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

Reader Comments (40)

Posted: Jun 21st 2010 10:19AM Valdamar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes Magus
Fair enough - apology accepted and I'm glad we could come to some kind of assent, even though we agree to disagree on the details. A triumph for reasoned discussion!

Yes, cash shops do seem to be becoming the norm, sadly, and at that point F2P does look better than P2P, at least financially, as long as F2P games can generally increase in quality and depth to match most P2P ones. From what I've read F2P games do seem to be improving though, so maybe it's not all bleak.

But I'll still hate playing any game with a cash shop - moreso if it's an item shop - and it may ultimately drive me out of MMOs, even though I can technically afford it. It's just the principal of the thing - with no sub I'll happily pay for DLC if it's mission content (like with expansions) and aesthetic items, perhaps even extra classes, but so many F2P MMOs with cash shops sell items that affect gameplay balance that I fear the entire industry is heading that way.

If that becomes then norm then I don't think many Dev studios would hold gameplay balance as more important than their own profit margin - heck, probably most Dev teams wouldn't even get a say because their greedy publisher would step in and order them to take advantage of the playerbase - we all know what companies like Atari, EA, Microsoft etc. are like - would you trust them to put gameplay balance and fun ahead of their own profit margin? I wouldn't. To use your words "It's too tempting for them", even if ultimately they sabotage their own long-term profitability (as I believe Atari have done with Cryptic).

That is my ultimate worry with the F2P + cash shop model - that gameplay will suffer.

Turbine's cash shop approach with DDO seems decent enough in that they mainly sell mission content - and it looks very polished - though they had the advantage of converting an MMO that was basically a lobby/hub game with just a few persistent areas tagged on and mostly instanced content, so it was easy to divide up into portions that you could pay for on a F2P plan - I'll be watching with interest to see how they divide LotRO up now that it is going F2P too. I just wish Turbine didn't sell items and consumables, but on the whole I think their model is the one that the major western publishers/developers will adopt eventually.

And of course I agree with you that a game being P2P does not mean it will be good, just as a game being F2P doesn't mean it will be rubbish - but to date the publishers with the deepest pockets have been the ones running mainly P2P MMOs and therefore they've been the ones investing the largest amount of capital into newly developed MMOs - and while big investment doesn't always equal a good game, it usually does mean a more polished game and often means more content than F2P can provide. But of course there are exceptions on both sides, such as Cryptic with their unpolished content-light P2P games, and Arenanet with their polished content-heavy F2P game Guild Wars.

The main point where we both agree is that Guild Wars 2 is perhaps our biggest hope for MMOs now, both on pricing model and especially gameplay - personally I have wanted a dynamic world, dynamic NPC spawning and dynamic questing since I first heard about MMOs when a friend showed me EverQuest running on his PC in 1999. I just hope GW2 doesn't have a cash shop selling items or that will spoil it for me - hopefully they'll just sell mission/dungeon content packs.

And I hope your personal situation improves so that $15 a month doesn't seem such a big investment eventually. I wonder, do you have a Steam account? I was introduced to Steam recently after buying Dawn of War 2 and have got several friends interested in it too - and we've been picking up some absolute bargains there lately when Steam has a sale (yesterday I got Mass Effect for £3 - about $4.50 to you - in a 75% off sale), even though their non-sale prices are generally much more expensive than Amazon.

> "I just want to be able to have fun for less. I really like owning my games and having fun without having to throw more money at it, especially when times are tough."

I think we can all agree with that.
Reply

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 9:42AM Valdamar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
> "I don't like Steam by the way. I like having a physical copy of my games, not a digital copy tied to one computer that is lost if the computer has a problem."

Well actually with Steam you'd be better off if, say, your house burned down - because as soon as you got a new PC (and a new house :p ), downloaded the Steam client and logged into your Steam account you'd be able to download all your games again. I hated buying digital versions of software until recently, but Steam is really good about letting you re-download your games whenever you want to as often as you want to - to multiple computers if you want (though you can only be logged into your Steam account on one computer at a time) - you can even archive games you're not playing much so they take up less space.

Steam is also pretty useful if you do play games across multiple computers (such as if you have a laptop plus a desktop at home) because Steam backs up all your save games (for games that support Steamcloud) so you can easily stop playing on your desktop, grab your laptop and go out and then start playing from the same place you saved on the desktop. So in the case above where your house burns down, or if your computer has a problem (such as a hard drive failure) you don't lose your save games - as soon as you get up and running again, install the Steam client and the game, the first time you play that game again it will synch up your PC with all the save games on Steamcloud.

Tbh the only way you can really lose all your games on Steam is if you act like an idiot and get banned from Steam. So I've gone from someone who hated digital versions of software and preferred physical copies (I even bought all my MMO expansions physically rather than digitally - not that it would be an option for CoH's Going Rogue as they're only doing a digital version in Europe), to someone who would now pay a few extra pounds for the Steam version just for the convenience, security and game management benefits it brings.

> "Also, when I look at the debate over quality of P2P versus F2P I look at one main thing. Console games and offline PC games are of amazing quality, but they don't make any money beyond the box purchase which is the same as any mmo. If they can make huge sums of money that way then mmos can do it too, by selling content."

True, but console and offline PC games also tend to be very short compared to how much content there is (or should be) in an MMO. More importantly, as I've tried to explain in previous posts they don't have the same upkeep as MMOs - they don't have to keep a live team employed, pay bandwidth, run servers and keep upgrading server hardware - so it's not at all comparable.

> "I think it depends on the developers. If they care about their game and making it the best they can for the fans then they won't alienate the consumers, just like ArenaNet and Guild Wars."

That's very true, and in the long term one good thing about F2P + cash shop could be that the huge overly greedy publishing companies like EA, Atari, Activision etc. will probably suffer heavily in the transition. But do you trust your fellow gamers, en masse, to make the right decision in not playing games that milk their playerbase for as much cash as possible? Players still feel invested in their characters, whether P2P or F2P - what about a company that runs a game well for a few years, but then active players are down and cash shop revenue is down so they try to screw as much money out of the diehard loyal customers as possible by forcing them to use the cash shop if they want to keep playing? A last hurrah to milk the last profits out of a title before they shut it down. Because I'm willing to bet that P2P games have much lower population thresholds before they get shut down than F2P.

> "Also, F2P games like that don't hurt to quit nearly as much as P2P. If they screw up the game you just stop playing and you're only down the price of the content you bought instead of the time you played as well."

Depends how invested you are in your characters - it can still hurt just as much - especially if you don't care about the cost of what you've spent in the past. Look, you've admitted you're not financially secure, so I know the cost of P2P games over time is a big concern to you - and you'd probably like to play most of the P2P games if they were F2P - but I think you're focusing too much on how much P2P MMOs cost over long periods of time to make them look less value for money than they are. If you examine most daily/weekly/monthly expenditures over a time-frame of years it looks horrendous - add up what you spend on fizzy sodas, or magazines, or comics, or snacks, or whatever, in many cases for an even more fleeting "hit" of pleasure.

> "In fact, the more time you play a F2P game the less that content feels like it has cost you. If you play 200 hours on the game after just buying the original game box for $60 then you got 200 hours of fun for only $60."

I wish I could see that. In fact I saw you posting on another topic that P2P games all have terrible grinds to keep subscribers playing for longer - but in my experience it has been all the F2P games I've tried that have had the terribly long grinds that are no fun at all, purely to force you into using the cash shop to progress. I have yet to find any F2P MMOs that are as fun or casual as City of Heroes - I doubt any exist. There's a reason why the phrase "Asian grinder" exists and most of those MMOs are F2P when they hit the western market.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree again.
Reply

Posted: Jun 24th 2010 10:06AM Valdamar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
> "As for Steam, I would rather not have to always be online to game especially if it slows down the game. I think I'll stick with my physical copies for that reason and the fact that I've signed up for enough websites in my life already. :P
It does sound convenient, but I like to leave my computer disconnected from the internet unless I'm using it, thus absolutely secure. It's just an extra precaution against viruses and everything and sometimes even helps performance."

My internet connection is up and down all the time recently due to me having a terrible ISP (which sadly has a monopoly in my area) and I can still play almost all of my games on Steam.

The only game that I can't play with no internet connection is Dawn of War 2, which (whether you buy it form a shop, online or from Steam) has an evil DRM that requires you to be online when you start the game up, even if you only want to play single player. I hate that - in fact I hate DRM more than I hate cash shops in MMOs, because DRM only ever hurts customers and never pirates (who can usually crack even a DRM game).

Anyway regarding the main subject here, yeah it's time we moved on and just agreed to disagree. I do see your point - if all MMOs were F2P without cash shop and made money only through box sales and expansions (and maybe in-game advertising, if it fitted the gameworld - and loadscreen advertising would make sense to me as well, I don't know why no MMO has tried that) then obviously I'd prefer that to P2P - it's cash shops that I have a problem with, not the F2P part, and in most cases F2P games have cash shops.

Nice chatting with you.
Reply

Posted: Jun 18th 2010 9:05AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It isn't that I'm completely against a subscription model, but that these companies should start offering other options. Guild Wars is clearly my favorite of the various options. It is a quality game, although missing some major elements (no open world instead everything being instanced, no auction house, etc.) and they pretty much abandoned it for awhile as they worked on GW2, although they have said they changed plans midway to go with a completely new game instead of GW2 just being a fixed GW1.

Turbine's hybrid approach is another good one and I think it will work out well. Mainly because it offers options for players. If you want to make it your main game and play it a lot, then go with the sub and you're set. If, like more and more people, you want to play a variety of games and/or don't have tons of time to invest in a game, you can pay as you go.

P2P only with a $15 subscription does not mean the game will be good. It does not mean the game will get support or lots of content (see Aion, or most of the SOE games). In fact looking at many P2P games I've played I've gotten very little value for that $15 a month.

F2P games don't automatically suck, as so many P2P only types like to claim. In fact, they are fast becoming the better option if run properly, with ever improving graphics, a large and fairly nice player base, and several offering more to do in game than many P2P games; which ironically seem to be more likely to make you grind and grind to get anywhere, so they can keep getting that $15 a month from you.

Options, that is what I'm looking for. SOE missed a big opportunity. Almost everyone I knew that was interested in the game is writing this off as just another Champions Online. Poor graphics, overly simple game play, full sub with cash shop on top of it, likely to have little support (typical SOE it seems), and after looking through some of the forums for the game, a pretty snotty Barrens Chat style player base. Sony doesn't want to offer options so they don't want me as a customer. Fine. Turbine is smart enough to offer options for their games, they'll get me as a customer. It is just a shame SOE has the rights to a game world I'd be interested in playing.

Posted: Jun 18th 2010 11:23AM WonderPenguin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sweet mother of text walls...

I'm still on the fence on this one, I'll give a few months of live time before I decide if I can take another super hero MMO.

Not really a huge DC fan either, so the hype just isn't there for me.

Posted: Jun 19th 2010 1:49AM KwietStorm said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sadly, very sadly, the subscription fee has crossed this one off my list. I know all about monthly fees being a standard with MMOs, but that's not my scene at this time. I was hoping that at least the PS3 version would be free after purchase. I always wanted a game like this whether it was Marvel or DC, and I was highly anticipating this release since the first time it was shown, so now I'm very disappointed. Anyone who calls someone ignorant for their own stance on the topic, then turns around and says they are glad that said person won't be playing the game, is either amazingly immature and ignorant them self, or is just another garden variety nerd with an entitlement problem.

Posted: Jun 19th 2010 3:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'd be very curious about the average age of people in this thread.

Dudes, we were all 15 once. A game taking up ALL of your lawn mowing money every month must seem totally lame. I get that.

But for anyone above that age, it is really very little. I KNOW that all the games you have grown up with for the last two years after mom let you on the internet are free, where you can buy Miley Cyrus stickers and unicorn mounts for a dollar and that must seem cool.

But an actual game supporting an actual team of employees that will get updated for the foreseeable future needs actual money to operate. And especially in a superhero mmo, where people set their appearance at creation and may not need/want to change it.

Like I said, in 5 years- 10 max- you'll understand this.

Posted: Jun 19th 2010 6:07PM KwietStorm said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Being condescending never helps to prove your point. Dont say you weren't doing it either. Bringing up mom and Miley Cyrus has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. I'm 28 years old, so would you say that I am SUPPOSED to be all for extra fees just because it is a "little" amount of money?
Reply

Posted: Jun 19th 2010 11:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
damn, Tempes Magus is camping this article.

Anyway, I think a hybrid P2P/F2P model seems to be the best option- F2P with cash shop, or P2P for everything. Lotro/DDO seem to be trying this but the fact that there are still "exp potions (generic example)" and the like that need to be purchased if you want them as P2P ruins the whole point of P2P- that your $15 (or whatever) is all you will ever need to spend on your game, short of expansions, to have everything available.

I didn't mind WoW's name-change, server-change, faction-change, etc., but after the introduction of the pet shop (lol, 50% goes to charity for the first month, how generous) I saw the slippery slope coming and jumped ship. Seeing as more pets, and more notably the sparkle-pony, came after that, I'm glad I did so.

Guild Wars, for example, is a F2P model I like. Buy the box game, buy expansions. Not nickel-and-diming me to death like 99% of F2P's. The fact that there's no sub is only a bonus. Now if only I liked Guild Wars. Luckily GW2 seems to be shaping up nicely, and is one of the MMOs I'm most looking forward too.

So essentially, what the P2P model (and life-subs, though in general I take life-subs being offered as a bad omen) offers is the peace-of-mind of knowing that you are paying one flat rate, and everything is under that. I like that option very much. If you have a separate F2P option available, that won't affect me (I won't be missing out on mounts, customization, potions, etc.) then I don't care at all. The community may deteriorate a bit but I'm not elitist enough to really make a big deal over that.

However, the traditional F2P model that the vast majority of F2P games use, and the "double-dipping" style of Cryptic/WoW, do not sit well with me at all. This is why I am glad DCUO is P2P, and am glad it is not being developed by Cryptic. On the other hand, SOE probably takes second place in my most hated MMO developers. Really, just a terrible company. Basically the only good thing is the Station Pass- if I like DCUO, I may get one so I can play SWG and Everquest II and PotBS and such all under one umbrella.

The golden model of my preferred payment style is EVE (truly the MMO I have the most respect for, by far), and I hope DCUO goes with a flat rate like that.

Also, the PLEX system is ingenious, although EVE is really one of the very few games it could work for, as profit more frequently involves mercantilism rather than farming mobs.

Posted: Jun 20th 2010 1:07AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
...what just happened?

The first reply seemed to be totally unrelated to mine so I'm going to assume that was meant for someone else. I didn't mention loyalty at any point.

The second just seemed like a rant about how you bought a sparkle-pony and are now mad. You didn't really respond to me at all, besides the post being about sparkle-ponies. And then you randomly included that part with "people are dumb". Was that directed at me? I honestly have no idea. Was it directed at those who bought the sparkle-pony? Blizzard? I truly have no idea what happened right there.

And the third also made no sense. "Lifetime Subscriptions are actually a one time up front payment, by the way". Thank you doctor. And then the end part? "It's just like a more expensive game box and you never have to pay again, but it is far better than paying forever and ever until the end of the game which will mean you can't play it anyway". I'm still trying to decipher that sentence. It's better to buy a lifer than pay a sub (assuming you play until the game ends)? Once again, thank you doctor.

Truly, the most indecipherable, hostile, train wrecks of a replies I've ever seen.
Reply

Posted: Jun 20th 2010 12:51PM Valdamar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Darthkirby707 > "However, the traditional F2P model that the vast majority of F2P games use, and the "double-dipping" style of Cryptic/WoW, do not sit well with me at all. "

They don't sit well with me either. In fact I think that's why so many of us still support P2P - or specifically P2P without a cash shop - because we don't want to play any MMOs that have a cash shop in them, regardless of how/whether we pay for a subscription.

I hate cash shops because they breed inequality in gameplay balance - some players can pay to be more effective (which breeds elitism, which harms community), and many of those that can't will just whine constantly about it (which also hurts community).

I think cash shops also breed greed in developers. With a pure fixed subscription MMO (i.e. with no cash shop) the devs/publishers have two ways to make more money, both of them long-term things which increase the longevity and health of the game - they can either attract more subscribers or release an expansion.

Cash shop MMOs have many more ways to make more money, but a lot of them boil down to either making cash shop items more essential (i.e. making gameplay without cash shop items slower and more of a chore, and/or making you pay for all mission/map content after a certain point) or putting up prices in the cash shop, or finding new ways to nickel and dime more cash out of players with new desirable cash shop items, or by selling content that effectively gates other free content unless you're willing to grind, etc.

To most of us in favour of P2P MMOs, when we see F2P we just think of cash shops and all of the gameplay inequality that brings with it - personally I also think of lower quality gameplay, because every single F2P game I've ever played has been shallower, less fun, less polished and with less content than most of the western P2P MMOs (Cryptic excluded, because CO and STO are just a joke - they certainly should have been F2P, as they are F2P in quality).

Oh sure, there's Guild Wars as the exception that proves the rule, but according to Arenanet that isn't even an MMO (as per the GW FAQ on their official site - source: http://www.guildwars.com/products/guildwars/features/default.php)

And yeah I think most of us (whether we prefer P2P or F2P) can see that the "double-dipping" that SOE/Blizzard/Cryptic-Atari do is just wrong on so many levels, but sadly that seems to be the way the industry is going - no matter how much some of us hate it, subscriptions plus cash shops have been shown to be very profitable, by Blizzard in particular, and we all know that lots of other MMO publishers/devs just follow their lead. The tide has already turned.

When most P2P MMOs have a cash shop - and I'm sure that time is coming, sadly - then the F2P MMOs with a cash shop will look like better value comparatively (even though they're generally lower quality, in my experience). I don't know if F2P or P2P will be the standard payment model in a decades time, but either way I suspect we'll have cash shops in every MMO, which are the real evil as far as I'm concerned. I suspect I'll have stopped playing MMOs altogether by that stage as I hate paying for content £1 at a time.

At this point I think there's nothing we players can do to stop this happening - the P2P-with-no-cash-shop crusade has probably already been lost - we've had the golden years already :(

And I'll avoid commenting on Tempes Magus's replies to you, as I've already engaged with his points (and somewhat regretted it :p ) when he made them on my own post earlier.
Reply

Posted: Jun 20th 2010 7:50PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes

Uh, I believe the only other point that was put up was that SOE is worse than Blizzard. I agree. I hate SOE with a fiery passion, and the Station Pass is the sole redeeming feature. The fact that DCUO is being under SOE's umbrella is a definite negative point to me.

@Valdamar

I concur with your concurring. Cash shops are the real problem, but it's just that F2P is practically synonymous with cash shops so I count them as the same thing. Guild Wars is the only major F2P MMO without a cash-shop that I know of.

I hope cash shops will go away with the white-hot heat of one-thousand suns, but I doubt we can do anything about it at this point, except subscribe to EVE. Go EVE!
Reply

Posted: Jun 21st 2010 9:38AM Valdamar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Darthkirby707 - I have the greatest of respect for what CCP has done, but sadly I don't enjoy playing EVE - hopefully when they get around to releasing the World of Darkness MMO it will be more to my taste gameplay-wise. Until then I'll stick with City of Heroes and eagerly await GW2 (and SW:TOR, but I'm slightly less excited about it now that I've heard more about the gameplay).

@Tempes Magus
> "Anyway, it does not matter what they categorize it as since it uses the same amount of server resources as any other mmo. Actually, they made Guild Wars use less by coding more efficiently."

Nice bit of contradiction there :o

Guild Wars 1 never felt like an MMO to me - more like a lobby game, like an updated Diablo 2 (as played on Bnet) if you will - which considering that ArenaNet are basically half of the old Blizzard North (team that made the Diablo games) is somewhat apt. I honestly don't think you can really call it an MMO, otherwise we'd have to start labelling any FPS games with lobbies as MMOs too. Tbh I never felt that DDO was an MMO til they added some persistent outdoor zones - that felt like a lobby game too when I played it not long after launch.
Reply

Posted: Jun 20th 2010 4:57AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Stop crying about p2p. If you want a game with frequent content fixes, patches and stable servers p2p is the best way to go. p2p keeps away some of the younger crowd which we already know act like fools. im so glad they made this decision cause now I feel like it will be a quality game experience. btw Lrn2job if you cant afford a KILLER 15 bucks a month.

Posted: Jun 20th 2010 1:30PM Owlcat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I prefer p2p mmos. First they tend to be better made, second they tend to have MUCH better communities,and thirdly they do more about gold sellers and cheaters than f2p games seem to.

Posted: Jun 20th 2010 4:27PM starka1 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The entitlement attitude from a couple posters is off the chart. Kudos to those that just lamented it won't be F2P and just crossed it off their lists. You have grown and moved on with your lives. Enjoy.

Posted: Jun 22nd 2010 3:33PM pixelmonkey said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Am I correct in understanding there are only 2 zones and the rest of game play is only PVP matches? For $15.00/month I say that is fail. Make it F2P or give us content.

Posted: Jun 25th 2010 12:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempus Magus

1) You're TOO vocal. I hate you and I've never met you. You're obviously a corporate goon with no real consideration for the GAME. You only respond to conversations where $$$$$$$ is involved and you're obviously a supporter of the nickle-and-diming method of being an under-handed, insidious, cash-grabber.

2) Did I mention that you talk too much, and that you're too vocal about $$$$ issues and not enough game?

3) Oh, and you're too opinionated about making money instead of playing games. Goon.

Posted: Jun 28th 2010 7:13AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
hmm.. you can be the original WoW for $19.99 and it costs $15 a month.. lets do the math here.. yearly subscription $180... expansions are $40 and there is 2.. so everything combined is about $300 give or take with tax.. seems steep right??

Not at all! lets say you own a PS3 and you buy one game a month at thier $59.99 + tax price. Thats $780 a year and i guarentee you'll buy one or 2 games if not more and be disappointed with them. This is only with buying one game a month where alot of people buy multiple.

Me personally i have no preference to P2P or F2P.. Subs aren't endless.. its no different then cable tv. I play WoW for a couple months till i am bored, cancel subscription and come back when I feel like playing again.

When it comes to communities on MMO's I find P2P much more enjoyable. People are paying to be there and they wanna enjoy the game as much as the next person. Dont get me wrong all games have thier nubs but there is definatly less of them in a P2P game than a F2P game. and I seen a comment that people who P2P seem more pressured. I completely disagree. They're playing the monthly fee for unlimited usage minus matience and they are there to enjoy themselves as much as the next person.

Also.. People that said about server extended server downtime is ripping us off.. go look at your account statement and see how many times you have been credited with a free day or 2 because of it. I've seen several on mine. Plus its not like they are running one server here. I can't even fathom to see what there server rooms look like. Just think of every person who pays for highspeed internet at what a minimum of what $60 a month. WoW has what 10 million subscribers over a countless number of servers. I would love to see what they pay for all of thier bandwidth to cater to 10 million people logging on and off 24/7.

Free content.. Well they have put in several instances with a new one starting this week. I can't imagine adding free content and patches all thier servers with it is an easy task. Probably a massive task actually.

And everything after the cost of the box is pure profit??? The money from WoW is paying for the 3,000+ employee's at Blizzard (there isnt just 10 people who work there) Pays for the bandwidth, promo, thier facilities, software, computers, do i really need to go one?. Oh wait theres more! You don't think WoW completely paided for the complete development of the Star Craft, Diablo 3, another "secret MMO" in the works. Saying our subs is pure profit is actually insane. By no means am I saying that there is no profit. Companies provide products and services to make profit. If WoW just broke even there would be no WoW. If Time Warner just broke even there would be no Time Warner and so forth. When there are no profits companies close.

I know it saddens me to say but Blizzard just like every other company in the world right down to your local pizza shop is only open to make a profit. If 10 million people feel $15 a month is a fair price then it probably is. The pet shop?? you don't want a sparkly pony for $25 then don't buy it. The mount isnt faster than any other and doesnt improve your character at all. There are plenty more mounts in the game for you to achieve.

I guess to end this rant. Most people bag on wow cuz its the most dominating MMO that will ever exist. If you want it to be F2P then go play it on a private server. They exist and you'll get as much content updates as you would on any other F2P MMO.

Side Note: I will definatly try out DCUO and I have high hopes but I guess only time will tell.

Posted: Aug 7th 2010 9:23AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Going To Definitely Try This Out.

Breaking News

Breaking News

Massively-that-was


Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW