| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (94)

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 10:13AM Macabre 13 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So just because it happened to work for *one* game, it refutes my opinion of their business strategy?

So do you choose to simply ignore other examples of a similar strategy because it doesn't fit with your opinion? I recommend you go read up on the debacle that was Hellgate: London, in case you were fortunate enough to not have been personally duped by that mess.

While you present one that panned out *decently* (emphasis added, as that game is doing o.k., but it certainly wasn't a runaway success), I present one that was EPIC FAIL.

Maybe people tend to emphasize negative experiences more, but I base my opinion on *my* experience. I was not a part of LoTRO, but I certainly was a part of Hellgate. Might I add that the same guy in charge of that debacle (Bill Roper) is now leading the charge with CO?

So yeah, I, as well as many others who've had similar experiences, have a pretty good reason to be a bit cynical about these "buy before you try" offers.

Besides, I don't feel this way just because of the lifetime subscription offer alone; It's the combination of things that makes me very skeptical of CO specifically.

Buy the box, buy into our "open" beta, buy subscriptions, buy expensive subscription packages for the long-term, though we can't promise there will even be a long-term, buy *extra* stuff through our store, because all the money you've already given us just isn't *quite* enough for these !

Bottom line, "bud", you don't have to like my opinion, but that doesn't make it invalid.
Reply

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 10:44AM aurickle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have to agree with Macabre here.

The lifetime sub can be a great deal. Or it can be a money grab. I don't for a moment regret my LotRO lifetime sub, but I would have been peeved if I'd bought one for H:L.

There is a BIG difference between how Turbine handled the LotRO lifetime sub and how Cryptic is handling theirs. With Turbine, the lifetime sub was sold on the game's merits. There wasn't a lot of promotion. With CO, the sub is being marketed based on the goodies (including guaranteed closed beta access for a totally different game) rather than on the merits of CO.

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that Turbine never offered a lifetime sub for their other (and less popular) DDO. They only offered it for their big success, and if I remember correctly the lifetime option wasn't made available until after the game had proven itself.

I simply can't trust this offer. Not the way Cryptic is handling it.
Reply

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 10:46AM Aganazer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So you've got one example of a game that offered a lifetime sub and failed. I have one that offered a lifetime sub and didn't fail in any way.

What does that tell you? That there is no relationship between lifetime subs and the quality of the product.

If you've got a bad feeling based on a bunch of other stuff, thats fine and all, but that isn't what you said in your original post.
Reply

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 11:35AM Macabre 13 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thank you aurickle, for a response that makes sense. Extra points for having a positive experience with LoTRO's lifetime sub, so there's no question of bias.

@Aganazer

There may be no direct relationship with the quality of product and lifetime subs *specifically*, but when did I imply such a thing? Perhaps your comprehension is a bit off, but I specifically stated "it just *feels* like they're adopting a 'smash'n'grab' tactic".

It's the whole presentation that makes me feel that way. The way Cryptic is marketing their product, the "bonuses" they're offering (like aurickle pointed out, a beta key for a *totally different game*), the "open" beta that you have to basically buy into, the concept that the games biggest feature is their character creator/customization, then they set up an MT store specifically for items to customize your hero, and then act like the MT items ain't such a big deal, and you don't have to buy it if you don't like it.

Here's the real issue: Lifetime subs would be perfectly fine by me *after* the game has proven itself, not with a deadline *prior* to the launch of the game, which is EXACTLY what they did with Hellgate: London.

I mean, really, Aganazer, are you not catching my drift here? Are you going to keep insisting on the one point I *never actually made* about the perceived "cause and effect" between lifetime subs and quality?

Again, in case you've *still* missed it thus far: I'm not trying to draw any direct correlation between anything whatsoever. It's just a *feeling* I have based on a combination of past experience and Cryptic's marketing. It is simply my *opinion* that they lack confidence in their product.

What I stated in my original post was simply the *feeling* I'm getting based on what I've read, what they've shown, and how it's being marketed, using phrases such as "feels like", "I sense", "tell me", and "isn't inspiring"... go ahead, read it again...

You can keep insisting on your one moot point all you want, but it's quite nonsensical.

One more time: You don't have to like my opinion, but your efforts to "prove me wrong" are extremely futile.
Reply

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 8:56AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The $199 plan smells like a scam. I'd want to spend a month or two playing a game in a NON-BETA environment before dropping so much money.

Posted: Aug 5th 2009 7:18AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I was ready to do the 199 life time sub sight unseen just having played CoX for so long and knowing how I like to stop and start game subscriptions. Then I read the footnote about how the game isn't included in the 199 so that would mean in order to play on September 1st with a lifetime sub I would have to pay about $260. Its just not worth it. throw in the retail box with the lifetime sub and I think they will get a lot more interest.

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 10:21AM dudemanjac said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well I don't think that's a good reason not oto do it. I assumed that from the beginning.

Let me say this. I did the math last night. I have spent about 360 on CoX in subscription. Iand about $100 more than that on world of warcraft. I played CoX for more than 2 years off and on since release, the last being a few months ago. For someone like me, this is an awesome deal. People keep bringing up some guy named Roper who apparently is Satan incarnate, as though he is singlehandedly going to ruin the company that made a game that I love.

As for the STO tie in, umm loyalty is one thing. It's an easy enough thing for them to throw out there to entice ppl, sure. I wouldn't necessarily say that means they have no confidence in their product. It's all a lot of pesimistic and fatalistic thinking, really.

I have two weeks to find out of i will be really into this game and that will be more than enough to find out. I beta'd WoW and they got about $550 out of my over the course of 4-5 years. That's not including the people I convinced to start playing. Same story for CoX. I jumped in there head first not knowing if it would work or not. I would have never done a lifetime for either of those from the start, but now looking at the numbers, I'd be an idiot not to.
Reply

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 10:44AM starka1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
For me, two weeks is not enough time to decide. They can either follow Turbine and also offer $9.99/month for those that pre-order or I can wait and see how the game does and hope they offer the lifetime again down the road, again like Turbine has done with LotRO(twice now).

Also, I want to test out retail play not beta. I would need two months before I could make that type of decision. I feel like they are trying to force a quick decision which I refuse to do. Past events not just MMOs have proven its better to think about my purchases thoroughly than 'jump the gun'.
Reply

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 10:00AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Of course, we all know that "lifetime" means the lifetime of the GAME. I can still hear the screams of Hellgate:London Founders who paid for a lifetime sub, only to see the game close down in a year.

You have to price it out this way. $15 per month into $199 is approximately 16 months. If you know you will play this game and not stop, and you believe it will last at least 16 months, then go for the lifetime sub. As long as you get past that magic mark where you've come out even on the cost, you've got nothing whatsoever to complain about.

The real question is, how many superhero-themed MMOs constitute the saturation point for the market?

Posted: Aug 5th 2009 6:44AM fatpanda said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
$15 times 16 months is 240...so it's more like 13 and 1/4 moths...
Reply

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 10:46AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You want to try Champions Online before you get the lifetime sub? Play City of Heroes. Yeah I went there.

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 10:52AM starka1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I played CoH for over 4 years. Your comment makes the lifetime subscription even less appealing.
Reply

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 11:22AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I did the lifetime membership for Hellgate: London, and look where that got me.
Fool me once, Roper...

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 1:49PM dudemanjac said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Have you played CO? And as far as that being a reason, you played 4 years and you didn't like it? Besides. From what I've seen, CO has a lot of the improvements that were asked for in CoX but were thought not to be possible. All the video I have seem looks like a cool game.

It all comes down to deciding if it is something you will spend a year of you time on. Stop trying to bash a game you haven't played. And for those of you that are in beta and are gleefully breakinng NDA and ripping on the game, at least go through and say what's wrong with it in specific terms. Otherwise you're not really doing anyone a favor. You're just whining. That is of course if you really are in the beta and not just making stuff up to make yourself sound important.

Posted: Aug 5th 2009 12:13AM starka1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Asking for a longer evaluation period is not bashing the game...deal with it.
Reply

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 7:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Having it only valid until Sept 1st limits it's appeal. I think CO will get at least 3 years tho personally, I mean, it's a great developer, a great property, and a great publisher. Even 3 years for $200 is a good deal.

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 3:16PM Psychotic Storm said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
From my point of view,regarding Roper and HGL, I don't know much about Roper and frankly I don't care, much HG London was a game that was left so much in development that most people that waited forgot it even existed, its format was not for MMO in my opinion yes I did bought it when it went for 10 euro in the local market for historical reason and never cared to play it online really single player was just fine.

As far as CO goes, I haven't played the game, but I like what I see, the lifetime sub looks intriguing at the cost of 13 and a half subscription months you get a lifetime sub, not bad and I really do not expect to see the game go in such short time, I have to add that I do not expect it to be a great game from launch, I expect it to be a decent game and work from there to a good standard.

Posted: Aug 4th 2009 3:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Seems worth it if you loved COH. And $199 is only 15 more than I spend on WOW in one year...well just for my account >_> Doesn't even count the hubbys...

Posted: Aug 5th 2009 6:42AM fatpanda said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes Hellgate London was a debacle but people forget all the other games Roper worked on:
* Blackthorne (1994) - Music
* Warcraft: Orcs & Humans (1994) - Producer, Voiceover, Documentation
* Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness (1995) - Design, Narration, Voiceover, Documentation
* Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal (1996) - Executive Producer, Story Consultant, Narration, Voiceover
* Diablo (1996) - Producer, Voice Production, Casting & Directing, Story, Voiceover, Documentation, Strike Team
* StarCraft (1998) - Producer, Voiceover, Documentation, Strike Team
* StarCraft: Brood War (1998) - Executive Producer, Voiceover, Documentation
* Warcraft II: Battle.net Edition (1999) - Producer
* Diablo II (2000) - Senior Producer, Voice Casting, Voiceover, Strike Team
* Diablo II: Lord of Destruction (2001) - Global Launch Team, Strike Team
* Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos (2002) - Voiceover, Strike Team
* Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne (2003) - Voiceover
* Hellgate: London (2007) - CEO, Cake Lover
* Champions Online (2008) - Design Director

And Cryptic knows what they are doing with an MMO, especially a superhero MMO. If they put out content like they did with COX a lifetime sub is a gooood deal. Plus as someone else pointed out, it's probably against the TOS but you could try and sell your lifetime sub to someone down the road...and if the games good you might be able to get MORE than $200 for it...

Posted: Aug 5th 2009 9:19AM dudemanjac said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Asking for a chance to spend more time in the game is one thing. I think if you are really enjoying 2 weeks of possibly buggy beta, that's enough for me.

My problem is ppl running around spouting off about how bad the game is going to be because one guy is working on the team. I can listen to the opinion of ppl who have actually played. But if you're gonna break NDA, might as well tell ppl why you don't like it instead of a childish, "This game sucks," and then walking off. It's immature and lazy.

As is using a line like "Deal with it." in a discussion thinking anyone will be impressed, convinced, or even swayed.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW