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

Reader Comments (36)

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 12:15PM doublerainbow said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is absolutely great news! I can't wait to see what these Ex-WestWood employees put together.

I might stick with the sub option to get the most out of the game. I can imagine if you pay to play you might get more options in all aspects of the game.

I just hope the campaign is just as fun as online matches look to be.

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 12:24PM SnarlingWolf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is awful news.

They aren't going to make money off of customization/appearance only on an RTS. They may foolishly think that they can make it work, but they will quickly find they aren't pulling in enough money that way to pay the bills.

That means they are going to make it off of units/advantages. Which means the game will be pay to win in the truest form of the term. Even if they don't know/admit it yet.

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 12:36PM Dril said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SnarlingWolf

Absolutely agree.

In most RTSs, being able to see that wicked, awesome skull vinyl on my tanks is largely impossible due to zooming out, and I doubt many people really give a crap about stuff like that anyway (since, as opposed to MMOs, you have multiple, samey units.)

Battleforge showed that a F2P RTS doesn't really work all that well.

And Battleforge was actually a pretty good game (if somewhat annoying since it lacked my beloved base building.)
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 12:39PM doublerainbow said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SnarlingWolf

From all the evidence in the industry, combining a F2P and Sub hybrid option is the sure way to go. It seems to always boost interest and income for the company involved.

I think this move means they are aiming for long term sustainability, rather then hope to get all your money and wait til the game dies down to go F2P.

I think their move is the best and most aggressive one. I would bet the F2P option will of course mean less options as I said earlier however.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 12:46PM SnarlingWolf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SnarlingWolf

It is humorous what Trion fans down rate.

There was nothing offensive in my post, but fan boys of Trion can't let anyone speak the truth. That would be awful.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 1:38PM Gaugamela said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SnarlingWolf

Ever heard of this little game called LoL?
Last I knew it is based on an RTS?
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 3:15PM Dril said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Gaugamela

It's a MOBA.

You control a single character.

It is not an RTS.
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2011 5:48AM Gaugamela said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dril

And? It's based on WCIII.
They can make this work if they allow for some kind of special customization of the troops, or the addition of hero units.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 12:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
So not interested now.

This free 2 play movement is nothing but trouble in the long run. It means poor quality, slow development, and pay to win transaction. It's money pit for developers, if the project tanks, they take a major lose, hurting the company. F2P is not profitible in the NA market, only the Korean market currently.

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 12:51PM real65rcncom said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified):

aoc just got 300k new subs and doubled revenue. Lotro and DDO did just as good or better.

are you not using facts here or just opinion?

besides, how else does Trion pay for three games without putting a cashshop in two of them?
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 1:09PM Super Nerd said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@real65rcncom

Make anything free and more people play it. Doesn't make it good. In my opinion this "F2P Craze" has done nothing but ruin some of my favorite IPs, because companies know they can make more money creating sub-par games and adding a cash shop to them.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 1:24PM paterah said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Super Nerd Noone talked about good. OP says it's not profitable, he has no idea what he is talking about almost every single time.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 2:28PM eLdritchZ said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) Then why are LotrO, DDO, AoC, LoL and WoT doing so well?

I believe LoL is actually the best comparison since they are both sort of RTS games... LoL makes a shit tonne of money selling skins for the champions... it doesn't make a big difference in game and the models are rather tiny, still people buy a lot of them and Riot is doing very well selling nothing but customization and convenience... I believe it's the better choice for an MMORTS... for an RPG I prefer P2P tbh but something like EoN... I would rather like to play it a bit first and then decide if it's worth the premium money...
Reply

Posted: Aug 12th 2011 12:57AM Graill said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@real65rcncom

You need to get your facts straight first off, all had spikes, all dropped back down. F2P is misbrand and its sole intention is to make money, not let you play free. You can request financial info and numbers from those you listed directly since all have white papers on investor reports, no the hype spinners that say the water is flowing after just having turned the faucet on. Do some research before you try to stand up for the companies you just listed. (friendly smile)
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 12:49PM real65rcncom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Makes sense.

They've got Defiance they still haven't paid for either. RIFT is giving so many discounts that they are only getting like.. $9/month for a sub overall.

You can't run three games on one's budget unless the one is doing gangbusters, and given they've got 40+ servers just sitting there doing nothing.. they aren't doing well projection wise.

SWTOR, GW2, AA.. those games will pull even more subs from RIFT which means less money to put into Defiance and EoN so.. f2p is the right play here.

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 12:50PM real65rcncom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
aoc just got 300k new subs and doubled revenue. Lotro and DDO did just as good or better.

are you not using facts here or just opinion?

besides, how else does Trion pay for three games without putting a cashshop in two of them?

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 12:55PM SocksForYou said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
How do you know if it's "top notch" when the game hasn't even released yet?

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 3:25PM Bladerunner83 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SocksForYou

They are assuming from their most recent game... Rift. And they called Rift a AAA game, so you can work from there.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 4:36PM SocksForYou said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Bladerunner83

I think Rift was a great game but a F2P RTS is a bit of a departure from that.

Massively tends to oversell most of the games it covers and I just wish they'd dial it back a little.
Reply

Posted: Aug 11th 2011 1:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
f2p does indeed mean slow development, if not none. as someone mentioned, f2p will not work well on a strategy game.

nonetheless, looking forward to giving this and AOE a try

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW