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

Reader Comments (93)

Posted: Jul 27th 2010 7:45PM archer75 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
" extensive instanced gameplay"

That's from the Guild Wars 2 FAQ. If you have an issue with it, take it up with them.
Instanced zone copies. Instances dungeons, instanced PvP, instanced missions, instanced storylines.

All I have to go by is what the developers said. Again, take it up with them.

This isn't a Guild Wars 2 article or thread though.

Posted: Jul 27th 2010 7:55PM archer75 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"By the way Archer75, how do you think EVE handles its 330 thousand players on a single server?

It's not a single server. It's a "server-less architecture" exactly like Guild Wars that allows all the players to be on one big virtual server and divided up into zones to keep load down.
That allows them to make copies of each zone when one fills up too full to keep load down while still allowing a full world. There are never any server merges for those games and the games always feel busy."

I'm well aware of that. In the case of EVE they don't make copies of a system. They just have so many systems(over 5000 not counting wormhole space) it spreads the player base out enough. Some systems like Jita can get overloaded and crash though. And there are large fleet battles that can crash the server.

"That probably even makes the server resources required for those games more than those of SOE games and WoW which use clearly separate servers."

Many EVE systems sit empty or have only a handful of pilots in them. Others get high traffic and have more resources available. It doesn't take much at all to host a space system in EVE as they are so empty. And when no one is in them the resources are used elsewhere.

EQ2 can also make copies of zones should they get overloaded. That's the way it was at launch and when you zoned into a zone you could select which instance of it you wanted.

"The costs for maintaining EVE and Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 are less because they code better than SOE and Blizzard, not because they are less demanding or have less people."

And yet EVE charges $14.99/month. They maintain massive servers to run the game and recently had to move to a larger data center as a result. If anything EVE could be more demanding. Having 1000 people in one system puts a huge load on the server.
And if your alliance will be having a huge op you can fill out a form on the EVE website with the date and time of that op and a GM will make more resources available in those systems at that time. It's helped to take the load off of massive fleet battles.

"In fact, Guild Wars has more people than most SOE games combined."

Actually you don't know that. We don't know Guild Wars active player numbers. I'm not saying it's not true, just that we don't know.

Posted: Jul 27th 2010 8:05PM archer75 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"1) Except for the first thing, all that is present in WOW just as much as GW2 will ever do, if not more so in WoW."

You haven't played GW2. You have no clue.

"3) Most of the world will still be persistent and open to everyone. Over 90% of the world will never be instanced unless some thousand people decide to meet up in one zone which will force the game to split them into maybe 500 in each of 2 zones to reduce load, or something like that."

Again, you haven't played it so you don't know.

"Instancing in GW2 will only be used to reduce load or for private fun like WoW's dungeons.
It's not going to be like Guild Wars 1.

If you think it's just a copy of Guild Wars 1 then why do you think they are making a new game at all rather than expanding on the old game?"

I didn't say it was a copy of GW1. In fact I said that it was not. But the developers are saying GW2 will be extensive instanced. Discuss it with them.

"You seem to jump to the dumbest conclusions Archer75. You ignore facts and logic in favor of supporting you "almighty P2P gods" in your "church of P2P" where "F2P is blasphemous"."

You have presented no facts or logic here.

One can't argue with free. Again, if you don't like it don't play it. I can play it and never spend a dime on it. So for me it's free.

I don't care if you don't like and don't play it. I'd go so far as to say nobody here cares either.

Posted: Jul 27th 2010 8:24PM archer75 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Ever played City of Heroes? Ever seen when a zone has a number after the name?
That is what "zone copy instancing" is. It's there only when zones fill beyond capacity. Thus, the world never feels empty, it feels like it is overflowing more often than not."

I'm well aware of that. Multiple zones require more hardware as well.

"You misunderstand the image of their game they are painting with their words.
The game will be everything current games are yet so much more, while being F2P, completely F2P. You'll only have to buy the game box and expansions, nothing more.

That's how games should be, awesomely made for the costs of the game box, like all other types of games have been for years."

One hell of a fanboy rant. You have no idea what GW2 will be. I admit it sounds good. But often times games that sound great come out to be something not so great.

"I'm going to ignore you now."


"You say I have posted no facts or logic yet you fail to tell me how $0 per month is enough to run one game while $15 is barely enough to run another, given equal revenue from everything else including game boxes and cash shop.

The only difference between Guild Wars and Everquest 2 is that $15 subscription."

What you fail to understand is that they are VERY different games. Guild Wars is not an MMO as stated by the developers themselves. And certainly not in the traditional sense.

"You just ignore my question of about why that is yet both games are still going successfully?"

I answered your question, you just failed to realize that, again, both games are very different. One is an MMO and one is not.

"You obviously believe the propaganda that "running a game is expensive so we need $15 subs" despite the proof that they don't need them."

I did'nt say NEED. The costs are certainly higher. But I also said that some of that is profit as it should be. Businesses exist to turn a profit. If they just broke even there would be no point in operating.

If you know the exact cost breakdown to run Guild Wars and EQ2 i'd love to hear it.
But sense you are ignoring me now I won't hold my breath ;)

Posted: Jul 27th 2010 8:38PM Dblade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is awful. The thing is that even if you sub, options are restricted. Read the matrix.

ALL SUBSCRIBERS only get 4 races and need to buy more. So you are paying full sub fees and are still restricted in races. Only the plat one gets free station cash which lets them rebuy them.

The 14.99 a month sub has to pay more just to reach the damn level cap. 14.99 a month doesn't include going past level 80. It doesn't include sentinel's fate access. It also doesn't include gratis station cash so choosing this makes zero sense over platinum.

It's a cash farm. Now I get why people are so pissed at SOE.

Posted: Jul 27th 2010 8:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
LOL! Wow, I haven't laughed this hard over nerd rage since the video of the WoW kid shoving a remote up his rear end. Thank you Tempus Magus for representing the F2P fanbois so well. This kind of rabid knee jerk reaction is exactly what the MMO community as a whole does not need, and why many are skeptical of those who sing the praises of F2P so loudly. Nice job drowning out any type of civilized discourse, and any that may have been possible in this post.

Posted: Jul 27th 2010 9:34PM Pigeonko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A friend mentioned "it's a tricky situation because f2p [stuff] could well kill off sub fee servers, but if you don't do something to try to expand the player base, they can't support any servers anyway."

Also there should be ways to transfer between both server types, and let newbies into legacy servers without RAF because it'll damage raiding, since guilds will have a hard time recruiting newer players.

All in all if done wrong it'll damage EQ2Live to be honest. Other than that, the concept is good.

Posted: Jul 28th 2010 2:12AM Jade Effect said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No product can grow its market base indefinitely. If subscriber numbers start declining, I don't believe going free-to-play is the magical answer. Afterall, there are no lack of free to play games in the market, but how many are actually really profitable?

Just like any product, price is very seldom the sole deciding factor in a purchasing decision, unless you are buying something very generic (such as staplers or clothespins). Any marketing 101 course will tell you the 4 traditional pillars of selling a product: price, product, distribution, and promotion/advertising. A MMO company has to continually improve its game, put the word out with its community managers and marketing, etc and not just focus on just price.

If I'm not interested in EQ2 before, making it free-to-try isn't going to suddenly make me want to download the game and play it. Afterall, my time isn't free and limit-less. I have to consider how best to spend my time to maximize my entertainment value, and not play some shoddy game just because it's free (this is for the sake of illustrating an example, and by no means am I making any claims on EQ2's quality).

Posted: Jul 27th 2010 10:30PM wjowski said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Between Allods and this turd representing the market, look forward to the F2P 'revolution' lasting about as long as the current 3D movie craze.

Posted: Jul 27th 2010 11:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
FYI...for people comparing EVE and GW to EQ2...EQ2 has a larger staff, higher salaries and more costly facilities than both those games. This is no slight to those games. I'm just saying, they have a smaller budget and different expense model than EQ2 does so you really can't compare them 1 to 1

Posted: Jul 27th 2010 11:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes Magus

But you can't say if one company can give us X then another company can give us Y for the same price. I have only just purchased GW this past week and I have never played EVE so I can't comment with confidence on their update cycle or content.

I do know that EQ2 has a fairly regular update cycle and there are a ton of free updates including 3 new 1-20 zones a new race and multiple raid zones. LOTRO gives fairly regular updates following their story. And WOW throws out a new raid every month and now Cataclysm...I'm fairly certain EQ2, LOTRO and WOW have the largest Live and Development teams of all the competition so to say they should run at the budget of GW or EVE would be unfair. (Again, excuse me if I misspoke about EVE. I have no idea about content they have up out. I did read something about them having a lower team count compared to other mmo's just the other week though)

I will also note that other struggling MMO's do not decrease their price to meet demand. Someone mentioned a $5 MMO, I'm guessing that is EVE? Donno, but something is making that number stick at $15. Else you would see MMO's such as AOC, WAR, COX, or CO come down in price. I'd be willing to sub one of those for $5 or $10 but $15 is too much.

About EQ2 F2P model...I don't like it. I plan on taking advantage of it but I hate that they can't follow Turbines model and stay true to the vets. Turbines encourages players to subscribe and become full members.(per Turbine) This model doesn't seem to encourage membership but just gives you an a la carte option. They really can't do turbine's model unless they turn the whole game F2P though so I guess they improvised?

Posted: Jul 27th 2010 11:21PM Existentialist said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
You can tell Tempes Magus' first MMO was Guildwars.

For me I like the subscription based model. I buy the game, I pay for a service, expansions come free. I could put up with buying expansions because when I first got into MMO's that was how it was done, but EVE online is spoiling me. Mortal Online and Darkfall do the same thing, buy the game/pay the subscription/expansions are free.

I think I would rather pay the subscription then have to buy anything extra in a cash store. There are people who would rather have zero subscription zero upfront cost and a cash store and that is fine for them. Whatever floats your boat, what I hate is when games try and do both. Either make it pure sub (15$ a month with something like PLEX because that really is a great idea) or make the game free with a cash store. This double dipping is unimpressive and really shows the lack of respect the company has for their player base.

EVE isn't perfect, but at least they put out videos that show they're loyal to *me*. I will never play another SOE game, they burned me once with SWG, now they've burned me a second time with EQ2. Shame on me.

That video btw, for you Tempes. Calm down.

Posted: Jul 27th 2010 11:48PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

Okay, you people got to get over the SWG thing. You act like they gave you the clap. Its a game. Move on. Stop bringing up old crap. I pray every night before bed people will stop whining about SWG after TOR comes out.

And since you are a paying customer, nothing changed for you so stop complaining. The game will be the same In September as it was Yesterday for you. I doubt any regular players will leave for the F2P server unless they were on their way out already and they use it just to scratch an itch.

Posted: Jul 27th 2010 11:56PM Existentialist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

Come to the lightside, only casuals play FTP.

Play a real game, like EVE online or Darkfall. Playing games like you've played will just make you dull.

Think of a world where you have access to all the content for just 15$ a month (and hell EVE's first month is only 20$) and the initial cost. No more people having things because they bought it from a cash store. From now on you'll look at people with good ships/gear with awe and thing (Damn it took a long time to get that phat loot, that guy is pimp).

EVE is the best with this, when it takes you a year to get into the ship you really want to get in, you learn that ship inside and out, you *appreciate* that ship because it took so damn long for you to get into it. I'm looking forward to my Arazu so much, and I'm still about two months away from it. I fly a mean Brutix and a good Ishtar.

Wait til you have to wait for stuff and you can't just grind for them, wait til you grind for something and then lose it. Wait til you then make someone else lose what they grinded for. Wait til you create a trade Empire or are part of an Empire that has wars that they write about on massively.com and you then say "I was in that battle, I was there, I was there for that entire war."

If there is glory in gaming, this is it. You certainly aren't going to find it in some FTP or some no risk v reward like WoW.

My friend always said, (to which he paraphrased from someone else) "It is one thing to be a big fish in a little pond, it is another thing entirely to be an ordinary fish a big pond."

Posted: Jul 28th 2010 12:11AM Existentialist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

Sorry, I need to clarify. I left after they added mounts. I told the player base this would happen. People told me that adding statted items to the marketplace wouldn't happen, it has now happened. This is just further "Feeling of the waters" for SOE. Should this prove successful next they will merge both the subscription servers and the extended addition.

You look at SOE's history of screwing its player base. SWG, EQ2. Get over it? I have no reason to get over it. SWG was the best MMO that was ever released then they killed it. SOE is just a company that reaches for money instead of respecting their player base and keeping the game how the players want it. You think the players wanted the CU or the NGE? You think players want this extended server? This is just the first step towards expanding the marketplace into the subscription game where statted items will be available.

I just have to say, I told you so. The days aren't gone where you can get an entire game for the box price +sub every month but now it is confined to the indie market (or games that used to be indie.) Other companies are caught up in this fad of "F2P, cash shops."

I just hope it divides evenly, leave my games alone and develop your own F2P games. Remember, EQ2 and EQ used to be subscription based games without a cash store, so when I say "Shame on me." I mean I gave SOE a second chance, and for the second time they fooled me. There will not be a third.

My money is now on the indie companies like Aventurine, CCP, and Star Vault. They carry the innovation, they bring back UO like complexity, not do away with it for a fad.

Posted: Jul 30th 2010 5:55AM starka1 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Don't really care about EQII anymore but I may give it a try. But soon I will be playing DCUO, which does have a monthly subscription fee.

Cost of the retail game, $49.99, monthly fee, $14.99, Tempes Magus not playing because of the subscription fee...priceless.

Posted: Jul 28th 2010 1:01AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So I stopped by EQ2 forums. Its rather underwhelming...What I can't figure out is how come the community isn't using this time to demand Beastlords be brought back as a subscription only class. Or some other idea that players have wanted and SOE said no. Now is the right time to demand Beastlords. Someone go post that.

Posted: Jul 28th 2010 4:59AM pcgneurotic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
BEST. NEWS. EVER! :) :) :)

Posted: Jul 28th 2010 8:37AM Snichy said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Ever wondered why all your comments get downrated?

Obviously not.

Posted: Jul 28th 2010 11:03AM Aelon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempus: All of your comments are nearly completely grayed out due to being reported down. Just thought you should know no one is likely reading them.

Featured Stories

Make My MMO: August 24 - August 30, 2014

Posted on Aug 30th 2014 6:00PM

PAX Prime 2014: ArcheAge is a go for launch!

Posted on Aug 30th 2014 5:00PM





WoW Insider