Originally posted by denshing

I wonder if this is the first of many in upcoming months?

Do you think rift will have large dropoffs similar to Aion had several months after release?

It will be a mass exodus. Rift will only have a fraction of those who bought it for launch. Rift's marketing team will then begin to try every possible strategy to get people back. Servers will get merged. Just wait for it!

Originally posted by SuperXero89

I was not aware Rift was advertised as a PvP-based game.

Lets see... I think the whole Faction VS Faction design choice should have been advertisement enough....and then there were the advertised pvp beta weekend events...and the whole intro video promoting the idea that each side wants to kick the crap out of the other, and then the interviews about fighting over RIFTS as a main design element.

Honestly these people, pve carebare types, trying to convince themselves that Rift isnt designed around pvp mechanics is sadly, way too predictable. It seems the pattern is for them to jump on a game and demand/push/reinforce its pure pve-ness, in which the developers generally will cater too. Then you have Vanguard 2.0, only dumbed down to the point of silliness and with an equally small population. 

The games of this genre need to be designed around both PvE and PvP, as they are two sides of the SAME COIN. This game is going after WoW's target audience, as such, it being the clone type it is, will be designed around PvP (faction vs faction) from the ground up with PvE to set the stage.

Newegg is good, I would highly recommend using Amazon.com as an alternative though. They sell quite a bit with free shipping, quick deliveries and usually no tax depending on where its shipping from. 

Get a barebone or complete system from Ibuypower.com, cheap, quick and they are pretty solid. The hardware isnt company specific, so you are free to upgrade it yourself as time goes on. Last time I ordered from them, they threw in some free stuff including a $300 upgrade to the cpu, so I really cant complain.

Originally posted by jadedlevir

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Originally posted by jadedlevir

Originally posted by EndDream

I also disagree with the validity of these numbers. They have to be higher. However I also agree they are no where near a million.

Probably not a million, though around 500k-750k is probably reasonable, which is more than a healthy number of box sales. Its the retention that matters,  and it wouldn't need much retention to be the second or third most successful na mmo.

500k-750k?

ROFL, not even close.

I said *box sales*, not subs, If you even read what i said, you would see that I go on to say that retention aka how many subs that actually hold is what matters. 500k-750k sales is more than logical unless your a completely illogical hater. 10k-15k concurrent online steam users alone, how many do you think bought from steam? Of those, how many do you believe are on at any  moment?

How many preorder from rifts website? I know there was a vast majorty of people who preordered thro there, myself included. Then you add in amazon(where both the collectors edition and digitial download are top sales for weeks), and other digitial retail centers. Then you can go ahead and add on vg's estimated box sales... and your actually trying to deny that 500k-750k is not reasonable for *box sales*

 

 

The reality is, whether you WANT to believe it or not (denial mode?)

Ironic

People need to get over their rift vendettas... and any mmorpg vendetta honestly.

Box sales not digital sales. I am responding to this idea that box sales = subs, which they do not. It also came across that you were trying to suggest box sales were relatable to people actually playing the game, that easily the rettention from just those numbers alone would make it the most successful. The point is the numbers will drop after the time is up or at the 3 month mark. Furthermore, do you include copies bought for retailers to sell or actual sales to individuals FROM the retailers? This is why I say 500k-750k is unrealistic at this point. The number of sales to individuals from retailers is not going to be that high at this point. Most of the time, publishers love to tout box sales as the number of copies they shipped TO retailers, it doesnt actually mean the game has been purchased by a consumer from the retailer.

Vendetta, a silly word for this type of dialog. It goes both ways however, the rhetoric of both fanboy level support and hate of a product is no good. Regardless of what you MAY think, Trion thinking it was good marketing to verbally go after WoW was not only deperate but ripe for negative backlash. They brought it upon themselves and Trion's marketing is a good reminder of what not to do in this industry, even for a new start up deperate to succeed.

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

500k-750k?

ROFL, not even close. The reality is, whether you WANT to believe it or not (denial mode?), is that their subs are far far less.

If I didn't think you're highly biased and are wishing from the tips of your toes to have Rift fail (as some people tend to do when they feel disappointed or 'betrayed' by a game), then this is the comment that completely convinces me.

 

So... what? Rift servers have on average like only 4000 player accounts to you? In its launch month? Really??

You know that servers of any MMO, especially when they're medium to high populated usually have 10k-30k player accounts attached to it, right? That 3-5k usually is the amount already of the concurrent  player base of a server, certainly right after launch?

 

WAR had 113 servers and opened with 700k-1 million sales

AoC had 49 servers, with 700k sales

Aion had like 6-7k players simultaneously logged in per server in its launch month

 

Like Rift, don't like Rift, whatever, to each their own. Try to use some realism and common sense and sense for proportion in your arguments though, else it just shows that colored bias trumps reason in your arguments.

Bias? You mean YOUR bias? The one which you use to go after anyone that says something worth while that can make Rift not fit on the pedestal you have placed it on?

Will you be a hypocrite?

I said nothing on the quality of Rift, only that it's sub numbers are far less than some of you fanboys have been touting and that like MMORPG patterns reveal, it's numbers WILL drop at the dreaded 3 month mark whether you LIKE it or not. You turn your denial into personal attacks or attempts at belittlement all you want. Let it conform to your ego for all I care, but it wont change the result.

That is reality, sorry you dont want to accept it. Even good mmorpgs lose large chunks of subs around 3 months and then 6 months whether they deserve it or not. Deal with it.

Originally posted by jadedlevir

Originally posted by EndDream

I also disagree with the validity of these numbers. They have to be higher. However I also agree they are no where near a million.

Probably not a million, though around 500k-750k is probably reasonable, which is more than a healthy number of box sales. Its the retention that matters,  and it wouldn't need much retention to be the second or third most successful na mmo.

500k-750k?

ROFL, not even close. The reality is, whether you WANT to believe it or not (denial mode?), is that their subs are far far less. Furthermore, after launch sales, what happens to those numbers? At the 3 month mark they usually DROP. Meaning, people QUIT after playing around with the game and their subs expire. It is part of the MMORPG pattern.

Only 1 mmorpg I can think of in the last 6 years has managed to increase their sub count past the 3 month mark and that is WoW.  No other mmorpg shows signs of doing that any time soon. In fact, Rift is showing the same signs as all the ther mmorpgs that dwindle between 3-6 months into a very small niche player base that usually drives new people away yet manages to keep the game barely alive.

Blame the chinese. Currently most of the hacking, keylogging, gold selling and account stealing is coming out of China. Literally they perform a form of mmo terrorism and the problem is the Chinese government is doing nothing to stop them. It is perhaps the biggest and most dangerous factor to the mmorpg industries health and welbeing. The people behind these organizations have literally no moral or ethical code.

Originally posted by SuperXero89

Was wondering if anyone could help me find a gaming laptop for a friend of mine to play Rift.  He's on a tight budget, so the cheaper the better.

The general rule of thumb is... if you want a gaming laptop you cant go cheap. If price is an issue...always default to the desktop, not the laptop.

If there is absolutely no choice to go with a desktop and  your friend is stubborn, then the best bang for your buck for gaming laptops, that also come with quality, would be Sager. 

http://www.sagernotebook.com/index.php?page=category_browse&selected_cat=11

He i s a dummie then. Laptop gamers shouldnt be worried about price range, and have to be willing to upgrade entire machines instead of a the few parts you would normally do in a Desktop.

Originally posted by drbaltazar

make sure your screen of choice have a minidisplay port connection!why?cause the latest and greatest monster graphic card from our beloved ati use minidp 1.2.i am searching for good minidp ported screen and so far no luck (aside from the outrageously expensive apple screen.

Actually there are tons, but you have to know the trick.... Any HD monitor or TV can make use of the display port if it has HDMI.

Displayport to HDMI cables are the answer. Meaning, if you get a GPU with a display port, just get the display port to HDMI (lots of screens have that) and wala. 

Originally posted by Roin

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Originally posted by anarkaia

This is why I'm asking. Refresh rates are important too, more so.

It would be nice to find one that has both, but if I have to, I'll buy a tuner.

What about this one, it has good reviews, except for a dead pixel issue:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236104&RandomID=39996711821521420110302174505

Or this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001380

Or:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001414

The first one is the better choice out of all of those.

How about this, can you afford a $100 more?

http://www.amazon.com/LG-32LE5300-32-Inch-1080p-Panel/dp/B0039RWAVS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299118158&sr=8-1

You would get the fast refresh rate, the LED lighting, the quick MS, 1080p AND  nearly 10 inches more. For an extra $100 that is a steal.

The deal for this one is $450ish, it originally goes for $800. Good deal.

 

 

Did you happen to read the bad comments on that? It's doesn't look good.

Every product, even the good ones will have bad reviews. Its not abnormal. Everytime you buy something you generally take a chance.

Anyways, normally I wouldnt recommend LG, and I still dont for the most part...  but the saying still holds true, you get what you pay for. In this case, this is a good hdtv/monitor, however its obvious that LG pulled from two different manufacturing plants for their LCDs. One is good, one is not so good. Judging by the reviews, there seems to be more in the way of good panels as opposed to bad ones.

Remember, LG gets most of their panels from Samsung, same with Sony. Sony and Samsung joint own the LCD plants that a lot of TVs will use screens from.

Originally posted by anarkaia

This is why I'm asking. Refresh rates are important too, more so.

It would be nice to find one that has both, but if I have to, I'll buy a tuner.

What about this one, it has good reviews, except for a dead pixel issue:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236104&RandomID=39996711821521420110302174505

Or this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001380

Or:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001414

The first one is the better choice out of all of those.

How about this, can you afford a $100 more?

http://www.amazon.com/LG-32LE5300-32-Inch-1080p-Panel/dp/B0039RWAVS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299118158&sr=8-1

You would get the fast refresh rate, the LED lighting, the quick MS, 1080p AND  nearly 10 inches more. For an extra $100 that is a steal.

The deal for this one is $450ish, it originally goes for $800. Good deal.

Originally posted by anarkaia

I'm looking for one with a TV tuner built in, similar price range.

That Acer has a buzzing noise, sometimes. According to one review.

What about this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001392&cm_re=built_in_TV_tuner-_-24-001-392-_-Product

If you are aiming for one with a TV tuner, just  get a TV. You can also get tuners that are seperate products which you can connect to a monitor.

The only downsides I see to that samsung is 1) 5ms response time mixed with 2) 60hz refresh rate. I mean, depending on your requirements, you may not be able get everything right though. 

Heck, for $30 more you can get this 32" 1080p LCD HDTV. 

http://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-32E200U-32-Inch-1080p-Black/dp/B0038JED6W

I generally advocate higher refreshrates and LED LCDs, but if size and tuner are more important, go with a TV like the one I linked to.

Originally posted by intoExile

QQ Thread

 

Whenever I want a lulz i read this.

 

They're trying to raise Earthrise's rating by making accounts and bumping it. Very funny.

Honestly, its not like any other fanboy base would do differently. Rift's fanboys are a pretty good example. 

The problem is fanboyism in general.

Originally posted by anarkaia

So, my heart is set on this, for now:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005142

Based on 73% 5 stars and only 2% 1 and 2 stars.

I would like to go bigger, but I'm already pushing my budget.

Besides, 27" is just about right.

But I might go with a 23 or a 24. Or maybe a 21.

For MMOs and online tv. In HD, if available.

Woah there... total waste of money!

First things first... its only 60hz. Its non LED. and its clearly using Samsungs older SyncMaster design. Its only redeaming value is its size. 

Stay away from this product.

This is the same price and ultimately better: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009222&cm_re=3d_monitor-_-24-009-222-_-Product

IF size is your only concern, then save up and get an HDTV instead. I mean you can get a Sony Bravia 32 Inch HDTV (EX500 @ 120hz) for just $100 more (Used like new) or $200 more new.

Originally posted by lagerchobg

Well IMHO this sounds pretty cool isn't it?!

What was your reaction when 1st read that guys and how do you feel now when you are actually playing the game?

It just confirmed their marketing people are aggresive and cheesy. 

It also confirmed that they were indeed going after WoW's primary target audience and when you try to go head to head with WoW, you lose. 

Originally posted by pmaura

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Its fated to be a small niche game with a dwindling audience and honestly, I wouldnt be surprised if Trion is forced to go f2p within a year. 

While your opinion is your own, doomsayings like these are just silly. You might as well say that all MMORPG's besides WoW are fated to be small niche games with a dwindling audience.

If you didn't like it and have been disappointed by it, doesn't mean that others will: a lot of MMO gamers had the same expectations as you had, they played the same beta as you did, but in contrast to you they were enthusiastic enough to buy it and enjoy playing it.

 

While I have my doubts about the longevity of Rift's content, there's no denying that Rift has a better and more polished launch than most of the other MMORPG's the last couple of years.

As I said, its my take on it and you are welcome to disagree, but calling it silly is rather well...silly. I also like how you ran with it and totally took it in another over exaggerated level.

My take on it is based on observations and patterns that so far have proven consistent. A strong launch doesnt make a long lasting game. This should be obvious. No matter how polished a launch is, if the game gets boring its done for. Period. Rift IS trying to compete with WoW and quite frankly thats a risky thing to do. 

Either way, 3 and then 6 months from now, people will know whether it was correct or not. Till then I doubt anyone really cares, especially the fanboys..why? because they, like many gamers, live in the moment and the hype. Once its gone they wont really care and it wont really matter.

 Actually his comment of calling you silly is spot on as you said, its going to to take 3-6months before we can judge. So after a week out you say its going to die but you need 3-6 months before you know if its going to die. That kind of logic is silly.

If you find things repetive and dull so be it. But I am completly ok with polished game that borrows a lot from other games that at launch is stable and has content. Something not one MMORPG has done since WOW.  With the exception of fallen earth, that launch wasnt to bad but the wierd movement and comabt animation bug me.

Reading comprehension isnt your strong point is it? 

I am not saying I am going to wait till then, but it seems like some of you will complain no matter what I say so thats why I offer up, FOR YOU and those like you, to wait 3-6 months to see. If I am wrong, feel free to send me PMs. But I am telling you right now, at the dreaded 3 month mark they will begin to lose their initial subs, and at 6 months a large portion of the initial playerbase will be gone. 

I stated it as my opinion and belief, to say its lacking logic when its purely subjective seems dumb, dont you think? 

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Its fated to be a small niche game with a dwindling audience and honestly, I wouldnt be surprised if Trion is forced to go f2p within a year. 

While your opinion is your own, doomsayings like these are just silly. You might as well say that all MMORPG's besides WoW are fated to be small niche games with a dwindling audience.

If you didn't like it and have been disappointed by it, doesn't mean that others will: a lot of MMO gamers had the same expectations as you had, they played the same beta as you did, but in contrast to you they were enthusiastic enough to buy it and enjoy playing it.

 

While I have my doubts about the longevity of Rift's content, there's no denying that Rift has a better and more polished launch than most of the other MMORPG's the last couple of years.

As I said, its my take on it and you are welcome to disagree, but calling it silly is rather well...silly. I also like how you ran with it and totally took it in another over exaggerated level.

My take on it is based on observations and patterns that so far have proven consistent. A strong launch doesnt make a long lasting game. This should be obvious. No matter how polished a launch is, if the game gets boring its done for. Period. Rift IS trying to compete with WoW and quite frankly thats a risky thing to do. 

Either way, 3 and then 6 months from now, people will know whether it was correct or not. Till then I doubt anyone really cares, especially the fanboys..why? because they, like many gamers, live in the moment and the hype. Once its gone they wont really care and it wont really matter.

Originally posted by Shadin

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

I played Rift since the very first beta with a VIP pass, I can agree with everything the OP has said. I tried to warn those of you who were not already biased beyond belief. Rift is a good concept horribly executed, and its clear its run by marketing minded people, not actual designers that know what they are doing in my opinion. Rift defines the word generic. Within 3 months it will lose a large portion of its player base...

Just to clarify, since I wonder... You base your opinion of a game on the First beta?

I disagree fully that the game is horribly executed.. It's very well executed actually.. You just have to  take it for what it is..  I don't believe I've read a post where anyone have said the the game is the dawning of a new age in MMO industry or that the game is innovative in every way.

The game takes what's out there and works on it, tweaks it, to more or less perfection (in my opinion). If someone is looking for something new rather than the old MMO-formula then one probably won't like Rift, even though the soulsystem and rifts are quite new and fresh - at least to me.

But to say it's horribly executed is a "tad" exagerated..

 

As for warning people after the first beta... You can't find many good games then can you? Considering what state games usually are in when it comes to the first beta-phases.

Your reading comprehension needs some work. Saying I played SINCE the first beta doesnt mean I am basing my opinion OFF the first beta. I thought that was pretty clear. I think you are just spinning it around and assuming to fit your means to counter argue.  It was after a few 20's in both factions, far into the beta process that I concluded the game was no good and was not going to get better. I was right as the beta opened up more and more. Quests from the get go were some of the worst I have seen in any game, they didnt change. Crafting? A complete rip off of WoWs and it didnt even do it better than WoW. Zone and level design were bad. Rifts are gimmicks, predictable and lack any quality scripting. They are not even randomly placed, only random in their spawn times. All invasions follow set way points. Each zone is horribly over populated by mobs that will agro easily. This is done intentionally to make the zone feel bigger than it really is by slowing down any progress the player can make. Its linear, way too linear, and most of all ...boring. 

Nothing in Rift stood out after playing all the Betas. I really didnt even look forward to playing the game because it was so generic and boring. PvP was a joke. 

There were numerous other issues I had with the game, but most importantly I went in looking forward to Rift. I was a fan after seeing it at E3, but unfortunately the actual product didnt even come close to matching the marketing they pumped out. 

Either way, Its not exaggerated. I think fans that keep defending this game are exaggerating it, not the other way around. 

Thats my take on it, and if you wish to dissagree, go ahead and shoot. I am not going to get into it anymore since that time has long since passed. People will find out the hard way with Rift. Its fated to be a small niche game with a dwindling audience and honestly, I wouldnt be surprised if Trion is forced to go f2p within a year. 

I played Rift since the very first beta with a VIP pass, I can agree with everything the OP has said. I tried to warn those of you who were not already biased beyond belief. Rift is a good concept horribly executed, and its clear its run by marketing minded people, not actual designers that know what they are doing in my opinion. Rift defines the word generic. Within 3 months it will lose a large portion of its player base...