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

Reader Comments (34)

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 2:35PM dndhatcher said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Are you paying attention Secret World devs?

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 2:41PM edgecrusherO0 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Another half baked MMO that thought it could justify a subscription price goes F2P. The F2P market sure it getting pretty bloated now, I'm just wondering how much longer it can sustain the constant growth it's seeing (IMO not that much longer if it keeps going at this rate).

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 3:18PM corpusc said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@edgecrusherO0

funny. they kept saying that about subscription model MMOs ever since the 2nd or 3rd one came out..

THAT actually wasn't a completely insane idea, altho it was very wrong. afterall, most peoples money is budgeted/limited.

the idea that there can be TOO MANY FREE choices is quite insane.
Reply

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 3:24PM edgecrusherO0 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@corpusc

No, no it's not. The games need to be profitable to stay in business. Look at f2p games like Faxxion Online, Mythos (which is coming back AGAIN), or the handfuls of other MMO's that have closed their doors because they weren't profitable. If there are 1,000 f2p MMO's, but only enough money to sustain 500 of them, the other half will close down because they are just money sinks for the developers/publishers.

The pie is only so big. Think of it like the dot com bubble or the housing bubble, eventually it will get too big, and see a crash. The crash will mainly stifle new games from coming out primarily, but will probably also see a number of other games shut down. As each game pulls users away from other games, the profits get more and more diluted until the game is no longer profitable and will need to be shut down.
Reply

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 4:17PM Mordakai said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@edgecrusherO0

Actually, that's not entirely true. It's not a zero-sum game... people tend to try many MMOs, and as long as every body gets enough money, it works out.

By all accounts, MMOs like LOTR, City of Heroes, and Age of Conan all did BETTER after going "free to play".

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/08/11/age-of-conan-unchained-conquers-300-000-new-players-doubles-re/
Reply

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 4:29PM edgecrusherO0 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Mordakai

Correct, because freemium was a better model for the game than only subscriptions. I won't argue that the market isn't going towards f2p, because it totally is. That being said though, there can only be so many f2p games before there starts to be a glut. Each f2p game needs to be profitable, and if there are too many of them (have you seen the sheer number of f2p games that are out or coming out? especially from Korea, it's kinda nuts) there is a good chance that money will be spread too thin and there will be more game closures. We've already seen plenty of f2p game close their doors because they weren't profitable. I can definitely see this happening more often in the future.
Reply

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 8:29PM Alex Oglitchkin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Mordakai All those games aren't totally half-baked and have popularity behind it.
Reply

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 2:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Gods and what the what?

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 4:46PM nathanb said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)
Hah!

And that's 1/2 the problem with this game.
Reply

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 2:45PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Can't say I agree with the comments above. I like the theme of this, but this game shoulda been released a few years ago, but the whole "Perpetual Studios Imploding" thing happened. Finally, game is released. Cool.

Problem is, it had some bugs and looks a bit dated. Liked the studio and it's optimism, but having this game as a sub-model was an uphill battle. It had it's own unique problems.

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 3:36PM Tom in VA said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra

The game just came out about 5 years too late and looks it. Sadly, while I do appreciate the concepts of this game (mythology ancient world setting, squad management, etc.), the final product was only mediocre at best.

As it stands now, it's a game I would not even play for free.
Reply

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 2:55PM Plastic said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Just think about those poor SOB's who paid for a lifetime account not more than 6 months ago.

BTW, nearly everyone in beta laid out everything that was wrong with the game and business model from day one. HI went ahead and launched it anyway, and the result was disastrous.

This leads me to one of two possible conclusions. Either HI is so incompetent that they couldn't even see what was right in front of their faces (and have less business acumen than your average MMO forum dweller), or, they knew their game wouldn't have any significant chance of competing in today's market as a P2P, but just wanted to buy time and gather revenue before switching to a F2P model by suckering those players foolish enough to buy into their empty promises.

Incompetent or unscrupulous, take you pick.

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 3:09PM Vandal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Plastic What about both? Incompetent for making a half-baked game, unscrupulous for trying to milk it.
Reply

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 3:20PM Lenn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Plastic Incomprupulous.
Reply

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 3:49PM Brianna Royce said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Lenn Word of the day!
Reply

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 2:56PM OutThere said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I beta'd this game. It has some interesting stuff in it, but definitely not worth either the original box price or a subscription. I really enjoyed the Rome setting and attitude and there was no care-bear approach, even during the tutorial. Some of the quests, which were plentiful, were tough. The addition of housing quests just made the game more interesting. I liked the whole set up as a Roman citizen with a house, servants, and squad taking care of you.

It suffered from innumerable bugs, graphic glitches, client crashes, and combat problems. I was disappointed went it released as a subscription based MMO, as I saw nothing that would justify paying a sub for the game over something like Rift or SWTOR.

At $9.99 for the box, though, it is worth a look.

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 4:51PM nathanb said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@OutThere

It did improve over time, but there were no updates since Sept-ish to the game, but it's pretty stale. Other than questing upto L30 (right now), there's nothing to do. I do enjoy the setting, the quests could be hard (sometimes due to bugs *grin*), graphics were acceptable (SWTOR is not all that shiny, IMO), but the potential kept me around.
Reply

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 2:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Heh I was just wondering about this game yesterday. We all knew it was only a matter of time before this happened. Its not bad though. The same players who were enjoying it get to continue doing so, and now new players can hop on board without the steep entry barrier of a box price and monthly sub.


This game would of done much better if it released in the original time-frame they were shooting for. Too bad STO was allotted whatever resources remained after all the layoffs in Perpetual Studios. I liked this game more, even through its hardships.

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 3:02PM jimr9999us said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
This should make both G&H players very happy.

Posted: Jan 13th 2012 5:31PM Nandini said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@jimr9999us Actually, one of the two remaining players left due to the stigma associated with F2P titles.

Don't mistake this as a sign that Heatwave will invest any more resources in the title. They're just trying to sell off physical inventory and hope to recoup the loss with a few extra digital sales.

A subscription was never necessary for this game in the first place, as it features less than a month's worth of content.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW