Does Perpetuum still have the same mechanics as the closed beta? Because if it does, it's got to be one of the most dry and boring games ever.

Collecting resources was an epic waste of time and moving your character around in combat felt more like an RTS than an RPG of any sort. In fact, much as I wanted this game to be pwnsauce, they ripped the entire goddamn GUI out of EVE Online. It felt like EVE in many respects... Save for the fact that it's magnitudes more boring. Even missions consisted of nothing more than a text terminal dump of the objective. About the only positive point I was able to find was that it was pretty in terms of graphics. Of course, all of that could have changed, but it was bad enough not to entice me into further downloads. Playing this game was literally like watching somebody exclaim, "EVE Online! But with Mechs!"  ..just infinitely more fail added to change things up.

Back to playing Iris Online.

This piece is kinda light on detail, the critical piece in being how they impliment it. Runes of Magic is the only MMO that I can recall (ignore the title to the left; I've washed my hands of that game for other reasons) that successfully addresses the issue of healer availibility though dual classing.

Since GW2 doesn't sound like its going that route, I'm guessing that either every class has a healing talent tree that you can spec and/or you can swap talent trees ala late Warcraft. The swappable build (assuming they do it somewhat traditionally) is almost nessisary to kill healer availibility issues... After all, the reason they're so rare is because of the sacrifices you make to actually be good at it. Leveling a priest in Warcraft was liking driving a nail through steel with your forehead only up until recently, and the game has been out how long now?

I don't know if I'm down with every class having priest abilities since you begin to kill of the pretige of the class itself. I understand why they're doing it, but now the ability is no longer unique... RoM can get away with it because you can also go double dps, dps/cc, etc and those classes won't have access to priest abilities. The presitge of a priest is somewhat maintained.

Depending on how GW2 executes, of course. It's like yelling, "I'm an Elementalist!" while everybody looks at you, rolling their eyes, saying, "Yeah so are we."  I guess if you're tryin to destroy any unique value healing has as a class, then that's the way to do it. Though I think they would have been better off giving it to a select few classes and implimenting swappable talent trees so the ability itself has at least some unique value.

My only other concern is stat allocation (something RoM doesn't address). Just because anybody can be a priest and something else, doesn't make your character effective at both; even once you change talents. Warrior <--> Priest = some messed up stat structure that would need to be addressed.

Like i said, article needs moar meat :)

Alright, pissing into the wind here, but seriously...

"Free to Play" is your web based email account. You maintain full usage of it while the providers make use of other revenue streams. Your email isn't delivered slower just because you didn't pay for the cash shop item to speed it up. Your ability to add attatchments doesn't vanish because your week rental expired... Your email is, by and large, fully functional whether you ever pay into the system or not.

What the current crop of trialware devlopers are insisting is free to play- including and especially LotR Online -simply isn't. It's free to log in. It's free to grind a few monsters. But serious advancement and competition? That's where your freedom stops. One look at LotR comparison chart confirms this all day long, and if you doubt that, look at DDO as an example of a ready made blueprint. Back in the day, this was called Shareware: You use a crippled version of a piece of software and pay to unlock it's full abilities.

Sound familiar?

Believe it or not, I don't have a problem with this, but dammit, call it for what it is. Whatever f2P was supposed to be, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a panzi scheme to lure gamers into a title under the false pretense that they wouldn't  pay- or even be expected to pay -anything into a cash shop of any kind to normalize their advancement to compete with paying customers.

And even if you were one of the ones that survived the cashless grind to the top, the game still wasn't built with you in mind. It was built in the expectation that somebody else would pay in, and the leveling curve, mobs, etc, are designed with that in mind. That alone is a shady business practice.

True free to play doesn't build a game around paying customers. It doesn't expect its gamers to pay into a cash shop. It doesn't try to lure them in with a promise of non-monetary gameplay while the host website pushes the top-up button on every page.

It's possible to make real, free to play gaming... Your email proves that. Just the suckering of people thinking they're going to get a free MMO experience while subtly weening them onto the teet of the cash shop is easier and much more profitable.

Originally posted by junzo316:  Since Turbine nor Codemasters ever release sub numbers, I have to call BS on the chart, sorry.  At best, this chart is a guesstimation.  Which means....made-up of inaccurate info.  It does have nice colors, though.  =)

Actually, I cross referenced the data from a number of sources and decided the MMOchart.com was the easiest to post. I also mentioned google because i knew there would be somebody- more than likely several somebodies -who would get defensive with the suggestion that their favorite MMO wasn't doing as well as they thought it should.

MMOcharts itself is regarded as being reasonably accurate. In fact, visit their website and see how they collect the data. It's not hard to do. Even if you don't go there, at least do some minute amount of legwork and come back with your own substantiations before accusing one of baseless inaccuracies; especially when you haven't bothered to produce your own. The  external source doesn't mean its bad data, and in the end, you get the same reply as Scot (below).

Originally posted by Scot

Ozzallous – on the basis of your subscription graph Lotro had ZERO subs by the first month of 2008. Sorry but we were playing then, I am on a overloaded sever now, the graph is pants. :D

Reading is hard, isn't it? To requote the second paragraph of the relevant post:

"Here is where somebody notes the chart only goes to mid 2008. I know. The google key words are "mmo statistics chart". Do your own research and learn something."

To clarify the mystery, this is why LotR went microtransactional--

Courtesy of MMOchart.com

Just so it's absolutely clear, I'm not making a judgement call on whether Rings is "good" or "bad", but I will note that it is tough to support an MMO whose peak was 200k after launch, and has been steadily declining since. You'll also note that DDO was suffering from the same condition prior to going trialware in 2009.

Here is where somebody notes the chart only goes to mid 2008. I know. The google key words are "mmo statistics chart". Do your own research and learn something.

Financially, it probably made sense to switch gears and operate under a microtransactional model where you could at least get more eyeballs on your game, even if your income tends to be less stable. "Something" is better than "Nothing" and nothing was exactly where both DDO and LotR were heading. I would have thrown both games under the microtransactional bus too with these numbers. Conversly, there's a reason why EVE Online hasn't gone trialware and the numbers bare that out.

Let's all be honest...

Free To Play may have once been the next big thing in MMO gaming, but that's not what it has become. These days, it's the bargain bin at Gamestop full of titles that nobody will pay full price for. It's the header under which you file the sick and the lame; likewise, It's also a home to the greedy and apethetic. Either the title couldn't cut it as a subscription because of some intrinsic failure, or they failed to generate enough upfront interest to secure long term funding.

Or they are looking to fleece you for more money by claiming your ability to "play for free"; your choice.

Either way, I think it's time to acknowledge that most of the games claiming the f2p banner aren't anymore free than shareware is free; unless you count purposely crippled software allowing only the most basic use before payment is required as "free". At best, it's time to call this stuff trialware or something else, because payment will be required for any signifignant form of advancement to take place.

Free to Play would be your web based email account. It's fully functional and advert based. Your email delivery won't slow down just because you didn't pay into some micro transactional panzi scheme, nor will your ability to attatch media be turned off because you didn't rent it for a week.

I guess you can be happy about LotR going trialware, but do yourself a favor and don't ever mistake that for free. Hell, whether it's even remotely better for your wallet over the long term is debatable. You think that money for more content and updates is just going to magically rain from the sky?

The only point I'd raise concerning a topic I'm mostly sypathetic to is that for the few games that have rolled out lifetime subscriptions, they haven't done so in such a quantity as to outright ignore their regular subscription base.

Sure, those people who bought into the lifetime subs have all but forfeited their say in the direction of their game, but there are still many, many more people that can vote with their feet. Likewise, any developer even thinking about the longentivity of their title outside a year to two years wouldn't ever consider converting such a large core of their base away from subscriptions. It's a hard sell to begin with for a majority of your audience and will stagnant future growth. 

Overall, both pre-orders and lifetime subs fall under the same headers: Buyer beware and do your goddamn research. Your mage tears will fall upon unsypathetic ears. 

@ spdkilla

Odd... And I even sifted through the deleted stuff to make sure I didn't miss anything. <shrug></shrug> Still, sombody there failed at basic communication. "Limited" imparts no useful detail whatsoever and they deserve every flame they get on this topic.

That said... People actually complaining that they missed out on this deal are nuts. You're playing the equivolent of the stockmarket with a third string MMO title, only marginally better than a f2p. Operating on faith for the first year and change isn't my idea of of a good investment and you have no guarantees the rules won't change six months from now.

Likewise, I really do believe the 'limited' aspect is more than a marketing ploy and they're probably fairly sincere on the apology.  You can damn well bet the number of slots for that offer were limited because after a year, that customer stops generating revenue for them. Unlike some, I'll bet you don't see this offer extended because of this fact. The more they offer, the less they will ultimately make. Sure, you get the initial burst of cash, but long term? The company will die for lack of revenue if they release too many lifetime offers. The best disgruntled gamers can hope for is a limited (very limited) renewal of the offer, but the angery mob is still going to outnumber the lucky few by a very large margin.

I guess what it comes down to is I'm really not seeing a real conspiracy here. Somebody legitimately screwed up, got flamed and apologized. The very mechanics of the market they operate in pretty much bare out the truth- They can't do what people are accusing them of just to yank chains because they live and die by a subscription base, not a one off discount charge. They offer too many of these and they die and that's it.

Since i've been continuously receiving their emails, i decided to go back and take a look at a couple. I'd have to agree, they certainly didn't go out of their way to advertise either the Sept 1 deadline or the limited number of slots... Maybe they were somewhere else, but they definitely weren't in their mass emailing campaign

---------------------

We at Cryptic Studios and Atari are excited to announce our Champions Online six-month and lifetime subscription plans. Players who sign up for our long-term subscriptions will receive special perks, including eight additional character slots, special costume sets and guaranteed access to the Star Trek Online closed beta!

"Beyond the deep discount on the subscription rates, we wanted to come up with added incentives and exclusives that, as gamers, we could get excited about," said Jack Emmert, Cryptic Studios' Chief Operating Officer. "With an early commitment to Champions Online, granting guaranteed early access to our next big game, Star Trek Online, seemed like a great way to engage Cryptic’s biggest fans in other projects at the studio.”

Here are the great features our loyal customers will receive.

Discounted Lifetime Subscription

* Guaranteed Star Trek Online Closed Beta Access
* Eight Additional Character Slots
* Foxbat Vanity Pet
* Art Deco Costume Set
* Retro Future Costume Set
* STO Mirror Universe Costume Set

Discounted Six-month Subscription

* Guaranteed Star Trek Online closed beta access
* Retro Future Costume Set

Don’t miss out on these great deals! You can purchase your subscriptions now!

Discounted Lifetime Subscription
$199.99 USD
$219.99 CAN
£119.99 GBP W/OUT VAT
€147.99 EUR W/OUT VAT

Discounted Six-month Subscription
$59.99 USD
$65.99 CAN
£35.99 GBP W/OUT VAT
€44.99 EUR W/OUT VAT

------------------------------

That said, I'll give them something for a formal apology. Not much, but it's better than you'll get from some MMOs.

Taking it apart with a microscope... But... But that's our job! ;)

And don't take the comment the wrong way... Compared to other free to play MMOs, Runes is heading in the right direction. In terms of implimentation, it doesn't bend players over or overtly rape them like most cash shop games do. We'd still be remiss if we didn't put its flaws under the microscope however. That said, I was comparing it to a pre-expac warcraft... back in the days when soul link was a 30sec buff and death coil didn't horrify :p

...And a free to play vs up front money argument doesn't gain any sympathy here either. These people are playing for money. If they expect that money, they had better push a polished product up front, not yank gamers around on the promise that maybe someday it will fix the rough edges that should have never made it out of beta.

Just my POV, not nessisarily those of my sponcer ;)

Just weighing in here as the previewer... I have to agree with Sean's rating of "good" though I probably would have been a tad more pessemistic. After some extended play, Rune's of Magic is pretty bland, reaching for Warcraft and more but falling way short in every area I care to think of while attempting to float success on the extras and dual classing.

Runes is a decent time waster, but nothing to be taken seriously at this stage and certainly not what I was hoping would come out of closed beta. It's certainly playable for a free to play- even surprising in several ways -but still rough draft quality in a number of areas when placed side by side  with a comparably finished project.

Originally posted by girlgeek

QFT.

Thank the gods.  I was wondering if there was one damn person left on these forums with one OUNCE of common sense. 

And there's something to be said about why the Warcraft franchise is so successful versus the people they've supposedly ripped content wholesale from. Blizzard makes the genre easy, approachable and fun for the most part. It looks good, sounds great and makes for acceptable fiction... at least until we got to the space goats, but that's another matter entirely.

Frankly, we should be thanking for Blizzard and Warcraft. Whether you like the product or not, it's popularizing the MMO as a genre. An MMO with TV spots featuring Mister T and William Shatner for cryin' out loud. It's also half the reason you have so much competition in the market place. I'd even go so far as to say WoW is the only reason you have a Warhammer MMO to play right now, such is its influence; but that's purely IMFO.

Take pot shots at game all you want, but they've been the benchmark for the last four-some years for a reason.

Robert here...

PvP is still broken atm, mainly due to class balance issues they're ironing out. Since we're dealing with a Beta product here, there's no point in even commenting on it in the article as all the classes have and are still undergoing drastic changes. So far I haven't seen anything as ambitious as battlegrounds mentioned yet, and of course, the game has 5m instances and such. Since the level caps are still in place, it's not entirely clear what the scope of these will ultimately be.

As Mouseff pointed out, there are now more alternate areas to level your secondary class as of open beta. However, my point still stands. You're effectively leveling two characters from scratch, regardless of how many ways they give you to do it. Some people will be fine with this, others not so since it's another grind no matter how you slice it. Since the cash shop is still in its infancy and level caps are still in place, it's tough to give you a clear picture of how good or bad it'll be, so I'll defer to the release version review for that as well.

Hope that gives you a somewhat clear picture.