WoW's difficulty level has been a constant see-saw.  If you believe otherwise, you are ignorant of WoW's history.

Original Raid content: Bizzarely easy.  Engame Raid: UBRS.  Scholomance, Stratholme consisted of lesser endgame content, 10 man instances.  Could be handled by most groups as 8 man, and good groups could do it 5 man pretty easy.  Even UBRS, the 'ultimate' instance, was nothing special.

Molten Core/Ony: The addition of 40 man content.  Originally tough, mainly because guilds used to small instance runs had to adapt to 40 man.  Poorly designed, and frankly 20 of the people in your group were bench warmers.  Onyxia was the worst, and was eventually taken down by 3 people at level 60 (an absurdly easy encounter). 

BWL/AQ  - A new, interesting level of design.  WoW got a lot harder, a lot faster.  A level of coordination is required. 

Naxx - highest difficulty level (perhaps we should say absurd). 

TBC: Original content: Pretty easy.  Kara was honestly not much of a challenge.  Gruul and Mags, as originally launched, were quite amazingly buggy.  They were nerfed, although it's questionable if that's a difficulty thing or a bug fix thing.

TK/SSC - a high level of challenge.  TK was very well balanced, though SSC had some issues (to quote the guild that downed Vashj, the entire encounter was impossible - it was entirely luck based, and if you performed perfectly (i.e. no mistakes at any point) you had a 15-20% chance of winning, based entirely on factors outside your control (who she mind controlled and killed).  

BT/Hyjal - difficulty was medium, generally similar in level to TK/SSC.

Sunwell - one of the best designed instances in the game.  Considered very very challenging, and very difficult.

Naxxramus - reportedly quite easy for experienced raiding guilds. 

Based on this, do you think we're on the Molten Core/Kara stage of the cycle?  

Originally posted by Xexima

You actually need evidence to show that most media outlets are very left wing? 

By the way, a lot of reporters don't actually go back and look for a backstory or supporting evidence when coming up with a story.  They aren't detectives, they are idiots who say anything as long as it will interest the american populace. 

All media outlets make mistakes, this one was just on the part of a left wing one so we all have to go and attack it...  Plus, fox still aired the story...msnbc corrected themselves on it.

And this hoax wasn't something that completely destroyed the election, Barak Obama would have won either way.  It doesn't take a fake news story to tell me that Palin is an idiot.

Well how are we defining positive and negative?  A completely objective report that the latest poll shows McCain trailing Obama by 9% and that only two presidents in history have overcome such a gap at stage X in the campaign is completely factual.

Is that a negative story for McCain?  A positive one for Obama?  

How about a story that voter reaction to Palin has been strong and mixed, with a lot of the Republican base loving her but a lot of the undecideds disliking her?

Positive? Negative?  Mixed?  

A story that the Obama campaign is generally positive and upbeat about their candidate while the McCain campaign is feeling pretty beaten down?  Positive, negative, neutral?

Oddly, calling a duck a duck isn't bias.  And reporting on a campaign that fell apart isn't bias - the campaign fell apart.

Originally posted by Deathstrike2

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by Timberwolf0

I have no objection to this limitation provided the monthly fees are reduced by some amount proportional to the time reduced.

Quick question - have you ever played 300 hours in one month?

 

Only thing this will do is discourage botters. 

BTW, done for Korean legal reasons.

 

Quick answer - it doesn't matter. 

Allowing companies to put limitations on things like this is the beginning of a slippery slope.  The whole "unhealthy to set in front of a computer" argument is crap.  Companies are in business to make money -- not play nursemaid to obsessive gamers.  And I seriously doubt anyone on these forums truely gives flying **** how much their fellow gamers play and whether or not they're "healthy."  Get real.

Today it's a limitation on play time, maybe tomorrow they'll just charge by the hour.  Who knows?  Will you all be licking their boots then?  It's funny how quickly people are willing to let a company think for them.

The beginning of a slippery slope?  Wow.  You do realize this is a fallacy, known as the slippery slope fallacy, right?

As for the unhealthy thing, you do realized several Asian countries passed laws.  You know how much your amazing "Break the law" motif will work for companies?  Quick answer: Not at all.

Today it's a limit on playtime - 10 hours per day.  Get real.  That's obviously just to minimally comply with Korean law.

As for companies charging by the hour, I'm absolutely 100% fine with it.  I'm fine with charging by the hour, I'm fine with charging $500 a month to play their MMO, I'm fine with them making you only play it on a Macintosh, or Red Hat, or Windows 98. 

I will not be purchasing any game with those limits, and I think they know that.  Don't be stupid.

300 hours is obviously a non-limit, this is obviously a non-issue. 

Originally posted by mmorpgmaner

Originally posted by cukimunga

Originally posted by Calintz333

I have played RoM as well,(lvl 23 Knight) I think its ok. Nothing out of this world but for free 2 play standards its decent, Now I am waiting to see if the cash shop does not ruin the game. I hope it does not, but if it does, I would be expecting it. It is A free 2 play game...

I was playing it today. If i would have seen the the logo on the screen I would have swore I was playing WoW.  The graphics are a bit better than WoW but the gameplay is spot on with wow and even the graphics settings menu is like WoWs.

 

So for a free to play game Id say its damn good, if its pretty much like WoW.

 

Also isn't this game from a German company? Atleast thats what I thought but today I was playing and for some reason I saw some kind of Asian language  for some buff I had. It was weird.

 

Its actually much better gfx than wow, because my secondary computer can run wow, no problem,but crappy as hell fps with ROM

Don't mistake shitty cheap ass programing for graphics.  I saw a 2D game could make a computer lag, just because my friend programmed it, and the graphics engine was rendering the entire thing as flat 3D and trying to find angles.

Similarly, I've never seen a game lag like the original unpatched halo. 

But hey, keep on with the WoW hate, obviously the graphics are better because it runs like shit.

Originally posted by Timberwolf0

I have no objection to this limitation provided the monthly fees are reduced by some amount proportional to the time reduced.

Quick question - have you ever played 300 hours in one month?

Only thing this will do is discourage botters. 

BTW, done for Korean legal reasons.

Originally posted by Xtort

Originally posted by bodypass

Our guild (top 50 on our server in old TBC and 180 people) will begin raiding in January to let everyone enjoy the ride to 80 with ease.

 

 

Why are you and Azrile (or you are the same person maybe, who knows) so worried about the pace of leveling and dungeon clearing in WoW? Are you so scared that people will get bored and quit WoW because of this?

You shouldn't worry mate. There is not other MMO out there that gives a better gear progress out there. So people who don't mind grinding will continue grinding for their gear in "the chronicles of Naxxramas IV".

note: I can't imagine a guild in WoW with 50 people like bodypass. They couldn't complete any dungeon because of telling each other "God has created the woman, then WoW, then the men to play WoW in their spare time" :)

They're too busy ezmode facerolling the content, troll.

That's odd, my friend had his account hacked, and all the items on his main were sharded and stolen.   Took blizzard about ten days to resolve it - the only thing they didn't roll back was his enchanting skill, he still had rank 1 enchanting (this was when rank 1 could shard any item).  All his equipment and gold was restored.

Originally posted by Sonicspeed

WoW is killing the MMO industry, that's the problem with monopolies.

You have a lousy understanding of a monopoly.  A monopoly, among other things, needs to control at least 90% of the market.  That means if WoW has 12 million players, every other MMO would have to have a grand total (between all of them) of 1.2 million or less.

Obviously false. 

Moreover, even if WoW controlled the entire market, it might still not be a monopoly.  It would be a little like controlling the entire Blu-Ray market or something - yeah, you might be gold there, but if you start screwing around, people will just stick with DVDs.

Both genders.  Dislike cyber, it just doesn't do much for me (no, dunno why, way it is).  No threesomes, I'd be open, but I honestly tend to be the cuddly type, and I have no idea how that would work with three people.  We'd all have to really like eachother. 

Animals... no.

Some other fetishes, but since you didn't ask,  I don't feel like telling (no, not BDSM).

Originally posted by blondeh

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by blondeh

Originally posted by elondor

so what you're saying is they have got rid of que'd battlegrounds, only to make open world battlegrounds, if it's one simple zone, it's the same thing without a wait.

 

very innovative.. not.. all they did was offer rewards for something that did not have rewards.  it should have been there at launch, don't try and trick people into thinking blizzard actually knows what they are doing lol.

 

Millions of people seem to think so :) I'd say blizzard are doing a very good job at making money. Isnt that what a successful business does?

Obviously not.  Just look at Darkfall.  Best MMO on the market, and they haven't made a dime!  You really need a better meter for success, yours is broken.

 

Your telling me that Blizzards World of Warcraft isnt a success? Darkfall isnt even on the market yet. I think its you sir who needs a better meter of success :)

You're telling me that just because Blizzard released World of Warcraft 4 years ago they deserve acclaim?  What sort of an arbitrary standard is that?  You have to release a video game to make a great video game?  

Sometimes I despair at the WoW fanboys who think that just because a game isn't on the market yet it automatically means that it's not more successful than WoW. Darkfall has seven years of successful development history, Blizzard was still nattering about some RTS game back when Darkfall was announced.  It's clear which one is the industry giant.

There's too many lies for me to do this any other way. You don't like it, stop lying.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by Fishermage 

Your definition makes NO ONE (or everyone) a neocon. The invasion of Iraq was neither unilateral, aggressive nor non-diplomatic. We had quite a few allies there, it was in RESPONSE to Hussein's refusal to open up weapon's inspections as well has his years of violating his terms of surrender, and we tried many, many times to ask him to stop what he was doing before we invaded, down to the very moments before the attack. Diplomacy failed because Hussen refused to engage.

The invasion of Iraq was no more those things than Kosovo or Granada or helping the contras under Regan. It is conservatism, nothing "neo" about it.

How are those false dichotomies working for you?  No one is a neocon or everyone is a neocon?  Hah.  Life doesn't work that way.  

As for your failings in history, please check your facts.  Hussein opened up completely to inspectors, and offered complete cooperation.  This was the report of the inspectors to the UN immediately prior to the declaration of war.   So that is a lie.  Diplomacy did not fail - it was not tried.  Hussein offered even more unprecedented levels of access prior to the invasion. 

The only reason the inspections were considered a 'failure' is that they were not discovering anything to justify the war.  There was nothing to discover. 

The invasion was pure aggression, our allies mostly lukewarm, and the huge bulk of the forces American.  The command was American, there was no UN control, no UN resolutions, no UN oversight.  34 countries contributed troops to the first gulf war.  Six offered troops for the second.   Japan committed $10 billion dollars in funding to the first war, in lieu of troops, and a show of international solidarity.  No country did this for the second.  The first was authorized by the UN, and a proportional response to Iraqi aggression.  The second was opposed by the majority of the world.

A simple comparison of Kosovo or Grenada reveals the differences in no time at all.  As for the Contras who Reagan illegally funneled arms to... please tell me you did not mean to bring up an illegal action.  Please.

 

Just because you are making and using a fuzzy definition is no reason to make a false accusation of me using a false dichotomy.

Either everyone is a neo-conservative or no one is a neo-conservative?  False dichotomy.  I laid it out, you're being dense.  

Obviously you don't remember what happened before the Iraq war. Hussein closed off all facilities to inspections and was sanctioned by the UN multiple times. None of this has anything to do with what makes something neo-conservatism, please try and stay on topic.

You brought up the subject skippy.  Absolute lie, the facilities were totally open at the time of the invasion.  You will note the closing off happened AND WAS RESOLVED under President Clinton.  Getting into the details of the war and its root causes is central to what makes the  Bush administration neoconservative.  You claim its off-topic, but it could not be more central.  You just don't want to bring up a subject that is inherently unwinnable. 

Diplomacy failed because Hussein continually lied. The invasion was AGRESSION? how so? he was under condemnation by the UN and was in clear violation of the terms of surrender. But, here we see the beginnings of your ideology here.

Quick question - can you decide if someone is guilty of murder?  No.  You cannot.  The court decides if someone is guilty of murder.  Similarly, no member state is capable of deciding if a UN resolution has been violated.  The UN did not decide it was violated, it was not violated.  Period.  War not justified by UN, period.  

UN Control? again, if we do not relinquish our sovereignty in war, we are neo-cons. Hmmmm. Now I am starting to see a belief system behind the bad definition.

I'm starting to see a lying strawman.  The war was to aggressively promote American interests abroad, not accomplish any other goals.  FYI, US soldiers are not under UN command at any point ever really.  You are creating a stupid strawman, us relenquishing our sovereignity.  Stop lying.  

The legality of giving aid to the contras is unimportant -- whether it was neo-conservatism is. It isn't, and neither is Iraq, and neither is anything, because the word has no meaning.

Good, because it was illegal. 

Basically, you ARE saying Reagan was a neo-con. Who is NOT a neo-con, according to your defintion of that word? Answer: anyone you don't hate is not a neocon. Purely emotional definition.

Bullshit.  I hate Pat Buchanan.  He was not a Neocon.  I dislike Michael Moore.  He is not a neocon. 

Neocon has a clear definition.  You cannot avoid it, you are just lying, lying, lying.  It's pretty goddamn sad.  

Please stop trying to weasel out of your bad definitions by arguing the policies. The only thing I am trying to figure out here is WHAT makes it neo-con. You ahve yet to make a substantive case for your poor definition.

So far, all I can see is, unless we bow to the UN and let them run the world, we are neo-cons.

And finally, the ultimate strawman.

This, folks, is the biggest bundle of lies and misrepresentations I've ever seen posted on these boards. 

The best comparison I have to DKs system isn't warriors, its rogues.  The runes are a bit like energy (it does come in 3 flavors, but it has the fast regen, start out full, use completely feel of energy).  Runic power is like combo points - you have to build it up to pull off 'finishers.' 

It's obviously more intricate than that, but it does have a roguish feel.

Originally posted by dubistblau

obama is a really good politician and a person. i think we could rely on his thoughts and actions with regards to the problems that the nation is currently having. i hope all the best for him and let's pray for his and the nation's success.

So how did that entire prayer deal work out for Bush?  With its track record, we might as well pray he fails, it's probably more helpful.

Originally posted by blondeh

Originally posted by elondor

so what you're saying is they have got rid of que'd battlegrounds, only to make open world battlegrounds, if it's one simple zone, it's the same thing without a wait.

 

very innovative.. not.. all they did was offer rewards for something that did not have rewards.  it should have been there at launch, don't try and trick people into thinking blizzard actually knows what they are doing lol.

 

Millions of people seem to think so :) I'd say blizzard are doing a very good job at making money. Isnt that what a successful business does?

Obviously not.  Just look at Darkfall.  Best MMO on the market, and they haven't made a dime!  You really need a better meter for success, yours is broken.

Originally posted by Fishermage 

Your definition makes NO ONE (or everyone) a neocon. The invasion of Iraq was neither unilateral, aggressive nor non-diplomatic. We had quite a few allies there, it was in RESPONSE to Hussein's refusal to open up weapon's inspections as well has his years of violating his terms of surrender, and we tried many, many times to ask him to stop what he was doing before we invaded, down to the very moments before the attack. Diplomacy failed because Hussen refused to engage.

The invasion of Iraq was no more those things than Kosovo or Granada or helping the contras under Regan. It is conservatism, nothing "neo" about it.

How are those false dichotomies working for you?  No one is a neocon or everyone is a neocon?  Hah.  Life doesn't work that way.  

As for your failings in history, please check your facts.  Hussein opened up completely to inspectors, and offered complete cooperation.  This was the report of the inspectors to the UN immediately prior to the declaration of war.   So that is a lie.  Diplomacy did not fail - it was not tried.  Hussein offered even more unprecedented levels of access prior to the invasion. 

The only reason the inspections were considered a 'failure' is that they were not discovering anything to justify the war.  There was nothing to discover. 

The invasion was pure aggression, our allies mostly lukewarm, and the huge bulk of the forces American.  The command was American, there was no UN control, no UN resolutions, no UN oversight.  34 countries contributed troops to the first gulf war.  Six offered troops for the second.   Japan committed $10 billion dollars in funding to the first war, in lieu of troops, and a show of international solidarity.  No country did this for the second.  The first was authorized by the UN, and a proportional response to Iraqi aggression.  The second was opposed by the majority of the world.

A simple comparison of Kosovo or Grenada reveals the differences in no time at all.  As for the Contras who Reagan illegally funneled arms to... please tell me you did not mean to bring up an illegal action.  Please.

Beatnik and Fisher both seem to be mistaking the current crop of evangelical theocrats for neo-conservatives.  I agree that there is a definite alliance between the two, but saying two allied parties are one party is missing the point.

For both of them, neo-conservative means someone who favors an active strong presence abroad to secure America's interests.  And that means military.  Our entire middle eastern policy at current is neo-conservative.  The invasion of Iraq?  Pure neo-conservatism.  They are (as they see it) safeguarding the American way of life by taking an active role in protecting our interests abroad.   This role is unilateral, aggressive, and non-diplomatic.  It's basically a throwback to the carrot and the stick mentality. 

Their alliance with the theocrats like Focus on the Family and the Christian Right seems to be one of convienence.  The Christian Right and pals have no problems with a strong military, and are focused on the usual social issues (you know, making sure that teenagers get pregnant through shoddy education and denying people basic rights because they're different).  Certainly there are neoconservatives who are theocrats, but the two movements converged.  They started in very different places, and they remain quite different. 

Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by Sharajat

Hah, my guild downed Arthas.  It took us one wipe, but then he was down.  Frostmorne didn't drop, maybe next week.

 

What, you say he's not in the game?  Sorry, we're just that good.

 

Proof: how easy the content is.

I know!  You think blizzard would have made it a challenge.  Honestly, every boss in Arthas' dungeon just lay down and gave us epics.

And you would not believe how OP the epics make us in PvP.  I mean I have no skillz whatsoever, but man, with those epics, I pwned.  We had tenacity in wintergrasp, so I just flew down on my epic proto-drake, dismounted over their offensive, and popped holy nova and levitate in midair.  It took out like 30 hordies, and procced blackout on most of the rest.  Thanks to tenacity, I easily took them all down with shadow word: death spam.  It was like "LOLZ, LRN2EPIX NOOBS"  

Originally posted by EvolvedMonky

Originally posted by imlinked

Originally posted by Cynthe

To the person comparing WoW endgame to Aion.... You can't actually say anything tangible until the Korean release. The max level for OBT was 30.

And most mmos are more 'magical' or imaginative then WoW. Blizzard is only good at one thing: make things work smoothly. They have no concept of what an original idea is.

 

Was this directed towards me? I never compared Aion's endgame to WoW's, moreless anything remotely close to criticizing it. It's a given that endgame wasn't accessible during OBT... you make it sound as if I thought otherwise. What I did say was I'm concerned about Aion's leveling up process and HOPE the Abyss turns out to be a fantastic finish line through the grueling ordeal.

And by all means, if making things 'work smoothly' generates 11 million subscribers and crowns itself as the king of p2p MMO, I sure hope Aion follows Blizzard's approach. Who needs creativity? amirite??!? (sarcasm)

The whole thing about originality and whatnot is getting old! It's like with Apple and their immensely popular keyboard design on their macbooks. Innovative? Not really, the design was actually first introduced by Sony's x505 notebooks in 2004, but the dumazzez didn't see the potential and scrapped the design. Can't relate? Think Blizzard = Apple. Just like how Apple had the vision to see greatness in the design (and thus applying it to their macbooks), so did Blizzard in copying the things that worked in other MMOs while dropping/tweaking the things that didn't. Result? WoW is now a benchmark for many emerging titles and it actually became the standard.

So what does this all translate to? I want Aion to be successful as much as anyone else here... but in order for it to be successful, I'm also hoping NC did something to emulate WoW. I mean really, unless you're a total fanboy, you can't deny that WoW pulled off SOMETHING good to become what it is today. There's a lesson to be had for other MMOs, and so far, WAR and AoC miserably failed. I just wish NC did learn a thing or two from Blizz's success and applied it to Aion.

 

I would compare WoW to Microsoft than to mac.

WoW didnt take the best things from MMOGS; sorry they just to took the easyiest and blandest features that most mmogs had and ran with it.

Marketing is the reason for WoWs sucess.  Blizzard had a big following before WoW and there games always sold big.  When WoW was announced everyone knew it was going to hit big. Its what blizzard games do.

If WoW was made by a different company with a different IP but exactly the same it would have the same subs as most mmorpgs out.

 

To me blizzard has always retarded any genre they touch.

Diablo ( loved the 1st one hated the rest) gave birth to the hack/slash era.  I remeber one rpg that was in developemnt that was copying Fallout, but it went under as diablo clones flooded the market. In the past years companys have finaly started to focus on the RP part of that genre. But with Diablo 3 im sure that will all go down hill

Warcraft/starcraft (loved warcraft 1and 2 couldnt stand starcraft) Quick and easy fun but nothing compared to the more complex RTSs out. Warcraft 3 was even more dumb downed.

Blizard always attracts the masses only because they dumb everything down for the masses. 

 

Anyway back on subject how was the world? Was it big and spaced out or was it cramped and themeparkish.

Okay, so marketing is all you need to make a smash hit MMO.  Age of Conan followed that formula, and their ever-increasing subscriber base and soaring stock prices attest to the success that can be garnered by marketing and more marketing.  

What about Mythic?  Marketing blitz.  Their 8 million subscribers have resulted in them becoming the second most popular MMO, drawing nearly 20% of WoW's subscriber base away.  It's pretty evident they'll become the dominant MMO on the market.

Yes, I see your point.  Marketing is all you need, Diablo and Starcraft were simplistic terrible games that were just well hyped. 

(This guy HAS to work for Funcom, right?)

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Briansho

Neo-con: noun,

1.A neo-conservative, new/abnormal/different type of conservative.  A term used to get closet republicans pissed off and Fox News a few more numbers in the ratings.

2.An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s

Social conservatism - a political or moral ideology that believes the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent. However, the accepted meaning of traditional morality often differs from group to group within social conservatism. Thus, there are really no policies or positions that could be considered universal among social conservatives. There are, however, a number of principles to which at least a majority of social conservatives adhere.

 

Sounds like any garden variety conservative. Nothing "neo" about any of which you are discussing. There have been fiscal conservatives and social conservatives within the conservative movement for a very long time. There have been isolationists and internationalists for just as long. Nothing "neo" about any of them.

The only way the term "neo" makes any sense is when one is describing someone who was once a liberal and is now a conservative -- which was the original, clear, workable definition of "neo-con." Such people, like Irving Kristol, David Horowitz, PJ O'Roark, and others were usually 60s and 70s lefties who after years of thought and experience, changed their views.

Such folks have had a pretty wide view within general conservatism; some more inclined towards more cultural conservatism (Horowitz), some more towards fiscal (O'Roark and Miller). On defense they TEND to favor a strong defense, like Reagan did, and shy away from the isolationism of POPULIST conservatives like Pat Buchanan.

That is a meaning that works. To say that anyone who believes in a strong defense and American exceptionalism is "neo" con is flat out wrong. That just makes Pat Buchanan the only conservative. Maybe Ron Paul too, and if you listen to his rhetoric and Buchanan's, they DO make that claim -- that THEY are the "true" conservatives, and everyone else is a neo-con. The argument for that is very weak though.

 

The difference has been explained to you several times now.  Insisting that a vulture is just an overgrown eagle with a taste for dead animals is fine, but you're going to be alone in that explanation. 

The term neo-conservative is well-defined and well-recognized.  If you dislike the policies of the Bush administration, distance yourself from them.  Don't insist they were nothing new, nothing different, the same sort of policies that AuH2O might have endorsed. 

 

Sorry, you are making distinctions without a difference. You are being fuzzy and illogical in your analysis. Now you are resorting to poor analogies to "bolster" your weak definitions.

Look at wiki yourself, even THEY can't find a workable definition for the term, so to claim it is well-defined and recognized is misleading at best.

How I feel about the policies of the Bush administration has nothing to do with labeling people and ideas with fuzzy epithets. I like to discuss issues without having to resort to childish namecalling.

Neo-conservative has been a well defined term for 30 years.  It's been well understood and mainstream for 20.  There is no fuzziness.  There is no illogic.  It refers to a very specific movement, with a very specific philosophy.  And the Bush administration is neo-conservative. 

You keep running to Pat Buchanan as if you hope he will save you.  Why?  He founded a conservative movement in specific reaction to neo-conservatism, so you're hoping to create a false dichotomy between Pat Buchanan and all other conservatives?

Wow.  Just wow.  You accuse others of illogic when using a logical fallacy. 

Originally posted by Xasapis

I understand that the payment model is more attuned to the Asian markets. However, if I was to hypothise the same system to be used in the Western market, I would have two comments on it.

• I consider myself a hardcore/casual, in having to work and socialise but still spending a considerable amount of time in front of my computer. 300 per month is double the amount of time I expect myself to game, even if I play 5 hours during week days and 15 hours during weekends (and that's too much).
• Any kind of limit is bad, because it creates a precedence. It may be 300 for this game, but it may be 200 for the next etc.

Overall, I would wait to see the subscription model for the West before start the murder cries.

BTW, Blizzard put a new limit on World of Warcraft, you can't play more than 720 hours per month.  So there's already precedent.  And since Blizzard is doing it, everyone will be pretty soon.