this feeling never in a subbased game )

- I don't want to have the feeling that the game tries to lure me into the cashshop.

- I want to know that no one in the game has any advantage because he/she is paying more than I.

- A monthly fee of 10 to 15 euro's is easy affordable, and I know that I have the full game experience.

- I assume (just my personal opinion) that f2p games bring gamehopper into the game, which contradicts the vision of a tight social community. However, to hold the players it needs more than a subscription fee. It needs more than in daoc-times, since the possible alternative mmos are vast nowadays.

Perfectly rational and understandable reasoning.  My exact feelings on f2p.

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by JeroKane

 I absolutely loath the F2P model and more and more people are getting turned off by it!

ArenaNet is currently one of the few who has a decent and fair B2P model.

All the other games, including the latest DEFIANCE game, have turned into money grabbing crap games, where all loot is stuffed into lock boxes!

Lockboxes that can also be bought with in-game resources. Don't let facts get in the way of rage, though.

Is that not still money grabbing profit?  Seriously who wants to worry about BS like that.  It takes away from the game world and I would rather pay a cheap monthly sub rate than something considered 'free'.

Originally posted by ice-vortex

It really isn't surpising to see a developer who has not been in the industry for something like 10 years to have a general negative attitude towards f2p. The online gaming industry has changed since Mark Jacobs was actively working within the market. It is heading towards f2p because it is more profitable, but it is still very much only at the beginning stages and the model itself is still being refined to what works and what doesn't. This includes industry veterans like SOE who are moving away from the freemium model towards a fully f2p model with their current games and  Crytek which are just now dipping their toes into the model with Warface.

The market is also heading towards f2p because this is what the market is demanding right now. This is simply a fact that cannot be ignored by anyone hoping to release a new game in the modern market.

The f2p model is especially appealing for MMOs because for an MMO to be successful, it needs a large populace and the ability to constantly bring in a flow of new players to replace ones that leave. If the population of an MMO starts trending downard, it is a cascading effect because people don't want to play in a game that is empty. The price of a box and a monthly fee is a very large barrier for new players.

The f2p model will never be taken seriously by big game companies who can provide us with the quality games we've been lacking.  F2p is not ever free and you can't have a true and equal MMO based on a f2p model.  Sure it might be fun for some people, but it won't ever be a real MMO the way they were intended to be.  Honestly 14$ a month is chump change and MMOs cost a high maintenance fee, so I don't feel any conflict with paying the fee.  I would rather level the playing field by paying a 14$ monthly fee (the cost of a movie ticket in one night) versus playing a mediocre quality game for free with certain people having advantages due to paying for them.  If you really look at it, f2p games cost much more in the end and usually have a less than desirable quality.

Originally posted by TribeofOne

Everquest 2 has some of the Ugliest character models around.

 

Painful flashbacks.  My vote goes to EQ2.  I really had forgotten how bad they were...

Originally posted by BowbowDAoC

its only for kickstarters funders, once KS ends, i assume it'll never be available afterwards.

its a nice way to thank the backers.

Exactly what I was going to say.  I doubt it would be an option during pre release or launch.  It's more of a dedication reward for those who helped get it started.

Originally posted by Myria

Originally posted by fallenlords

At last the genre has taken a step forward - here we have an MMO releasing on all major gaming platforms and coinciding with a TV series release.   The scope of what is trying to be achieved here is massive compared to what has been done recently. 

 

I am playing the beta on Xbox and loving it, no major issues apart from a bit of lag during an Arkfall event.  All things considered it's a top game.  Of course PC players might feel short changed to the technology limitations of the current batch of consoles. And the game in itself  is a typical MMO - but really its kudos to Trion and Syfy for the convergence of the technologies and media.

 

Next step should be an MMO with cross platform integration - but I doubt that will ever happen.   Perhaps it's not a bad thing to keep console and PC players apart.

I guess I just don't get it. My expectations for the TV show tie-in are low, extremely low, I just don't see how this is ever going to really be a big deal. Meet the main characters from the TV show in-game? Meh, can't say as I care. They talk about a plague on the TV show and said plague shows up in the game? There are worse ways to introduce elements to a game, I suppose, but there doesn't seem to me to be anything special about that possibility.

I may end up being surprised by the depth of the tie-in, it'd be nice if I am, but I don't see how that's possible. The TV episodes are in the can, the most they can do is have a branch or two filmed -- and with what has to be an expensive production, given the make-up and CGI, not much of that -- and pre-set areas they can green-screen mentions of players onto (like a poster in a bar, or some such). That's about all I can really imagine is reasonably possible. It seems fairly inevitable that most of the tie-in will be mono-directional, and I just don't see it as being particularly interesting for long.

Then again, I've never particularly cared about games whose main draw seems to be playing as, or besides, movie/TV characters. And yet movie/TV tie-in games sell like hotcakes, despite often being the worst of the the worst, game-wise, so maybe it's just me.

As for the multi-console thing. There has already been an MMO with cross-platform integration, quite some time ago. FFXI was available on the PC, PS2 (pre-slim only), and Xbox 360. I'm confused at to why so few seem to be aware of this. Granted, FFXI wasn't huge in the West the way it was in Japan, but it is hardly an unknown game.

With the three versions of Defiance being limited to their own pool, I don't see the multi-platform aspect as being particularly innovative -- it's really quite commonplace these days -- or interesting. I mean, I guess it's nice enough that if you wanted you could get versions for your PC and your consoles, but I can't imagine many doing that (at least not until the game hits to markdown rack, whenever that  might be).

I haven't had a chance to try the Xbox version, but I did try it on the PS3 a bit last night and came away with the feeling that the PC version is maybe getting less hosed by its console port nature than people are assuming. In some respects the PS3 version looked... I dunno, sharper? Yeah, best description I can come up with, the PS3 version looked sharper than the PC version, but the draw distance was horrid compared to the PC version and the detail was quite a lot less.

The audio, not Defiance's strong suit to begin with, was also... Odd, and inferior. Whether that's because it's an older build than I'm used to or they're cutting some corners to get things to run on the PS3, I dunno.

While I'd really like to see the draw distance go out a lot (or, better yet, be adjustable) on the PC version, clearly they're using the PC's extra horsepower at least some there. Mostly where the PC version gets hosed is that horrid console UI.

Thing is, even on a console that UI seems horrid and in a lot of ways odd. Why even bother with a text chat box for a console game, let alone one that so laughably dysfunctional, when almost no one is going to use it anyway? Doesn't make sense to me.

I dunno... Tie-ins have been done to death. Multi-platform, even multi-platform MMOs, have been done. Third person shooters have been done. Not that a game really needs to have any to be fun or successful, but I don't see any innovation in Defiance at all.

Personally this person sounds way too Eeyore too me.  I honestly have never watched Scify channel and don't play FPS.  However, as a PC gamer and a Trion fan I think this is something new that gives off at least an atmosphere of innovative trial.  No other MMO has even tried to do something like this, and Trion deserves their credit.  We certainly have not figured out the actual mechanics of MMO gaming so why be so gloomy about new ideas?

Honestly when you first look at it DAoC seemed to have quite a bit of heavy and mass CC, but honestly as someone else said it really worked with everything put together in battle.  I loved how unique the class in DAoC were and I also enjoy giving players the opportunity to specialize in CC if that's what they enjoy.  The long term and aoe mezzes were pretty aggitating when they happened to you but I didn't ever get the feeling that they were too overpowered.

Just slightly off topic I LOVED the Mid Healer class.  A mix of healing and CC? Best class I've ever played!

I think a large combination of things.  Firstly big name game don't really go one way or the other any more.  Most mainstream games go for PvE with PvP mixed in.  This attracts a certain PvE crowd that has different desires than a mostly PvP player.  I personally enjoyed DAoC's PvE but I have always considered myself more of a PvP player.  Now that games keep both aspects so tightly intertwined it's hard to draw a clear line on what each group of players wants out of it.  Also I think that a lot of people can't handle PvP maturely and are always complaing about balance, nerfs, overpowered, etc.  This puts off game developers into thinking that the PvP crowd isn't necessary as important as the PvE content.

DAoC had some truly amazing PvP and I still look back fondly on the BG's and end game PvP.  Even Archage was fun for a little while until the shallowness of the overall game snuck its way out.  Realm vs Realm and siege based PvP is simply fun, you feel really inspired to be a part of your realm community and I haven't had another experience like it since DAoC.  Hopefully gamers are getting fed up with the low quality trash a lot of companies are putting out these days and we can go back to our roots of being a strong gaming community who got the quality we deserved, not just a company seeing a few dollar signs around our heads.

Originally posted by sweetdigs

DISAGREE!!

Make it a monthly subscription.  No cash house.  No pay to win.  No pay to level past level 20. 

Just a flat monthly subscription so everybody is on equal footing.

 

Agree ten times over. Say NO to cash shop and unfair advantage.  Even in today's economy even 14$ a month is seriously pretty cheap.  I would much prefer sub based over free to play with cash shop.

I've honestly felt myself leaning that way for a while now.  Between massive amounts of dissapointment over the year and the dramatic and constant poluting of the genre with tons of crap just to make a couple nickels I'm so over it. 

I'm not normally a big doomsayer but honestly I've even been checking into this site less and less.  Hopefully development companies will eventually feel the financial loss and see a need to make a better product. 

Originally posted by Ridelynn

First things first - just try wiring up your computers with ethernet cable.

If that helps, then it's definitely your wireless - if it doesn't, then it's either your router or your computers. A basic home router should be able to handle 10+ computers without breaking a sweat - but throw wireless in there, and one wall, or microwave oven, or cordless phone can throw everything askew.

Keeping it wired with ethernet cable is optional, but without doing that first as a step toward figuring out what the real problem is, it's a shot in the dark. You can't get any better signal than wired ethernet though, and if possible, you should wire up any computers your able to get to (within reason - I know you don't want to necessarily have ethernet cable strung down the hallway and through doorways).

I really don't believe it's the computer, I've playyed mmos and other high graphics games with no problem.  I believe it's what you said, wirless router with walls and microwaves and cell phones and all that.  I mean aside from getting a 300 ft ethernet cable there is really no way to hook it directly to the router.  I just can't believe they haven't made a wireless router that can better handle the situation.