Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Poll - Will you pre-order?

1235

Comments

  • ariestearieste Member UncommonPosts: 3,309
    Originally posted by bezado

    I'm just curious who these people are who pre order mmorpg's now days. With all the info out there and how bad these can fail, it is not worth pre ordering anything. Why not be smart consumers and wait the first couple weeks or so and see how it fairs.

    Since you're curious - I'm one of "these people" who pre-order MMOs.  I've played (not pre-ordered) about 40 different ones now and I generally know with a fair degree of certainty how much entertainment I'll get out of any given game.   I think I only ever regretted buying one MMO, the rest I got SOME mileage out of.

     

    Given my good experiences with Funcom and what I saw in the first beta event, I have no doubt that TSW will entertain me for at least the free month included with the purchase, making it a worthwhile buy.   

    "I’d rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."

    - Raph Koster

    Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
    Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
    Currently Playing: ESO

  • FredomSekerZFredomSekerZ Member Posts: 1,156

    I never pre-oder any game or buy at release, ever. Simply because the price will go down eventually. Also, you never truly know how good they are. I wait for reviews 1 month after, specially in the case of mmos. But TSW is still the most interesting mmo for now to me.

  • Z3R01Z3R01 Member UncommonPosts: 2,426

    I selected No only due to me wanting to wait a few months to see if the game has a big drop off in subs. 

    Im tired of getting into a new game falling in love with it and the playerbase only for everyone to leave 3-6 months later.

    Playing: Nothing

    Looking forward to: Nothing 


  • ElsaboltsElsabolts Member RarePosts: 3,476

    There is alot of things pointing to F2p, i would wait till release and see what is gonna be said here 1st.

    image

    " Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who  Would Threaten It "
                                            MAGA
  • VesaviusVesavius Member RarePosts: 7,908
    Originally posted by FredomSekerZ

    I never pre-oder any game or buy at release, ever. Simply because the price will go down eventually. Also, you never truly know how good they are. I wait for reviews 1 month after, specially in the case of mmos. But TSW is still the most interesting mmo for now to me.

     

    Very wise approach, which I share, but MMOs are a different beast with regards to that for me really... the first month in them is usually the most fun and it's a shame to miss that.

    Still, because this is a FC game and the state it was in in beta production value wise I will (at least) wait on this one.

  • Tomz321Tomz321 Member Posts: 3

    No. 

  • deceasedecease Member UncommonPosts: 51

    it is a nice game.. i have strong faith in funcom.. though i will not pre order this game..  i mean p2p with cash shop just isn't aceptable.. 

     

    again it is a nice game.. but i have gw2 around the same time.. though i would buy the game if they went b2p, f2p or even monthly fee without cash shop..

  • LokomotivLokomotiv Member Posts: 106

    The sub days are over.

    Only a full sandbox with great gameplay can have a sub nowdays. Maybe Archage or World of Darkness online.

  • Ice-QueenIce-Queen Member UncommonPosts: 2,483

    Besides the game almost making me have a seizure, it's just not my type of game. I hope it does well though.

    image

    What happens when you log off your characters????.....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
    Dark Age of Camelot

  • DenambrenDenambren Member UncommonPosts: 399
    Originally posted by Drakxii

    No, it's EA, it's a standard themepark, has no replayiablity, and it has a cash shop.

    agreed

  • FalcomithFalcomith Member UncommonPosts: 831

    No pre-order for me. I have been in the last 3 betas and while the story and atmosphere are good, the turn off for me is the combat and its animation. It feels really clunky and rushed and because of it I lose allot of immersion . Will I buy it in the future? Maybe. I will give it 6 months and see where they are at. It has potential to be a great game as long as EA keeps there paws out of the decision making and lets funcom improve it.

  • BlackbrrdBlackbrrd Member Posts: 811
    Originally posted by Lokomotiv

    The sub days are over.

    Only a full sandbox with great gameplay can have a sub nowdays. Maybe Archage or World of Darkness online.

    Sub prices are going down in real terms - even if it stays put at 15$. At least in Norway, a months sub now costs less than a cinema ticket. Watching a movie is entertaining for 2 hours, a months MMO sub gives me 40+ hours of entertainment. It's not like you have to sub for the next 4 years. If you find yourself not playing, you can just stop the subscription.

  • LachyFTWLachyFTW Member UncommonPosts: 181

    I wanted to like this game and I do like a lot of things about it but the combat and animations are just not up to par with the current games out there. The game having a cash shop from the get go on top of having to buy it and paying a sub makes it looks like the want to get as much money as they can in the first month or two then go F2P. Also life time subs are never a good thing in any game.

  • karat76karat76 Member UncommonPosts: 1,000

    I pre-ordered and then I got into beta. Did not really enjoy the game and I really wanted to like it. End of story is I cancelled my pre-order.

  • SiugSiug Member UncommonPosts: 1,257

    Pre-purchased months ago and so far I'm happy with that. 

  • loki27loki27 Member Posts: 24

    No, I won't.

    First and foremost, having a sub fee (and cash shop on top of that) is not a very good start. Nowadays, there is no reasonable justification for having a sub whatsoever and the only reason most companies go with that model is that people got used to the idea of paying monthly in the times when it was necessary and often don't come to realize that since then the situation has changed significantly.

    Regarding the game itself, it has its good and its bad moments. Quests and story are the game's driving force. While there still are several "kill ten zombies" types of quests (and their number was noticeably higher in the second zone, which could be a warning sign), most of the quests were refreshingly different, if sometimes excessively cryptic (so that you can't solve it your way but often have to simply guess what the writer wants you to do or just wander around the map hoping for the best) and very glitchy (checkpoint not registering until the fifth time, having to speak twice in a row to the same guy, creature stuck at 1300 health, dying to a DoT during a cutscene etc.)

    Speaking of cutscenes, I really can't understand why they decided that your character will be mute. This makes the writing feel absolutely unnatural. I come up to someone and he immediately starts telling me his most secret plans, and I don't even bother to respond. My character should consider himself incredibly lucky that people always know what he wants and that he managed to travel to the other side of the world without saying a single word... Honestly, if they didn't want to record two (!) more voices for the game, they should have at least done it the way AoC or Skyrim did by responding via text, this is just plain stupid.

    Combat has no weight behind it - I hit someone with a hammer and it feels as if I poked him with a twig. However, I can imagine that further on the deck-building aspect will have quite a lot of depth to it, similarly to GW1.

    The game is also littered with a lot of interface and other minor issues (unresposive in-game browser, resources for weapons I don't have equipped covering those for the one I'm using, sudden framerate drops below 1 FPS, practically unclickable objects in the world...) and definitely isn't ready for release yet. I also think there is simply no replay value to it.

    I would probably buy TSW if it didn't have a subscription fee but this way I'll pass.

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  • OziiusOziius Member UncommonPosts: 1,406

    To be honest, I wasn't even thinking of playing this game until I tried the beta. I really had a good time this weekend and can't wait to give it another go!

  • BetaguyBetaguy Member UncommonPosts: 2,629

    Is this a joke? If you played the same beta as most I am sure no one would pre-order what was available... [mod edit]

     

    Worst beta I ever was in was Roma Victar and this beat that bad beta by miles in my opinion.

    "The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"

  • OziiusOziius Member UncommonPosts: 1,406
    Originally posted by loki27

    No, I won't.

    First and foremost, having a sub fee (and cash shop on top of that) is not a very good start. Nowadays, there is no reasonable justification for having a sub whatsoever and the only reason most companies go with that model is that people got used to the idea of paying monthly in the times when it was necessary and often don't come to realize that since then the situation has changed significantly.

    Regarding the game itself, it has its good and its bad moments. Quests and story are the game's driving force. While there still are several "kill ten zombies" types of quests (and their number was noticeably higher in the second zone, which could be a warning sign), most of the quests were refreshingly different, if sometimes excessively cryptic (so that you can't solve it your way but often have to simply guess what the writer wants you to do or just wander around the map hoping for the best) and very glitchy (checkpoint not registering until the fifth time, having to speak twice in a row to the same guy, creature stuck at 1300 health, dying to a DoT during a cutscene etc.)

    Speaking of cutscenes, I really can't understand why they decided that your character will be mute. This makes the writing feel absolutely unnatural. I come up to someone and he immediately starts telling me his most secret plans, and I don't even bother to respond. My character should consider himself incredibly lucky that people always know what he wants and that he traveled to the other side of the world without saying a single word... Honestly, if they didn't want to record two (!) more voices for the game, they should have at least done it the way AoC or Skyrim did by responding via text, this is just plain stupid.

    Combat has no weight behind it - I hit someone with a hammer and it feels as if I poked him with a twig. However, I can imagine that further on the deck-building aspect will have quite a lot of depth to it, similarly to GW1.

    The game is also littered with a lot of interface and other minor issues (unresposive in-game browser, resources for weapons I don't have equipped covering those for the one I'm using, sudden framerate drops below 1 FPS, practically unclickable objects in the world...) and definitely isn't ready for release yet. I also think there is simply no replay value to it.

    I would probably buy TSW if it didn't have a subscription fee but this way I'll pass.

    I strongly disagree with you on this point. I see what you're saying, but this option is a good way to get the story across without all of the issues that TOR had. Namely, people bitching about two main things.... 1: They hated the voice of their character as they had absolutely no choice into what they would sound like and 2: It killed the immerson that you were forced into saying things that you would never say, just to get the response you wanted for either light or darkside points. 

     

    You see what I'm saying? To me and many others that I have read of who played TOR, those two factors actually took away from the story as we hated the voice and weren't huge fans of the choices for comments. At least with the way that TSW handles it, you get the story and the story telling without those two factors pulling you back out of the immersion. 

     

    It's really just personal preference though I suppose as I do get what you're saying. 

  • OziiusOziius Member UncommonPosts: 1,406
    Originally posted by Lokomotiv

    The sub days are over.

    Only a full sandbox with great gameplay can have a sub nowdays. Maybe Archage or World of Darkness online.

    They out? You're saying that the only two games that are worthy of subs are two games that aren't even out yet and no one has played? Wow. 

  • raistlinmraistlinm Member Posts: 673

    I wouldn't pre order from funcom if they paid the bill.

  • WickedjellyWickedjelly Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 4,990
    Originally posted by Betaguy

    Is this a joke? If you played the same beta as most I am sure no one would pre-order what was available... If they do then they are just funcom supporters and like unpolished turds...

     

    Worst beta I ever was in was Roma Victar and this beat that bad beta by miles in my opinion.

     See...I don't get this sentiment either. The game certainly wasn't polished and there were bugs, but I don't see how you can say this beta was that bad.

    I think it boils more down to you simply didn't like the game.

    1. For god's sake mmo gamers, enough with the analogies. They're unnecessary and your comparisons are terrible, dissimilar, and illogical.

    2. To posters feeling the need to state how f2p really isn't f2p: Players understand the concept. You aren't privy to some secret the rest are missing. You're embarrassing yourself.

    3. Yes, Cpt. Obvious, we're not industry experts. Now run along and let the big people use the forums for their purpose.

  • MosesZDMosesZD Member UncommonPosts: 1,361
    Originally posted by heartless
    Originally posted by Dominionlord
    EA is only handling distribution.nothing more or less.

    I don't know about that. The very first video you see when you load the game is an EA logo. You don't put a company that just handles distribution as the very first logo video in your game.

     

    Yes you do.   What confuses people is there are a lot of different levels in publisher/developer relationships.    None are 'pure distribution' models even when they're called 'distribution only' models, they include potential funding/royalty advances at various levels, marketing issues, product support, arranging the manufacturing, etc., as well as managing sales proceeds and royalty payment streams.  

     

    Kingdoms of Amular, for example, relied on EA to bring the game to market.  To distribute the physical copies.  To distribute the digital-rights copies.   To the marketing and press management.   To collect the proceeds from sales.   To remit the proceeds to 38 Studios.    They didn't borrow money (advance sales) from EA.   They didn't get any financial help from EA.   EA had no control of their internal processes.

     

    Funcom will, mostly likely, be doing close to the same thing.    After all, they're not owned by EA. 

     

    BioWare, OTOH, is a division of EA.   So when EA publishes them, it's really just EA self-publishing and they have control of everything.

     

     

  • MosesZDMosesZD Member UncommonPosts: 1,361
    Originally posted by Ichmen
    Originally posted by kiiix
    Originally posted by Ichmen

    dont plan to, game play its acceptable, but it needs a hell of alot of work and polish. the questing are ok.. a few farming quests but thats pretty common.. the controls piss me off the most about the game. and their built in browser is a fking joke.. its like netscape 1.0.. half the time the back button doesnt work. and it just doesnot function like a current day browser should.

     

    box price and sub do not seem worth it to me. given its current state. 

    wait wait, hold on a second?

    0: Farming quests? you mean going around killing this many of that right? (i look upon farming/grinding quests like those in PWI: please go kill 64 of those, and when you come back go kill another 30(just to be sure they are extinct))

    1: The controls piss you off? how are they any different from any other mmorpg(you look around with your mouse, you move around on wasd and use skills on your numeric keys)

    2: The ingame browser has one fuction and one function only: Research. Your not suppose to use it for facebook or youtube, but to plane and simple google stuff to help you solve your research missions.

     

    go kill 5 slow zombies, 5 dry zombies 5 wet zombies then 15 of cultists. . AKA farming quests. after killing spawn spamming zombies. 

    that is one of a few i ran into between kingsmouth and blue mountain (BM is not in beta but i went over both maps) 

    as for the controls, i hate the fighting aspect, i tried for 30 minutes to reconfigure my mouse to be my attack button. instead i spent most of my time trying to break my fingers on 1 hand to fight and move at the same time.  having played several mmos and fps those controls are retarded.  i feel like im playing SC1 macroing like esport korean's with my hands hunched over them selves hitting buttons. 

     

    As for the browser, its a joke. it couldnt search its way out of a paper bag,  google something wicked and you will get about 2 pages of just band/lyrics thankfully someone was nice enough to inform me how to access the jail cell or i would still be flipping pages trying to find out how. 

    the back button breaks on it as well, so you cant back search. can not type a word in the URL header to auto search either, you have to manually go to google..  im sorry but this is 2012..  that sort of browser usage went out with netscape 1.0 and IE 1 ... now days browsers have built in auto search abilities.  hense why i spent more time using my 2nd pc for chrome then i did using ingame browser.

     

    i dont hate the quests other then the investigation quests which left much to be desired. there are enough variety in quests that you dont get spammed with kill XX of zombie X and then XX zombie Y and Z there are a few but not as bad as some MMos.

     

    Ouch.    You see the problem is, it's goes to google and YOU the player are supposed to figure out how to make good bolean search.

     

    This will help in you in the future should you ever get a job that requires searching for data:   http://www.internettutorials.net/boolean.asp

     

    And this, too:

     

    http://support.google.com/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=136861

     

    Google is a very, very, very powerful tool.  IF you know how to use it.   If you don't, it's crap.    But it's not the fault of the tool.

     

     

  • MosesZDMosesZD Member UncommonPosts: 1,361
    Originally posted by aesperus
    Originally posted by Tamanous
    Originally posted by 7star

    Funcom + EA = NFW

    Seriously? Funcom + EA is your concern?

     

    Not that Funcom alone hasn't been able to launch a release ready game ... ever!

     

    EA can only help. As sad as that sounds, there is no freaking way EA can make a Funcom mmo worse that they have managed before.

     

    Also EA does not own Funcom and has zero creative control. You are letting your tin foil hat show.

    Uhm.... seriously?

    Funcom has yet to release a launch-day-ready MMO, true. Funcom's biggest problem has always been their lack of follow-through. They have some really interesting ideas, but have always had trouble delivering fully on them. AO was perhaps Funcom at their best.

    However, EA has a LONG history of pushing games out too early. This isn't limited to MMOs either. EA is infamous for cutting the purse strings early, and causing many a decent game w/ great potential to turn into yet another rushed lackluster pos. To say that EA has zero control is laughable. Not only has this been said about soo many projects in the past, but in every case, it turns out that EA was one of the primary reasons for a game not releasing properly. EA may only be the publishers, but they are VERY good at putting pressure where it counts to get their agenda across.

    With a developer like Funcom, which seems to generally need a little extra time to iron out their mechanics, putting them under the umbrella of a company who has never shied away from their 'just release it, grab the cash, and run' mindset is probably the worst matchup you could get.

    Tinfoil hat or not, EA is probably one of the worst things that could happen to a company right now. They have a very impressive resume of studios they have used, consumed, and spit out ruined. Which is sad, because I do like how Funcom tries to bring new ideas into the genre. Even if they kinda do it half-assed.

     

    1.  Only on games they are funding.  Which is almost exclusively games they're developing in their wholly-owned subsidiaries like BioWare, Mythic, Origin (now dead and turned into a store), Maxis (Spore, Sims3), etc.

     

    2.  Your assertions of EA control are just assertions that are clearly false.  There are LOTS of independent studios that use EA for publishing only and are not controlled in any way, shape or form by EA.     So while I completely agree that EA is the devil I also well know you're just wrong and there is a long list of independent studios that use EA as a publisher.    As part of the long list, you have:  Valve, Epic, Crytek, Hothead, Flagship, Klei, Funcom, Insomniac and a host of small independent gamers, like the developers of Wasteland which just signed with EA.

     

     

Sign In or Register to comment.