I'll wait until the game drops in price, there are some decent player reviews and they fix the inevitable bugs before I decide if i want to play it

Originally posted by jmcdermottuk

Game has the pre-order for £34.99. Sounds good to me. I'll look to see if I can get a few more quid knocked off but that's a fair price.

Isn't game in administration?  If so may not be around when gw2 gets released.

Originally posted by Valua

Originally posted by colddog04

Originally posted by aesperus

Originally posted by Vesavius

Originally posted by Xexv

---

Originally posted by colddog04
The price of this game is standard.

---

PC games do not typically sell for £50 in the UK.

 

I have said this 5 times today already, but you guys refuse to listen, prefering to repeat the same moan.

I bought the game for £39.99 for the GF today.

Where is your mental block on that information?

Go and look at Play.com.

Guess this needs to be reposted.

Stop crying and read ^

Here, I'll help with a link. This is geting insane.

 

http://www.play.com/Games/PC/4-/31123030/Guild-Wars-2-Pre-Purchase/Product.html?searchstring=guild+wars+2&searchsource=0&searchtype=allproducts&urlrefer=search

 

People posting about getting it cheaper from other places in the UK DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS POST AT ALL. Please read my initial post, first post page one.

 

I am aware that I can purchase the game for £39.99, that's not what is annoying me. 

 

I am annoyed with the arogance that ArenaNet is selling the game on their website for £60.00.

 

Are we clear now? By posting that it can purchased elsewhere for cheaper is showing your ignorance and that you haven't read the initial posts. 

 

Okay, thanks.

 

Feel the need to point out that the usual price(rrp) on play.com is £49.99, just on sale at £39.99.  Chances are it will go towards the rrp at time of release.

Am i wrong in thinking that the typical price for a pc game was £30(rift etc released at this price) and it's only in the past year or two that the prices have gone up?

I voted 3d because of the freedom it brings to the camera(usually).  But in truth would depend upon the gameplay rather than the graphics.

Originally posted by pags411

From reading some recent comments, it sounds like this game does cost more in EU.  If that's the case, I would wonder what the reasoning might be.  I don't see a reason for EU to pay more than US.  However, I'm sure there's a way to purchase this for the US price considering the market power of the internet.

There are some resellers starting to pop up i believe(was looking at eve online and they have some links on their website).  But some publishers have decided to force customers  to pay regional prices.  i.e. if you live in the eu you must buy the eu version.  Not sure if this will apply to gw.

Originally posted by Pyuk

It's Cryptic - they'll find some way to screw it up. I'll wait until after the game ships and see what the reaction of the player base is before I get even remotely excited about this one., given Cryptic's track record.

+1

Originally posted by Valua

The Digital Edition and the Digital Deluxe Edition are way over priced.

£49.99 and £64.99 Really? play.com has it at £39.99 i think

What a rip off. 

 

The Old Republics two editions were both cheaper, Tera is cheaper, Secret World is cheaper, any WoW expansion was cheaper.  Where the hell were u shopping collectors edition of swtor was well over £100

 

Why does Arenanet think they can charge this ammount? Because it's free to play (with a cash shop)? And I don't even get the retial box? Pathetic. 

 

 

Mass Effect 3, Skyrim and the new Assassins Creed were only £34.99.  RRP all over £40 at release console versions i think were over £50

 

I've never paid 50+ for a game in my life, and I never will, especially not for an MMO with a cash shop.

 

And a 3 day head start for those who pre-purchase it, 1 day for those who pre-order it. This seems like they are pretty worried about their game and want people to purchase it before release to me.

 

I had three days of headstart on The Old Republic to test it, and then cancel my order beacuse I didn't like the game, which I thought was very generous of Bioware. 

 

As you can probably tell I'm pissed off. I'll buy this game a few months after release when it's reduced to £20, which I can see happening fast with the current price of the game.

It's the average price publishers now charge for pc games, think it was done to bring them more inline with console prices. I guess they can sort of justify this since most pc games now seem to be poor console ports.

The only one i can think to add is perpetuum.

Star trek online may keep u occupied for a couple of weeks.

Also for future reference, defiance may be worth a look.

Originally posted by robert4818

There are some people who refuse to group no matter what, just as there are people who insist on grouping no matter what.

The rest of us?  We like to have both.  I've played "forced grouping" MMO's before (like FF11) and they all have pretty much the same issue.  If you are unable to get a group, there's pretty much nothing you can really do.  So, what we demand is the ability to do something worthwhile when grouping isn't an option for whatever reason.  

The biggest problem is that games have swung too far in the other direction where grouping is no longer even viable unless you are running an instance.

Personally, I'd simply prefer games to have 2x content.  One set of content that is group based, one set that is solo based.  

So, lets take SWTOR for example.  There's very little group content in the game unless you queue up for an instance, or you have one of the very few group quests that exist on each planet.  Instead I'd rather see the game have 2 planets for each level range, one being full of solo content, one being full of Group content.  If you want to run group content you simply head over to the appropriate planet and run it.  If you want to solo, you avoid it like the plague.

 

 

I'd go with this, but would prefer(at least to try) group=easy, solo=hard type content rather than 2 sets of content.

Thnx for the response.  I also noticed the 'coming soon' is empty too. 

@ kiljaedenas

This one? http://www.flickr.com/photos/23579228@N04/2335016192/

Originally posted by Anthur

Maybe this helps:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EWFBQtwy1s

Would like to add a +1 to the vid

Also leave the exploration career agent until last if possible.

edit: I prefer this vid  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heYfTA00Idg

Originally posted by mastersomrat

Well, I was looking for a game with indepth crafting and somewhat modern graphics..lol  I ended up with Vangaurd maining because of one reason...travel!  I've heard from more than a few that with EVE, you spend a lot of time simply getting from one spot to the next and while I don't mind a bit of realism in a game, I don't have time to sit their for four hours just getting around.  So - hope the Vangaurd thing turns out well.

Not really true, but will depend on wether you are autopiloting and what you are flying on how fast you'll travel as well as how far and how many stops along the way.  10 jumps will take you maybe 10 to 20 mins manually in a hauler(one of the slowest ships).  But you'd have to try it at some point to see what you think.

I'd prefer an always make whatever with a random/skillbased etc. quality or durability.

Thought I'd give it another try, but dl link says file not found so was wondering if it's still open or has been closed down?

tbh you haven't really missed that much, but pity you couldn't at least try it.

Originally posted by eyeswideopen

Originally posted by daveospice

We all keep complaining about the large corporations not producing a AAA title to our liking.  But if you look around us, there are TONS of great games that go unnoticed, and unpolished due to financial constraints.

 

Now they're not always for everyone, and the indie developers are a catch 22.  They may not know what they're doing, they may have designed the system and rushed it due to money constraints, etc... but ultimately, supporting the indie developer is better in the long run.

 

A few games to mention:

Darkfall - wasn't for me, I didn't care for the "everyone can be good at everything" mentality.  If it had a "pick 7 skills only" system I would be back in a heart beat.

Mortal Online - actually quite fun if you give it a chance and group up with other players don't try it solo

Haven and Hearth - pretty damn fun, at first didn't like it because I kept dieing.... but I enjoy it a lot now.  The lag... ughhh.

Wurm Online - probably my favorite of the bunch, the crafting system blows every game out of the water.  Unfortunately it's all menus, doesn't have animations yet, etc... 

A lot of the problems mentioned above can be fixed by having enough money to hire developers, help think things through, etc...  so every little bit helps. 

Any other golden gems I don't know about that I should be supporting?

I support quality. Period.

If an indie provides a quality game, I'll pay for it.

If an indie makes a suck ass game, I won't.

I will not throw money away just to support an indie dev out of some misguided sense of duty.

And throwing Darkfall and Mortal Online as examples of games deserving support is laughable at best and pathetic at worst.

+1(especially to the last part) be it indie or non indie.  

edit : For me quality doesn't = looks good and is p*** easy

Was hoping someone would have chimed in with something.  Ryzom is the closest i can think of, I'm doubting it will suit but you'd have to try it and see what it's like now.

Originally posted by RefMinor
There was a report on a major UK news channel about trolling and they basically described harassment by social media text etc. Meanwhile away from the real world of normal people in the MMO universe to troll is at most saying something nasty about a game someone else likes in a way that will get them angry and is usually just having a different opinion to them.

I believe a couple of people have already served jail time, but as you said that's 'real world' trolling not the stuff here i.e. anything someone doesn't like.