Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I'm playing through a popular MMORPG's latest expansion. Most towns I stop in, finish a handful of quests, and within hours I'm moving on to the next. How did devs ever believe such a model would be sustainable / profitable.. and if it is, sandboxes will be 10x more profitable. I'm fine with setting up camp and staying in the same area for months, as long as I have quality player interaction and there are fun things to do. I just don't get the themepark mindset or why it ever became popular, it's such a waste of dev resources. We could have 10x the games with 10x the quality if everyone just started with sandbox and stuck with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they see the success of WoW and copy that. Thats the way of the world. It doesn't help that there have been few, if any, "successful" sand box games.
The ones I've seen have been pretty pathetic attempts. There are actually some good sandbox text-based MMORPG's that are still around after 15+ years. Eve was probably the best attempt, just not really all that into flying around open space. ATITD was a great sandbox, just horrible graphics and pretty limited gameplay. I just don't understand how you can even call something like WoW a model to copy with as huge of a budget they had to spend to create the game and what they spend on each expansion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You don't have to convince anyone here that themeparks are outdated. People still play them because those type of games get enough funding to have high production values, even if the content quickly becomes boring.
Nobody has put out a sandbox with a $50 million budget so even if they make a fun game it generally looks horrible in comparison.
So the question is "why do themeparks continue to find funding?" And the answer is, or at least it was a few years ago, "look at the pile of money WoW makes".
That seems to be changing though as too many investors have been burned.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a big part of the problem is the children. Yes, I blame children for a lot of things.
In the video game industry, like the music industry and so many others, children are taken as a part of the equation in terms of development and marketing of products. They are a massive slice of the demographic, and companies want to make things that they will like. So when a game is coming out, you have two massive groups: The child demographic and the 18-34ish year old male demographic. Instead of developing separate products for each group, it is seen as convenient to kill two birds with one stone and target both groups.
The problem is that children are stupid. Not only are they stupid, but they dislike games that are difficult and challenge their sense of entitlement. Kids like easy, simplistic arcade games that constantly reward them and never incur serious penalties. The idea that your body can be looted for it's powerful items on death or that you can be killed from being within the radius of a friendly spell is totally offensive to a child, who is a reward seeking machine incapable of appreciating things like realism and internal consistency when they can bite him in the ass.
Basically, children are thrown into themepark games with helmets and safety scisors, which would be alright if it weren't for the fact that they are playing the same games as the mature players. With them as part of the game's target demographic, games are made simpler, more repetitive, and overall worse.
I'd like to see a new approach where children have their own games and a more mature sandbox community is formed. Let the kids play world of warcraft or blues clues online or whattever the hell gets thrown at them. I think the age of the sandbox will be better if a higher proportion of the community is mature and realism/negative consequences for actions exist in a meaningful way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You forgot to add "IMO" in the title - because for a lot of players themeparks are just what they want. I may not be one of them, but the numbers don't lie, they've proved to be popular when people have voted with their wallets. Maybe it's a comparison between enjoying a game and working at a simulation, if I can boil it to such a reduced comparison of what each offers?
But, as said, "IMO" in the title would have been a fairer statement. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a big part of the problem is the children.
Okay. Stop. The average age of a WoW player is 28. Many theme park MMOs have subscriptions, making children a weaker target for them, as, barring willing parents, children don't have disposable income to drop $15 a month on a game.
You don't like WoW or other theme park MMOs? That's fine. But insulting games and the people that play them purely because you don't enjoy that particular style of game? That's childish.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think a big part of the problem is the children. Yes, I blame children for a lot of things.
Can't say I agree. It's the 18-34 and up demographic that has been paying those monthly subscriptions all these years.
So I blame idiots. I just have absolutely zero idea how so many people can think that killing the same spawn over and over and over again for YEARS, waiting for the SLIGHT chances of your item dropping and being claimed by you would be considered something fun.
It's insanity to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You forgot to add "IMO" in the title - because for a lot of players themeparks are just what they want. I may not be one of them, but the numbers don't lie, they've proved to be popular when people have voted with their wallets. Maybe it's a comparison between enjoying a game and working at a simulation, if I can boil it to such a reduced comparison of what each offers?
But, as said, "IMO" in the title would have been a fairer statement. :)
Ok. IMO. Better yet, IMHO, I agree whole heartedly with the OP. WoW grinding is sheer madness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think a big part of the problem is the children.
The average game player is 30 years old and has been playing games for 12 years. >_>
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, World of Warcraft isn't going to be the new Wizards of the Coast on these forums, is it?
By this, I mean when Pathfinder came out there were plenty of newly-converted Pathfinder fans who devoted a questionable about of their time to bashing the then-industry leader for its perceived design and corporate flaws. This sort of died down a little bit when Pathfinder overtook Dungeons and Dragons as the best-selling Roleplaying Game, but now with murmurs of 5th Edition cropping up, I've been seeing much of the same attitude towards that company.
Myself, I plan on playing both World of Warcraft and Pathfinder Online if I can afford it and I personally don't feel like having 90% of the threads I read question my intelligence simply because I enjoy a game for its lore, characters, and story. They're two different games with highly different gameplay mechanics that I'm interested in and plan to play for two entirely different reasons; the fact that they're both going to be MMOs means little to me.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There is a critical mass for a themepark: When you have enough content and enough players that you can put out content at the same rate that it can be consumed.
WoW is almost there, but only by forcing players to repeat the same raids over and over again until they get all of the tier of gear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, on a forum post I think IMO is assumed, I hope :)
The thing is even when the first graphical MMORPG's were coming out I was disappointed because they weren't sandbox enough, and the industry has done nothing but go in the other direction since. There are plenty of single player themeparks out there, why do we need them in MMORPG's (or ever need them)? Themeparks are best suited for single player or small LAN type play. MMORPG's keep implementing things like instancing which just further proves themepark doesn't work for a MMO environment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll admit that I really lost all interest in WoW recently; I was never really fan of the gameplay or the constant grind; the game's story was it's only saving grace for me and even that turned too sour on me during Cataclysm.
I'll freely admit that I suck at PvP, so a sandbox MMO is going to put me WAY outside my comfort zone, but the fact that I won't be stuck doing the same boring, repetitive content every day I log in makes me really think that sandbox MMOs really will be the way to go in the near future.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, on a forum post I think IMO is assumed, I hope :)
The thing is even when the first graphical MMORPG's were coming out I was disappointed because they weren't sandbox enough, and the industry has done nothing but go in the other direction since. There are plenty of single player themeparks out there, why do we need them in MMORPG's (or ever need them)? Themeparks are best suited for single player or small LAN type play. MMORPG's keep implementing things like instancing which just further proves themepark doesn't work for a MMO environment.
I think that's a very good point. It's a single player game with multiplayer components, kind of like StarCraft 2 with a subscription fee.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I played WoW for the story.
While I found some aspects of the WoW story lame, some were very interesting to me. I first experienced the world of warcraft with Warcraft II, and have loved it ever since. I always felt that Blizzard spent a little more time on story/lore/backstory than other RTS and hack-n-slash games, and were a little less prone to re-hash the same old tropes (not that that's saying much).
That said, I first quit when Burning Crusade came out because I didn't like the direction the game was heading. I rejoined shortly before Wrath, quit again shortly before the Tournament raids started. I quit the second time because I felt the arena aspect of PvP was dull.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a single player game with multiplayer components, kind of like StarCraft 2 with a subscription fee.
Exactly! This is the way MMORPG's have gone. And although Ryan has explained it very well I still have trouble with it. I guess it's kind of an "I told you so" moment for me, although nobody was listening but me.. lol. This is why I'm so excited for PFO, finally somebody in the industry gets it. Albeit about 10 years later than I got it. ;) Maybe I'll try to dig up some of my forum posts from 10+ years ago, although I'm sure they're long gone by now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's a single player game with multiplayer components, kind of like StarCraft 2 with a subscription fee.Exactly! This is the way MMORPG's have gone. And although Ryan has explained it very well I still have trouble with it. I guess it's kind of an "I told you so" moment for me, although nobody was listening but me.. lol. This is why I'm so excited for PFO, finally somebody in the industry gets it. Albeit about 10 years later than I got it. ;) Maybe I'll try to dig up some of my forum posts from 10+ years ago, although I'm sure they're long gone by now.
Yup, 10 long years we have suffered, and it's all WoW's fault.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, on a forum post I think IMO is assumed, I hope :)
Alexander AugunasSo, World of Warcraft isn't going to be the new Wizards of the Coast on these forums, is it?
By this, I mean when Pathfinder came out there were plenty of newly-converted Pathfinder fans who devoted a questionable about of their time to bashing the then-industry leader for its perceived design and corporate flaws. This sort of died down a little bit when Pathfinder overtook Dungeons and Dragons as the best-selling Roleplaying Game, but now with murmurs of 5th Edition cropping up, I've been seeing much of the same attitude towards that company.
Myself, I plan on playing both World of Warcraft and Pathfinder Online if I can afford it and I personally don't feel like having 90% of the threads I read question my intelligence simply because I enjoy a game for its lore, characters, and story. They're two different games with highly different gameplay mechanics that I'm interested in and plan to play for two entirely different reasons; the fact that they're both going to be MMOs means little to me.
I agree with you Tyveil that themeparks are finite:
1) Law of Diminishing returns: Grinding more and more for less and less
2) The more you do the less there is left to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I played WoW for the story.
While I found some aspects of the WoW story lame, some were very interesting to me. I first experienced the world of warcraft with Warcraft II, and have loved it ever since. I always felt that Blizzard spent a little more time on story/lore/backstory than other RTS and hack-n-slash games, and were a little less prone to re-hash the same old tropes (not that that's saying much).
That said, I first quit when Burning Crusade came out because I didn't like the direction the game was heading. I rejoined shortly before Wrath, quit again shortly before the Tournament raids started. I quit the second time because I felt the arena aspect of PvP was dull.
I feel quite differently about their storylines. They did starcraft with the queen of blades (our hero is corrupted and becomes the arch villain of the piece) then they did precisely the same thing with Arthas in Warcraft. And AGAIN with Sylvenas.
Also the lore between WC2 and 3 seems very... different Ner'zhul went from being the leader of Shadowmoon Clan on Draenor to being a chair in Northrend.
And the WC3 Expansion felt like it was an advertisement for WoW, it just felt like they were trying to establish the world for that game... removing the High Elves from the alliance (over a racist commander. what?) and then placing them in with their MORTAL ENEMIES the trolls.
"We had a fight with the Alliance, so we'll become friends with our greatest enemy for millennia" Doesn't make much sense at all. They USED to put more effort into their storylines than everyone else, but somewhere along the way they stopped.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with you Tyveil that themeparks are finite:1) Law of Diminishing returns: Grinding more and more for less and less
2) The more you do the less there is left to do.
To be fair sandboxes will also have diminishing returns. However, #2 will not apply, there will always be plenty to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Jameow, I agree. To better convey my meaning, I should have put more emphasis on the compared to other games in the genre, not that that's saying much =P
Command & Conquer was my introduction to RTS gameplay. When I tried out Warcraft and Starcraft, I was like 'wait, there is a story? THIS IS AWESOME!' lol. Since then I've tried a few other RTS games, and there's still a terrible deficiency in that area.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I alone in really not caring one whit about "the story"? I really thought I'd like SWTOR and it's innovative way of relaying "the story", but what I actually found out is that I really could care less. I couldn't tell you any significant parts of any of the stories in WoW or LOTRO even though I've played both to max level with multiple chars. I can generally remember the places I've been, and most of what I did there, but I couldn't begin to tell you why. It just wasn't important to me.
I absolutely love fast-paced, dungeon runs with challenging combat. I really enjoy exploring new areas, too. I'm kind of "meh" about most puzzles, but that may be because a lot of them are more tedious than mentally challenging. Oh, and building a Fort? That can be attacked? By other players? More of that, please!
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
5 years ago it was assumed you could ask players to spend 80-100 hours of time on a significant quest chain and reputation grind.
That assumption has collapsed. It was a race to the bottom, and now we're at the bottom. You can do most quest chains in most theme parks in hours, not even tens of hours.
SO the content they're producing is being consumed 10x faster than it was "supposed" to be consumed when the tools that create that content were built.
Part of the reason for this is that the pre-level-cap content in World of Warcraft has become prelude to the "real game". The real game being weekly organized raid grinding. To get raiders you have to get through the prelude. The faster you lose raiders, the faster you have to make the prelude to keep filling the ranks of raiders with new players / new alts.
It's a treadmill. And the faster you run, the faster the treadmill gets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think players have become conditioned to things that are not so harsh or tough. Playing MUDs in the 90's, death effects included loss of all gear, a level and accumulated XP and you had to pay to train your level up again. A lot of these MUDs were open PvP.
Over time, these started to be watered down (UO onwards and then also with MUDs) with corpse recovery to get your gear ack and the removal of training costs etc...
Fast forward a dozen years, and many games actually advertise as have minimal or no death effects. Coupled with being able to hit maximum level in days/weeks in some games (WoW, GW2 etc), I feel people have just become overly used to the 'comfortable' life.
One of the biggest attractions in PFO for me is the 2+ year timeframe to reach maximum level/training. Rather than something that takes me days after reading some random FAQ on the internet, I get a feeling of accomplishment and maybe even some admiration from the community for getting there.
I'm not saying all this is necessarily bad, but it's just how things have develpoied over the last fifteen years.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think the Themepark genre of MMO has failed. I also don't think the that the treadmill is a doomed system.
IMO the treadmill isn't a failed model. Developers thinking they can defeat the big dog by doing something relatively minor differently is the failed plan.
Blizzard is not the only themepark out there that can support a subscription model. That in my view means more than one market MMO in the genre is still profitable. This is in addition to games that are able to keep paying the bills with a free to play market.
Saying that there is a growing interest in the return of the sandbox is one thing. Asserting that the model itself is failing I think is a gross underestimation.
As a side note I also have no idea how it is supposed to promote this specific game, or sandboxes in general.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
@Dak Thunderkeg - the proof that it's a failed strategy is that nobody is going to build another one until the fundamental problems have been solved.
The fundamental problem is that they don't make enough money to justify the up-front risk of the investment.
After The Elder Scrolls Online, there's no known AAA Theme Park MMO in development. (Nobody knows what Blizzard is doing despite lots of rampant speculation).
Maybe Guildwars 2 is the solution - just sell millions of copies of your game once and hope you can get extra money through microtransactions while you winnow through that initial spike of players. If we see more games doing what GW2 does, maybe we'll see if that's viable.
What obviously isn't viable is spending $50-100+ million on a theme park MMO that you expect to monetize through repeat purchases of subscription or microtransactions. Because if it were, people would still be funding those games. And they're not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think that definition equates a failure. I think it could be used as an argument that the current model is over saturated perhaps, but not that it points to a failure in the model.
Did the failure of SWG point to an inherent problem with the sandbox model? Does the production of less themeparks mean that the system is flawed? In my opinion the answer to both is no.
Your last statement I can actually agree with, but it doesn't support the point. Millions of dollars were spent trying to take down a company that already had a large player base. In the end most of those titles offered extremely minor differences, and not enough to make up for the investment.
They failed on their own merit, just like sandboxes have in the past.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
SO the content they're producing is being consumed 10x faster than it was "supposed" to be consumed when the tools that create that content were built.
As a correct subscriber to a theme park MMO (Rift), man is this true. It took ages (relatively speaking) to level in EQ, with the new Rift expansion we were in the max level raiding content after a week (granted we are a raising guild and are more focused then most subscribers), which was way too fast. We blew through the two continents of content in a week and now our game consists of raid progression (very satisfying while you're still working on it) and grinding the same daily quests for rep ( which is awful). Non-raid character progression outside of pvp participation (which has 0 reward for actually being good) and rep grinding there's not a whole lot to do and Storm Legion has been out for a whole month.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there is definitely a point to be made about a large number of mmos trying to replicate wow's success by trying to replicate wow, and not offering much different. If someone is such a big fan of wow, why would they want to play a copy of it?
That's what actually brought me to start saying "wow ruined the mmo market" - for a while everything produced was nearly the same, so why would anyone want to play it? And for someone who found wow utterly tedious nearly from the start, that was frustrating. But I have to admit that whenever I saw "x number of classes!" Announced in a mmo, my interest immediately diminished dramatically, for me, nothing was comparing favorably to UO, and after so many years, I was bored of that too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I realize the themepark is a dying beast, I'm quite enjoying Mists of Pandaria. This is the only expansion so far that has gotten me to consider getting several alts to cap level to see what they are capable of in instances. I have three currently, 2 of which have a 460+ iLevel. Working on number 4 this evening.
While I would be lying if I said there were parts that aren't frustrating, but I find it worth the sub so far.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Themeparks are a very valid form of MMO, and WoW is a pretty good title for that category. Of course the main reason it is so great is tons of content, and that tons of content exists because it has done so well for so long.
What frustrates me about Themeparks is how heavily catered to of a niche they are. Most people who want to play a themepark have their needs met by WoW. All you need is 2-3 good themepark titles. Not 5 billion.
There are a TON of different ways to build an MMOs. Absolutely tons. Think of all the radically different styles of skill progression, combat, crafting, etc. There is room for MMOs to be practically as varied and unique as single player games.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 90% of MMO's have 90% of the same content and 50% of the ones that don't have 50% of the same content. People are sick of it. There are a lot of people drifting from MMO to MMO looking for something they actually enjoy, and a lot of people that just aren't interested/have given up on them that could be gained by offering something new and interesting.
Personally I think sandboxes have huge potential, as do grindless MMOs. But I can easily rattle off a few MMOs that have concepts that really set them apart from any other MMO:
Wurm Online
Shattered Galaxies
Darkfall (Though Mortal Online comes close)
EVE
Pirates of the Burning Sea (Though it is 50% theme park the naval combat is very unique.)
Planetside
It would be nice to see a few idea's like that get some real backing.
And there are a few ideas that I have that don't really resemble anything currently out there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Themeparks are a very valid form of MMO, and WoW is a pretty good title for that category. Of course the main reason it is so great is tons of content, and that tons of content exists because it has done so well for so long.
What frustrates me about Themeparks is how heavily catered to of a niche they are. Most people who want to play a themepark have their needs met by WoW. All you need is 2-3 good themepark titles. Not 5 billion.
There are a TON of different ways to build an MMOs. Absolutely tons. Think of all the radically different styles of skill progression, combat, crafting, etc. There is room for MMOs to be practically as varied and unique as single player games.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 90% of MMO's have 90% of the same content and 50% of the ones that don't have 50% of the same content. People are sick of it. There are a lot of people drifting from MMO to MMO looking for something they actually enjoy, and a lot of people that just aren't interested/have given up on them that could be gained by offering something new and interesting.
Personally I think sandboxes have huge potential, as do grindless MMOs. But I can easily rattle off a few MMOs that have concepts that really set them apart from any other MMO:
Wurm Online
Shattered Galaxies
Darkfall (Though Mortal Online comes close)
EVE
Pirates of the Burning Sea (Though it is 50% theme park the naval combat is very unique.)
PlanetsideIt would be nice to see a few idea's like that get some real backing.
And there are a few ideas that I have that don't really resemble anything currently out there.
Nail on the head my friend. I am sorry for coming out so spiteful against the WoW fans, it most certainly doesn't make you less intelligent or a lesser person. It's juts the frustration of having nothing but WoW clones for an entire decade when I personally abhor the game style has had a bruising affect on me.
I am a huge Conan fan. I got shafted with a bad movie and a WoW clone video game. Yeah I'm pissed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, the market is completely saturated right now. Good model or not, that raises the risks.
@Ryan Dancey - I hope you don't mind if I ask you what MMO you're playing now? That could help us understand your point of view.
There are two problems with the saturated theme park market now:
1) The finite design imo is not the "ideal" of mmorpg virtual worlds, and as can be seen, players are more and more burned-out on it.
2) Because of 1), the big publishers are noticing that the biggest subs are around the 1st few months of the themepark and then as Ryan says they will never be as high again. So you have that "content locust", pattern of players in mmorpgs.
What this amounts to is initial release and sub model then strategy to convert to F2P at some point. What that eventually will do is screw over the initial sub players to rake in as much money while the mmorpg is still "hot" (or smoking) from tempting F2P players. There's the pressure of the high dev costs to do this and recoup.
The alternative is the F2P model. But I'm wondering if that model is ok for the "1st mover" mmorpg in it's niche to go that way, then all the others are under pressure to get players in and hence they'll end up adding more frustration into the game to squeeze the 10% of players who'll actually throw some money at it. Conversely that 1st mmorpg that got in there, probably had an easier time of converting playing players into paying players so should see a better form of F2P - and fool other companies into thinking F2P will similarly see good returns (and players, a benign F2P affect on the game design)?
What seems to be the case, is a shifting of responses accordingly. So now the expectations of players is firmly F2P. That's only reinforced if a mmorpg comes out that says it's going for subs, some people will then think: "No way can a mmorpg expect players to pay AND be successful!". But that really boils down to what they're interpreting that through - themepark finite design; transient, follow the crowd community; players who may check a game but are not invested in, just interested in the latest circus to hit town... . F2P has been more established in the Far East and there's a lot of opinion that it's the future, for the West also. I think the social norm of conspicious consumption and social expression via in-game MT bling might drive the F2P model adoption over there.
--
But the "race to the bottom" is one direction in a saturated market. If PfO can appeal very strongly to a niche then it's worth a sub for those people. That's what these huge themeparks have got wrong for so long, trying to appeal to everyone and everyone eventually only wanting to play for free! :)
Goblinworks Founder
|
planetside isn't sandbox :P
@Elth, look up mount and blade, that is something you might be interested
@anduis: look up ArcheAge, they are doing roughly the same concept as PFO (themepark elements mixed with sandbox)
Tried mount and blade, I'm not a fan. Would love to see a mix of Dark Age of Camelot, GW2 and Planetside. Capturing territory in PS2 requires so much more teamwork than DAOC or GW2 ever did. On the larger scale of things, I really hope that Warfare in PFO incorporates things like destroying bridges to disrupt supply lines. The River Kingdoms is perfect for this kind of warfare, holding or destroying a bridge could totally turn the tide of a war where siege, cavalry and supply caravans must move with the army.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had a lifetime sub to LOTRO since late 2008. I mainly got into it for the strong IP and iconic setting. Their sustainability from having a sub-based model quickly eroded and they went FTP in late 2010. I was skeptical at first, but got with the program and trusted their statement that the store was for "convenience, not advantage." They retracted that pledge soon afterward when they released store-only relics for legendary items, which for certain niche roles like my tank, were better than anything you could get ingame.
I recall Ryan making the same pledge and sincerely hope he will be able to keep it. I do have faith that he will given that PFO will start small and focus on being sustainable by keeping costs and the playerbase low initially.
Anyways, I tire of the pointless grind in LOTRO aimed at getting the best traits and legendary items. Legendary items these days are more disposable than burner cellphones, as you throw them away to get the next one each time the level cap advances.
I appreciate that Ryan has stepped out and said that almost all items in PFO will be disposable and have a high turnover given how easy it will be to be killed and looted in the wilderness. This brings the focus back to lasting character growth and the lasting impacts you will have on the world rather than ephemeral displays of wealth and power.
It's only been about 5 days since I accidentally discovered this game by digging through Massively and I must say I am already more invested in it than I will ever be in LOTRO. I will most likely quit LOTRO to play this fulltime despite having a lifetime sub.