All Posts by Gishgeron

Originally posted by Xasapis

To Gishgeron :

What I tried to say (unsuccesfully it seems) is that subscription numbers have an impact to future development but it's not a direct analogy. Past examples have shown that smaller companies have presented more material and expanded their world much further than more established ones.

My point remains however that as far as players are concerned, more subscriptions just mean more servers. And since we usually just spend our time in just one, it doesn't affect our gameplay. To give an example, once upon a time I used to play AO, a game with two servers. Once upon a time I also used to play WoW, a game with ... 800? servers? The bottom line is that I had a blast in my stay in both games, regardless of the amount of people that were playing them.

    Name one.  No seriously, name one small company which has provided more material and better quality than large ones.  Name one game with tiny subs which offers more game play options than games with large subs.

  I cannot think of one single game.  Even the best AAA titles ever imagined have found their subs in the 300K+ range.  If you cannot connect subs to success, I'd love to hear what reasonable concepts we SHOULD be using instead.

Originally posted by Xasapis

The best MMO is the one you like and play. Subscriptions mean one thing only, expansions to the game world. And we have seen first hand that the amount of suscriptions is not directly related to the amount of content produced by each MMO company.

So, subscriptions mean nothing to the gamers really. Maybe to those not mature enough to need numbers to affirm their hobby. It may mean a lot to the company and the shareholders, but we are not them. We are gamers. One full server is enough to have fun.

  Without solid subs, the company has to let go of its staff to compensate.  By cutting their staff, they also either slow down new content production, or remove it entirely.  Games with larger subs (we don't use WoW as an example, because no game NEEDS that kind of sub base to be rolling steady) can afford to pay for more support, more programmers, more designers, and in general just plain run a better game.

  Subs matter the MOST of all things considered when discussing a game.  Even the most enjoyable game ever made will fall quickly to the wayside if its cannot afford to pay for good server maintenance and a solid GM team to keep the trash out.  Its just that simple.  Using AoC as an example...how much fun would the game be if they had to let go of the majority of their GMS?  When doing so allowed practically everyone to use bots instead of playing?  Your beloved game would become a cesspool overnight (trust me, I've seen it happen in other games already) as you had to compete harshly with these bots for spawns...especially resource spawns.  The servers would become over taxed as thousands of players no longer had to log off anymore.

  I can do this all day.  A game NEEDS high subs to keep it running.  A game without high subs is doomed to fail.  I notice all of you SAYING you would play a game with only one server, but I wonder how many of you actually ARE?  I don't recall seeing any of you in the Tale in the Desert forums.  Can't say I remember you from ANY of the low pop games out right now either.  I'm willing to bet you'd say they all sucked, and thats why you didn't play them.  I'd have to agree, and then remind you that if they DIDN'T suck that they would have far higher subs.

Originally posted by bee52

First game fission, then came fusion now comes fassion? The OP has discovered the solutions to the world's energy crisis.

  Refusing to eat and wearing stupid clothes?  No...I can actually see how refusing to eat MIGHT actually solve some energy issues.  It would, after all, cut out all the wasted energy being funneled into transporting food and processing it.

Originally posted by Jaelum

I've been playing AoC since open beta and have been loving it.  It has been the best launch of any MMO that I've experienced, and I give Funcom a lot of props for building a really beautiful and subtly different game.

 

To the OP or anyone who agrees with the OP - would you please detail your complaint regarding "they have conned, cheated and lied about the game and its content from pretty much day one"? 

 

  Sure, hell I'll take a shot at this.  I could be wrong, mind you...but I'll do my best to translate it for you.

  I BELIEVE that what he is referring to is the fact that the game was heavily marketed as "Super Awesome Siege PvP game with DX10 support, Great combat and uber AWESOMEZ bar fights and such to feel like Conan!" and what you GOT was "Well, we have great combat!" painted over a very simplistic and tired MMO format.  They didn't even have completed content throughout there game...forcing players to fall off the rather nice story and quest series to delve into the boring grind that most AAA games left some time ago.

  Beyond that, I suppose that, if you wanted, you could view many of their pre-release choices as shady and viral in term of marketing.  They definitely kept a tight lock down on any information getting out about the game...and the open beta (which....wasn't an open beta) and early access were both very well controlled so that no one could have ever seen the mid-to-late game flaws that have been springing up around here.

  Basically...as far as content goes, they've only actually hit ONE note right.  That note being their combat.  Everything else promised to you guys over the last few years is noticeably missing.

Originally posted by bee52

@ OP.

That poll is pointless. It's so easy to break and fudge the results

Wish people would wait till some hard facts on active subscriptions come out in a few months.

..this coming from someone who doesn't give a damn about AoC either way.

 

  Amen.  Active subs is the ONLY way to judge a success., or even a failure.  If they cross the 2 month threshold without at least 150K in the pocket...well, they will be shaping up for a swift lay-off season in their dev department.   We won't be able to tell if there is any hemorrhaging until a least a month later, when we can see the change first hand.  Of course, it won't BE a month later...as most do not release sub numbers until their quarterly reports are due.  But you get the gist of it.

Originally posted by Ghist

Why not check out AoC's forum to see what the people playing it think?

http://forums.ageofconan.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8

  It would appear that we cannot rely on the official forum any longer.  Based on what I saw posted across the stickies...Funcom has begun removing negative posts en masse.  That really bothers me, because Blizzard never did anything like that.  I hate lots of things about Warcraft (up to, and including, the game itself) but I can never say an ill word about the company.  Every player was allowed to speak their piece.  The only times they ever began heavily moderating and locking posts was when it was spammed.  By spam, I do not mean posted more than once, either.  I mean...SPAMMED.  Like, 10 or more times in the same 10 minute block.  Most spammers would do even more...usually capping out the entire first page (and I had mine set to 75 threads) with nothing but the thread of their choice.

  I dislike over-moderation.  It reminds me of SOE far too much to be acceptable.  If players are hounding you about something, its because its IMPORTANT.  You do not close them out, you leave their post alone and respond to it.  I realize that such an endeavor takes time, and frankly it would do them well to have CM's just as Warcraft did for such things.

  Moderation really irritates me.

Originally posted by Ascension08

Originally posted by denshing

If you are some of the ignorant masses spewing nonsense in a biased fassion about AoC, we dont want you to play it in the first place.  The problems will be fixed for sure, successful MMO's like this don't have a low priority on improvement. There is only 1 man who would ruin a popular MMO when trying to fix it, and this is not that MMO. Lets be real, this so called  "Miracle fix"  will be no miracle" it will simply happen, subscribe count will go up, Funcom will become richer, and the people who enjoy AoC will enjoy burning down cities on a game that cost some millions of dollars to produce.  "Please dont flame im just an innocent little girl" jk whatevr

Wouldn't the highlighted part in red also apply to fanbois?

  Not if he were a fanboy as well.  You see then, to his distorted logic, it would appear quite fine.  What scares me MORE is that, given his implied mark on Smedly, you might assume he came from SWG.  Why is this terrifying, you ask?

  Because this game should, by all rights, appear stupid and empty compared to the game they came from.  I couldn't imagine for a moment a single Pre-Cu fan coming into this game and think its awesome.  I can see WoW players doing it, and even EQ players doing it.  Maybe even some Vanguard fans.  But I always assumed the draw of the core SWG fan to be the open ended gameplay and world.

  Perhaps I am mistaken.

Originally posted by Hairysun

Ahhh.... very impressive.  Put some thought into this I see.  Numbers don't lie ........ I think I'm gonna go out tomorrow and pick up the game.  It quite simply "IS" a 9.0 (average) game as it stands.  I think that's an "A" in some parts of the US.  Damn ...... that even beats the MMORPG.Com user rating. 

~Hairysun~

PS:  I like the way you highlighted dates in green to avoid confusion for me.

 

  I cannot honestly tell if your post is dripping with sarcasm, or completely lacking of it.  It boggles my mind, and I think that, IF you are being massively sarcastic, that you deserve a gold star.  You got even me, and I BREATHE sarcasm.

  I wouldn't look at any review site twice, they are all tainted goods as far as I'm concerned.  Judging from what I see, I think AoC deserves a high score.  But a 9?  Oh hell no, they didn't even TRY hard enough to earn a 9 in my book.  The best games ever to grace a screen haven't even received a 9....in no way does this slice of poop pie deserve it.  NO MMO does, when compared against some of the best games ever produced.

  I voted, mostly because I find your poll to be very good in covering most possible options.  You did well to include varying branches of "happy" and "hate".  You even included two for people who haven't played.  I honestly wish more polls around here (those which relate to player opinion) were as well done as this.

  Easy to see its a scam.  When dealing with MMO's...the most important thing you can know is that the company already has all of your information.  They never need to ask you for it, as a simple button press will give them all the account info they will ever need from you.  Were you ACTUALLY selected to be a tester, Blizzard would have simply activated your account and, if they actually NEEDED to mail you, would have done little more than inform you of such and, should they actually need to link something, link you to the site that held a client for you.

Originally posted by Consensus

who the hell gives a purple monkey about numbers, either subscribtions or copies sold. they dont make the game good. focus on the reviews, they are all awesome. thats what shows its a good game not the popularity. look at world of warcraft, britney spears, mc donalds. all very popular, all terrible.

i know this has been said before, but you people need to hear it alot more. age of conan has already beaten wow.

  Review sites!?  Are you MAD!?  By the way, those review sites ALSO said that EQ2, WoW, and LoTR were the best thing since cake...but I'm willing to bet that you have a WONDERFUL reason why they were wrong about THOSE games, but right about AoC?  Hmmm?

  Only one thing shows how good a game is.  Subs, end of story.  If people aren't willing to play your game, then your game isn't good.  I don't care what idiotic, non-conformist, bullshot reason you have to disagree with me about this.  When last I checked, AoC has not yet released its august report...and as such we have no ideal how well the game is doing at all.  What we DO know is that they screwed some things up really badly, and are now rushing to fix it all before they start hemorrhaging subs.  They learned that leaving critical things out of the game is a bad ideal, and are swiftly correcting it.

  How well this works to salvage some of the initial sub loss (which every game receives) has yet to be shown.

  Also, I don't recall seeing that AoC has reached 10 million subs.  I also don't recall seeing any of WoW's 10 million subs go down because AoC released.  Until one of those two happen, making statements like your last line are just plain trolling.  By the way, being an ass isn't a good way to get people to jump ship to your game.  Most of us want a nice and intelligent community to play with.  If you REALLY want WoW to suffer, you're gonna have to at least TRY to act like someone those players want to play with.

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by dethgar

 

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by pencilrick

Read this from a review on Gamespot:

"Players stepped onto this stage as Commander Shepard, a hero at the vanguard of humanity's ascension in the arena of galactic politics, and thus began an epic story bolstered by engaging characters and rich, branching dialogue..."

Sounds more like a movie than a game.  They name your character, you're in a story, "branching" dialogue.

How is the gameplay.  Any freedom at all?

 

No same crap as SWkotor and NWN. After BG1 when a good bunch of their designers left, bioware is going downhill.

Yeah they've hit bottom. I mean, no one played those two so why play mass effect? AMIRITE?!?!

 

Is there a game out there that this forum won't take a big shit on?

Seriously, do you evaluate quality based on popularity? I don't. I didn't like these games after BG1, I found them too linear too forgiving and especially NWN/kotor were too combat oriented.

  What a strange thing to say.  I suppose that, were there less combat, you would say the game was crap because it was little more than a glorified storybook?  Seriously, if you remove the combat...what "gameplay" is there left?  I'm quite lost on this concept you have...and I'm not entirely sure if you aren't just being a grump just for the sake of being one.  To tell the truth, I've liked ALL of Biowares games.  I mean, I even liked  Jade Empire.  Loved it even. 

  Not sure why you hate them so....even less sure how you could FOOLISHLY not equate popularity to quality.  If something were actually BAD, then naturally no one would like it.  We can debate all day why it is that YOUR tastes are something magical...and that most of the world are just idiots.  I find that being a non-conformist just for the sake of being one is rather stupid...and actually works AGAINST the very ideals it is supposed to uphold. 

Originally posted by neonaka

 

Originally posted by Battlekruse

The development and production cost of Age of Conan is $70 million dollars.

(49.99 * 400,000) - 70,000,000 = Whoops

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

 

Not quite $20 million, yeah I would say funcom is in a spot of trouble soon.

They haven't even recouped 1/3 of their production cost yet. With the subs dropping like flies, it could take them close to a year or more to even break even on this game.

  It takes MOST businesses (Not just MMO ones) at least a year to get out of the red.  Its fairly standard in market investment for the investors to expect a year, or more, wait to see a return.  Even WoW didn't make back its investment in the first 5 months. 

  I support you hating AoC, and Funcom, 100%....trust me, I do too.  The choices they made irritate me to no end, but thats neither here nor there.  You have to at least have a core understanding of how a business operates before you state things like "Funcom will be in a spot of trouble soon".  Funcom won't be in trouble until the end of the first year, and only then if they cannot manage at least 150,000+ subs.  Just that figure will net them 27 million a year, not  counting box sales.  It takes VERY little to make an MMO profitable...though I'd never expect one to reach Blizzard numbers regardless. 

  So far as I am aware, only 2 true MMO's have ever seen a massive flop.  Tabula Rasa and Vanguard both fell fatally below the 100K mark (which, I find works well for a great medium to shoot for in projecting profitability.  If someone as poorly educated as I can see that, I'm quite sure the investors think the same way...or shoot even higher.) and it crippled them from the word GO.  The problem here is that MMO's require constant investment to maintain their stability and their subscriptions.  If you score deathly low on the first months...you cannot bring new money back in to update the game.  It creates a situation in which the game starts out on life support...and has no way to afford doctors to save it.

  AoC has already managed to escape that fate, by having its initial numbers be well and above what is required to manage the investment costs and still afford to pay for programmers to keep up with it.  This could easily taper off, as has been seen by other games (SWG, I'm looking at YOU), but its still far too early to tell anything like that based on what we see here.  I've watched these markets for years now, and nothing I've seen has provided me any reason to either doubt its potential success....or overlook its potential to fail.

  Also, OP, boxes shipped means nothing.  Not even a little.  The only reason we even HAVE boxes in the digital age is to act as a buffer for the initial player loss that all games come with.  Simply put, its a way to make a little money back on their investment from players that will hate the game.  Trust me when I say this:  That buffer isn't very large at all.  Worse yet...most retailers demand a buyback program to deal with unsold software.  That means that, in any area which AoC fails to make a big sale, those boxes will end up having to be bought back by Funcom.  Box SALES is far more relevant, and even then not indicative of how well the game will do.  You have to realize that the hype machine for this game was terribly viral.  Many people do not closely follow every detail of the game, and are still expecting things from it which are noticeably absent.

  Lets all wait for the august report, and see from there.

Originally posted by Sroek

 

Originally posted by Gishgeron

 

Originally posted by Sroek

I love how a number of people were claiming that AoC was going to overshadow Darkfall, that it was its arch nemesis and that it was going to revolutionize the MMO genre. Oh how sad and embarrassed those pathetic individuals must be currently.

Folks, Darkfall is the quintessential tribute to how MMOs, or shall I call them persistent universes, should be: Unrestricted, massive and seamless.

 

  Which would be great if Darkfall was real.  Being that it does not yet actually exist, it is a rather poor tribute to a universe at all...let alone a persistent one.  As for right now, it is the MOST restricted, least massive, and most seamed world of them all.  Getting to see the game requires you work for them (assuming that is true), and even then entering the world requires an 8 hour plus load time as you 'zone' into greece and hope you are allowed access. 

  Now, you are quite right that AoC revolutionized NOTHING.  They suck, and I agree.  But, lets not get involved in fairy tales about magical "easter bunnies" when discussing ACTUAL games providing ACTUAL effects on the industry.

 

 

*Yawn*

Yes, we all get it, Darkfall is "vaporware" because it's been in development for ages.

Instead of spending valuable time marketing the game and making as much media noise as possible to get people sold like countless other let-down titles in the past, perhaps they're actually more concerned with developing their ideal game. That's just my own rational stance on the matter, though.

  I would follow such rational stances.  That is, I would right up until I realized that there are many free and perfectly available options.  Some that take little to no time at all.  Believe it or not, they need spend no money...and mere minutes of time to provide the "evidence" people clamor for.  I have little doubts they had "plans" for a game.  My doubts center on the reality of how far along they really are...and how much of the moon they can actually GRAB. 

  Oh...and it doesn't help trying to take a rational stance when the lead guy around there makes statements like "We're using bot programs to bug test!  Its totally gonna work!".

  I digress...it neither here nor there in regard to this actual topic, however.  I just have a personal distaste for actually regarding such wonderful ideals as though they were physical things.  Its tacky, really, and does little to actually show the industry that we're tired of stupidity around here.

I can totally make the best game ever.

I require only a token offering of earth and water.....

....and a handful of programmers, modellers, animators, investors, world designers, and around 30 million dollars.

Now, you get on that for me...and greatness you shall HAVE.

Originally posted by Sroek

I love how a number of people were claiming that AoC was going to overshadow Darkfall, that it was its arch nemesis and that it was going to revolutionize the MMO genre. Oh how sad and embarrassed those pathetic individuals must be currently.

Folks, Darkfall is the quintessential tribute to how MMOs, or shall I call them persistent universes, should be: Unrestricted, massive and seamless.

  Which would be great if Darkfall was real.  Being that it does not yet actually exist, it is a rather poor tribute to a universe at all...let alone a persistent one.  As for right now, it is the MOST restricted, least massive, and most seamed world of them all.  Getting to see the game requires you work for them (assuming that is true), and even then entering the world requires an 8 hour plus load time as you 'zone' into greece and hope you are allowed access. 

  Now, you are quite right that AoC revolutionized NOTHING.  They suck, and I agree.  But, lets not get involved in fairy tales about magical "easter bunnies" when discussing ACTUAL games providing ACTUAL effects on the industry.

  See, I'm different than all of you.  I don't think the trend HAS to reverse in order for us to receive deeper and more involved games.  I think there is plenty of great things that have come about in the last years, and that many of them would transition well to ALL forms of MMO gaming...even sandbox.  The only real dividing factor is in how much the game is designed to free the player to create his own  content.  There is no reason why we cannot design a game which appeals to the new casual market, and also give the players a WORLD in which to reside.

  It is rather trivial to assume that we cannot take great elements and gameplay from these linear games and apply them, as needed, to our dream of a more player driven world.

Originally posted by gamerman98

 

---

Originally posted by Rasputin

---

Originally posted by ZDPhoenix

 

I can't agree with anyone who writes unfounded, unintelligible nonsense like what was linked in the original post.
" How can they accept being confined with technology more limiting than the singleplayer game Oblivion?"
Whoa. Someone didn't play Oblivion with mods. Ever. Bethesda Softworks is one of the few companies out there who make mountains using molehill technology. Want an expansion? Build it yourself! New buildings, textures, scripts, engine functions? BAM.... community made, free and effective. ;) Only on the PC Though. L2Not360.

---

I think you misunderstood me. I never criticized Oblivion. Isn't it a huge compliment to a singleplayer game that its technology on many fronts can beat the newest MMOG on the block?
The shame is on AoC - not on Oblivion.

---

 

hahahah ya dont make me laugh...2 years ago it could beat any mmo that was released THEN...but now i dont think so...hell even UT3 has better technology than oblivion and its not even a rpg lol

  You DO realize there is more to gaming technology than simple graphic advances, right?

  That said, this particular matter made me realize how neat (notice, I said neat...not 100% FUNCTIONAL) it would be if users could craft their own content in MMO's as they do in Oblivion.  It would be rather nice...and I feel that, at least in some way, the MMO genre needs to build up its "player driven and created content" if it intends to remain as powerful a market as it is today.

Originally posted by Ascension08

Originally posted by Wickersham

From what people who have played the game and are allowed to comment are saying -

"It plays like WoW."

However, they have some additions:

They have a morale point system where you build up points as you do well in combat which you spend on abilities.  Your morale gain is part of your groups morale so you need to make sure you're all doing well.  The abilities are based on your career, race, and archtype.

Also, you have tactic builds that you set up before