It's a shame that not many of them stayed to play this game, even with all the eu server merges Crom feels very empty. My fingers are crossed that aoc does not lose alot more players to the new aaa mmo's that are about to be released. 

Wow, this puts into context the announcement that after a bit more than a week, DCUO had over a million new people checking it out.  I wonder why the difference?  AOC has a lot more content, though alot more of it is locked (from what I remember).  And DCUO didn't really make nearly as big a deal out of going f2p as AOC did.

Originally posted by niceguy3978

Wow, this puts into context the announcement that after a bit more than a week, DCUO had over a million new people checking it out.  I wonder why the difference?  AOC has a lot more content, though alot more of it is locked (from what I remember).  And DCUO didn't really make nearly as big a deal out of going f2p as AOC did.

Play with batman or play with a barbarian.  

Batman is more mainstream.

---

Originally posted by niceguy3978
Wow, this puts into context the announcement that after a bit more than a week, DCUO had over a million new people checking it out.  I wonder why the difference?  AOC has a lot more content, though alot more of it is locked (from what I remember).  And DCUO didn't really make nearly as big a deal out of going f2p as AOC did.

---

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by niceguy3978

Wow, this puts into context the announcement that after a bit more than a week, DCUO had over a million new people checking it out.  I wonder why the difference?  AOC has a lot more content, though alot more of it is locked (from what I remember).  And DCUO didn't really make nearly as big a deal out of going f2p as AOC did.

---

AoC probably had at most 60,000 players before they went F2P. 600,000 is a HUGE increase in their player base and probably gives them a decent revenue stream as well.

 

 

I agree, I wasn't trying to put down the game, I enjoyed it for a while.  I guess I don't really see how DCU is such a superior game as to garner so many more people in a much shorter period of time with (what I consider) much less content.  It's a bit odd to me, and I wonder if it has more to do with how each of the games handled what is free and what you pay for,  because AOC seems like a superior game (in my opinion of course).  So the only thing I can really think of is the difference in what is available for free and what is paid for.

AoC has 4 total NA servers.  Which means they likely have a max of  500 to 1k during prime time per server or 5k total population per server or 20k toal population.  Quite far from the 600k figure they would want people to believe.   It is a dead game. That has been dead since a month after release.  But then again AOC was not made for long term subs just to maximize box sales.

Originally posted by Zippy

AoC has 4 total NA servers.  Which means they likely have a mx of 1k during prime time per server or 5k total population per server or 20k toal population.  Quite far from the 600k figure they would want people to believe. 

Their direct quote from the announcement is that "more than 600,000 players have tested the free to play version since July"  I don't really read that as them trying to get people to believe they have 600,000 peaple playing.

Originally posted by niceguy3978

Originally posted by Zippy

AoC has 4 total NA servers.  Which means they likely have a mx of 1k during prime time per server or 5k total population per server or 20k toal population.  Quite far from the 600k figure they would want people to believe. 

Their direct quote from the announcement is that "more than 600,000 players have tested the free to play version since July"  I don't really read that as them trying to get people to believe they have 600,000 peaple playing.

Well, reading comprehension does take greater skill than just reading.

http://www.zazzle.com/zippy_reality_t_shirt-235497302931783950

Originally posted by grunty

Originally posted by niceguy3978

Originally posted by Zippy

AoC has 4 total NA servers.  Which means they likely have a mx of 1k during prime time per server or 5k total population per server or 20k toal population.  Quite far from the 600k figure they would want people to believe. 

Their direct quote from the announcement is that "more than 600,000 players have tested the free to play version since July"  I don't really read that as them trying to get people to believe they have 600,000 peaple playing.

Well, reading comprehension does take greater skill than just reading.

http://www.zazzle.com/zippy_reality_t_shirt-235497302931783950

The pont of the article and Funcoms hype is to make people believe that people are actually playing AoC and that it is not a dead game.  Like everything else from Funcom it is misleading.  Who cares if 600k have registered an account.  The problem is no one plays the game.  A much better story would be, "why did AoC die?"   Rather than just mindlessly repeating Funcom's talking points.  But then again MMO journalists not asking questions and turning a blind eye to Funcoms lies and deception prior to release was a big reason Funcom sold so many boxes at release. So why should they start being objective now? 

The lack of MMO jourmalistic standards  is why companies like Funcom can focus on box sales over long term subs and  focus on eye candy and hype over quality and content.  Because sites like MMORPG.Com focus only on page hits and advertising they have no interest in journalism.  Their interest is in hyping poorly made games to genreate page hits for this site.  That is where their interest begins and ends.

I thought reading financial statements would be boring, but some of the information is interesting, such as the difference in hosting costs between the time that AoC launched and for when TSW is getting ready to launch.

The important part of all of this is that AoC is generating a positive cash flow and is actually making money as opposed to losing money. So whatever their number of players is, they are making money. It's some kind of miracle really.

Originally posted by Zippy

Originally posted by grunty

Originally posted by niceguy3978

Originally posted by Zippy

AoC has 4 total NA servers.  Which means they likely have a mx of 1k during prime time per server or 5k total population per server or 20k toal population.  Quite far from the 600k figure they would want people to believe. 

Their direct quote from the announcement is that "more than 600,000 players have tested the free to play version since July"  I don't really read that as them trying to get people to believe they have 600,000 peaple playing.

Well, reading comprehension does take greater skill than just reading.

http://www.zazzle.com/zippy_reality_t_shirt-235497302931783950

The pont of the article and Funcoms hype is to make people believe that people are actually playing AoC and that it is not a dead game.  Like everything else from Funcom it is misleading.  Who cares if 600k have registered an account.  The problem is no one plays the game.  A much better story would be, "why did AoC die?"   Rather than just mindlessly repeating Funcom's talking points.  But then again MMO journalists not asking questions and turning a blind eye to Funcoms lies and deception prior to release was a big reason Funcom sold so many boxes at release. So why should they start being objective now? 

The lack of MMO jourmalistic standards  is why companies like Funcom can focus on box sales over long term subs and  focus on eye candy and hype over quality and content.  Because sites like MMORPG.Com focus only on page hits and advertising they have no interest in journalism.  Their interest is in hyping poorly made games to genreate page hits for this site.  That is where their interest begins and ends.

I learned a long time ago how to read promotional material and advertisements. One of those first instances was when Cracker Jacks changed their on-box statement from "Prize inside" to "Surprise inside". Some people take longer.

Originally posted by Zippy

Originally posted by grunty

Originally posted by niceguy3978

Originally posted by Zippy

AoC has 4 total NA servers.  Which means they likely have a mx of 1k during prime time per server or 5k total population per server or 20k toal population.  Quite far from the 600k figure they would want people to believe. 

Their direct quote from the announcement is that "more than 600,000 players have tested the free to play version since July"  I don't really read that as them trying to get people to believe they have 600,000 peaple playing.

Well, reading comprehension does take greater skill than just reading.

http://www.zazzle.com/zippy_reality_t_shirt-235497302931783950

The pont of the article and Funcoms hype is to make people believe that people are actually playing AoC and that it is not a dead game.  Like everything else from Funcom it is misleading.  Who cares if 600k have registered an account.  The problem is no one plays the game.  A much better story would be, "why did AoC die?"   Rather than just mindlessly repeating Funcom's talking points.  But then again MMO journalists not asking questions and turning a blind eye to Funcoms lies and deception prior to release was a big reason Funcom sold so many boxes at release. So why should they start being objective now? 

The lack of MMO jourmalistic standards  is why companies like Funcom can focus on box sales over long term subs and  focus on eye candy and hype over quality and content.  Because sites like MMORPG.Com focus only on page hits and advertising they have no interest in journalism.  Their interest is in hyping poorly made games to genreate page hits for this site.  That is where their interest begins and ends.

You making a statement that AoC has been dead a month after release doesn't lend any credibility to your statements, in fact it heavily detracts from it and makes you sound biased against the game to the point of ignoring any facts if they aren't negative about the game.

Hard to make a case for objectivity if you show none of it yourself.

Get over your grudge and move on, is what I'd advise in such cases.

As for the article: it's a nice number of people checking it out, but with the upcoming AAA MMORPG's that will arrive the next 6 months, I fear all current MMO's are going to take some considerable hits, AoC included.

Originally posted by lizardbones

I thought reading financial statements would be boring, but some of the information is interesting, such as the difference in hosting costs between the time that AoC launched and for when TSW is getting ready to launch.

The important part of all of this is that AoC is generating a positive cash flow and is actually making money as opposed to losing money. So whatever their number of players is, they are making money. It's some kind of miracle really.

What was the expected difference in hosting costs?

And did the report state why that difference?

Originally posted by lizardbones

I thought reading financial statements would be boring, but some of the information is interesting, such as the difference in hosting costs between the time that AoC launched and for when TSW is getting ready to launch.



The important part of all of this is that AoC is generating a positive cash flow and is actually making money as opposed to losing money. So whatever their number of players is, they are making money. It's some kind of miracle really.

THIS ^^ is what I think the most important thing for a MMO. Make money to further develop the game and/or develop a new MMO. Don't look at the number of players running around. As long as YOU enjoy this game, and the game makes money (and thus can continue to exist), the game is a success.

Shame because it doesn't mean anything.

I am IN LOVE with this game (got a level 64 and a level 42) and boy are the mid levels DEAD. Life at 80 seems VERY active though (and I mean VERY). But that doesn't mean much because everything's one huge grind at 80: PvP, PvE, AAs, etc. So you're at a disadvantage as a new player. And FC doesn't care about players any longer so abandon all hope of getting the system reworked to make a better gaming experience (or just wait a year for FC to realize there is a problem).  

Honestly, AoC is probably the best-made themepark MMO out there. Best-made but worst-maintained. FC doesn't care about its game, it disrespects its playerbase and the cherry on the icing is that whatever they do, they do at a glacial pace. As I said, it's a bloody shame because the game is brilliantly-crafted... it's just that it's lacking almost everything else (developer support, first and foremost).

I quit RIFT to play AoC and I'm having a really good time. I honestly don't care if they only have 4, well 3 servers (Deathwish is dying). The community is far more active, and gregarious than RIFT's (have experience of over 4 shards and have played since headstart). The aesthetics are amazing, and the game graphically is stunning (especially for a 3 year one). 

My advice? DON'T PLAY IT. You will run the risk of falling in love with it... and meet the crushing realization that the developers have - unfortunately - erroneously abandoned it for some odd reason (TSW perhaps, who knows). And that'll make you very mad and sad :|

PS. Be wary of TSW. One would hope FC learns from their mistakes... *snort*

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

Originally posted by Zippy

Originally posted by grunty

Originally posted by niceguy3978

Originally posted by Zippy

AoC has 4 total NA servers.  Which means they likely have a mx of 1k during prime time per server or 5k total population per server or 20k toal population.  Quite far from the 600k figure they would want people to believe. 

Their direct quote from the announcement is that "more than 600,000 players have tested the free to play version since July"  I don't really read that as them trying to get people to believe they have 600,000 peaple playing.

Well, reading comprehension does take greater skill than just reading.

http://www.zazzle.com/zippy_reality_t_shirt-235497302931783950

The pont of the article and Funcoms hype is to make people believe that people are actually playing AoC and that it is not a dead game.  Like everything else from Funcom it is misleading.  Who cares if 600k have registered an account.  The problem is no one plays the game.  A much better story would be, "why did AoC die?"   Rather than just mindlessly repeating Funcom's talking points.  But then again MMO journalists not asking questions and turning a blind eye to Funcoms lies and deception prior to release was a big reason Funcom sold so many boxes at release. So why should they start being objective now? 

The lack of MMO jourmalistic standards  is why companies like Funcom can focus on box sales over long term subs and  focus on eye candy and hype over quality and content.  Because sites like MMORPG.Com focus only on page hits and advertising they have no interest in journalism.  Their interest is in hyping poorly made games to genreate page hits for this site.  That is where their interest begins and ends.

You making a statement that AoC has been dead a month after release doesn't lend any credibility to your statements, in fact it heavily detracts from it and makes you sound biased against the game to the point of ignoring any facts if they aren't negative about the game.

Hard to make a case for objectivity if you show none of it yourself.

Get over your grudge and move on, is what I'd advise in such cases.

 

As for the article: it's a nice number of people checking it out, but with the upcoming AAA MMORPG's that will arrive the next 6 months, I fear all current MMO's are going to take some considerable hits, AoC included.

Certainly it is a subjective statement.  But the game IMO was dead 4 weeks after release.  The servers were ghost towns.  The game had no tested conetnt past level 30, the design of the game along with the target audience was not directed towards players that would subscribe longterm, and games that have failed at release in almost all exceptions (AO but that was more a techincal failure as one could not stay logged in and released in a different era when gamers had more patience and less choices) means its over.  Not to mention  the  poor reputation Funcom earned from its open beta bait and switch and its lies about what would be included at release.  AoC was made for short term box sales not for long term sub revenue.  Which explains the lies, the poor quality, short development time and targetting the over excited kiddie demographic by marketing the game on juvenile themes of nudity, profanity, blood, gore and a simplistic follow the arrow combat system. 

Whether you like AoC or hate it the game is dead.  It does not have enough people playing it to keep enough devs employed to provide any meaningful content.  If you like the game then its even sadder and I feel for you.  Look at Vanguard's sad death.  Many people will argue it was one of the greatest games ever made.  Certainly one of the broadest  MMOS developed in terms of horizontal 1-50 content.  But sadly it recieved no support once SOE took over in May, 2007, dropping from over 100 devs to 1 dev within a year.  There it has remained on life support.  Dead with no content but still existing.  This is what happens to games that do not have the sub base to support new content.  They wither and die while the fanboys post about how things will eventually change and all we be right in the universe one day.  Sites like MMORPG.Com will periodically write a nice hype piece (after their writer plays the game for 6 or 7 minutes) telling people how game X is thriving and people are coming back in droves with the expectations of new content.  But don't believe it. It is all a lie. 

Originally posted by marinrider

Originally posted by niceguy3978

Wow, this puts into context the announcement that after a bit more than a week, DCUO had over a million new people checking it out.  I wonder why the difference?  AOC has a lot more content, though alot more of it is locked (from what I remember).  And DCUO didn't really make nearly as big a deal out of going f2p as AOC did.

Play with batman or play with a barbarian.  

Batman is more mainstream.

good point but still surprising

DCUO announces 500k PC f2p after its first week   (1m if you include console)

AOC announces 600k f2p after 4 months

altho AOC did announce 300k after its first month

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/08/11/age-of-conan-unchained-conquers-300-000-new-players-doubles-re/

Originally posted by Zippy

Certainly it is a subjective statement.  But the game IMO was dead 4 weeks after release.  The servers were ghost towns.  The game had no tested conetnt past level 30, the design of the game along with the target audience was not directed towards players that would subscribe longterm, and games that have failed at release in almost all exceptions (AO but that was more a techincal failure as one could not stay logged in and released in a different era when gamers had more patience and less choices) means its over.  Not to mention  the  poor reputation Funcom earned from its open beta bait and switch and its lies about what would be included at release.  AoC was made for short term box sales not for long term sub revenue.  Which explains the lies, the poor quality, short development time and targetting the over excited kiddie demographic by marketing the game on juvenile themes of nudity, profanity, blood, gore and a simplistic follow the arrow combat system. 

So wrong that it isn't even funny. 

The game had a bad launch because it was a forced launch and not because of your conspiracy quick buck theory. 

Also AoC combat is probably the best combat in any hotkey twitch MMO in the West (can't speak for Asia as I have no experience) and the combat system was a lot more complicated at launch. 

Not even going to dignify the other fallacious hyperboles with a response.  

Originally posted by Zippy

Certainly it is a subjective statement.  But the game IMO was dead 4 weeks after release.  The servers were ghost towns.  The game had no tested conetnt past level 30, the design of the game along with the target audience was not directed towards players that would subscribe longterm, and games that have failed at release in almost all exceptions (AO but that was more a techincal failure as one could not stay logged in and released in a different era when gamers had more patience and less choices) means its over.  Not to mention  the  poor reputation Funcom earned from its open beta bait and switch and its lies about what would be included at release.  AoC was made for short term box sales not for long term sub revenue.  Which explains the lies, the poor quality, short development time and targetting the over excited kiddie demographic by marketing the game on juvenile themes of nudity, profanity, blood, gore and a simplistic follow the arrow combat system. 

Whether you like AoC or hate it the game is dead.  It does not have enough people playing it to keep enough devs employed to provide any meaningful content.  If you like the game then its even sadder and I feel for you.  Look at Vanguard's sad death.  Many people will argue it was one of the greatest games ever made.  Certainly one of the broadest  MMOS developed in terms of horizontal 1-50 content.  But sadly it recieved no support once SOE took over in May, 2007, dropping from over 100 devs to 1 dev within a year.  There it has remained on life support.  Dead with no content but still existing.  This is what happens to games that do not have the sub base to support new content.  They wither and die while the fanboys post about how things will eventually change and all we be right in the universe one day.  Sites like MMORPG.Com will periodically write a nice hype piece (after their writer plays the game for 6 or 7 minutes) telling people how game X is thriving and people are coming back in droves with the expectations of new content.  But don't believe it. It is all a lie. 

Well, I have played it over the years from time to time and maybe you were on an unlucky server, but the servers I played on weren't, even a few months after release they were pleasantly populated. This summer when I checked back again I counted 2000-2500 online at the same time on some servers, which is pretty damn good considering that the highest populated LotrO servers a year or so ago when I checked counted 1000-1500 and a usual 'high population' MMO server has on average 1250-2000 online at peak times.

As for what Funcom implemented, the game after 1.5-2 years was in a much better state than at launch, no more leveling content gaps, some great zones added, the expansion was interesting and they implemented quite a number of stuff and features in the past few years that belie any statement that the game was merely for box sales. It's gotten way, way more support and content added than a game like Vanguard got or even WAR.

If you dislike AoC, nothing wrong with it, but distorting facts and outright lying just because you don't like to see a game or company you hate/despise/dislike do well... I don't see any merit in it at all.

With all the content, changes and continued developing that AoC has gotten over the years, personally I rank it in a current top 5 of AAA MMORPG's, along with WoW, LotrO, Aion and Rift.  The game has gotten just that good. IMO of course.

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

Well, I have played it over the years from time to time and maybe you were on an unlucky server, but the servers I played on weren't, even a few months after release they were pleasantly populated. This summer when I checked back again I counted 2000-2500 online at the same time on some servers, which is pretty damn good considering that the highest populated LotrO servers a year or so ago when I checked counted 1000-1500 and a usual 'high population' MMO server has on average 1250-2000 online at peak times.

Hey MMO.Maverick,

{{Aside: I never had the experience of being there from the start, but from what I have read, FC changed AoC's game director close to/shortly after launch or something? I read that this new director, while good at solving some major bugs eventually decided to push the game from niche PvP-intensive, awesome  themepark to the mass-market WoW direction. How valid is this? Because from what you wrote and from other things I have read, the game's progression from launch onwards confirms this. }}

 

Also, I don't know what game Zippy played, but by inference alone from the various threads dating back to 2008, posters and the myriad servers they came from, this game seems to have been populated - they way you describe it. To compare: As someone who was there at RIFT from the very beginning, I have a feeling that RIFT was "consumed" faster than AoC. That is, players stuck longer with AoC than they did with RIFT (I occasionally peruse through the RIFT forums and gone are most of the faces from beta, headstart and the first three months. These weren't randoms, mind you; they were testers, theorycrafters, really prominent people from other games, etc). 

 

As for what Funcom implemented, the game after 1.5-2 years was in a much better state than at launch, no more leveling content gaps, some great zones added, the expansion was interesting and they implemented quite a number of stuff and features in the past few years that belie any statement that the game was merely for box sales. It's gotten way, way more support and content added than a game like Vanguard got or even WAR.

 

I really agree. I do think though that this was a classic case of too little too late. But to keep it on track, I'll quote you:  "... the game after 1.5-2 years was in a much better state than at launch...".

If you dislike AoC, nothing wrong with it, but distorting facts and outright lying just because you don't like to see a game or company you hate/despise/dislike do well... I don't see any merit in it at all.

 

With all the content, changes and continued developing that AoC has gotten over the years, personally I rank it in a current top 5 of AAA MMORPG's, along with WoW, LotrO, Aion and Rift.  The game has gotten just that good. IMO of course.

 

Matter of personal preference but I honestly think AoC is the best-made themepark right now. It's not been well-maintained at all, and is lacking serious support from its creators. But taking into account things like graphics, aesthetics, and game design make it a brilliant game.

The MMO world still maintains a sense of vastness despite the horrid loadscreens and instancing.

The graphics can give msot 2011 games a run for their money and the game can run for older systems whiles till looking reasonably attractive unlike RIFT for instance.

The races while all human ones maintain distinct flavour, as do the classes. A great foundation for PvP exists.

There are features in the User Interface taht provide an extra layer of personalization for the user (such as looping music, or enabling/disabling cutscenes). Many 2011 games lack these features!

Cool, little mechanics like fatalities (!), siege mounts, and so on.

"Sandbox" elements like making your own city. 

(you have played the game, you'd know better than me!) 

 

As someone who had the highest of hopes and the greatest of expectations for RIFT, I have to say with a heavy heart that RIFT appears to be a generic (but beautiful) MMO that does everything and nothing. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that it was made to check boxes and not provide a satisfying experience. RIFT happens to have the godly fortune of being backed up by a STELLAR company, however. I have nothing but praise for TRION Worlds. 

 

Perhaps in the ideal reality, Trion takes over AoC? :)

 

Anyway, I have gone off the trail quite drastically; will reign it in: I agree with you that AoC is definitely a contender for a "premier" AAA MMO.  Interesting to think that for the MMO people, it had kind of died. It's unfortunate because I think this game has always had the cards decked up against in NA. I feel that this game is better marketed in EU and that this was the case back at launch as well. It appears that the EU servers today are still slightly more populated than the NA ones.

I'm really considering getting this. I'm almost capped for the month already due mainly to beta'ing another game but I have like 40gig left for the month so I may or may not get AoC...but seems kinda fun from youtube vids I've watched.

 The lore is crap. Extremely lazy development team.   I grew up on Savage Sword (if you don't know this then move along), Le Sprague's edited Conan novels (same as before).  Necromancers and Demonologists would be killed on sight in Cimmeria.  Mitra priests do not align with Set let alone combat one another.  This was a story of epic warfare, hence why Conan the King was portrayed as furiously defending his realm vs invading realms (opening animation), NOT what happens when Tammy's Cimmerian, Aquilonian, Stygian guild fights Mike's Aquilonia, Stygian, Cimmerian guild in an instanced BG nonetheless!

However, the game was only Conan in name not content or quality.  They needed a semi familiar reference point and they were full aware most folks smoke pot that play these days and are <25.  That's the player base that "Rules them All."

Robert Ervin Howard turned in his grave when he saw this mess.  Another F2P (Fail to Pay) game.

600,000 kids, foreign servicement who were bored in a pup tent in Iraq, and gold farming employees took a look, and moved on.

So far developers have ruined the mmorpg potential of: Dungeons and Dragons, Star Wars, Conan, and Lord of the Rings (not to mention a few others).

Originally posted by Comaf

 The lore is crap. Extremely lazy development team.   I grew up on Savage Sword (if you don't know this then move along), Le Sprague's edited Conan novels (same as before).  Necromancers and Demonologists would be killed on sight in Cimmeria.  Mitra priests do not align with Set let alone combat one another.  This was a story of epic warfare, hence why Conan the King was portrayed as furiously defending his realm vs invading realms (opening animation), NOT what happens when Tammy's Cimmerian, Aquilonian, Stygian guild fights Mike's Aquilonia, Stygian, Cimmerian guild in an instanced BG nonetheless!

However, the game was only Conan in name not content or quality.  They needed a semi familiar reference point and they were full aware most folks smoke pot that play these days and are <25.  That's the player base that "Rules them All."

 

Robert Ervin Howard turned in his grave when he saw this mess.  Another F2P (Fail to Pay) game.

 600,000 kids, foreign servicement who were bored in a pup tent in Iraq, and gold farming employees took a look, and moved on.

So far developers have ruined the mmorpg potential of: Dungeons and Dragons, Star Wars, Conan, and Lord of the Rings (not to mention a few others).

 

Well I have to disagree, they did a decent job with the lore.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think Mr Howard would enjoy this game.   My only problem with the game is you are channeled everywhere, the areas are not open so there is no sense of exploration.

What is up with the multiple carriage returns? Quite rude if you ask me, makes the post very hard to read.   Ridiculous I have to edit your post to make it readible.

personally i think conan is great..but released way too early.has for the amount of peeps playing or paying,well on my server the poulation is quite considerable thru day and night,,no idea about the other servers though.i know this,they are making money off this game,so has long as they are i,m sure the content will flow..saying that though once TSW comes out i,ll be moving to that game..unless they do something like what sony do which is access all for a certain price.600k may have logged in to check it out but there is nowhere near that amount playing..i know it didnt state that.but you have to wonder how many actually pay.

Originally posted by marinrider

Originally posted by niceguy3978

Wow, this puts into context the announcement that after a bit more than a week, DCUO had over a million new people checking it out.  I wonder why the difference?  AOC has a lot more content, though alot more of it is locked (from what I remember).  And DCUO didn't really make nearly as big a deal out of going f2p as AOC did.

Play with batman or play with a barbarian.  

Batman is more mainstream.

 

so true, if you play as batman/joker for your mentor (gotham city) you'll find at least 200 players under level 10 in your beginner area. Metropolis is slightly less, but china town (Circe/Wonderwoman) is almost empty lol.

Originally posted by Zippy

AoC has 4 total NA servers.  Which means they likely have a max of  500 to 1k during prime time per server or 5k total population per server or 20k toal population.  Quite far from the 600k figure they would want people to believe.   It is a dead game. That has been dead since a month after release.  But then again AOC was not made for long term subs just to maximize box sales.

Your source.  They didn't put a game out like that just for box sales.  Even given the type of conspiracy theories that are prevelant with statements such as this, people forget one factor.  Common sense.  It just doesn't pass the common sense test.

Originally posted by niceguy3978

Originally posted by Zippy

AoC has 4 total NA servers.  Which means they likely have a mx of 1k during prime time per server or 5k total population per server or 20k toal population.  Quite far from the 600k figure they would want people to believe. 

Their direct quote from the announcement is that "more than 600,000 players have tested the free to play version since July"  I don't really read that as them trying to get people to believe they have 600,000 peaple playing.

Yeah. Add that AoC always done better in Europe while WAR did better in US to that.

Still, they ould have said the number of active players as well. I wonder if they are earning more money now or not?

AoC is not a bad game and I wish it all the best, but my problem with the game have always been that it is too small, even if you count in the expansion and the added zones.

So the question is if the F2P players will stay longer than the P2P players did.

One thing I was very disappointed with this game was the graphics, even running everything on high it did not even come close to what Lotro has.  

Originally posted by Ozmodan

One thing I was very disappointed with this game was the graphics, even running everything on high it did not even come close to what Lotro has.  

Really? I thought it looks better. particularly the avatars.

But I guess it is a matter of taste (unless you have a crappy GFX card, mine is fine).

Some people would die if they don't criticize every good game on the market.  AOC is one of few MMO-s worth to play and even today graphic looks amazing and after Rift i think it is best looking game. In fact  i would  give AOC  third place for quality after  wow and eve online.  I think main problem of this game is to slow leveling and they should speed up a little like wow did.

Originally posted by palulalula

Some people would die if they don't criticize every good game on the market.  AOC is one of few MMO-s worth to play and even today graphic looks amazing and after Rift i think it is best looking game. In fact  i would  give AOC  third place for quality after  wow and eve online.  I think main problem of this game is to slow leveling and they should speed up a little like wow did.

 

its kind of strange that you say its slow to lvl..they do have offline levelling..that means i think that once you reach lvl 30 they give you 1 additional lvl every 4 days to compensate for length of time lvling...basically you can lvl your char to 30,not touch it again and if you add the offline lvls to that character you can take it to lvl 80.without doing 1 quest

Not for free