All Posts by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Beatnik59

I agree with the OP: MMOs are complete rip offs.

Let's compare the costs of a typical MMO game versus the costs of a game that has a high degree of replayability:

Star Wars Galaxies: An Empire Divided $50x2= $100
Jump to Lightspeed $30x2= $60
Rage of the Wookiees $30x2= $60
Subs account 1: 27mox$15= $405
Subs account 2: 24mox$15= $360
________________________________
Total: $885

Compare that with Sim City IV, which I purchased a few months earlier:
Sim City IV: $50
Rush Hour: $30
__________________
Total: $80
 

Or a game I purchased after SWG:

Rome: Total War: $50

Barbarian Invasion: $30

___________________

Total: $80

These games are just as good to play and as challenging as when I bought them.  SWG, however, was changeed against my will into something I don't even know how to play anymore.  So I paid ten times the price for my SWG experience as I did for my Sim City IV or Rome: Total War experience, but got less than half of the amount of play value out of SWG, because of the MMO developers need to mess with my software.

Value is indeed subjective, but the shelf life of the software is not.  MMOs are by their nature short lived, because once the publisher quits supporting the game, the software is useless.  I'm sure Tabula Rasa fans or Asheron's Call II fans would love to keep on playing the games they enjoy, but this isn't within their power to decide.  Just think about how much money they could save if they found a game they could enjoy for just as long of a time for just the box price?

So, in short, MMOs are indeed a ripoff, because you pay a lot more for this version of computer entertainment, and have absolutely no say when or if it will be continually available for your enjoyment.  You pay much more, and get much less say over what you get.

Why don't you and the OP quit MMO then?

Originally posted by Tatum

Originally posted by CactusmanX

Originally posted by Tatum
 

What he said.  They're just not immersive or even logical in a massively multiplayer game. 

 

But then again what is a good alternative to provide players with something interesting to do?

I mean I like the idea of random events but those can only go so far.

Other than that we can leave people to make their own reasons for grinding mobs and skills, however contrived they are. Or hope they roleplay enough to enjoy the grind.

 

More player driven content would be a start.  I think there are at least a few MMOs that have done this in one way or another.  Thats not to say that you can't have quests, but I definately don't think they should be the focus of the game, like they are now in most new MMOs.

Please NOT. I will take professional genereated content over amateur generated content any time of the day.

Quests are 100x better than pure mob grinding because they give you reasons to kill different mobs. Plus, with the right scripted events, it can make game play a lot more fun.

And there are a lot more than just kill/collecting quest. What about escort quests (those have a lot of variations), boss kill quests, and little odd ball things with scripting.

WOW is the same choice. It is extremely polished and full of content. Almost all of the servers are densely populated.

Originally posted by John.A.Zoid

$15 a month = $180 a year + retail cost and yet you're expected to pay for expansions even though people like Valve can keep updating their games without a monthly fee. Then on top of all that there are the micro transactions like the whole TCG type thing in mmorpgs such as SWG where if you want certain in game items the only way you're able to get them is by paying until you're lucky enough to get it.

Not only that but you're paying for features that should come as standard with your monthly fee like what WOW charges you for like changing your character name or transfering your character to another server. I mean to me that is something that you expect as part of the service you want under you montly fee and a standard feature you would want in mmorpgs. Most the time you meet people who play the same game as you but you're normally on different servers and yet your subscription fee doesn't cover that :\ People say oh but that $15 goes towards server charges..... WOW makes over $1 billion a year so really they probbaly could charge everyone $5 a month and still be making more than enough.

Yet soon we're going to enter in the territory where these companies start charging you $15 a month + retail + expansions + in game advertising + micro transactions + anything else they can think of and when are people going to say I've had enough of being taken a fool of? Guild Wars can survive without subscripton fee's so why don#t everyone else frop them if they expect us to pay for all this other crap? They still host every single server and still have to host every instance.

 

If you think it is a rip off, don't pay and don't play. It is a free market. Obviously Blizzard and many have shown that whatever they are charging is NOT driving customers away. There is no reason why they should lower the price if they can get away with this one.

Welcome to capitalism, the naive one.

Originally posted by dave6660

Does anyone think a MMORPG could work if it was built around a barter economy?

The main thing it would get rid of is any form of currency.  There would be no NPC vendors and no auction house.  This would force players to interact with one another (something that is sorely lacking lately) and determine what is valuable and what is not.  It would also eliminate "vendor trash" which I always found particularly annoying.  Everything could be player crafted so there is always demand for materials.  It would also be beneficial if weapons and armor decayed over time to keep things moving.

Couple the absence of currency with item decay and it would really curb the farmer problem.  There would be nothing for them to sell except basic mats which are obtainable by anyone.

Nope. It is a monumentally BAD idea. Barter economy is inefficient and that is why we have currencies for a long long time.

It would take a lot of effort just to barter things in the game and take away time from the fun activities like questing and going into dungeons.

Everything is player crafted is perfectly ok. To make the economy to work smoothly, you do need a currency and a AH (or a central place to trade).

I think there is a balance between complexity and fun. You want it to be complex enough so that players feel that there are tactics and thinking involved but not so much that overwhelms the users.

I have been playing WOTLK since its release and I found the combat still a lot of fun.

Having said that, I have read about LOTR systems and that also sounds very cool. I like the idea of the Runekeeper that you can 'shift' your role dynamically by planning a series of moves.

I will probably try LOTR out more when i am "done" with WOTLK.  

It is pointless to argue who is doing it first.

The strength of Blizzard is not that they do things FIRST .. it is that they do it WELL with POLISH.

Phasing is used very well in WOTLK. I was floored with some of the world changes after i finished a quest.

Oh, they also have fun use of instances in more than just dungeons (yeah yeah .. i know .. LOTR does it too). The quest taking you to the Battle of Undercity is *really* epic and cool.

Originally posted by grimal

I think you're hyping up this expansion way more than it really needs to be.  I tried it and was bored after an hour of play.

That is just you.

Me and everyone in my guild is hooked on WOTLK. It is *really* fun. Vehicle combat, phasing, new abilities .... the quests are even better and more fun than those in BC.

Originally posted by Bladin

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Aetherial

The MMO equation looks like  this...

 

Everquest 1 >>>>>>>>>> WoW > Everquest 2 > LOTRO On-line >>>>>>>>>> everything else.

 

LOL .. EQ1 is a horrible game by today's standard. Unbelievable slow grind. Deep death penalty. Very non-user friendly. Not solo-friendly. Take-a-number-n-wait-in-line campfest (no instance). No quest grinding. No scripted events.  And we are not even talking about the really antiquated graphics/interface yet.

I played EQ since beta and for a few years after it comes out. It is no WOW. WOW is like 100x better.

Everquest for it's time was good, but the gameplay of it, is simply atrociously terrible, as is it's design.  compared to modern games it's actually one of the worst ones out.

But that doesn't change that it WAS great, but that also doesnt mean that since it WAS great, that it STILL is great.

ok . that is fair. I was hooked on EQ too and it was pretty good at its time.

Best quest i have played in the last week or so ...

Riding a giant and beat up on smaller mobs. Yeah, it is a kill x mobs type quest ... but i get to ride a giant and get it to do stuff .. so it is cool.

Originally posted by Aetherial

The MMO equation looks like  this...

 

Everquest 1 >>>>>>>>>> WoW > Everquest 2 > LOTRO On-line >>>>>>>>>> everything else.

LOL .. EQ1 is a horrible game by today's standard. Unbelievable slow grind. Deep death penalty. Very non-user friendly. Not solo-friendly. Take-a-number-n-wait-in-line campfest (no instance). No quest grinding. No scripted events.  And we are not even talking about the really antiquated graphics/interface yet.

I played EQ since beta and for a few years after it comes out. It is no WOW. WOW is like 100x better.

Originally posted by ZtyX

To hell with WoW.

 

Look for Darkfall. The whole world is waiting for it. It's the next Ultima Online.

LOL .. UO is never a very good game in the first place. Ganging, tank mage, boring skill grinding .. no wonder once EQ comes out, everyone jumps ship.

I would be surprise if Darkfall can get even 1/10 of WOW's subscription size .. that is .. if it comes out at all.

Originally posted by amous

The games today are to easy to play, and everyone is looking to hit max level as fast as they can instead of enjoying the game. With that in mind the games are to easy to solo and most of the time you do not need a group to do anything.

All of these are GOOD THINGS and make MMOs more entertaining.

I don't know what the OP is smoking. A growing market with a new expansion breaking all sort of PC games records just released .... it is just the beginning.

MMOs are moving to become serious entertainment.

Originally posted by ViewDoo

First massively solo-player online role playing game? If so why the hell would i want it? I have KotOR 1 and 2 sitting right here beside me, and i don't have to pay another red cent to play them.

Because it would be NEW stories, and new chars and new gameplay .. i.e. new CONTENT.

Originally posted by SignusM

Originally posted by singsofdeath

Originally posted by SignusM

Originally posted by SaintViktor

The game hasn't even been shown yet and already some complain ? I love intelligent posts like these!  

Because you can already tell the direction the game is going in? Just read the website and look at the screenshots. They are cartoony and stylized. The FAQs say it will be mostly soloable and heavy story driven.

 

IE, a billion instances and playing by yourself most of the time. Anyone who expected anything different from a company that makes single player games should question their ability to think. It is THIS reason that I have always said KotoR and Elderscrolls would NOT make good MMOs. 

 

So, give me ONE game where you can't do many things, if not most things solo? One game, please.

 

EverQuest

Dark Age of Camelot

There is a reason why those are very old games and all the newer games are solo-friendly. Players don't want to be shackled by force grouping.

Originally posted by declaredemer

 

MMORPGs, and the direction it is going, is as good as dead for me. I am not crying in my soup. I did that a very, very long time. Here, I am saying, look, after this, I am done. MMORPGs need to return to the Ultima Online, Everquest, and SWG worlds.

 

Nope. MMOs are fine. WOTLK is 100x bettern than UO, EQ or SWG. It actually has compelling CONTENT. And i highly doubt the market would miss you.

Originally posted by Larry2298

It is much easier to produce a A+ single game than online game because a A+ mmo needs too much mooney before making money, and it is not affordable by every company. For quick money, single game is better investment or a cheap F2P.

 

I would not call a A++ single play game "cheap" to make. Those still cost like $10-15M. However, MMO are costing like $50-75M ... and definitely a lot more expensive than SP games.

Is there any doubt? WOTLK probably generated more revenue in its FIRST DAY than all of the others combined for the year.

If not the first day, then the first week would be pretty safe bet.

Originally posted by Rekindle

Originally posted by bobfish

Why should a company invest millions in a sci-fi MMO when no one plays them!

• Anarchy Online
• EVE Online
• Face of Mankind
• Hellgate: London
• The Matrix Online
• Phantasy Star Universe
• Planetside
• RF Online
• Star Wars Galaxies
• Tabula Rasa

With the exception of EVE, they are all pathetic failures as far as number of players go. Please show me any justification for making a big budget sci-fi MMO?

Though, on the bright side we do have:

• Earthrise
• Fallen Earth
• Huxley
• Jumpgate Evolution
• Star Trek Online
• Star Wars: The Old Republic
• Stargate Worlds

I would expect only SWTOR to have any serious number of players, with JGE and ER falling in a long way behind it and the rest being pathetically small.

 

You need to learn that a game is not a failure just because you don't like to play it.  Whats a  failed game?  I would suggest that the best yard stick is revenue because that means people are playing the games.

What I like or don't like begins and ends with my contribution to the financial success of a game nothing more nothing less. 

No .. not revenue. It should be profit. In a financial yardstick, Hellgate London & Tabula Rasa are obvious pathetic losers failure. 

NCSOFT should sue RG .. and make it a public spectacle. I would be cheering the lawsuit on from the side lines :)

I am making sure I won't buy a RG game for the rest of my life.