Why do you think you will succeed where Warhammer Online has failed?


Pathfinder Online

51 to 87 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Ryan Dancey wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:


Such well-rounded sandboxes exist.

I don't believe that to be true. I have played a lot of them (at least the ones that are still playable) and for the most part I found one of three things:

They are either

1: Hardcore PvP games where the real "game" is just PvP combat. These games will not succeed because FPS games are a better play experience for this kind of style and it's almost impossible to become successful unless you were an early adopter or have friends willing to help you power level and gear up via metagaming.

2: Life Simulators where the emphasis is on "living" in a "realistic" world. Instead of being a place where there is an emphasis on being a hero, the emphasis is on being a farmer, or a woodsman, or some other lifestyle choice while your character develops skills via repetition and tedium until they can kill a wolf or two, and dare to go into the wilderness beyond the range of the firelight. These games do not succeed because most people want to be heroes to begin with, not "work up" to it by leading a mundane life in a simulated world first.

3: Games that have no effective marketing. "Word of mouth" is not effective marketing. You have to understand who your target audience is and how to communicate with them effectively to engage their interest and induce them to try your game. "Great games do not sell themselves."

Pathfinder Online is going to be fun from the first day you log in. It is going to have deep complex systems but there will be a clear path for being a hero immediately. We're not going to ask you to chop wood for 3 days of realtime to get enough "Axe" skill to kill a wolf. Likewise, we're not going to trap you in a murder simulator where unless you're an early adopter, play with leet buds, and have phat loot you just die every time you log in.

And it's going to be effectively marketed.

There are as many lessons to be learned from the failed sandboxes as there are from the successful theme parks.

I like what I read here, and thank you for your input.

My biggest concern is that this game will follow the likes of EVE, wherein a complex economic process almost requires out of game spreadsheet calculations in order to remain economically competitive. Micromanagement on this scale is not fun, and it leads to the real money trading becoming a huge issue. Are there plans in place to avoid this, or am I barking up the wrong tree in thinking that PFO will be so closely related to EVE?

Sovereign Court

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
deusvult wrote:
MMOs are all about the quick, short-attention-span instant fun. IE, they ARE for kids.
You are insulting people who like a different playstyle than you. That's not-classy behavior.

What's the insult? That things designed with kids in mind is somehow inappropriate for adults to also play?

If I ruffled any feathers, sorry, it wasn't the intention. Just pointing out that MMOs have to cater to the kid market, or else they'll never be financially successful. If they're not planning on being financially succesful, why make the attempt?

As someone rhetorically asked, if I hate MMOs why am I even in the thread? No, I'm not trolling. I loved EQ, DAoC, and currently WoW. I'm curious to see if pathfinder MMO is going to be able to survive longer than a year or so before it folds. But whether it does or not, I'm sure that any potential pathfinder MMO is also 'going to be for kids' and I'd probably still like it... its a question of do I feel like I should bother with investing (emotionally) into the game if it's just destined to be crushed under the WoW juggernaut like so many others? ;)

Goblin Squad Member

^
This is what we call a false premise.
To argue for it or against it is pointless, because it is false.


People with more time to spend on an online game than yourself are not automatically kids.

Actually, games such as these used to require a significant time investment (and still do,at the highest levels of the game), and many of the so-called "short attention span" features that have been added to "dumb the game down" have been added specifically at the behest of adults who enjoy this sort of entertainment, but now find themselves with less free time, and so now want to feel as if they can accomplish something significant with much less time spent.

Sovereign Court

Kryzbyn wrote:

^

This is what we call a false premise.
To argue for it or against it is pointless, because it is false.

Back atcha, buddy.

Just because you say I'm full of false premise, doesn't make it so.

I'm sure I'm not the biggest MMO expert in the world, but I'm also rather convinced you can't expect to make a successful video game (of any kind) that doesn't cater to kids.

Sure, there's more adults video gaming than 20 years ago, and sure you can make a video game rated 'M for mature!' but lets not kid anyone.. those are no more 'not for kids' than an R rated movie action-explosion movie isn't.

But hey, if I'm totally wrong and there's a way to make a successful MMO that doesn't revolve around quick gratification, I'm by all means open to hearing how they plan to to that. Even EVE is that way, just not to the extent as WoW or many others. Only exception I can think of is Second Life, but we're better off not going there.

Goblin Squad Member

This study done in 2008, shows that the average age of the players was 33 years of age, and only 7% were younger than 18.

By your assumption all video games have to cater to children to be sucessful. You think there aren't alot of pree-teen kids playing Skyrim atm? Where are you setting the bar?


It depends on what you mean by 'quick gratification' -- again I'll point to Flyff as a F2P that doesn't revolve around giving you what you want immediately.

Sovereign Court

Kryzbyn wrote:

This study done in 2008, shows that the average age of the players was 33 years of age, and only 7% were younger than 18.

By your assumption all video games have to cater to children to be sucessful. You think there aren't alot of pree-teen kids playing Skyrim atm? Where are you setting the bar?

I think this is our disconnect. I'd consider certain 33 year olds (particularly any hypothetical one that has never held a job and still lives in mom's basement) as still being 'kids'.

Of course that's an extreme end, but I'd still consider virtually all 22-24 year olds to still be 'kids'. Where do I set the bar? If you've never held a full-time job, or you haven't graduated from college, you're still a 'kid'. That's where my definition lies. You don't still have to be a child to be a 'kid'. Nor is being a 'kid' necessarily a bad thing. 'Adult' needn't mean pornographic, same principle here.

When I say that game developers 'must cater to kids to be successful', that means several things. It means that soccer moms must feel safe about purchasing it for 17 year old johnny. It means that there must be enough engaging aspects to draw in the '733T' speakers who obsess and spend tons of time pushing the game to its limits. It NEEDN'T be all 'rainbows and ponies' to keep the elementary school age children engrossed, if anyone thinks that's what my statements were implying.

I think that what's clear is for any number of reasons, it's not going to be an exact copy of the Pathfinder rules set that plays exactly like a tabletop game, only with spiffy graphics and the freedom from having to arrange for babysitters for the tykes and that everyone can play from the comfort and convenience of their own home.

So if it's going to be a MMO port of the tabletop RPG we all know (and presumably love), that should imply that it's going to be at least similar to other MMOs. I'm still not sure how that ended up getting panties all in a twist, but whatever. Again, peace. No insults intended.

That dovetails in with the original post.. if they're going to make another MMO, what can they tell us to tease/assure us that it's a game that'll have legs and not just fold after a couple financial quarters?

Goblin Squad Member

If Pathfinder Online is going to enable the dynamic reshaping of the landscape through the creation of player-owned lands (the references to Kingmaker lead me to believe this might be a design goal), and if it is going to involve a significant amount of PVP, then I would think the developers might be better served asking themselves

'How will this game be better, and more financially successful, than Shadowbane?'

SB was, before its premature demise, one of my favorite all-time MMOs, but bugs and laggy performance killed what was one of the most engaging online experiences I've ever had. Hopefully PO can learn from these mistakes.

Good gaming to all,

DJF


deusvult wrote:

Of course that's an extreme end, but I'd still consider virtually all 22-24 year olds to still be 'kids'. Where do I set the bar? If you've never held a full-time job, or you haven't graduated from college, you're still a 'kid'. That's where my definition lies. You don't still have to be a child to be a 'kid'.

Thank you so much DV, for calling my entire family (including my 72 year old grandmother and 53 year old uncle) kids.

EDIT: also... I certainly hope you include 'Homemaker' as a full time job >.<


kyrt-ryder wrote:
deusvult wrote:

Of course that's an extreme end, but I'd still consider virtually all 22-24 year olds to still be 'kids'. Where do I set the bar? If you've never held a full-time job, or you haven't graduated from college, you're still a 'kid'. That's where my definition lies. You don't still have to be a child to be a 'kid'.

Thank you so much DV, for calling my entire family (including my 72 year old grandmother and 53 year old uncle) kids.

Perhaps you missed part?

Sovereign Court

kyrt-ryder wrote:
deusvult wrote:

Of course that's an extreme end, but I'd still consider virtually all 22-24 year olds to still be 'kids'. Where do I set the bar? If you've never held a full-time job, or you haven't graduated from college, you're still a 'kid'. That's where my definition lies. You don't still have to be a child to be a 'kid'.

Thank you so much DV, for calling my entire family (including my 72 year old grandmother and 53 year old uncle) kids.

EDIT: also... I certainly hope you include 'Homemaker' as a full time job >.<

EDIT: Obviously, a homemaker is a full time job :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually I meant where are you setting the bar for video games that do not cater to children, but that condescending mess I got for an answer was way better.
I have no further interest in your opinion.

Peace!

Goblin Squad Member

Moro wrote:
My biggest concern is that this game will follow the likes of EVE, wherein a complex economic process almost requires out of game spreadsheet calculations in order to remain economically competitive.

I think I can break this down into a couple of problem domains and comment on each.

1: Markets

EVE has a lot of markets, which means that if you care, you have to track buy & sell prices in many locations in order to find arbitrage.

I expect Pathfinder will exhibit this behavior but not necessarily to the degree that EVE does (I don't expect every location a character visits will have a market). So this issue will likely remain an issue for those who really care about squeezing every possible advantage out of trading.

2: Number of Items

EVE has a tremendous number of different things that are sold on its markets. That is primarily a function of its age - being 8 years old means a lot of stuff has been added to the game. When Pathfinder launches it will not have this issue - it will have many, but not an overwhelming number, of things to buy and sell.

8 years from launch? Only time will tell.

3: Manufacturing Chains

This is an area where I'm determined to learn from EVE and not make the same mistakes. The complexity of the various manufacturing paths in EVE is head spinning. Between using NPC stations, POS facilities, grinding wormholes, grinding moongoo, and all the assorted intermediate steps, I think that the system is really over-complex. Again this is something of a problem related to being an 8 year old MMO, but on the other hand, it also shows that every time a new team comes into the loop they want to do it "their way", meaning a whole new system that doesn't build on the previous but creates its own new ecosystem. We're going to try to avoid that.

I will say that I know lots of EVE players for whom the "spreadsheet" type playstyle IS what they're looking for. They enjoy it, and the game rewards them for enjoying it. And as someone who dabbled in the markets myself I can say that it is possible to make a fine income without having to run a massive trading spreadsheet, just paying attention to a few variables and not trying to become an industrial powerhouse.


Abraham spalding wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
deusvult wrote:

Of course that's an extreme end, but I'd still consider virtually all 22-24 year olds to still be 'kids'. Where do I set the bar? If you've never held a full-time job, or you haven't graduated from college, you're still a 'kid'. That's where my definition lies. You don't still have to be a child to be a 'kid'.

Thank you so much DV, for calling my entire family (including my 72 year old grandmother and 53 year old uncle) kids.
Perhaps you missed part?

Or he didn't. My grandmother fails on both of those accounts.


Abraham spalding wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
deusvult wrote:

Of course that's an extreme end, but I'd still consider virtually all 22-24 year olds to still be 'kids'. Where do I set the bar? If you've never held a full-time job, or you haven't graduated from college, you're still a 'kid'. That's where my definition lies. You don't still have to be a child to be a 'kid'.

Thank you so much DV, for calling my entire family (including my 72 year old grandmother and 53 year old uncle) kids.
Perhaps you missed part?

I saw it, just misinterpreted something there. I suppose I'm a little irritable this morning (erm... afternoon) I guess.

I do appreciate DV's clarification though (sorry for jumping you like that.)

Stepping out for some air, I'll come back with clearer vision.


Ryan Dancey wrote:

I will say that I know lots of EVE players for whom the "spreadsheet" type playstyle IS what they're looking for. They enjoy it, and the game rewards them for enjoying it. And as someone who dabbled in the markets myself I can say that it is possible to make a fine income without having to run a massive trading spreadsheet, just paying attention to a few variables and not trying to become an industrial powerhouse.

I haven't spent much time in EVE, but one of the things I quickly noticed was that there was a lot of focus on optimizing wealth accumulation, but that the effort to increase efficiency was highly non-linear. You could achieve very reasonable efficiency rates without too much effort.


Caineach wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
deusvult wrote:

Of course that's an extreme end, but I'd still consider virtually all 22-24 year olds to still be 'kids'. Where do I set the bar? If you've never held a full-time job, or you haven't graduated from college, you're still a 'kid'. That's where my definition lies. You don't still have to be a child to be a 'kid'.

Thank you so much DV, for calling my entire family (including my 72 year old grandmother and 53 year old uncle) kids.
Perhaps you missed part?
Or he didn't. My grandmother fails on both of those accounts.

Yeah it is possible that's why I put the 'perhaps' in there -- could have been he didn't and his housewife grandmother was still a 'kid' according to this guy despite raising some seven kids and running the house, et al.

However I don't think the original guy is really hear for a discussion -- more likely just to hear his own 'voice' and grasp at the 'social interaction' of having people reply.

Not that there is anything exceptionally wrong with that, but still...


Warhammer failed because it relied too heavily on pvp to carry the weight, and skimped on the player versus environment content or depth of the game. And even the PvP did not take the best features from Dark Age of Camelot, so you have to wonder what they were thinking? Maybe a cheaper version of WOW?

An ideal game would take the scale of EQ for content, mix in the PVP enviroment of Dark Ages, while implementing the story elements in WOW, including a reasonable requirement for the computer and graphics requirements. You can add sandbox elements by having certains areas open up after certain items are collected, creatures are killed, or quests are completed. But you would still have a theme park as well. Add in some random dungeon instances for mini-adventures that can be re-played to add icing on top the cake. But in reality that may be a pipe dream, as they are diverse and seperate elements and I have no idea on the server loads or development costs for such a diverse game.

Sovereign Court

Abraham spalding wrote:

However I don't think the original guy is really hear for a discussion -- more likely just to hear his own 'voice' and grasp at the 'social interaction' of having people reply.

Not that there is anything exceptionally wrong with that, but still...

We talking about me again? Well, it is one of my favorite subjects and all :P

I suppose I could have responded to Sean's post with a simple mea culpa. The thread might not have gone askew to discussing the marketing and design aspects of video gaming in general and MMOs in particular because of my "Hey Sean! I shouldn't be dressed down, you misunderstood me!" post instead.

So whatever, if you hate me, if you don't agree with me, if you think I'm condescending or stupid, whatever. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. Quit responding to me (as one guy promised to do) and lets talk instead about whether or not Pathfinder MMO has a snowball's chance of lasting long enough to be 'successful'. We could even talk about where we think the developer's definition of 'successful' lies, in terms of profits and/or longevity.


Ryan Dancey wrote:
Moro wrote:
My biggest concern is that this game will follow the likes of EVE, wherein a complex economic process almost requires out of game spreadsheet calculations in order to remain economically competitive.

I think I can break this down into a couple of problem domains and comment on each.

1: Markets

EVE has a lot of markets, which means that if you care, you have to track buy & sell prices in many locations in order to find arbitrage.

I expect Pathfinder will exhibit this behavior but not necessarily to the degree that EVE does (I don't expect every location a character visits will have a market). So this issue will likely remain an issue for those who really care about squeezing every possible advantage out of trading.

2: Number of Items

EVE has a tremendous number of different things that are sold on its markets. That is primarily a function of its age - being 8 years old means a lot of stuff has been added to the game. When Pathfinder launches it will not have this issue - it will have many, but not an overwhelming number, of things to buy and sell.

8 years from launch? Only time will tell.

3: Manufacturing Chains

This is an area where I'm determined to learn from EVE and not make the same mistakes. The complexity of the various manufacturing paths in EVE is head spinning. Between using NPC stations, POS facilities, grinding wormholes, grinding moongoo, and all the assorted intermediate steps, I think that the system is really over-complex. Again this is something of a problem related to being an 8 year old MMO, but on the other hand, it also shows that every time a new team comes into the loop they want to do it "their way", meaning a whole new system that doesn't build on the previous but creates its own new ecosystem. We're going to try to avoid that.

I will say that I know lots of EVE players for whom the "spreadsheet" type playstyle IS what they're looking for. They enjoy it, and the game rewards them for enjoying it. And as someone who...

Thank you very much for the clarifications, I appreciate it. Without going into too much detail, I have to state that I simply dislike games that have too much resemblance to an economics simulator. How much of the game will it be possible to play if one chooses to ignore economics altogether? Not something I personally see as viable in the EVE setup.

Goblinworks Founder

deusvult wrote:


We could even talk about where we think the developer's definition of 'successful' lies, in terms of profits and/or longevity.

This is something I would be interested in knowing.

@Ryan if you are still floating around, can you give a rough figure on what you would consider Pathfinder Online to be successful with subscriptions?

Would you consider 70-150k active subscribers or cash shop users profitable enough?
Would the number need to be around the 300k mark?
...or are you chasing the unicorn (1 million+)?


deusvult wrote:
... and lets talk instead about whether or not Pathfinder MMO has a snowball's chance of lasting long enough to be 'successful'. We could even talk about where we think the developer's definition of 'successful' lies, in terms of profits and/or longevity.

I honestly can't say yet -- too much data lacking to give an honestly prediction.

IF they follow the quality standards, level of content and fast paced production that Paizo has managed in developing the game then I think they have a very real chance of being a big and successful game.

However even then it depends entirely on design decisions that haven't been addressed yet. Everything from user interface, to method of play, to actual graphics to content from the tabletop game, to ad placement and method of revenue generation (will there be in game ads? Could Coca-Cola buy a spot on the load screen for example).

So this eight ball is coming up, "Answer Murky, ask again later."


I like aspects of WAR, but disliked many other aspects.

Many people quit because of the software glitches (bad graphics and lag) in the first two weeks. I hung in there and overlooked them. Apparently their software testers knew of the lag beforehand and the makers of WAR decided to release anyway. Big mistake.

I understand the pressures of releasing (I work in software), but releasing prematurely like this drove thousands of customers away. And no, they didn't care if the problem was fixed 2 weeks later.

Here's a list of things I liked about WAR:

1) Leveling up with RVR was a great time. A combination of open RVR and instances was fun and fast paced.

Having said that, the maps were often too large for an open RVR game. I could see Pathfinder having the same problem, because they'll want to keep the environment 'realistic', which means large amounts of open areas. Sometimes I'd go for hours in WAR with no world RVR, even when everyone was leveling. After everyone leveled to 40, it was nearly impossible to find open RVR and very hard to find battlegrounds (because they didn't have cross server battlegrounds, because the results from the matches affected whether you controlled your zone).

2) I can't say enough about how great the small scale siege battles were. Defending the keep and chokepoints were great. Trying to keep both keeps on the same map, and other resources, was a lot of fun too. Small scale open RVR was easily the best part of the game. In terms of open RVR, it was much better than WoW (for me).

3) The character abilities were fun. It was fun to fly into opponents with the Swordmaster, fun to pull opponents with the Marauder, and fun to knock PCs off into the lava with my Archmage. :)

4) Most of the PVP battleground maps were fun and interesting.

5) Basically, despite the negative aspects of the game, everything was pretty fun until max level.

Here's a list of things I disliked about WAR:

1) The biggest problem was there was no end game. I stuck with it for 9+ months and the city wasn't even finished. Initially, getting to the city attacks was epic, and then they devolved into a city attack every 3 hours. The end game was essentially looting the city bosses again and again. Considering the boss fights weren't even remotely interesting, was a problem. They would have been better off letting the results of many PVP matches decide the outcome.

2) Although massive PVP sounds great in theory, it sucks in practice. They spent months trying to optimize the engine for massive RVR and it only "sort of" worked. The end keeps still devolved into everyone doing AE at the choke points, massive lag, and spamming. Really s$~*ty compared to the fun you had with small scale RVR before that.

3) When one side had too many people, they let the people in queue decide the outcome for a city. This was fine, to a point, but in the end they needed limits on this. Because there were no limits or incentives for the lower population faction, the end cities would burn again and again.

4) The RVR losers would quit the server, creating even larger server imbalances. I'm not sure how other world PVP games make it so that the side that loses PVP doesn't auto-quit.

5) Compared to WoW, there were a very limited number of creatures you could attack, which had limited animations. It was kind of pathetic actually. Most of the time you'd be fighting humanoids. Compared to WoW (and sorry, it's impossible not to compare it to WoW) it was very bland in this regard.

6) The questing wasn't that original or interesting. The open world boss instances (I forget what they're called), were mostly bad, and the items were almost always inferior to RVR items.

7) Some of the classes were terribly balanced for 1v1. For example, a Witch Elf could take any class 1v1, and would just rape my Archmage in seconds. I couldn't even CC and run away. wtf. :)

8) They spent time on "fun stuff" (like Halloween events) when the main game wasn't even satisfying.

9) Although I felt the environment graphics were decent at times, often it failed to capture teh Warhammer look and feel (Warhammer is often more gory and gritty). They were missing the mature elements of Warhammer, and missing a lot of lore and creature types.

10) Didn't have any story elements at all compared to WOW.

11) No farming (not that it's fun). Drops were pretty much the same everywhere you went.

12) All that stuff about creating player statues (to show the "best" player on your server), wasn't motivating.

13) The crafting system was bad. I barely even remember it actually. If they were short resources, they probably shouldn't have bothered (or added it later).

Bottom line: It takes a lot of money to have "everything" in a game. Even WOW started out with PVE only and limited PVP. If Pathfinder doesn't have the money, they're probably better off to specialize in something to start.

WAR tried to do everything and it suffered because of that. They might have been better off to have questing only for PVE and delay crafting. If they focused on questing, open RVR, and more limited battlegrounds, they probably would have had a tighter game.


Jason S wrote:

I like aspects of WAR, but disliked many other aspects.

Many people quit because of the software glitches (bad graphics and lag) in the first two weeks. I hung in there and overlooked them. Apparently their software testers knew of the lag beforehand and the makers of WAR decided to release anyway. Big mistake.

I understand the pressures of releasing (I work in software), but releasing prematurely like this drove thousands of customers away. And no, they didn't care if the problem was fixed 2 weeks later.

You know, that's probably the best pro/con on WAR I've seen. I agree with pretty much all of it...including knocking people into the lava on my Archmage. (And being SoL if I ran into a Witch Elf....)

Goblin Squad Member

Uchawi wrote:
Warhammer failed because it relied too heavily on pvp to carry the weight, and skimped on the player versus environment content or depth of the game...

Funnily a lot of people said the opposite: PvE being too prominent and RvR not enough of a factor.

I think it shows that alot of wrong decisions were made in this game. The PvE crowd not getting enough (although many "unfairly" compared the content of a game with 2 expansions to a new game) and the RvR crowd being similary dissatisfied of how the RvR actually played out.


MicMan wrote:

Funnily a lot of people said the opposite: PvE being too prominent and RvR not enough of a factor.

I think it shows that alot of wrong decisions were made in this game. The PvE crowd not getting enough (although many "unfairly" compared the content of a game with 2 expansions to a new game) and the RvR crowd being similary dissatisfied of how the RvR actually played out.

If they thought the PVE was too prominent and the RVR was not enough of a factor, I'd say they missed out. You could do battleground instances and do RVR all the way from 1-40, and that's exactly what I did with my 2nd and 3rd character. So... much... fun. Seriously. Battles between 5 and 40 people are great, even when overmatched in keeps. With some NPCs you could do lots of things to mess the attacking group up and frustrate them. Good times!

So yeah, people expecting the RVR to be great at level 40 and skipping it while doing PVE from 1-40 definitely missed out.

I think it's fair to compare the PVE in WAR to WOW. Even in vanilla WOW, the PVE was exceptional. Even the starting areas had many memorable moments for me. And the instances... fantastic. The WAR world "instances" I forget what they're called, were just poor.

I agree though, WAR just tried to do too much, and as a result did nothing really well. Ah well, I had fun for awhile anyway.

Liberty's Edge

WAR also failed because they failed to release on day one what they said they would. Missing cities/races/classes. The 'final release' was nothing more than an extended beta release in which we all paid to be involved in!

PFO - please ONLY say what, from the moment I install the game, is what I can expect. Disappointment of players over a half-finished game being released is a real game killer. Meaning don't promise more than you can deliver.

S.


It's always good to analyze what went wrong with other MMOs.

However, Pathfinder has already said that it's not going to be a theme park MMO (like WAR), they're creating a sandbox MMO.

So a better question (maybe for a different thread) is
"What is Pathfinder going to do to correct the mistakes made by other sandbox MMOs?" I think that's a better question.

I have no experience with sandbox MMOs, but those who do might want to ask these questions.

Goblin Squad Member

Stefan Hill wrote:

WAR also failed because they failed to release on day one what they said they would. Missing cities/races/classes. The 'final release' was nothing more than an extended beta release in which we all paid to be involved in!

PFO - please ONLY say what, from the moment I install the game, is what I can expect. Disappointment of players over a half-finished game being released is a real game killer. Meaning don't promise more than you can deliver.

S.

Well considering it is going to be a F2P with premium options, I would imagine it will do like most games in the genre and work in the following order

1. Closed beta, Players wanting to participate get closed beta keys, players will usually be given large quantities of cash shop currency exclusively for closed beta.

Server wipe, removal of cash shop items, and existing characters

Open beta without cash shop

Cash shop added (using real money, prices most likely tweaked from user feedback vs the closed beta prices)

Official release (open beta accounts are not wiped).

Considering it is f2p, you should be able to experiment on almost everything and determine if you like the game, long before you pay the first cent, you will never hit a point where you are paying for something that isn't complete with this model, because even if official release is lacking, you don't have to pay a cent until you feel the game deserves it.

Liberty's Edge

Onishi wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:

WAR also failed because they failed to release on day one what they said they would. Missing cities/races/classes. The 'final release' was nothing more than an extended beta release in which we all paid to be involved in!

PFO - please ONLY say what, from the moment I install the game, is what I can expect. Disappointment of players over a half-finished game being released is a real game killer. Meaning don't promise more than you can deliver.

S.

Well considering it is going to be a F2P with premium options, I would imagine it will do like most games in the genre and work in the following order

1. Closed beta, Players wanting to participate get closed beta keys, players will usually be given large quantities of cash shop currency exclusively for closed beta.

Server wipe, removal of cash shop items, and existing characters

Open beta without cash shop

Cash shop added (using real money, prices most likely tweaked from user feedback vs the closed beta prices)

Official release (open beta accounts are not wiped).

Considering it is f2p, you should be able to experiment on almost everything and determine if you like the game, long before you pay the first cent, you will never hit a point where you are paying for something that isn't complete with this model, because even if official release is lacking, you don't have to pay a cent until you feel the game deserves it.

I like this concept. Still I do still like the hardback book of art I got with WAR...

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Stefan Hill wrote:

WAR also failed because they failed to release on day one what they said they would. Missing cities/races/classes. The 'final release' was nothing more than an extended beta release in which we all paid to be involved in!

PFO - please ONLY say what, from the moment I install the game, is what I can expect. Disappointment of players over a half-finished game being released is a real game killer. Meaning don't promise more than you can deliver.

S.

You should really read this post!

Silver Crusade

In my experience, WAR failed for me because it was just not enjoyable to play for any length of time. It just seemed like a lackluster rip off of Warhammer. The best part about the box set was the book.

I missed the release thankfully.

In terms of MMOs, I am biased and have stuck mainly with WoW. DDO relied too heavily on groups and the original starting area was atrocious. LotRO is alright, but I find the game-play a little unwieldy and the classes kind of feel like they need a bit more work.

I find people who are new to MMOs are usually impressed by DDO and LotRO, but eventually end up playing WoW. As a mate of mine said recently, "They're the gateway drug to WoW!"

Has anyone else seen this happen?

Goblin Squad Member

Chubbs McGee wrote:
Has anyone else seen this happen?

Of course but this is not because LoTRO or DDO are much worse than WoW but because that their not much different to WoW.

So unless you are extremely attached to one of the few things that differ (which is unlikely) or you find your friends all playing "not WoW" (which is also unlikely) the question is:

If I want to play a themepark MMO, why shouldn't I play what "everyone" else plays and talks about?

51 to 87 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Why do you think you will succeed where Warhammer Online has failed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online