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

Reader Comments (44)

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 9:41AM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
You can have a lot of fun with this game even if you are a F2P freeloader like me. As the articles states, the "premium" (stuff you pay real $$$ for) items are rarely used in casual "skirmish" play. The only real downside for being a freeloader in skirmish play is that you earn XP and credits slower so it takes longer to advance and you have to be careful managing your credits with the higher-end tanks which are expensive to upgrade and maintain. It can reach a point where you might actually need to "farm" credits with a lower-end tank to support your higher-end one -- which is the opposite of most MMOGs.

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 9:47AM Ellimem said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Insane. Is it all because of their booth babes at E3?

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 10:50AM SnarlingWolf said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Ellimem

It's is all because pay to win is very profitable. It makes people constantly have to buy things to be competitive and then you squash those things they bought with new things or make all of the bought things temporary so that people constantly have to shop shop shop just to stay competitive.

It is also why every F2P game will eventually tread down the pay to win territory. It is far more profitable than cosmetic only.
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 11:51AM Saker said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@SnarlingWolf Agree! You summed them up perfectly!
""We probably have one of the highest payment ratios in the industry, it's around 25 to 30 percent,"
- That's because every SINGLE design-decision in their game is specifically about getting you pushed to buy their "gold" and no other reason like pesky "balance", or "fairness" issues for instance.
This game is only fair or balanced at the lowest "tiers", everything else is 9 out of 10 victories by wallet-warriors. I won't even touch "tiers" 6 and above, their no fun at all with he pay-to-win people and their VISA-victories.
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 12:27PM Sabbatai said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Saker Doesn't sound much different from any other MMO where every SINGLE design decision is made to make you waste time and pay your $15 a month.

Look at SWTOR and WoW. Every major building you enter has the entrance blocked by a wall you have to walk around after walking through the main entrance instead of just letting you walk straight through.

The scope and scale of the maps in both games looks great, but it is mostly empty space, or dead ends which don't look like dead ends on the map but require you to back track half of the map to get where you want to go.

If I could pay $15 or less and still be competitive in World of Tanks I think I'd be ok with it. The game doesn't appeal to me though.
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 12:28PM ApathyCurve said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@SnarlingWolf

Reading comprehension problems, I see.
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 1:24PM SnarlingWolf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ApathyCurve

Absolutely no reading comprehension problems at all. The game is pay 2 win and that is why it makes as much money as it does. End of story, nothing else to read.
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 1:27PM SnarlingWolf said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Sabbatai

Typically the walk around a wall before going into a dungeon/building is because it makes the game have to draw less at a time.

Typically a game engine like MMOs will say "If something is 2 90 degree angles from the player then they can't see it so don't draw it."

By putting those blockers in the entrances, the insides of the big buildings/dungeons won't draw until you go inside. And while you're inside, the outside won't be drawn. It keeps the game running smooth on a machine and has absolutely nothing to do with "making players waste time to get $15 a month out of them". That is what Raids with random drops are for.
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 10:13AM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am not hating on the game, but this company keeps releasing statements, even if true, seem to harken back at Cold-War Soviet-Russia style talk!

"We got da Bigger and Fastest Plane in all the World, including America, Comrades! It seats twice the amount of our American counter part and goes twice as fast!"

"In Russia, you don't play our Cash Shop, our Cash Shop plays you!"

Something to that effect. I think it is a cultural (Russian) thing, although fairly bragging in it's comparison to EVE Online and then touting/tooting their own numbers. Maybe it is more of an old-generation thing?

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 10:54AM LaughingTarget said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra

Might have to do with the fact that the US didn't start fielding decent armor units until the 1970s. Heavy armor was dominated by the Soviets and Germans during the WW2 frame and the Soviets fell into the "bigger is better" category after. Additionally, the sheer volumes of T-34 and T-72 tanks constructed solidified them in popular culture.

The US has a military tradition more rooted in British history and is primarily a naval power. The US didn't even field a true MBT until the M60 in 1961 and even today, the US relies most heavily on naval forces to engage in major combat operations (including the Marines which handle most ground combat and use limited armor).

So, its understandable that the Russian tank contingent is that big.
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 11:54AM Saker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra I don't think it's cultural as much as a us vs america, they seem to still have some major chips on the shoulder over the old era and the collapse of their empire. They have major size issues over their size vs the world and their place in it. Used to be a "super-power" now.... not so much...
With that company frankly, if they tried to tell me the sky is blue I'd doubt them. Not exactly proven as remotely truthful or forthright.
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 10:19AM Suichimo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And yet they can't get simple patches out on time or even stick to a grand overall schedule.

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 10:28AM Miffy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It still isn't an MMO.

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 10:38AM Verus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Miffy

Of course it is a massively multiplayer game (mmo). Not an mmorpg but that is another matter.

The game is quite a lot of fun but the world of warplanes alpha is horrible.
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 11:04AM Snichy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Verus. I wouldn't exactly call it "massive"!
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 11:35AM silver001 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Snichy You wouldn't but they certainly do. Last I checked the was no definite number that says anything below is not massively.
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 11:56AM Saker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@silver001 They say a lot of things, I don't believe any of it.
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 12:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Miffy

Agreed. To me, the term "MMO" implies a persistent world to some degree. This game has much more in common with MW3 or Battlefield 3 than any MMO.
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 3:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Verus : small team vs. small team does not equal "massively multiplayer". It equals "multiplayer".

Was Quake an MMO?
Reply

Posted: Mar 19th 2012 5:45PM corpusc said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

yeah.

maybe i'm wrong, but even tho its called WORLD OF Tanks, there's really no world is there? just a bunch of disconnected huge arenas?
Reply

Featured Stories

Make My MMO: August 24 - August 30, 2014

Posted on Aug 30th 2014 6:00PM

PAX Prime 2014: ArcheAge is a go for launch!

Posted on Aug 30th 2014 5:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW