I don't log into final fantasy to play with strangers. I have 2 brothers in another state. 2 work buddies, and a roommate. When I play an MMO its 80% of the time going to be with one of them.
I'm totally willing to spend a large chuck of time helping them level, and now I can help them take the sting out of the tedium so we can all enjoy content together. This will go a long way in convincing them to come back and play.
THANK YOU Yoshida P.
Give this new platform a chance people. We are into the 3rd generation of MMO's and everyone keeps looking backward. Just because your use to it doesn't mean its better.
Yoshi you GET IT, no more level restrictive parties
Printable View
-
10-09-2011, 09:04 AMIrondudeYoshi you GET IT, no more level restrictive parties
-
10-09-2011, 09:12 AMPyrix
Only Guild Wars 2 deserves the 3rd generation distinguishment.
-
10-09-2011, 09:21 AMGramulI don't really see how one situation is simply better than the other. People have different tastes and different levels of engagement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irondude
This "looking backward", "behind the times", "2003 way of thinking" business seems like an excuse to bring up new ideas without having to justify it against well established systems with anything other than being newer and convenient for one type of player.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying the other way isn't wrong either. -
10-09-2011, 09:25 AMJennestiaPretty Much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gramul
-
10-09-2011, 09:33 AMSun-RunnerThe question is less one of right or wrong, and more along the lines of "if catered to, which set has more players able and willing to pay both upfront and over time via subscriptions?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Gramul
-
10-09-2011, 09:59 AMGramulEssentially.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun-Runner
But you need to be wary with what you do.
Be too derivative, and people won't even bother. Your game is just some other game with a new coat of paint.
Be too original, and people will be chased off by unfamiliarity. Not everything new is novel. -
10-09-2011, 10:09 AMPreypacerThis exactly. In fact, that's an excellent way to put it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gramul
I see the same "argument" used in the debate between subscription-based/P2P MMOs and F2P/Cash Shop MMOs.
The people pushing cash shops are trying their damndest to impose this stigma upon P2P/Sub games as being "outdated", "archaic", "irrelevant" and "failed", while pushing F2P/Cash Shops as "forward-thinking", "next generation" and "modern" and "the future".
Of course, this is nothing but a plea from ignorance - willful ignorance at that - as anyone can take a look back over the past 10+ years of MMORPGs - right up to MMOs still running today - and see that subscriptions are quite relevant and, in fact, do quite well for their developers.
Many of the pro-F2P/anti-Sub folks are trying to revise history, trying to use the failure of some sub-based MMOs as an opportunity to spin it into being "because subscriptions are a failed model", when the game's failing had nothing to do with their business model, but because they were considered to be poor games by too many people.
They'll never acknowledge the myriad MMOs that are sub-based and have been sub-based that continue to do quite well. And should you list all the MMORPGs (including WoW - still the 800 lb. gorilla in the room) that are sub-based and still quit successful... they conveniently just ignore it, continuing to call it "archaic", "failed", etc.
The exact same thing is playing out here.
Someone who has a personal preference trying to dress what is ultimately just that, a preference up as something "superior" by dressing it up in positive sounding words.
Always gets a chuckle out of me... Why is it not enough for people to simply say "Element X is like this. I like it that way" and leave it at that?