dragonspawn

Excellent article. You've articulated something that I've found near impossible to get most people to wrap their heads around. Cash shops and microtransactions hurt gaming because they eliminate any incentive for developers to support their base product. Turbine has already manuevered their business model to providing less in the way of updates and content, even before they mentioned their hot new "free to play" setup. I'll admit, I bought one of Blizzard's "sparkly ponies". It didn't take long to regret it and I doubt I'll buy anything else from them.

Remember when we used to justify paying $15 a month by saying we were paying for a pastime that was consistantly being updated? Some of us realize that we are the frogs in the kettle and the water's boiling.

I have considerable amount of animosity toward console games as a whole, largely because of how console makers like Microsoft have influenced the market in their dealings with companies like Bethesda. Much of the reason for the vitriol slung at titles like Champions Online and Age of Conan lies with the developers insistance on developing the games with the console in mind. The result was a clumsy, over-simplified experience that didn't translate well to the depth and complexity required for a well-received MMORPG. It's a pity that Strain has decided to depart from what will undoubtedly be a successful venture with Guild Wars 2 to invest his talent and resources into something that will likely never see the light of day.

People who make crazy demands like "forced grouping" really disturb me. Are you such a tool that you have to demand a game make people play with you? Or do you just want to have a consistent stable of other players to harness to your will so that you can have help getting what you want?

People need to realize that grouping, apart from allowing established friends to play together, is nothing more than a mechanism for game developers to stretch content. By forcing people into groups to access certain content, they insure that players will continue to pay sub fees to play the same content over and over trying to get some virtual trinket that will somehow make them feel better about themselves.

Apart from adding my name to a charter to help new guilds get off the ground, I've never been a "guildie". I play persistant world games for the scope and random interaction with others. I don't have the time, nor the inclination to bind myself to others. Guilds are like cliques or clubs which often degrade into a few officers imposing their will on their subordinates "for the good of the guild".

I think developers give them too much focus and they become far more a negative than positive influence on a game community. Social types will be social, no matter what, but non-social people will not become social simply because a game places inordinated attention on grouping or guild coddling. I wonder how many people stop playing online games because the focus on making people play together makes them feel second-class just because they don't feel the need to be joined at the hip with others.

Is it my imagination or does SOE always seem to come up with one of these promotions when a new product is released for some other MMO? I played EQ2 on Day 1, but finally couldn't get past how ugly my character was and the shortcuts they used in development, like how dwarves and halflings don't have a walk animation, only a "running in slow motion" animation. Did they ever make it so you could actually use the player-made furniture?

So much potential wasted because of SOE's practice of piling more content on top of a game instead of fixing and completing the game itself.

This cannot bode well for the future of WAR.

Oops! Forgot to mention that my 10 year-old has enjoyed the mounts and the housing. Still wish they'd implement the family pricing structure so parents could play with their kids without having a separate account.

Register me for a shot at one of those. Thanks!

If that's the gutter your mind runs in, I'd be more worried about you!