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

Reader Comments (52)

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 3:03PM Faith said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They still had more than 1 server open?

"The company hopes that this move will drive up the action in RvR for previously quiet locations."

Going F2P would surely 'drive up the action' more. I'm not a big fan of F2P games, but this is definitely one game that should have gone F2P a long time ago.

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 4:49PM SnarlingWolf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Faith

I was surprised they had more than one server at this point as well. I guess they were just in denial and finally had to accept the truth.
Reply

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 3:08PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wha? Wha?

I thought they only had two servers open, but reading the details, I was half right (2 servers for the Americas and 2 for Europe).

Well, this game keeps shrinking and shrinking; Why don't we make a movie and call it, "The Incredible Shrinking MMO"?

Needless to say, there HAS to be at least 2 servers open, unless they decide to forgo faction-blocks and allow players to make Chaos AND Order characters on the same server. Which, it seems this is likely.

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 3:27PM Nearly Departed said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra
If I remember right, they did remove the faction-blocks on servers a while ago.
Reply

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 3:10PM edgecrusherO0 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Mythic is being too stubborn with this. They need to realize that server mergers/closures is VERY bad press. Nothing signals a games weakness like the merging/closing of servers.

Honestly, why they haven't decided to move to a hybrid model (which has PROVEN to be far more successful) I will never know.

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 4:04PM Ratham said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@edgecrusherO0

WAR is a pvp centered MMO.

Having a f2p model would FORCE pay to win, you cant make it much better off than it is with just fluff and vanity in a pvp game. How do I know this? Mythic has already been selling fluff/vanity packs for this game.
Reply

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 4:16PM edgecrusherO0 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ratham

It wouldn't force anything at all. Selling boosts for say, character xp or the PvP xp isn't pay to win and never has been. It's an advantage but not one that really makes you any more powerful.

That's just one example, there are PLENTY of ways that they could develop a monetization scheme for the game without making it pay-to-win. Heck, they wouldn't even have to really expand upon the cash shop they have now. Having a hybrid game allows for the subscriptions to remain while enticing new players to subscribe by giving them most of the content, but leaving some of the best parts for subscribers.

And EVERY MMO has a cash shop nowadays, because they're freaking profitable as hell.
Reply

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 5:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Ratham

Last I checked maximum RVR level in the game was only possible if you bought a "service pack" that extended your RVR level, which is kinda, you know, hey you have to buy this product to win. Just because it's a one-time fee doesn't mean it's not P2W.
Reply

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 7:27PM Graill440 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@edgecrusherO0

And you do not know. F2P is a misbrand and deceptive to grab the unwary player into a restrictive game environment in the hopes they will spend cash to remove those restrictions.

You need to at least get official documents showing what happens when the free to play smell goeas away a couple days later, i wont waste my time trying to explain it to you, you can research this yourself easily. I suggest you start with DDO, they are by far the best example of a current F2P model that touted massive player numbers when they went free to play.

Go check on their earnings now and players. A little research will enlighten you, or you can simply keep believing what you think is right in your own little world, which in the end is fine too. (grin)
Reply

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 7:41PM edgecrusherO0 said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Graill440

Are you retarded? Where did I type F2P? I SPECIFICALLY wrote "Hybrid" because it's the successful business model being adapted everywhere. A pure F2P transition is extremely difficult to do. If you want a purely F2P game, it needs to developed from the ground up with that monetization scheme in mind.

I'm not sure if you're saying that the transition ISN'T profitable, but if you are, look at your two examples, as well as Champions Online, DCUO and even AoC. ALL of those games significantly increased both their playerbase AND their profits after the transition.

If you're saying that changing to a Hybrid model IS profitable...you're agreeing with me.
Reply

Posted: Dec 10th 2011 12:27PM Joburack said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@edgecrusherO0 Maybe because they have never had any idea regarding how to run an MMO
Reply

Posted: Dec 10th 2011 3:03PM Vazzaroth said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

Oh god I forgot about that. I was THIS close to resubbing to WAR, I always liked it. But I saw that, with the sub, and just rage closed the tab and never looked back.
Reply

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 3:20PM Dunraven said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Actually I am glad they are being stubborn..I want to see more and more players leave WAR and it to be known as the single largest failure ever in MMO history.

Carrie Guskos and Paul Barnett deserve no less.

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 4:02PM Ratham said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dunraven Its funny because Paul & Carrie dont have anything to do with AOR anymore.

Wishing people out of jobs is also a dick move.
Reply

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 4:02PM yeppers said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dunraven

Moron.
Reply

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 5:31PM Gaugamela said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dunraven

WAR will never earn that title since it gave profit in the long run and it still lasted for around 3 years. Plenty of MMOs that did worse like Tabula Rasa, APB, Vanguard...
Reply

Posted: Dec 11th 2011 9:20PM VikingGamer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Dunraven

WAR will never be the worst.
Why? Because FFXIV happened.
Reply

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 3:27PM Utakata said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm not sure why they don't make it a single shard. I think most server load bearings today can handle 20 or more subscribers. Just saying.

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 3:31PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Also, a semi-related point:

If you had the notion to check out SWG, while that game is closing, it's number of servers was still around 10. This after 8 years.

This game (Warhammer), it's been out for less years and now we see a reduction to TWO servers!

I know, it's too late to point this out to "SWG haters" now, but it's pretty obvious which game sustained its community/players better.

Posted: Dec 9th 2011 4:13PM Valkenr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra

Starwars has a much larger following than Warhammer. The IP is all that sustained SWG. Now that TOR is comming out they knew they would lose 99% of their players, because they where there to play *the* starwars mmo.

Also they have population issues too, they just don't address them, why waste time on a game that is shutting down?

SWG actually had a good starting foundation, Warhammer's foundation crumbled as soon as they gave xp boosts to the Order side, and balanced power in the same direction. It was fun working my ass off to tear faces on destruction, then swapping to order and prancing around doing the same thing with little effort.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW