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

Reader Comments (63)

Posted: May 4th 2011 6:26PM Interitus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not as much for Bioware, ME3 was pushed back to 2012

Posted: May 4th 2011 7:31PM DiscordSK said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Interitus
That would make sense for them to do if both games were coming in "around" the same time. Companies don't like competeing with themselves and as both are high profile "sci-fi" titles.. they might be pushing ME3 back to take advantage of the post holiday sales, while TOR brings in money, hand over first, pre-holiday and leading into the Christmas season.
Reply

Posted: May 5th 2011 8:22AM MrGutts said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@DiscordSK

Agreed, EA just moved ME3 back some to make room for the new kid on the block.
Reply

Posted: May 4th 2011 6:31PM hereafter said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hoping that the "outside chance" of January is simply a little c.y.a on EA's part and not any actual indication of pushing past the end of 2011. I want the game to be polished at release, but another 8-9 months is longer than I was hoping...

Posted: May 4th 2011 6:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
May the 4th be...

...I think I've butchered this joke today.

Posted: May 4th 2011 6:43PM rhorle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't see why it was ever in doubt that SW:TOR would be a subscription game. No confirmation should have been needed for that. Given that bioware hopes it to be a AAA title it is by default a subscription game. And they've also talked several times about subscription numbers in past discussions of the game.

the only thing that needs to be confirmed regarded "payment" is if it will also have a cash shop to go along with it.

Posted: May 4th 2011 6:54PM Lenn said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes Magus Little doubt they'll charge the same as Blizzard does for WoW. For some odd reason that price range has become the standard in MMO land.
Reply

Posted: May 4th 2011 7:00PM paterah said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@rhorle How you managed to connect AAA and financial model is beyond me.
Reply

Posted: May 4th 2011 7:02PM Lenn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes Magus Let's call it "greepism" then. Next time a game charges $15 we can all scream "stop being so greepish!"
Reply

Posted: May 4th 2011 7:15PM rhorle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes Magus

What is a Triple A title that is free to play?

And as I said bioware themselves stated they would want at least half a million subscribers (to be profitable) but want at least 1 million. Massively every reported on it http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/04/25/analyst-says-one-million-subscribers-are-attainable-for-swtor/
http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/02/02/the-big-bet-ea-aims-at-a-half-million-subscribers-to-make-swt/

Having subscribers means "subscription model confirmed".
Reply

Posted: May 4th 2011 7:17PM Lenn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@rhorle Guild Wars. And part 2 looks to be a smash hit as well.

And we can turn it around too, you know. Name a subscription game that isn't an AAA title. I bet many here could come up with quite the list.

Subscription =/= AAA title.
Reply

Posted: May 4th 2011 7:31PM paterah said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@rhorle I would qualify Guild Wars 2 as a quadruple A title and it doesn't have a subscription. Once again please don't mix quality and financial model.
Reply

Posted: May 4th 2011 7:41PM Vgk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@paterah
meh Gw1 is kind of an MMO it's on the borderline, and Guild Wars 2 isn't out yet so we don't know how that'll turn out, it's too early to call it an anything hit but besides Guild Wars, which itself is questionable, there really isn't any Free to Play AAA titles
Reply

Posted: May 4th 2011 7:48PM Lenn said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Vgk Grasping at straws.
Reply

Posted: May 4th 2011 7:54PM rhorle said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Lenn

Don't confuse "a good game" with being AAA. There are no AAA free MMO's.
Reply

Posted: May 4th 2011 8:28PM Vagrant Zero said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@paterah Are you serious? GW isn't even an MMO let alone a AAA MMO. As for GW2, all we have right now is hype. I'll wait for my chickens to hatch before I count them.

There are no AAA F2P MMOs (that didn't start life out as P2Ps first).
Reply

Posted: May 4th 2011 8:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@paterah

I thought AAA was budget and production value related.
Reply

Posted: May 4th 2011 8:48PM Jade Effect said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Lenn

Guild Wars is a CORPG, like Diablo 2, not a MMO. ArenaNet states this clearly on their official website.

Reply

Posted: May 4th 2011 11:33PM rhorle said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tempes Magus

Triple A games aren't "pick one you like". They either are or aren't. Just because I say that ArchLord is a AAA game doesn't make it so. Wishes aren't fishes, so your tank is still empty.

And if you didn't say free to play, then what is implied by not tying AAA to only a financial model of "subscriptions"? You implied F2P by stating that AAA titles can be non-subscription based games. So back up your claim.

AAA does mean subscription model because there are no AAA subscription-less games yet. AAA isn't just "quality", because there are plenty of quality games that aren't AAA.

And if a company doesn't label themselves themselves an MMO so people don't think of them as something they aren't, then doesn't that imply they aren't the label they are avoiding? You can't say you aren't a label and avoid everything about what the label means and then claim you really are part of that label.
Reply

Posted: May 4th 2011 6:46PM Lenn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have a bad feeling about this one.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW