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

Reader Comments (19)

Posted: Sep 4th 2010 12:30PM pcgneurotic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Counting down to LotRO's relaunch with Turbine" made me think there'd be something about COG handing over to Turbine - do we know how that's going to be handled yet?

Posted: Sep 4th 2010 12:32PM Pingles said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
LOTRO is a great game and well-worth the price of admission.

However, I am a bit troubled by games like this calling themselves (or us calling them...I have no idea what label they use themselves) Free-to-Play.

F2P games like Runes of Magic have all content available to every player, paying or not. Items can make life easier but there are no limitations to where you go.

Games like DDO, EQII and LOTRO are more "Freemium" games, where you can play a limited section of the game for free and then buy seperate parts as you go.

To be honest, the Free Trials of Warhammer and Wizard101 are the same. They don't refer to them as F2P.

It's a big difference. Hitting roadblocks is not what F2Ps are about.

Posted: Sep 4th 2010 12:45PM Teiraa said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Turbine actually were the first to call the new pricing model "free to play".
http://www.lotro.com/news/709-announcing-the-lord-of-the-rings-onlines-move-to-free-to-play-
:P
Reply

Posted: Sep 4th 2010 1:15PM alucard3000 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I totally agree and then add on top of that the limit to how much gold you can have(f2p games like RoM,PWI,HOTK you can buy cash shop items and currency with in game gold which is a win win for all parties involved the publisher included because money is being spent) and no pvp access.
Reply

Posted: Sep 4th 2010 9:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The big difference between the WAR trials and this though is that even though it puts up a block, you can still grind out the unlock for areas given time and have access to 90% of the content. Yeah it will take a while but trials do not offer that at all.
Reply

Posted: Sep 4th 2010 1:04PM Joshua Przygocki said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Can't wait for these new players to start hitting the upper twenties... leveling my Minstrel in that last part of the lonelands is hell...

Even in a group of 2 it was nearly impossible...

Plus it'll be nice to have some buddies for my alts to group with too.

Posted: Sep 4th 2010 1:17PM TOYBOXX said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Personally I can't wait for F2P LOTRO! This will the THE game I'll be playing for years to come - I know it.

And in response to Piggles's post, F2P isn't as deceptive as most people think. Sure F2P members would need to purchase additional content if they want to expand on they're adventure(s), but it's not required. Of course I'm speaking of my first hand experiences with DDO. The game is completely opened up to everyone within the game world, giving the ability to reach the level cap without spending a penny. However, if people don't like the F2P aspect and trust better the subscription model, players can do that too. It's a win-win for everyone involved.

How I look at it F2P is no different that console gaming where if players want more content they would need to pay for it. No one is getting ripped off, and there's especially no deception.

Posted: Sep 4th 2010 1:37PM GreenArmadillo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"The goal of the updated LI system is to place an emphasis on accessibility over grind, more customization, and less clutter."

A noble goal, but they made similar promises at Mirkwood's rollout. I'll believe it when I see it, and I'll be very happy if they actually deliver.

Posted: Sep 4th 2010 3:46PM Not THAT Matt said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Tesselation FTW!

Posted: Sep 4th 2010 4:52PM SkuzBukit said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The one single reason I've not got into LoTRO is that you only get to be a goody-two-shoes, had this game had the option to play as some of the evil races I'd have been in it for sure.

No idea why but I've just always preferred to be the bad guy than some smarmy hero type.

Posted: Sep 4th 2010 5:45PM EdmundDante said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
One of the best parts of PvMP in LOTRO is you do get to play the bad guy to some extent.

But your idea is a good one. What would it be like playing a Uruk-Hai? And I'm not talking about going on the same missions as all the rest of the "goody 2 shoes" - but rather, game content where you do missions for Sauron or your local tribe leader etc.

Reply

Posted: Sep 4th 2010 9:29PM alucard3000 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yea I feel the same way if it had the 2 factions and say even a neutral faction of say like men/dwarves/etc that could go either way depending on your actions like EQ alignment thing would have been much more awesome.And the neutral could have partial access to certain quest lines from both sides.And have quest chains from both sides,good/evil, lead up to big pvpve skirmishes/battles between the 2 sides.This would have made the game so much better and given it a much bigger player base w/o even having to go to some sort of hybrid fremium model.
Reply

Posted: Sep 5th 2010 12:53AM ThePenIsMightier said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've heard this whining from several people and it probably is no coincidence that they've never read the source material...I'd bet you haven't either, which is why you don't understand how it couldn't work.
Reply

Posted: Sep 5th 2010 4:53PM alucard3000 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@YourPenIsNotMightier 1) its not "whining" its speculation and opinion and by your labeling as such it seems like you are taking something personal and I am sorry you are buthurt over it.
2)I have read the source material many many times and nothing in it whatso ever suggests anything as to "how it couldnt work" .
And seeing that the online game version doesnt really stick to the "Lore" of the source material why you would even try to use that as a excuse as to why it couldnt be done is interesting to say the least.It is more likely that it couldnt be done by "Turbine" and it is something that you wouldnt want to see done.
Reply

Posted: Sep 6th 2010 8:34AM pcgneurotic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I can't really see any of the Fellowship being describable as "smarmy", except maybe the film version of Legolas. But he's an Elf, and elves - meh...
Reply

Posted: Sep 5th 2010 4:18AM Oizu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm really surprised that you (Massively) have made nothing of the incredible stingyness of this F2P scheme, sure it is possible to grind to 50 totally for free, but it's just not going to be worth the effort, unless you pay substantial amounts of cash. Compared to games like EQ2X that give you all the content for free, and restrict some other areas, where as this game restricts everything and gives you no content what so ever either. And then there are games like Allods that give you absolutely everything, I just cannot see why people would choose to play this over all of the alternatives.

Posted: Sep 5th 2010 11:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
lol @ Allods "giving you absolutely everything"

The reason people would choose to play this? It's a AAA title, unlike most F2P games, and a game that was designed initially with the goal of being fun to play, rather than with the goal of pushing a cash shop, like most F2P games.

So the competition is basically D&D Online, EQ2X, and.. well, that's it really.

DDO is the same model, obviously.

Comparing it to EQ2X.. the advantage of LOTRO is that it supports both a subscription and an a la carte pay as you go model. If you're an infrequent gamer, you can surely enjoy LOTRO maybe buying one zone worth of content a month, and spending well under $15. If you're playing it heavily, you go with the oldschool $15/month subscription.

EQ2X, on the other hand, there really isn't much middle ground between "spend nothing" and "$15/month gold membership". Either you pay the full subscription, or you put up with harsh limits on equippable gear and skills, harsh gold cap, no sending mail, etc. etc.
Reply

Posted: Sep 5th 2010 6:57PM DiscoJer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Free to Play" doesn't really exist. It's a marketing gimmick.

All "f2p" games leech money from you. That's why they are so incredibly profitable, they make more off of their players in the long run than subscription games do. Not even close.

Yes, Turbine (and Sony) are upfront (so far) about the ways players are getting nickel and dimed. But I imagine later in their games lives, we'll see the sneaky sort of cash shop gouging that happens in other F2P games.

If PT Barnum were alive today with the internet, I swear, he'd own the world.

Posted: Sep 7th 2010 4:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Compared to the betas for Shadows of Angmar, Mines of Moria and Siege of Mirkwood, the F2P beta -- according to Campbell -- was the most upbeat Turbine's ever had, with far more positive feedback than negative."

I don't know what beta program Mr. Campbell was referring to, but it certainly wasn't the one that I was participating in. While I do agree with the notion that what was brought forward for testing was in much better shape than in past beta's, it was a hostile environment for constructive criticism of certain game-changing elements (powerful store only potions, store bought reputation mounts and stat tomes to name a few of these topics).

While there may have been more praise for Turbine in this beta as compared to others, I found it to be the least pleasant beta to participate in due to some of the players who were invited that made a concerted effort to shut down discussion in the beta forums, down-rep those they disagreed with and otherwise act like trolls. The community team was either ill-equipped or unwilling to properly deal with such shenanigans.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW