Trending Games | Landmark | Camelot Unchained | Hearthstone | Skyforge

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,919,691 Users Online:0
Games:760  Posts:6,310,213
Turbine Entertainment | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Beta Testing  (est.rel N/A)  | Pub:Turbine Entertainment
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Subscription
System Req: PC | ESRB:MOut of date info? Let us know!

Asheron's Call 2 Forum » General Discussion » If AC2 want more players they should....

18 posts found
  GroovyFlower

Apprentice Member

Joined: 5/12/11
Posts: 1252

Skyrim

 
OP  4/04/13 7:01:34 AM#1

They should go free 2 play there will never be a player base big enough to support it through subs and pay every month 13 bucks game is 11 years old come on.

Also make solo play littlebit more viable agains group play by shorten the timers instead of  6/7 days timers they have now its insane and buff the xp reward, some lvl70+ quest give 200-300 mil xp while you need billions.

And fix offcorse friendlist and squelch and broken quests or some other bugs.

Fix the KvK and arramora forts so we get lively PvP going.

 

Then you get maybe enough players other wise game stays at low pop forever.

 

Oh and almost forgot to say communication by devs would be appreciated way to silenced now.

 

Just some personal thoughts on game state right now.

  eddieg50

Elite Member

Joined: 6/22/05
Posts: 1546

4/06/13 1:16:15 PM#2
Agreed charging 13 a mo for an old game is absurd
  Jyiiga

Advanced Member

Joined: 3/03/10
Posts: 1045

4/14/13 11:10:02 AM#3

The surge of people going back to it has already ended. It still suffers from the same problems it had the first time it released and with so few people working on it, I am not sure how this is going to play out.

It is so unfriendly and grindy for people not piled into full groups at the high lvls that it is nearly impossible to level up. It is also riddled with buggy and flat out broken quests. 

In short, it is still the unfinished product that it was years ago and I am not sure what they can do about it. 

I wish AC2 had a bit more influence from the original AC. 

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

On a more positive note, it does have things that I desire from my MMO. A large and open world, interesting lore and classes. It lends itself to exploration well enough (not as well as AC1 does). 

  Loktofeit

Advanced Member

Joined: 1/13/10
Posts: 12405

Currently playing EVE, SMITE, ArcheAge, and Combat Arms

4/14/13 11:26:30 AM#4
Originally posted by GroovyFlower

They should go free 2 play there will never be a player base big enough to support it through subs and pay every month 13 bucks game is 11 years old come on.

AC2 is a test run and it's free. Did you see an announcement somewhere that they were planing on advertising it or supporting it beyond its current state? I'm curious where this post is coming from.

"Agreed charging 13 a mo for an old game is absurd" - eddieg50

What's absurd is that the devs gave a free second game to the AC playerbase, and you somehow drew the above conclusion that they are charging people 13 dollars to play it. Such is the perception of today's entitled gamers, I guess. vOv

 

"And wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica. Wikipedia is very reliable. You would be hard pressed to find a more reliable source for these kinds of things." -fivoroth

  Jyiiga

Advanced Member

Joined: 3/03/10
Posts: 1045

4/14/13 11:38:30 AM#5
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by GroovyFlower

They should go free 2 play there will never be a player base big enough to support it through subs and pay every month 13 bucks game is 11 years old come on.

AC2 is a test run and it's free. Did you see an announcement somewhere that they were planing on advertising it or supporting it beyond its current state? I'm curious where this post is coming from.

"Agreed charging 13 a mo for an old game is absurd" - eddieg50

What's absurd is that the devs gave a free second game to the AC playerbase, and you somehow drew the above conclusion that they are charging people 13 dollars to play it. Such is the perception of today's entitled gamers, I guess. vOv

 

 

It isn't really free.. because the majority of the AC1 playerbase has zero interest in AC2. When the game was first released they had hoped most of the playerbase would shift over, but this never happened. People wanted AC1 with upgraded graphics and features and what they got was a totally different game.

Now this was not a bad thing, the two titles could of co-existed, but there were to many problems. 

So when they announced AC2 was coming back, they had a large surge in subs to AC1 in the first month, because people interested in AC2 wanted in on it. Now those people are watching the Dev Tracker and seeing very little movement. 

So yes, anyone interested exlusively in AC2 (which is the bulk of AC2 players) is paying for a subscription fee. The fact that it is just part of the AC1 fee doesn't matter. They bought it specifically to play AC2. 

Lately there have been a few insider "rumors" that they did this just to protect their intellectual property and that they have no intention of adding features to this game... Only to get the base features up and running and leave it at that. If this is true, then the game will have a non-existant playerbase shortly, because unlike AC1, AC2 requires grouping at higher lvls to make any sort of reasonable progress in terms of leveling up and in completing quests. 

  eddieg50

Elite Member

Joined: 6/22/05
Posts: 1546

4/14/13 1:22:09 PM#6
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by GroovyFlower

They should go free 2 play there will never be a player base big enough to support it through subs and pay every month 13 bucks game is 11 years old come on.

AC2 is a test run and it's free. Did you see an announcement somewhere that they were planing on advertising it or supporting it beyond its current state? I'm curious where this post is coming from.

"Agreed charging 13 a mo for an old game is absurd" - eddieg50

What's absurd is that the devs gave a free second game to the AC playerbase, and you somehow drew the above conclusion that they are charging people 13 dollars to play it. Such is the perception of today's entitled gamers, I guess. vOv

 

  I went back to play AC2 I had no intention and I still have no intention of playing AC1, now the dev did something a bit on the shady side, they made it seem as if a cust just had to pay the initial start up of $10 I believe and from there after it would be free-which was not true. You had to scour the forums to find out their real intentions. Since I have no desire to play AC1 then paying $13 a mo for a game which is in beta is indeed absurd

  bakon2

Novice Member

Joined: 10/04/04
Posts: 124

4/19/13 9:01:37 AM#7
Originally posted by eddieg50
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by GroovyFlower

They should go free 2 play there will never be a player base big enough to support it through subs and pay every month 13 bucks game is 11 years old come on.

AC2 is a test run and it's free. Did you see an announcement somewhere that they were planing on advertising it or supporting it beyond its current state? I'm curious where this post is coming from.

"Agreed charging 13 a mo for an old game is absurd" - eddieg50

What's absurd is that the devs gave a free second game to the AC playerbase, and you somehow drew the above conclusion that they are charging people 13 dollars to play it. Such is the perception of today's entitled gamers, I guess. vOv

 

  I went back to play AC2 I had no intention and I still have no intention of playing AC1, now the dev did something a bit on the shady side, they made it seem as if a cust just had to pay the initial start up of $10 I believe and from there after it would be free-which was not true. You had to scour the forums to find out their real intentions. Since I have no desire to play AC1 then paying $13 a mo for a game which is in beta is indeed absurd

I don't understand how you could come to that conclusion...I thought it was clear...if you are currently subscribed to AC1 then you can play AC2 for free.  If you are not currently subscribed to AC1 then purchase a subscription and you can play AC2 for free.  Because up to this point, AC2 could not be played.  Sure, we can pick this apart and complain that we are paying to play beta...when in all acuality, you are paying to play AC1.  When you buy something from a store that is "buy one get one free" we think we are getting a deal.  Same exact thing here. Regardless of one's reasoning for subbing to AC1, that is what you are paying for.  Now, also, take into consideration that these devs are not the ones who worked on AC2 before.  This is a new and probably archaic language to them and to expect them to learn it (and be fluent) in just a few months is perposterous.

  Wizardry

Elite Member

Joined: 8/27/04
Posts: 6988

Perhaps tomorrow will be better.

4/19/13 9:08:34 AM#8

There is NO such thing as f2p,where did you guys get that assumption from,you think people work for free?

FFXI is 10 years old and still charges a sub fee.I prefer a sub fee in ALL games,it lowers the botting,cheating and rmt chat spam.

There could be an argument as to how much,depending on effort and size of team supporting it.Only the players can determine that if there has been any decent effort put into this game on an ongoing basis.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Napolianboo#p/u/15/rCYLLQCNc1w
Samoan Diamond

  SnarlingWolf

Novice Member

Joined: 6/23/09
Posts: 2728

4/21/13 1:45:29 PM#9

As other people have said, they added AC2 for free to the AC1 sub. You not having interest in AC1 doesn't change that fact.

 

AC1 is an older game and has also run this entire time on a sub fee. I don't think saying it is 11 years old and shouldn't have a sub fee really works as an argument.

 

I believe there was a post a while back where Sev said some of their goals over this year. One of which I believe was to adjust the XP on some of the solo quests for leveling up as they were too low, so they're already covering one of your concerns. There have also been posts this past week where Sev suggests a patch coming up soon (he said in April and listed a couple of things in it so far).

 

As far as the high levels go, AC2 (along with AC1 for a long long time) were not the current form of MMO where the goal was to hit max level and then play. The original design of AC1 and AC2 were that players would NOT reach max level. They've changed this over the years with AC1, but AC2 still has no max and is meant to have leveling drop down to really slow when you get up into the 70s+. You can't appraoch AC1/2 with the mindset of the WoW generation of MMOs where the leveling is the tutorial and the endgame is where the play is at. Both games are very much about the journey.

 

Players are often overly concerned about "dev communication". The devs stated their goals and then went to work on them. Wanting them to post every few days to say "the goal is still the same" just so there's communication is a bit much. The same thing happens on the AC1 boards. The devs will respond to one topic. Then players will revive that topic a few weeks later and complain there is no dev response to their new thread when it has already been answered before.

 

They said there will be fixes and improvements to the game, that should be enough for now. Let them get some of them in.

 

"We would like to see the game friendlier to solo players. Hopefully we can bump some XP for some soloable quests and add some solo content. It won't be as good as a well built group, but the gap doesn't need to be quite as large as it is.

Sev~"

https://www.asheronscall.com/en/forums/showthread.php?&postid=679048#post679048

 

  Benedikt

Tipster

Joined: 12/12/04
Posts: 1364

We live for The One, we die for The One.

4/21/13 2:18:14 PM#10

i STRONGLY disagree with "how can they charge 13$ for an old game?" sentiment. this statement make sense only if your primary pow to consider "quality" of the game is the graphics.

 

for me the question is more or less opposite: "why should i pay for the new games, when the old ones are a lot better?" i didnt find any new game which could in my eyes stand to vanguard, ac2 or wurm online. sure, i do play new games .... usually for 1 or 2 month and then bored go back to the old ones which have imo 100x better gameplay.

  eddieg50

Elite Member

Joined: 6/22/05
Posts: 1546

4/21/13 4:15:05 PM#11
  I would not have come back if i did not enjoy the game years ago. Despite the fact that they were vague and perhaps diseptive on their explanation of subs, I did enjoy my month, just not enough to continue on. There are still many flaws in the game that need to be addressed and that is why they are calling it a beta. they can charge what ever they want it is their game, I am not sure that is a good business decision, a better one might be to charge half, get more people in and after much needed fixes than raise the price slowly.
  bakon2

Novice Member

Joined: 10/04/04
Posts: 124

4/21/13 5:30:06 PM#12
Originally posted by eddieg50
  I would not have come back if i did not enjoy the game years ago. Despite the fact that they were vague and perhaps diseptive on their explanation of subs, I did enjoy my month, just not enough to continue on. There are still many flaws in the game that need to be addressed and that is why they are calling it a beta. they can charge what ever they want it is their game, I am not sure that is a good business decision, a better one might be to charge half, get more people in and after much needed fixes than raise the price slowly.

what is so deceptive about, "Asheron’s Call 2 has returned! We have opened up a new server for anyone who has an active Asheron’s Call subscription to play Asheron’s Call 2 for free!"  ???????????????????????????????????????????

https://www.asheronscall.com/en/forums/showthread.php?57257-Welcome-to-the-return-of-Asheron-s-Call-2!

 

 

They plainly say what they delivered.  I do not understand how  people misuderstood any of this.  How can you take anything away from reading this than, "If I have a CURRENT AC1 SUBCRITPTION (in which you are ALREADY PAYING FOR) then I can also play AC2...YAY.  Seriously people, there was no deception.  Just because you don't give a flying poop about AC1 doesn't mean that you should get to play the free addtion to the AC1 subscription, which just happens to be AC2, without paying for AC1! 

  eddieg50

Elite Member

Joined: 6/22/05
Posts: 1546

4/21/13 8:37:00 PM#13
many people were confused about their advertising, perhaps if they explained it the you just did that would have been clear. that being said, Old graphics, poor animations, no sense of direction, a very poor UI,  no centralized town. the crafting is decent and the skill system is interesting.  Putting all this together with an admittedly old game that the developers call "still in beta" and charging $13 for it is silly and a poor business decision.  How many people are now playing AC2=case closed
  DrunkWolf

Advanced Member

Joined: 5/07/09
Posts: 1119

4/21/13 8:44:40 PM#14
Originally posted by Benedikt

i STRONGLY disagree with "how can they charge 13$ for an old game?" sentiment. this statement make sense only if your primary pow to confider "quality" of the game is graphics.

 

for me the question is more or less opposite: "why should i pay for the new games, when the old ones are a lot better?" i didnt find any new game, which could in my eyes stand to vanguard, ac2 or wurm online. sure, i do play new games .... usually for 1 or 2 month and then bored go back to the old ones which have imo 100x better gameplay.

 I agree, and cant stress it enough how a game 13 years old like AC1 is still light years ahead of most games that have come out after it. the only thing holding it back in most peoples eyes is graphics/UI because its old. but what ever the game is still just better than most.

oh and thank you AC2 i had never tried it before and when they brought it back it got me back into AC1 again =)

  bakon2

Novice Member

Joined: 10/04/04
Posts: 124

4/21/13 9:59:32 PM#15
Originally posted by eddieg50
many people were confused about their advertising, perhaps if they explained it the you just did that would have been clear. that being said, Old graphics, poor animations, no sense of direction, a very poor UI,  no centralized town. the crafting is decent and the skill system is interesting.  Putting all this together with an admittedly old game that the developers call "still in beta" and charging $13 for it is silly and a poor business decision.  How many people are now playing AC2=case closed

Well, that was taken right off of thier site...perhaps some other site posted something different, but how was it confusing?  I see many people complaining about it but no one has yet to say HOW it confused them...seems like most people are just feeling like they aren't getting what they feel they are entitled too.  And if one should CHOOSE to subscribe to AC1 just to play the "beta" AC2...well, sheesh man...you aren't being cheated...not being misled.

the vitamin Shoppe offers a bogo sale 2x per year...the first vitamin shoppe item is full price, the second is half price.  Go into the store and just ask for the half off item without purchasing the first at full price...really same diff only i bet they laugh at you.

  eddieg50

Elite Member

Joined: 6/22/05
Posts: 1546

4/22/13 8:30:43 PM#16
Like I said, deception + old graphics, poor ui , etc =no one playing ac2-in other words case closed
  bakon2

Novice Member

Joined: 10/04/04
Posts: 124

4/23/13 8:48:19 AM#17
Originally posted by eddieg50
Like I said, deception + old graphics, poor ui , etc =no one playing ac2-in other words case closed

well just about anyone over the age of 3 can say the word deception, but saying it doesn't make it so without showing how there was deception.  I haven't seen everything, but right on thier site its spelled out how one can go about playing ac2...its simple and straight forward, and it appears you are trolling because you just throw out accusations without anything to back them up..CASE CLOSED.

  SnarlingWolf

Novice Member

Joined: 6/23/09
Posts: 2728

4/23/13 12:17:36 PM#18
Originally posted by eddieg50
many people were confused about their advertising, perhaps if they explained it the you just did that would have been clear. that being said, Old graphics, poor animations, no sense of direction, a very poor UI,  no centralized town. the crafting is decent and the skill system is interesting.  Putting all this together with an admittedly old game that the developers call "still in beta" and charging $13 for it is silly and a poor business decision.  How many people are now playing AC2=case closed

I think by many people you really just mean you. I haven't heard "many" people be confused by AC2 being included in the AC1 subscription. In fact I had never heard anyone at all say it until this thread so I think the vast majority understood very clearly what the deal was.

 

So you expected AC2 to be reopened (which is what they stressed, that it was being reopened as it was when it shut down) with brand new graphics, animations, a new UI, and an entire world change to give you a centralized town (in fact there are a few centralized towns that players congregate to so that isn't even a problem)?

 

It seems that you formed an idea in your head of what you WANTED this to be and didn't read at all about what it was. Then got mad that they didn't do what you had in your head.

 

As for direction, they posted an outline of the general goal over this year and are releasing a patch this week.

 

 

One last thing. As many have repeatedly said, they added AC2 into the existing AC1 subscription. You can either look at that as free for people who already had AC1, or as a 2 for 1. You not having interest in AC1 doesn't change that. It is not $13 for just AC2 and AC2 alone.