732 réponses à ce sujet

[Chromie]

KDD-0063 wrote...
This game does have a few points that is superior to WoW. class story during leveling is decent enough; it has good voice acting;

SOME class stories were good not all especially the consular and then the bounty hunter. Sure the voice acting was good but it's an MMO voice acting is not more important content. The voice acting forced Bioware to make the leveling experience incredibly short on launch WoW had something 1000+ quests in the entire game sure they were all pretty much fetch quests but so is TOR.

KDD-0063 wrote...
Pre-max level PvP is decent enough and imo a much better idea than the system in WoW;
Huttball is a pretty creative warzone; classes were fairly balanced in patch 1.1.5;
Also, for some reason warzones are actually decent experience. In TOR I have almost never seen players who are so bad that it makes my head explode, while in WoW, that was about twice a day. Maybe...the small warzone map and warzone design does encourage players to play at least somewhat objectively.

PvP sucks in both games imo. The only reason I find WoW's better is because the ques aren't so long and more class variety since battlegrounds can hold WAY more people than any warzone. I have seen terrible players in both WoW and TOR that really shouldn't affect your decision.

KDD-0063 wrote...

Well, certainly the deal is not nearly as good as buying a bunch of great games from steam summer sale especially when you buy a bundle full of games you love, but it is a soooooooo much better deal than subscribe WoW for a year and get a free copy of diablo 3 (this deal is a truly terrible deal).

How is it better? TOR is pretty much identical to WoW minus the content. Servers were largely empty until Bioware finally moved players into bigger servers. Raiding is the same, flashpoints aren't anything special and crafting needs much more work too. I never liked WoW's crafting system but even WoW handled it better. The mission skills were a good idea but all RNG and the crafting skills need a lot of work especially in the beginning. I made enough money with slicing to buy mounts and speeder trainer for 5 characters it was so broken and ruined the economy. The endgame is all about dailies, pvp and pve no different from WoW. If I wanted WoW i'd stick with it.

[TheBlackBaron]

Skelter192 wrote...
The endgame is all about dailies, pvp and pve no different from WoW. If I wanted WoW i'd stick with it.

Well, the whole idea was that it was supposed to be WoW, with a story and the trappings of Star Wars. Or at least that's how it seemed from playing the beta. In that repsect it -was- a failure. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 01 août 2012 - 03:04 .

[Chromie]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Skelter192 wrote...
The endgame is all about dailies, pvp and pve no different from WoW. If I wanted WoW i'd stick with it.

Well, the whole idea was that it was supposed to be WoW, with a story and the trappings of Star Wars. Or at least that's how it seemed from playing the beta. In that repsect it -was- a failure. 

Aye, they couldn't even successfully copy WoW though the combat felt horrible especially as a Jedi Knight.

TOR has less than 1 million subs didn't know that.

[Morroian]

Skelter192 wrote...

Aye, they couldn't even successfully copy WoW though the combat felt horrible especially as a Jedi Knight.

TOR has less than 1 million subs didn't know that.

IMHO JK combat is fine, I like the flow of it.

As for subs its been obvious for a long time now that its been below 1m, I'm almost surprised its as high as it most probably 
is  ~ 600k-700k.

[Cyberarmy]

wolfsite wrote...

Honestly don't know if I will go back.  My problem with the game was more the flow and style (Game just couldn't decide if it was single player or Multi-player)

Also if Guild Wars 2 turns out to be good.... well.... you know.....

I already had much more fun at GW2s beta weekends(6 days) than 2 months of ToR.

[KDD-0063]

Skelter192 wrote...

How is it better? TOR is pretty much identical to WoW minus the content. Servers were largely empty until Bioware finally moved players into bigger servers. Raiding is the same, flashpoints aren't anything special and crafting needs much more work too. I never liked WoW's crafting system but even WoW handled it better. The mission skills were a good idea but all RNG and the crafting skills need a lot of work especially in the beginning. I made enough money with slicing to buy mounts and speeder trainer for 5 characters it was so broken and ruined the economy. The endgame is all about dailies, pvp and pve no different from WoW. If I wanted WoW i'd stick with it.

What I meant is that after the F2P option, new players can purchase the game for $15(if the news is true) and get unlimited access to the leveling experience of all classes with some drawbacks while returning players get all this for free.

If these conditions and drawbacks are as advertised, the leveling experience shouldn't be frustrating, and there's no need to subscribe for endgame content anyways.

$15 for all 8 classes' leveling story experience, I'd say it is a decent deal. That is what I meant.

Comparing that to subscribing to WoW for a year and get a free copy of D3 ... now this is what I call a terrible deal.

[termokanden]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

It's a strange day when making back your budget and then switching to a more profitable operations model makes a game a "failure".

Reinforces my belief that most people on internet forums actually have no clue how to run a business.

I don't really care if it's profitable or not and as the end user, it really isn't my problem. I care about the quality of the product.

I have to ask, is it going F2P with microtransactions (for items and characters boosts for example) or just F2P?

Not that I will ever touch another F2P MMO after seeing what happened to LotRO. TOR is officially dead to me with the news. It also means I won't be touching any future MMO projects from EA/BioWare.

Modifié par termokanden, 01 août 2012 - 08:20 .

[Cyberarmy]

termokanden wrote...

I have to ask, is it going F2P with microtransactions (for items and characters boosts for example) or just F2P?

Not that I will ever touch another F2P MMO after seeing what happened to LotRO. TOR is officially dead to me with the news. It also means I won't be touching any future MMO projects from EA/BioWare.

Microtransactions all the way!

http://www.swtor.com/free/features

[termokanden]

Not as bad as it could be. LotRO has items that permanently boost your characters. You can also buy superior raid supplies with real money, and it has a lot of other real-money items.

Still, I can't help feeling a bit betrayed that I ever paid for this game. Wouldn't have done so if I knew it was going F2P. Granted, we've all seen it coming for a while now, but not when it was originally released.

[xkg]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

It's a strange day when making back your budget and then switching to a more profitable operations model makes a game a "failure".

Reinforces my belief that most people on internet forums actually have no clue how to run a business.

uhmmm.. maybe because as of now, it is? Even EAs admits to it.

From the yesterday's Q1 2013 Earnings Call (this is word by word transcript, not just some journalist's interpretation)

John Riccitiello - CEO:
"The disappointing results of STAR WARS The Old Republic were largely offset by a powerful performance from Battlefield 3 Premium service"

Frank Gibeau - President, EA Labels:
"Although it launched well, subscriptions have been on the declining trajectory and have now slipped below 1 million. Last year we announced that the breakeven point was roughly 500,000 subscribers. While we are well above that today, that is not good enough.
[...]
As John mentioned, the disappointing performance of STAR WARS is largely offset by the great performance of our Battlefield 3 Premium Service
[...]
We couldn't be more pleased with how the diversity of our business allows us to make up for a miss on one franchise (SW:TOR) with a big hit on another."

[KDD-0063]

termokanden wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

It's a strange day when making back your budget and then switching to a more profitable operations model makes a game a "failure".

Reinforces my belief that most people on internet forums actually have no clue how to run a business.

I don't really care if it's profitable or not and as the end user, it really isn't my problem. I care about the quality of the product.

I have to ask, is it going F2P with microtransactions (for items and characters boosts for example) or just F2P?

Not that I will ever touch another F2P MMO after seeing what happened to LotRO. TOR is officially dead to me with the news. It also means I won't be touching any future MMO projects from EA/BioWare.

F2P doesn't automatically mean a game will be bad.
If TOR is bad, it is because TOR is bad, and TOR has other problems, and it does.

The model was constantly bashed for Pay to win style microtransactions in previous F2P games that makes the game virtually a suffering experience for free players. However, after the success of LoL more games opt for the F2P style that is similar to LoL which is actually more successful.

That is, paying doesn't make you more powerful, but it does make you look better aesthetically (consider how well LoL's Pulsefire Ezreal sold, that skin's price was, like, $36 or something?) or shortens your grind and etc.

What games use this model?
All three dota games (Dota 2, LoL, HoN) use it; many upcoming/current online shooters use it (TF2, Tribes Ascend, PlanetSide 2); also, GW and GW2 can be seen as a variation of this model except you have to pay for the game beforehand. 

Maybe give it a few more years people's opinion on free to play will change.

Modifié par KDD-0063, 01 août 2012 - 09:01 .

[termokanden]

No, the F2P model does ruin it for me. Games to me are a form of escape, and introducing microtransactions is by far the best way to break the illusion. Furthermore, I do dislike both pay to win and pay for aesthetics or convenience systems. They do cheapen the game. Maybe you feel differently, but that doesn't change my opinion on the matter.

If you look at LotRO, it also becomes clear that it's a way to increase costs for those who are very serious about raiding and the game in general (pay for raid food, pay for character boosts - all new characters will need these if you are serious about playing), while the game is flooded by people who don't care one bit and are more likely to grief or spam others as a consequence. I swear I could see it after LotRO went F2P. Earlier I found bunches of helpful people (quite a remarkable number of them compared to other MMOs I had tried) and rarely any spam. After it went F2P, I just found a bunch of annoying kids spamming all channels.

Maybe it's a good business model. Doesn't mean it's good for me though.

[KDD-0063]

termokanden wrote...

No, the F2P model does ruin it for me. Games to me are a form of escape, and introducing microtransactions is by far the best way to break the illusion. Furthermore, I do dislike both pay to win and pay for aesthetics or convenience systems. They do cheapen the game. Maybe you feel differently, but that doesn't change my opinion on the matter.

If you look at LotRO, it also becomes clear that it's a way to increase costs for those who are very serious about raiding and the game in general (pay for raid food, pay for character boosts - all new characters will need these if you are serious about playing), while the game is flooded by people who don't care one bit and are more likely to grief or spam others as a consequence. I swear I could see it after LotRO went F2P. Earlier I found bunches of helpful people (quite a remarkable number of them compared to other MMOs I had tried) and rarely any spam. After it went F2P, I just found a bunch of annoying kids spamming all channels.

Maybe it's a good business model. Doesn't mean it's good for me though.

First of all TOR is still subscription based, but with F2P option with subscribers able to access everything while non-subscribers can only access story content.

Plus even for non-subscribers I think they still need to buy the game before playing. So it is not so free. They still need to pay for the game before they are able to grief and spam the chat.

So if you really like the monthly subscription model so much, I don't see any reason to be worried.

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

However my point was a monthly subscription model isn't necessarily superior to other models.

As long as
a) At least casual players can play free (after the initial payment in GW/GW2/upcoming TOR, or just for free in, say, LoL)
Paying players don't affect free players

I don't see any reason why a monthly subscription model is superior.

[Morroian]

termokanden wrote...

Still, I can't help feeling a bit betrayed that I ever paid for this game. Wouldn't have done so if I knew it was going F2P. .

Why? If you bought it and have played it since then you've got your moneys worth. In a business sense with subs falling, and no signs of subs stabilising, a major competitor about to come out and with others on the horizon, I don't really think they had a choice.

[termokanden]

I'm not saying it is superior. I just do not like games that are based on microtransactions. I dislike the concept, and I have had bad experiences with it. Therefore, this is really bad news to me.

But of course it also depends a great deal on the specific microtransactions that are available. If they affect your characters performance, I think there's a big problem. But if they (as suggested in the brief info about the TOR model) just control access to dungeons for example, I am less concerned. I would still prefer paying a subscription and not worrying about it anymore though. Usually the subscriptions are extremely cheap compared to the amount of time you spend playing. I normally spend as much or more on going to the movies a single night than a month's subscription fee.

As for the griefing, hopefully TOR will not be flooded by spammers or griefers. As you say, you have to pay for the game to get started, so that should deter the worst. TOR doesn't have the best community to begin with though, but that has nothing to do with F2P vs subscriptions.

Modifié par termokanden, 01 août 2012 - 01:49 .

[Jamie9]

I am beginning to wonder how EA will react to this though. Dragon Age II, Mass Effect 3 and now The Old Republic have all had less-than-desired outcomes.

[Dave of Canada]

ME3 and DA2 made them money, they couldn't care less about it's reception.

[spirosz]

KDD-0063 wrote...

termokanden wrote...

No, the F2P model does ruin it for me. Games to me are a form of escape, and introducing microtransactions is by far the best way to break the illusion. Furthermore, I do dislike both pay to win and pay for aesthetics or convenience systems. They do cheapen the game. Maybe you feel differently, but that doesn't change my opinion on the matter.

If you look at LotRO, it also becomes clear that it's a way to increase costs for those who are very serious about raiding and the game in general (pay for raid food, pay for character boosts - all new characters will need these if you are serious about playing), while the game is flooded by people who don't care one bit and are more likely to grief or spam others as a consequence. I swear I could see it after LotRO went F2P. Earlier I found bunches of helpful people (quite a remarkable number of them compared to other MMOs I had tried) and rarely any spam. After it went F2P, I just found a bunch of annoying kids spamming all channels.

Maybe it's a good business model. Doesn't mean it's good for me though.

First of all TOR is still subscription based, but with F2P option with subscribers able to access everything while non-subscribers can only access story content.

Plus even for non-subscribers I think they still need to buy the game before playing. So it is not so free. They still need to pay for the game before they are able to grief and spam the chat.

So if you really like the monthly subscription model so much, I don't see any reason to be worried.

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

However my point was a monthly subscription model isn't necessarily superior to other models.

As long as
a) At least casual players can play free (after the initial payment in GW/GW2/upcoming TOR, or just for free in, say, LoL)
Paying players don't affect free players

I don't see any reason why a monthly subscription model is superior.

Free players can still PVP, but it's restricted, they can't do Operations. 

[Jamie9]

Dave of Canada wrote...

ME3 and DA2 made them money, they couldn't care less about it's reception.

DA2's DLC run was cut short, and ME3 had the Extended Cut created.

Both cost EA money they did not expect to give up. They do care about it's reception.

[Giggles_Manically]

You know 15 bucks is not all that much.

I think I will give it a try, finish off the class stories I did not do in the beta.
Still a better MMO then Star Trek online.

[spirosz]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

You know 15 bucks is not all that much.

I think I will give it a try, finish off the class stories I did not do in the beta.
Still a better MMO then Star Trek online.

Make sure to go in a heavily populated server, lol.  

[Cutlass Jack]

spirosz wrote...

Make sure to go in a heavily populated server, lol.  

Thats nearly a non-issue now. You can only go to a heavily populated one.

[Brockololly]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

It's a strange day when making back your budget and then switching to a more profitable operations model makes a game a "failure".

Its a failure in the sense that the subscription model was a failure. If they were doing fine with subs you wouldn't have the CEO calling out the game for its disappointing performance. Sure, its about what EA's expectations for the game were too. Whether or not it had a $200 million budget or not, it was by EA's own account, their most expensive game to develop ever. So simply breaking even most definitely isn't going to cut it. If all they wanted to do was break even, they could have done any number of much smaller projects.

The question is whether or not switching to FTP will be as profitable as EA wants it to be for TOR. What are EA's expectations with FTP? Seemingly, BioWare missed the expectations with the subscription model. Will they do well enough with FTP to be able to fund more content, especially when content creation is probably even more expensive due to voice acting?

The problem with TOR is that it just seems like a whole lot of money being tossed at a project with not the best understanding of what the marketplace would support or actually want out of such a game.

Jamie9 wrote...

I am beginning to wonder how EA will react to this though. Dragon Age II, Mass Effect 3 and now The Old Republic  have all had less-than-desired outcomes.

The same way EA always does with the developers they buy out:

Modifié par Brockololly, 01 août 2012 - 02:34 .

[spirosz]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Make sure to go in a heavily populated server, lol.  

Thats nearly a non-issue now. You can only go to a heavily populated one.

Did they merge servers? I stopped playing 3 months ago and most servers were ghost towns.  

[Mr. Sprinkles101]

I'm currently installing The Old Republic to try out the free trial first before it even becomes free to play. I don't like mmo's but from the gameplay it seemd like mass effect dialogue wheel so I'm giving it a go. Or is this a bad idea? D: