All Posts by tmr819

I'm guessing that this is good news for AoC, frankly, as now it will get a hefty head start over the other big MMORPG contender of 2008. Assuming WAR keeps to the new release date, I assume it will end up launching at about the same time as Stargate Worlds, which I also think may hurt them a bit.

Of WAR and Stargate, the latter MMO interests me more.

---

Originally posted by Ozmodan
Lately I have to wonder what is it about the 2nd "M" in MMORPG that developers don't get?  Mutliplayer does not mean that complete solo play!
You know when you put in mostly solo play you satisfy the kids and turn off everyone else.  Problem with kids is they have a very short attention span, hence most subscriptions last only a short time.  
Without significant multiplayer features, games like this die on the vine very fast.  I am suprised the people funding this have not pointed out that error to the developement team, seems to me you should always examine the problems encounted by previous games and attempt to alleviate them....not compound them.
 

---

I think you're generalizing too much here. For one thing, just because a game can be soloed doesn't mean it won't have "significant multiplayer features." I suspect it will. But the smart money would be in designing a game that can be soloed for the core content but that also has significant *optional* multiplayer and/or PvP content/regions. If CoS does that, then I think they could be quite successful.

Guild Wars is a good game that is playable either multiplayer or solo or a mix of both and has proven to be quite popular. If CoS can be either soloed or played in player groups from beginning to end, then I'd say that's a really good feature. There's nothing I hate so much as getting totally stuck in an MMO trying to pull a player group together to complete some instanced dungeon or other. Yuk. It's why I canceled my WoW subscription and never went back.

If CoS *required* grouping for instance content (the way WoW et al. do), then I wouldn't be interested in it. Apparently (?), CoS does not--though I'm not quite sure how they intend to do this. There are plenty of other MMOs out there that REQUIRE grouping for people who prefer that style of play. I am not one of them.

I also like the idea that CoS appears to be story-driven, rather than grind-driven, like so many MMOs. It (evidently) has a beginning, middle, and end ... leading to a new beginning, and so on. If lots of instancing is required in order to personalize the story, I think that's also a really good thing.

Well, that answers my question from part 1 about "solo-ability". Many thanks. :)

This game sounds very interesting, and I wish you developers much luck and future success with it. I suppose it's too early to talk about your beta/game completion time frame? Oh well... I'll definitely be watching this one.

If you need a writer/editor, let me know. ("Intriguing", not "Intriguiing"...)

And, yes, this game IS definitely intriguing. :)

I have to say I am impressed by your willingness to address concerns so thoroughly in the post above.

I like the sound of this game. The part of the article that caught my eye was this line: "Some of these NPCs become your friends and enemies… not everyone’s… just yours."

The reason is that so many MMOs are group-requiring and therefore casual-unfriendly, in my opinion. Guild Wars really bucked this trend by allowing players a real choice between soloing the content (by using AI/NPC assistance) or forming full groups or combinations of AI and players in order to complete instanced content.

I enjoy group content and activity OCCASIONALLY, but any MMO that *requires* collective effort in order to move forward in the game (rather than having it be optional) gets an immediate thumbs-down from me.

I can't help wondering how this game stacks up on the "solo-versus-group content-o-meter".

I have to give CoS high marks for creative (and logical) landscape designs and also for providing regular updates to the public.

I am really looking forward to trying this game!

---

Originally posted by Romuluas

Would you say the same thing about WoW? That is a game that was developed for the casual player, plain and simple. There are casual players that play almost every MMO out there I dont think a monthly fee is a problem.

---

Actually, I would. I enjoyed WoW but eventually quit because it just wasn't economical for me (plus I got a bit bored by it). But, yes, I recognize there are a lot of "casual" players playing WoW. One thing that I can say for WoW is that it is one of the very few MMOs out there that, in my opinion, actually earns its $15/month.

I have played EQ2 and CoX and, while these games are OK, there is just NO WAY I'd pay that much to play them. I suspect TR is much the same, but I would need to try it for a couple of weeks to find out for sure.

---

Originally posted by Romuluas
I can see this being a good game for a more casual player, ...

---

One of the problems faced by casual players is that subscription-based games are seldom a good deal. If TR went in a more Guild Wars-type direction (buy the game, play for free) or offered a more modest subscription fee (say, $5 to $10/month U.S.) or a package deal (TR+CoX Station Pass, etc., for a single subscription price), they'd attract a bigger following. They could then sell added endgame content as pared-down expansion packs (i.e., not full-price expansions) or something along those lines.

I think, from a financial standpoint, they'd recoup a lot of their losses on this game and might even prove to be a genuine success.

Short trial periods (3 days!) are a red flag (to me, anyway) that a game's fun quotient is front-loaded and that it does not not have "staying power."

I am actually tempted by this game and wish they would offer a free trial for a week or 2 the way other MMOs do. TR's 3-day free trial didn't seem worth the downloading effort, in my opinion, so I didn't bother with it.

TR sounds like a pretty good game, but I am not sure it is worth paying a subscription fee to play, based on what I have read. If NCSoft ever comes up with a more generous free trial period and/or a more economical subscription plan (say, a CoX/TR "package deal" or something along those lines), I would probably give it a try.

Hmm...

My reaction was the exact opposite: DR struck me as silly, lame, buggy, and seemed, in my opinion, to require a subscription to be really playable and so was not as "F2P" as it at first appeared.

The character models were ho-hum and there didn't seem to be very many people online playing at least whenever I checked in.

In my opinion, a similar (but better) game, Mythos (in closed beta at the moment), is going to blow DR right off the F2P map.

This game sounds like it has real potential, though the long, long LONG development time is a tad discouraging.

Am I correct in assuming this will be a subscription-based MMO?

One of the things that has impressed me about this game (after looking through the game's website) is the depth and creativity of the lore that they have created. It all sounds plausible and fun, and all six of the factions sound distinct, well-thought-out, and intriguing. I'd love to be writing for a game like this -- and there are not many games I can say that about.

I have definitely added this MMO to my "watch list."

I guess I should add that when I consider "microtransaction" I think in these terms.

A microtransaction ought to be optional (but cool) content and/or items that can be purchased for real money but that is not strictly necessary for enjoyable gameplay, such as, for example...

--Additional character slots
--Additional classes/races, etc.
--Mounts
--Armor sets/weapons
--Minipets
--Extra large inventories/bank storage
--Expansions

That sort of thing. In other words, a good F2P game should be completely accessible and reasonably playable without purchasing anything, but goodies should be available for a real-money price.

From what I can tell, Mythos (still in beta), comes (or rather will come) close to what I consider to be an ideal F2P-type game.

What I think makes even more business sense and would generate more revenue for developers is a hybrid between subscription-based gaming and F2P, which is basically the GW model. Buy the game and play it with no monthly fee but charge for periodic expansions/additions/bonus missions, etc.

Interesting topic and writeup. Thanks for posting it.

What was missed here is the casual gamer/more serious gamer dichotomy. For most casual gamers, a subscription setup is, frankly, a waste of money. Moreover, for players (like me) who want to play online with their kids but do not want to pay for multiple accounts, subscriptions are, once again, a bad deal.

The only way a subscription-based game is going to work is if it's really, REALLY good and, frankly, most such MMOs aren't. I also expect that a number of the much-hyped up-and-coming MMOs are going to fail for that reason: they might be good, but not good enough to justify $15/month (or whatever). I found it funny that some of these developers used a monthly gas bill/cable bill/phone bill model. A better model would be a grocery store. Some of us don't want to rent the entire store when all we really want and use are a few items.

The micropayment approach probably has more appeal for casual gamers, gamers who want multiple accounts, and/or gamers who want to pay only for what they really are going to use. The confidence many of these developers have in subscriptions is mystifying -- but good news for upcoming subscription-free games such as Guild Wars 2 and others.

I think subscription-based MMOs are going to be increasingly hard-pressed in the next few years ... and may end up being the dinosaurs of the MMO industry.