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

Reader Comments (30)

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 11:10AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Does Massively have a deal cut out with GamersFirst or something? The game is beyond saving and there's article after article about it.

There are significantly less players than there were at the beginning of "beta", with fewer districts. Why? Hackers and absolutely unnecessary changes to the game.

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 11:34AM greatmilenko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) I disagree, with every update they do with this game, the player base jumps up. This last patch brought the numbers back up to almost beta opening #'s. The game has issues, but its getting better every month.
Reply

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 11:37AM MustardCutter said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Having tried the beta recently and played briefly at launch of the original, I'd say the game has improved a lot. It's far from perfect but It's different and it's fun. But then BF3 is out now so who cares XD

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 12:01PM real65rcncom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@MustardCutter

This. BF3 is much more engaging than a FTP Apb.

Plus you'll find BF3 will be able to push mods out probably faster than APB will so that will mean more replayability and very little money to spend.
Reply

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 12:57PM Braiks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@real65rcncom First of all BF3 has no modability at all. Secondly, it's a very different game.
Reply

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 1:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Braiks

Still a cheaper in the long run with more enjoyment
Reply

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 1:06PM MustardCutter said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Braiks

They aren't so different in what they offer really in terms of gameplay elements, just apb has an insane level of visual customisation, in game social options and it's probably a lot easier to gain fame within the community than just be another anonymous soldier in battlefield. The vehicles, objectives, maps, shooting (the essential elements to both games) are all executed far better in battlefield.
Reply

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 12:30PM Daverator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"In restructuring the development team, GamersFirst reduced the number of developers by 90% to make it more agile"

Is Massively part of the APB spin team? Because reducing your developers by 90% is not "making it more agile" it is putting something on bare minimum life support.

At least, it does explain the slothlike updates and fixes for a game that was already "finished" once.

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 12:52PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Daverator

They are just quoting what was in the gamesindustry.biz link. Read the the linked article and see if GamesIndusrty is spinning or not.
Reply

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 12:57PM Utakata said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Daverator

Massively for the most part only reports what is reported to them. In this case, a 3rd party source named GamesIndustry.biz which was mentioned in the first sentence. However, when news gets around of a company or game "restructuring" or worse, Massiviely has no issue reporting that...even if makes the company/game look bad.

Either way though, Massively is not going post something bad for the sake of proving they're "independent" of the companies/games they're reporting on...nor use some commentor's subjectively negative first hand experience as news for the same reason. That would be yellow journalism at best if they did and in many ways that would be worse than reporting corporate spin. Just saying.
Reply

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 1:00PM Utakata said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Utakata

Edit: *....named GamesIndustry.biz which was mentioned in first paragraph (second sentence).
Reply

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 1:29PM BigAndShiny said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Utakata
Realtime worlds FIRED EVERYONE. Then, Gamersfirst hired some of them back, because it's a much smaller studio whereas the previous one was a big budget AAA game.
Reply

Posted: Nov 1st 2011 11:45AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Daverator Ever heard of the mythical man-month?
I'm a software developer and I can attest (out of current experience) that a reduction in team size (cutting away all the "less-skills" and "less-motivated" individuals) can speed things up. As long as you have sufficient numbers smaller teams are easier to manage and drive and in the long run can be a lot more productive.
Reply

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 12:47PM smartstep said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well obviously numbers of players playing a game when you can register for free and a number of people who want to buy / bought box is ALWAYS gonan be higher. Simply becasue of many people who will try it out out of curiosity.

That's why f.e. why browser games have frequently number of registered users in millions :/

For me that game is beyond saving, sure I am preety sure that there are many people who have good ideas for this game, but seriously game is broken in some many places, filled with cheaters/ hackers and have a greedy business model on top of that lol

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 12:57PM Snichy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Always makes me chuckle when people come on APB articles and complain that its "filled with cheaters/hackers" and a "greedy business model". Both statements are incorrect and based on ignorance of the game and a lack of economic common sense. There's no point justifying and debating the merits or shortfalls of the game to people who base their opinions on ignorance and assumptions.

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 1:01PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Snichy

Always makes me chuckle when people come on APB articles and defend that its not "filled with cheaters/hackers" and a not "greedy business model ($60 is a bargain!)". Both statements are correct and based on actual lengthy time spent in the game and based on first hand experiences. There's no point justifying and debating the merits or shortfalls of the game to people who base their defenses on ignorance and fanboyism.
Reply

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 1:08PM DeadlyAccurate said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified) While their store prices are ridiculous, they don't do much in the way of content blocks for F2P players. You're not prevented from playing the same game as the paying population, even if you haven't spent a dime. You gain money/standings slower, and you don't have quite as many options for customization (though it's still pretty decent), but at least at this time they haven't made it so you *have* to spend money to play. I play off and on for a few weeks at a stretch, and I haven't spent anything.
Reply

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 1:11PM MustardCutter said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

I played the beta for like 2 weeks, I only encountered 1 obvious hacker, I played soon after they supposedly banned a lot of cheats. With regards to the cost, you can play as a totally free player and compete and not be at any disadvantage when everything is unlocked, it just takes you forever to get to that stage, which is pretty much the only way a f2p can work. No buy to win but strong argument to pay up for quicker progress.
Reply

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 12:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
By saving, they mean bringing the same hacker-infested game back.

Posted: Oct 31st 2011 2:01PM saintnicster said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"which barely had 130,000 registered users at the time of its shutdown last year."

Man, I'd hate to think what they'd do to something like City of Heroes

Featured Stories

WoW Archivist: A Glyphmas story

Posted on Dec 21st 2014 12:00PM

One Shots: Top 10 best player screenshots of 2014

Posted on Dec 21st 2014 10:00AM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW