Planetside 2 - A critical look

[raw]

http://www.ihatemmorpgs.com/2011/09/realistic-preview-planetside-2.html

(DISCLAIMER: not my blog, didn't write this)

[basti]

Critical? This guy just has no clue at all. He even thinks that subscriptions generate more cash than a shop. Lol

[raw]

Critical? This guy just has no clue at all. He even thinks that subscriptions generate more cash than a shop. Lol

depends on what is in the shop, i'd say.

http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win

[Talek Krell]

I didn't know pointman wrote a blog!

[AWP]

Judging from the name of the website and after looking at some of the titles of the articles i'm 99% sure that hes a troll

Do yourself and the Planetside community a favor- Don't feed the troll.

[NewSith]

http://www.ihatemmorpgs.com/search/label/Articles


says it all.

[cellinaire]

lol lol even that guy's nickname is 'Disappointed'



(and so little replies on that blog haha)
I hope him wake up and smell the coffee but oh, well

[Grimster]

LOL, I would say he has no clue what so ever.

Feels like he is a attention seeker. :)

[Draep]

Planetside 2 - a critical look at a game no one has played

[Graywolves]

I don't know anything about this game but I hate it!!!!!!!!!!

[Hamma]

wow.. :lol:

Some of the other stuff is pretty laughable as well.

[Crator]

LOL, the title is 'Realistic Preview'. How so, we haven't been given any detailed info from SOE about what he is talking about. That is pretty much all speculation. Surprised someone did a preview like that.

[Crator]

And the comment, "Why not just play halo?", give me a break. All PS players know why, because of the massive scale battles.

[FastAndFree]

LOL, the title is 'Realistic Preview'. How so, we haven't been given any detailed info from SOE about what he is talking about. That is pretty much all speculation. Surprised someone did a preview like that.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man >_>

But kudos to the writer, it's a pretty funny site
The part that swayed me was
"On top of that, they boast that it is "100% PVP and 100% open world combat", but to me that resonates that they made half a game, and made their battlegrounds one-hundred times larger. We all know how I feel about Battlegrounds."

[Graywolves]

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man >_>

But kudos to the writer, it's a pretty funny site
The part that swayed me was
"On top of that, they boast that it is "100% PVP and 100% open world combat", but to me that resonates that they made half a game, and made their battlegrounds one-hundred times larger. We all know how I feel about Battlegrounds."



I have to read this now, maybe I won't be playing PS2 afterall......



I think this guy has a dunning-kruger syndrome when it comes to reviews....either that or he's so smart that I don't understand him....I feel like I'm reading that gizmodo article where this girl goes on a date with the world champion of magic and acts like he's a sex offendor.

[Logit]

I didn't know pointman wrote a blog!

This is probably true.

He was banned yesterday, so he isn't able to whine on PSU anymore.

Wouldn't be surprised.

[FIREk]

Another I'm-so-controversial attention whore blog. The very domain name says it all. ;)

[Logit]

"Why does the future look like Arizona?"

loled at this, even though this guy is clearly an idiot.

[Crator]

LOL, the title is 'Realistic Preview'. How so, we haven't been given any detailed info from SOE about what he is talking about. That is pretty much all speculation. Surprised someone did a preview like that.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man >_>

Uh, where did I type an opinion?

[Fuel Truck]

I won't lie, I like that site haha. It's pretty funny.

[SavageB]

Ya that guy is pretty laughable.

[FastAndFree]

Uh, where did I type an opinion?

Where you pointed out that we don't have enough enformation and thus it is objectively impossible, or at least foolish, to form such a condemning (or any, really) opinion of the game

It was a joke :(

[Tigersmith]

This is probably true.

He was banned yesterday, so he isn't able to whine on PSU anymore.

Wouldn't be surprised.

lol he only has a 1 day ban. 1pm today he will be back!!

[I Hate MMORPGs]

Nice to see a lot of positive feedback!

The only thing I needed to hear about this game was that they planned on having a Pay-to-Win model. PvP is only fun when there is a level playing field, and the subscription model is much more suitable for this.

[Tigersmith]

Its just his type of blog. He hates MMOs, though somethings are pretty true on what he said.

He gets people to view his blog by how he complains. Its his opinion so its fine with me.

[Tigersmith]

Nice to see a lot of positive feedback!

The only thing I needed to hear about this game was that they planned on having a Pay-to-Win model. PvP is only fun when there is a level playing field, and the subscription model is much more suitable for this.

They said time and time again, EVERYTHING will be level. No pay to win..No weapons you can buy that will make you unstoppable.

There are dozens of interviews of the game. They all say Speed(FPS) and making player skill matter are their top 2 things they are working on.

[Gandhi]

They said time and time again, EVERYTHING will be level. No pay to win..No weapons you can buy that will make you unstoppable.
I'm not entirely convinced by that, because it depends on how the ingame acquisition system is implemented. I mean, if I have to play for a year to get a certain gun that I can get in the shop for $5 then I'm absolutely paying to win. At some point "paying for convenience" becomes more than just convenience. Whether that gun gives a 5% or 50% advantage is beside the point, because everything else will be scaled to that factor too.

It's nowhere near as scary as offering "premium ammo" that can only be bought, but it's still something that should be kept in mind when designing this F2P model.

[Hamma]

Pay to Win is making an assumption based off SOE breaking their word, specifically John Smedley. Right now, this game is not pay to win.

So wherever people "hear" pay to win, it's an assumption and not a fact.

[Graywolves]

The pay-to-win scare is needless scare.

Every time they mention the cash shop they enforce that they are not selling advantages or upgrades. As far as convenience goes, again, sidegrades not upgrades.


The pay to win paranoia should have died when the veteran 20% advantage over noob was cleared up. (don't know about that? That scare you? Please look it up, you'll probably be very pleased with the team's intentions.)


Too many people are treating fan speculation as though it's from the mouth of Higby.

[Tigersmith]

I'm not entirely convinced by that, because it depends on how the ingame acquisition system is implemented. I mean, if I have to play for a year to get a certain gun that I can get in the shop for $5 then I'm absolutely paying to win. At some point "paying for convenience" becomes more than just convenience. Whether that gun gives a 5% or 50% advantage is beside the point, because everything else will be scaled to that factor too.

It's nowhere near as scary as offering "premium ammo" that can only be bought, but it's still something that should be kept in mind when designing this F2P model.

This is something we are always discussing here, believe me we are concerned about these types of things being added. But as long as they are balanced im ok with it. How will they balance these things? I have no idea....they could not even balance planetside 1 after 8 years

[I Hate MMORPGs]

I totally get that they said it won't be pay-to-win, but in the case that their cash shop isn't selling enough novelty garbage to sustain the server costs of thousand-man battles, they will absolutely re-think their promises.

I'm obviously airing on the side of satire, and I hope I'm wrong about everything. I simply don't believe that the cash shop with novelty items is a predictable and sustainable source of revenue for a game with these requirements.

EDIT: I also find it interesting that people think developers have any final say about the revenue model of their games...

[Raymac]

Nice to see a lot of positive feedback!

The only thing I needed to hear about this game was that they planned on having a Pay-to-Win model. PvP is only fun when there is a level playing field, and the subscription model is much more suitable for this.

If this actually is the writer of the blog, it kinda says it all right here. He's just another anti-free-2-play activist. Blindly crusading against a business model with no thought given to how that business model will be applied, or even to the actual game itself.

You'd have more luck changing the mind of a "moon landing truther" than a troll like this. The way I see it, these are the same type of people that argued against the automobile because horse drawn carriages were better. Some people resist progress, so you just ignore them.

[I Hate MMORPGs]

If this actually is the writer of the blog, it kinda says it all right here. He's just another anti-free-2-play activist. Blindly crusading against a business model with no thought given to how that business model will be applied, or even to the actual game itself.

You'd have more luck changing the mind of a "moon landing truther" than a troll like this. The way I see it, these are the same type of people that argued against the automobile because horse drawn carriages were better. Some people resist progress, so you just ignore them.

Deliciously hypocritical. Ironically ignore me more by posting replies about ignoring me.

[Raymac]

Deliciously hypocritical. Ironically ignore me more by posting replies about ignoring me.

No. I wasn't using 2nd person, I was using 3rd person, plus I've said what I need to say. Have a nice life, dude.

[FIREk]

You'd have more luck changing the mind of a "moon landing truther" than a troll like this. The way I see it, these are the same type of people that argued against the automobile because horse drawn carriages were better. Some people resist progress, so you just ignore them.

While this poor excuse for "satire" is pretty lame and pretentious, he does make a sad point in his final edit, a few posts up...

In the end, it is the bean-counters, suits and incompetent, yet powerful, micromanaging pricks that make the decisions. They pull some weak data, for instance game X used pay-to-win and was successful (within the scope of that data), and decide it's a good idea, even if game X started dying soon afterwards.

Why do you think so many companies jumped on the MMO bandwagon, and made WoW clones? Pencil-pushers saw on TV that Blizzard makes a fuckton of money with WoW and decided that, if they develop the same shit with a slightly different flavor, they will have a fuckton of money as well. Have you seen any WoW killers lately? Yet there are still more and more WoW clones coming out and failing.

Bottom line is, Smed may promise everything will be fine, but in the end someone higher in the pecking order may make the bad decision for him and the rest of the PS2 team.
Assuming this will happen, and commenting "the obvious, inevitable future", though, is shit, even for a blog. :P

[Raymac]

Bottom line is, Smed may promise everything will be fine, but in the end someone higher in the pecking order may make the bad decision for him and the rest of the PS2 team.
Assuming this will happen, and commenting "the obvious, inevitable future", though, is shit, even for a blog. :P

You make a good point, but Smed is the CEO, so there's not many people "higher in the pecking order" lol

[Draep]

who cares

Your name gives me the impression you don't like MMORPGs, why spend your time writing about them? You're trash.

[Aractain]

..........Anyway, does anyone else think that there should be options for furrys in this game? I mean all the new MMOs have a furry for the anthro community (Wookies count right?). But PS2 is mostly humans. So unless theres some odd creatures running around theres no way to get the furrys in.

I propose a set of furry skins for soildiers. How cool would it be to see your medic dressed like a tiger or a zebra?

They would blend right in with my proposed "jungle" and "savanna" prowler skins. :)

[Gandhi]

Crates and keys, I'm calling it now.

How cool would it be to see your medic dressed like a tiger or a zebra?
Was that a serious question?

[FIREk]

You make a good point, but Smed is the CEO, so there's not many people "higher in the pecking order" lol

Yeah, I know... This gives us hope, but even if we trust Smed, he's not beyond influence, nor beyond weakness if PS2 turns out not to be a huge, sustainable success in the long run. He might eventually cave in (knock on wood), but hopefully this will never happen. :)

Your name gives me the impression you don't like MMORPGs, why spend your time writing about them? You're trash.

Spewing hate is one of the most basic forms of attention whoring. ;)

[FIREk]

furry stuff

This is now an official trolling thread. :P

I think character customization is selling power - you can get armor and colors that make you blend in more with the environment. That's absolutely appalling! What say you?!

[I Hate MMORPGs]

Your name gives me the impression you don't like MMORPGs, why spend your time writing about them? You're trash.

Yikes. Apparently NaziBlog was taken, but I think you knew about that. Satire is fun because it isn't supposed to be taken seriously. I have obviously played and enjoyed a multitude of MMORPGs. Relax :P

[Draep]

Spewing hate is one of the most basic forms of attention whoring. ;)

Says the Thomas fucking Jefferson of PSU of course. I couldn't be that much of an attention whore writing on forums for a game that doesn't even exist yet.

[Aractain]

I think character customization is selling power - you can get armor and colors that make you blend in more with the environment. That's absolutely appalling! What say you?!

Everyone would get a basic set of pink (desert), green (temperate), grey (urban), brown (real) and underwear (cyber) skins to start them off!

[Hamma]

Yikes. Apparently NaziBlog was taken, but I think you knew about that. Satire is fun because it isn't supposed to be taken seriously. I have obviously played and enjoyed a multitude of MMORPGs. Relax :P

:lol:

[Graywolves]

I looked up at my blank tv and forgot what I was gonna say....


Oh yeah! I want to be a wolfy Terran soldier!!!!!!!!!

[Sirisian]

Yeah that's my general viewpoint also on the F2P aspect. It really just comes down to what "selling power" is though. Some people agree with Smedley's definition that selling upgrades aka "sidegrades" (clever) isn't selling power as long as you can get them in the game after a while. Or that buying guns that you can get in the game after a while isn't selling power. Some of us are a harder sell. Personally I just wanted to stick with an aesthetic only cash shop, but that idea seems out the window unless a lot of people disagree with Smedley.

[Wahooo]

Satire is fun

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j374/taiward/that-word-inigo-montoya-word-think-means-princess-bride-mand-demotivational-poster-1260739585.jpg

Either that or you know, but you are just bad at it.

[I Hate MMORPGs]

You don't know what blah blah...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

Stop projecting your own failures on me. Creating a blog about how bad MMORPGs are in order to provide humorous and constructive insight about MMORPGs is exactly what satire is all about.

Or maybe I'm just dumber than you look.

[kaffis]

EDIT: I also find it interesting that people think developers have any final say about the revenue model of their games...
Look up John Smedley. You'll quickly figure out that he's not a developer (anymore, if you want to get technical), he's the President of Sony Online Entertainment. Who is, incidentally, also the publisher since the PS2 team is 1st party. So he's exactly where the buck stops when it comes to revenue models.

[Wahooo]

Projecting my own failures? I, um... see this was my point you use these words and sayings that don't really apply. My conclusion is you don't know what these words mean.

Your opinions being critical of game play that you find boring, tired or un-fun is one thing. Criticizing business models you simply don't understand and typing like you have some vast knowledge of the subject without be right or funny and in no way constructive doesn't seem to apply to what you think you are trying to do.

[I Hate MMORPGs]

Projecting my own failures? I, um... see this was my point you use these words and sayings that don't really apply. My conclusion is you don't know what these words mean.

Your opinions being critical of game play that you find boring, tired or un-fun is one thing. Criticizing business models you simply don't understand and typing like you have some vast knowledge of the subject without be right or funny and in no way constructive doesn't seem to apply to what you think you are trying to do.

I see a lot of words with nothing to back it up. Why are you allowed to make unfounded claims, but nobody else is?

All I'm saying is that to date there hasn't been a game made that is going to have the same type of bandwidth/server requirements that this game is shooting for. People say they're willing to purchase novelty and side-grade items, but I doubt they would do so every month or even though to support the massive architecture.

Unless SOE is willing to take a loss on this game (stupid) they will be forced to resort to alternative revenue models such as Pay-to-Win or Anarchy-style in game advertising.

Again though, these are all just opinions equally unfounded in proof. I hope they can accomplish what they want to, and I'm sure PlanetSide 2 will be great if they can.

[Graywolves]

I don't think he read the wiki page


:rofl:

[Draep]

I thought satire was supposed to be funny.

[Fuel Truck]

I would rather read his blog than go through the 10 pages of whining retards in "Definition of 'Selling Power'", who will all probably be the first people to buy weapon upgrades.

[Hamma]

:rolleyes:

Let's be constructive, and quit trolling folks. No good comes out of calling people "whining retards" on a fan site discussion forum about an un-released game.

[basti]

I would rather read his blog than go through the 10 pages of whining retards in "Definition of 'Selling Power'", who will all probably be the first people to buy weapon upgrades.

You should read that thread, its just p0int against the world, while he is claiming that F2P is the devil and subscription are soooo much better.

[Wahooo]

I see a lot of words with nothing to back it up. Why are you allowed to make unfounded claims, but nobody else is?
Perfect description of your blog TBH.

All I'm saying is that to date there hasn't been a game made that is going to have the same type of bandwidth/server requirements that this game is shooting for. People say they're willing to purchase novelty and side-grade items, but I doubt they would do so every month or even though to support the massive architecture. A very good take on why another game like planetside has yet to be made.
This is the thing, however, it really only takes a small portion of the game's population to pay for this stuff. Your article on Zynga was pretty good, I think it could have gone on and said more honestly. The point there is are they making money on every single person that plays those things? My wife made me get into Farmville for a while and of all the friends I have that play or have played Zynga games it would appear to me those paying are maybe 10% of those nearly 43million that have "liked" it. Granted PS2 plans on having a lot more overhead, but the point remains it doesn't take the whole games population paying bunches of money every month, but some people unwilling to pay $15 month subscription will (for some reason) pay $50 - $100 every couple months on their fluff items.

Unless SOE is willing to take a loss on this game (stupid) they will be forced to resort to alternative revenue models such as Pay-to-Win or Anarchy-style in game advertising. Remains to be seen. SOE does have a substantial history of screwing up a good thing.

Again though, these are all just opinions equally unfounded in proof. I hope they can accomplish what they want to, and I'm sure PlanetSide 2 will be great if they can. :love:

[Raymac]

You should read that thread, its just p0int against the world, while he is claiming that F2P is the devil and subscription are soooo much better.

Whats funny is, as much as I was arguing with P0int, I actually agree that a subscription is "better", and if that is an option, thats how I'd pay. However, I'm hard pressed to find any fps games that require a subscription.

So simple logic: fps players don't pay subscriptions - PS2 is an fps - PS2 needs to have a non-subscription option.

[Traak]

You make a good point, but Smed is the CEO, so there's not many people "higher in the pecking order" lol

The board of directors.

[Graywolves]

The board of directors.

The ministry of wizardry

[FIREk]

However, I'm hard pressed to find any fps games that require a subscription.

Well, technically the original APB was subscription-based. It may not have been an FPS, of course, but the target audience was the same. A lot of people paid good monies to play the game as well as buying user-generated stuff for real monies.

Of course the game died, but not because of the model, but because the game was broken on launch and the Uber Patch that fixed most of the mal-designed gameplay simply came too late. I think they put it on the live servers like a week before they had to pull the plug.

Anyways, there was a lot of people who paid for a sub in a broken game, so the model might work for PS2. Let's make an assumption.
Most, if not all of the people who would have paid the sub will pay the same $15 a month anyway, for a convenient premium account (like, with faster skill training and maybe a personal resource boost). Let's assume that they'll be making more-or-less the same amount of money with premium accounts, as they would have with subs.
These boosts don't give tangible power like a Venerable +50 Mini-Chaingun of OP would, and if this (assumed) equivalent of monthly subscription income would sustain PlanetSide 2, they're unlikely to cave in and start selling those +50 chainguns.

[I Hate MMORPGs]

However, I'm hard pressed to find any fps games that require a subscription.

Except most of them, See: XBox Live

[Graywolves]

Except most of them, See: XBox Live

Oh so PS2 does has subscription. See comcast/verizon

[Baron]

Regardless of if you like subscriptions vs. F2P or not, the fact is pretty simple:

1) The revenue model for video games is changing, shifting away from monthly subscriptions.

Much like the movie and recording industries, you can either adjust your business model accordingly or go out of business *shrug*

[Raymac]

Except most of them, See: XBox Live

C'mon guy. Really? Xbox Live is not even close to the same as a subscription for a single game. You are smart enough to know that. That's like calling your broadband utility a subscription, or your power company a subscription.

[Graywolves]

C'mon guy. Really? Xbox Live is not even close to the same as a subscription for a single game. You are smart enough to know that. That's like calling your broadband utility a subscription, or your power company a subscription.

The amish are the only ones who live subscription free.

[Bags]

I'm subscribed to running water. It's a premium package, so you might not have heard of it.

[NewSith]

Regardless of if you like subscriptions vs. F2P or not, the fact is pretty simple:

1) The revenue model for video games is changing, shifting away from monthly subscriptions.

Much like the movie and recording industries, you can either adjust your business model accordingly or go out of business *shrug*

Bloody bullseye...

As for the site (and the article): as long as it's not taken seriously among pontential players and is not influential on their minds - it's ok. There's no need to [SomebodyIsWrongOnTheInternet.jpg]*.
*Google for the most accurate picture yourself.

[Traak]

Subscription is the only way. Let zerglings play without subscribing. Fodder!

[Talek Krell]

Whats funny is, as much as I was arguing with P0int, I actually agree that a subscription is "better", and if that is an option, thats how I'd pay. However, I'm hard pressed to find any fps games that require a subscription.
I thought it was hilarious how it was p0int against everyone, including the people attempting to side with p0int.



Subscription is the only way.

Let zerglings play without subscribing.

I think you should construct your argument more carefully. :P

[basti]

Except most of them, See: XBox Live

Mind to get your facts right? Most FPS games are played on the PC, not consoles...

[BuzzCutPsycho]

The company making PS2 is all the reason one needs not to get too excited over the project.

[Crator]

Why do you think so many companies jumped on the MMO bandwagon, and made WoW clones? Pencil-pushers saw on TV that Blizzard makes a fuckton of money with WoW and decided that, if they develop the same shit with a slightly different flavor, they will have a fuckton of money as well. Have you seen any WoW killers lately? Yet there are still more and more WoW clones coming out and failing.

Just found this article (Most MMOs Fail?) (http://news.mmosite.com/content/2008-02-17/20080217224802303,1.shtml). Really good read and explains the reason why developers must change the EQ MMO cookie-cutter format and why, to be successful. It also talks about the F2P model that Guild Wars uses and the reasons why it is a successful model.

[cellinaire]

Plz don't take it seriously for now, since it's just an assumption :


< How about the EQ2 model where there are two seperate forms of servers. F2P with cashshop and P2P with/without cashshop. >



And I have to say again that, I didn't say I personally like that model a lot =)

[Bags]

Separating F2P and P2P people is stupid. You want the freeloaders to play with the payers so they become jealous of their stylish apparel and hopefully become buyers and so the P2Pers have more people to play with.

[Aractain]

Exactly as Bags says, when a boring, free, dog skinned trooper sees the zebra skin or the special Fluttershy skin on his friends or empiremates he wont be able to control his desire to join the club. He wont feel bad about his transactions either, all he will remember is the adoration from the players around him with tells like "RandomNC007 says: nice skin dude" and "LICKFUR says: WUUFF!!".

[Graywolves]

Separating F2P and P2P people is stupid. You want the freeloaders to play with the payers so they become jealous of their stylish apparel and hopefully become buyers and so the P2Pers have more people to play with.

Exactly, free to play helps keep the populations high. It's just a matter of SOE making it seem worth purchase even if F2P accounts progress slower than P2P.

[Draep]

I just want the most people to kill on the other faction and the most people to recruit on my own faction. Whichever way this is done is fine with me. As for shitting on an F2P model, I'm sure the people working on the game have more experience and market research than any of us to be able to determine if this is a good idea.

[cellinaire]

Separating F2P and P2P people is stupid. You want the freeloaders to play with the payers so they become jealous of their stylish apparel and hopefully become buyers and so the P2Pers have more people to play with.

Ok then. But I didn't say I want EQ2's model....well I still think with some extra rectification/modification with this business model, it could be worth a try. Who knows?
(Don't get me wrong. Cause' I'm more of the Sub guy myself :cool: )

BTW, you guys are a bit exaggerating the difference between F2P and P2P here.
Let's just look at the EQ2's case as an example. Do players in original servers look like beggars compared to some wealthy F2P server players? Do F2P players look a lot more flamboyant or princely? Or, Do player-owned homes in the original servers look like a ditch compared to F2p player-owned homes in the end? Of course it'll take a lot more time for subscription-gamers to decorate their houses in luxurious ways or equip themselves with some glittering armors, but the difference here won't be that serious.

[Traak]

I just want the most people to kill on the other faction and the most people to recruit on my own faction. Whichever way this is done is fine with me. As for shitting on an F2P model, I'm sure the people working on the game have more experience and market research than any of us to be able to determine if this is a good idea.

Did their "market research" show the plummet in paying customers as a result of the hoardes of free-account cheaters crashing over the server like a tidal wave of vomit?

[IceyCold]

Did their "market research" show the plummet in paying customers as a result of the hoardes of free-account cheaters crashing over the server like a tidal wave of vomit?

If they fail to have proper cheat detection and control then even a sub model would not save Planetside2.

[FIREk]

If they fail to have proper cheat detection and control then even a sub model would not save Planetside2.

Sadly, that is true. As far as I've heard, the best cheats (the ones you pay for) are actually more expensive than a typical sub ($20 per month). This means that a "dedicated cheater" isn't too detracted by having to spend money (for instance, on a new account's subscription, once he gets caught).

[Malorn]

That blogger was clearly molested by UO when he was younger and rocks in a corner crying himself to sleep when he's not on his personal quest to stop the spread of MMOs.

[FIREk]

That blogger was clearly molested by UO when he was younger and rocks in a corner crying himself to sleep when he's not on his personal quest to stop the spread of MMOs.

I have played UO on an RP-heavy freeshard for 5 years, and it is the best MMOGPG (actually, the only MMORPG) ever. Your argument is therefore invalid. :P

[Malorn]

I have played UO on an RP-heavy freeshard for 5 years, and it is the best MMOGPG (actually, the only MMORPG) ever. Your argument is therefore invalid. :P

I wasn't saying anything negative about UO, only that the blogger was traumatized by it. Probably couldn't handle the idea of more than one person playing a game.

[2coolforu]

Can you really expect a 'Critical' look from a blog called 'I hate MMO's', it was obviously going to be horribly biased and an uninteresting crybaby view.

[FIREk]

English may not be the OP's native language. The word may mean "criticizing" rather than "critique", like it does in Polish, for instance. And criticizing PS2 this blog's native attention whore does, indeed. ;)

[I Hate MMORPGs]

I wasn't saying anything negative about UO, only that the blogger was traumatized by it. Probably couldn't handle the idea of more than one person playing a game.

Ultima Online pre UO:R was the greatest MMORPG in the history of man. My issue is that games like PS2 and every other subsequent MMORPG or MMO(random letters) fails to address that a game needs to have consequences or it isn't exciting.

Being shot to death only to respawn immediately with all your stuff is carebear to the max. How am I as a player supposed to get amped up about a kill or be killed environment when being killed has no consequence other than some minor time-sink.

[2coolforu]

Ultima Online pre UO:R was the greatest MMORPG in the history of man. My issue is that games like PS2 and every other subsequent MMORPG or MMO(random letters) fails to address that a game needs to have consequences or it isn't exciting.

Being shot to death only to respawn immediately with all your stuff is carebear to the max. How am I as a player supposed to get amped up about a kill or be killed environment when being killed has no consequence other than some minor time-sink.

What's the consequence of losing a game of Starcraft? What the hell is the consequence of losing a game of C&C or CoD, there is zero consequence other than personal pride. You play for the feeling that you've outskilled someone, outsmarted someone or just plain worked together as a team with someone. That's what made me play Planetside.

Inevitably there are no real consequences in any game, what happens if you lose a ship in EVE, it's just time you've sank into a game after all. What happens if you die on WoW, it's just time you've sank into the game to get cash to repair your gear after all. Your argument is null and void, there are literally no consequences to anything in a game other than your own time being wasted and the only benefit is you get fun out of it, you argument is one from personal taste which is only relevant to your point of view and not a critique of the game itself. If you don't like playing a game where if you die you lose everything and have to restart then only play that type of game, if you are an FPS player don't hate RTS games because they aren't about playing solo.

In terms of consequences the idea is you sink your resources into making a personalized tank, if you lose that tank then the resources go up with it. That's equal consequence to losing your drake in EVE.

[FIREk]

Were there truly serious consequences in UO, really?
True, you had to run to a healer, then run back past mobs and hopefully reclaim your gear. But you didn't die nearly as often as in a game with actual action in it.
Plus, you could just cut your losses and run around in shit gear all the time, so that you never lost anything worth crying over. Just resurrect at a town, restock your shit at the bank and go farm skeletons the rest of the day.
You go kill some serious mobs? You'll likely be with friends who will quite possibly get your stuff back and resurrect you.
Your character's lifetime in UO (by "lifetime" I mean time between permanent gear losses) was days, sometimes weeks, even months.
In an FPS it's minutes up to an hour, maybe. Consequences need to be scaled accordingly.

Even in EVE, the consequences of getting blown up, and even popped, aren't as ass-rippingly painful as someone might think.
If you went into combat in a clone with implants you could barely afford, you're a moron.
If you've flown in a ship fitted with stuff you could barely afford, you're a double moron.
If your clone didn't have enough SP capacity, and you let yourself get popped, you're a triple moron.
Most people would fly decent ships for their budget (like a cheap T2-fitted BC), built for free by their corp, with minerals mined by the player himself/herself. That, or the entire ship is sponsored by the corp.
You go camp or gank something, possibly get your ship blown up, then fly your pod for a replacement ship and you're back in the action in minutes. If you get popped, you respawn, buy a shuttle, make some tea and autopilot to where you had to be.
Wow, these consequences are so serious, they could almost make someone feel like a grown-up!
And, again, your ship's lifetime in EVE was anything from hours to months. Even then the consequences weren't so severe.

There's no room for long-lasting consequences in a fast-paced action game.
Granted, WoW/EQ clones are typically slow-paced and could have some consequences for dying, but that wouldn't add much to the game, other than an, ultimately pointless, time-sink.
Back when I played UO, every now and then some roving band of min-maxed PKs wold have curb-stomped and face-blasted me into monochrome land. Then came the consequences. I rarely died and always had the best gear I could afford, so they were pretty severe.
When I'm playing an FPS, should I have to use mats I gathered over the course of two weeks, then spend half a day re-crafting my awesome, exceptional quality gear (or finding crafters to do that for me)? Absolutely not.

Consequences in PS1 consisted of a longer respawn time, plus losing the battle once the enemy blew up the last useful respawn point in the area. The former was annoying, and the latter was painful for the ego, especially if it resulted in your empire being raped and pushed off the continent.
In PS2, you will also be able to pull out customized gear and customized vehicles - losing that will have cost you resources that you might be saving up for a long-term gain, like shortcutting some skill training.
For an FPS, that's consequences enough.

So what is your point, other than being "sarcastic" or whatever you call it?

[Raymac]

Yeah, I remember when I played my first MMO. It was Everquest, and the death penalty was losing XP. It fucking BLOWS. I can understand how you might want that because it does add tension, but you are in a steep minority that wants to see that feature return to MMOs.

Frankly, if more people wanted those kinds of death penalties, you'd see more games with them. If you want that kind of shit, just go play Ghosts'n' Goblins.

[IceyCold]

Ultima Online pre UO:R was the greatest MMORPG in the history of man. My issue is that games like PS2 and every other subsequent MMORPG or MMO(random letters) fails to address that a game needs to have consequences or it isn't exciting.

Being shot to death only to respawn immediately with all your stuff is carebear to the max. How am I as a player supposed to get amped up about a kill or be killed environment when being killed has no consequence other than some minor time-sink.

So, your point is that games are not "hardcore" enough for you since UO; what exactly was hardcore about UO? "Oh I died and lost some stuff that I can replace with more time!" That is so freaking hardcore brah! Hey, that sounds like something you pointed out....

How am I as a player supposed to get amped up about a kill or be killed environment when being killed has no consequence other than some minor time-sink.

Sooo UO didn't amp you up much huh? Guess it was just too carebear :confused:

No really, please explain this one to me I would love to understand how any game is hardcore? Hardcore died out in the arcade where I got charged a quarter every time I died; since then it's just a loss of time. And I have news for you, that's not really a big deal since I would not be playing a game if I did not have time to spare.

[2coolforu]

If I wanted a severe penalty for dying I'd go play real life.

I mean don't we play games to have fun, or for escapism from real life. Having these drastic kicks-in-the-balls in computer games is retarded, it would be like if you lost a game of football/baseball/rugby/american football/tennis the opposing side just came over and snapped all your gear, punched you in the gut and said "You lost". Isn't the entire point of playing a game to stroke your ego and have fun, and pretty much nothing else. If you get killed in an FPS it's because you fucked up or you were outskilled, in the same way if you lose a real life 'game' its because you didn't train enough, you fucked up or you were outclassed and in both cases the penalty is the same, your ego takes a kicking.

[FIREk]

It may be because kids think they're like grown-ups if they have to "suffer" virtual "consequences" for virtual defeats. By golly, it may even be more mature than going to school or doing chores! Either way, it's all definitely easier than getting and doing a job, having enough monies, building relationships and all that other stuff you can do in real life.

Another "valid reason" is people with low self-esteem in real life. If you play a game that shits a time-sink on your face when you die, you can (apparently) think of yourself as a "hardcore" gamer. You can then proceed to feel superior to those other "casuals" and "carebears", even if you're a perpetually jobless, forever alone, 30-ish slob, living in your parents' basement.

In reality, when you're a big boy, with limited free time that actually has some value, you want to get more fun out of a game, instead of wasting it on "consequences".

[2coolforu]

What really turned me off EVE was the fact that you'd probably have to spend days working to replace a ship so you'd have to covet and protect it rather than actually have fun with it, I wouldn't have the time to waste to spend all this time replacing my ships. I have more valuable things to do than spend 8 hours ingame having an ingame job to replace ingame money to get an ingame ship, games are meant to be escapism from real life not real life.

I don't want to have to try and get my 401k ingame, only to have to pay my income tax then spend 8 hours a day working a cashier to get money for my food and rusty iron sword to go and kill goblins only to catch tetanus and 20k in medical bills from cutting my finger on a rose-thorn.

[I Hate MMORPGs]

No really, please explain this one to me I would love to understand how any game is hardcore? Hardcore died out in the arcade where I got charged a quarter every time I died; since then it's just a loss of time. And I have news for you, that's not really a big deal since I would not be playing a game if I did not have time to spare.

I'm simply saying that there was nothing more exciting than having a Halberd of Vanquishing and dominating only to have it taken from you by a hoard of newbies. If you have nothing to lose (or gain) then you're basically just grinding a battleground for welfare epics. Meh to that.

[2coolforu]

I'm simply saying that there was nothing more exciting than having a Halberd of Vanquishing and dominating only to have it taken from you by a hoard of newbies. If you have nothing to lose (or gain) then you're basically just grinding a battleground for welfare epics. Meh to that.

But that's not what Planetside is about, it's an FPS with customization and other cosmetic features added. It's not about grinding up to get your +1000 Mace of Doom, it's about grinding up to change your gun to what you want it to be and to your playstyle, not just to simply 'Make it Better'. The reason its an MMO with fees is because the performance drain of having 1000's of people is simply not possible with a totally free model with just a box price. To have 2000 people on a battlefield and have the FPS level of ping and framerate you complain about on your blog you need a powerful server.

Now you can't simply say "Make it 16 player, that's Halo and it's the same game". Having lots of players means a few things, it adds atmosphere, it adds realism and it adds variance. Now EVE could scale down, instead of 1000 ships we could have 3 battleships and one FC, it works, it's the same game still but would it be EVE. The giant battles add an atmosphere and a feeling that you can't get from just having an 8 v 8 TDM, not only that but Planetside is persistent so rounds aren't just like a Hellish purgatory of constantly repeating meaningless gamemodes, your progress stays there until someone erases it.

Another thing to consider is the adding of specialization, with 16 guys you can't specialize, you don't have the manpower to have an artillery detachment, a medic detachment, a mech infantry detachment, an airborne detachment and so on and so forth. Having played tactical realism on simulation games it gets better and better the more folks you have as it lets people specialize a role more and more. You can get true combined arms. With 500 people in a battle you can have bombers, artillery, gunships, dropships, armor, APC's, infantry and buggies all fighting without having to worry about giving up half your infantry force. If you have a team of 32 on BF2 filling up a transport chopper puts half your team away from firing guns and into an easy to kill vehicle. However in Planetside the galaxy is just a pawn in a chess game and people can be successful in the 'transport infantry' role, you can have several of these full galaxies and still have sufficient firepower on the ground to not get steamrollered because 30 of your team are getting moved to a better spot. It's all about scaling.

[Draep]

Taking the territory is the objective in Planetside and games like it. By losing the territory, I am feeling the consequences of my loss. In fact, that is one of the reasons that drew me to the game.

WoW is truly a consequence free game, as you cannot drop loot or take territory. I hate mmorpgs, you are def a troll and I ain't trying to feed you, but I wonder why you are trolling something so seemingly meaningless.

I mean look at these tools, they reply to your posts with textwalls and valid argument so I guess it's pretty easy, but you're putting in an awful lot of time to troll something, making me think you're serious.

[FIREk]

Excitement in a game is cheap and fake. I prefer fast driving and the occasional powerslide, conditions permitting. Even then it's pretty cheap, since I don't do crazy shit in heavy traffic like in the movies, but at least it's real. :)

My point is, there's no need to shove virtual consequences onto countless people, just because a minority doesn't have anything more exciting to do.

I mean look at these tools, they reply to your posts with textwalls and valid argument so I guess it's pretty easy, but you're putting in an awful lot of time to troll something, making me think you're serious.

I think most of us know a troll when we see one. Myself, I like to share my thoughts and, with any luck, discuss my arguments with other forum members. I by far don't intend to influence a troll's "opinion". ;)

[XPquant]

My in-game job in eve was a DJ for eve radio, that was damn fun and the tips paid for my widow habit, there were a lot of ways to make isk not all being mundane. I loved eve for the same reason I hated it, meta gaming. Every major player in eve bought his isk with $$$$ or inherited it from someone who did, the economy is so inflated.

I found in eve the worst consequences were those born in trust, death to corp looters! Losing a corporation you built from the ground up for 5 years with your 20 best friends is a moment indeed, it ended my career. Eve was easily the harshest game I have ever played, not because of the game but because of the people. But eve in no way could ever be compared to planetside, you got people paying for 4 subs so they can run 4 toons at once.

P.S. I agree with Draep, in planetside your not fighting for personal gain, the squad or even the outfit, you are fighting for the glory of your empire and the destruction of your enemies.

[Baron]

...you are fighting for the glory of your empire and the destruction of your enemies.

I cried a little, good times.

[Malorn]

Taking the territory is the objective in Planetside and games like it. By losing the territory, I am feeling the consequences of my loss. In fact, that is one of the reasons that drew me to the game.

WoW is truly a consequence free game, as you cannot drop loot or take territory. I hate mmorpgs, you are def a troll and I ain't trying to feed you, but I wonder why you are trolling something so seemingly meaningless.

I mean look at these tools, they reply to your posts with textwalls and valid argument so I guess it's pretty easy, but you're putting in an awful lot of time to troll something, making me think you're serious.

Why are you asking a troll why he trolls?

(yes, I am trolling you now)

[Talek Krell]

Why are you asking a troll why he trolls?

(yes, I am trolling you now)
Is this what they refer to as "trollception"?

[Brusi]

If I wanted a severe penalty for dying I'd go play real life.

haha

[Draep]

I figure he might tell me. It's also a call out on you drama queens who actually wrote essay long posts to anything that might disagree with you.

[2coolforu]

I figure he might tell me. It's also a call out on you drama queens who actually wrote essay long posts to anything that might disagree with you.

When did a paragraph of text become a long post, anyway wouldn't the person who claimed that game was doomed before hearing any information about it be a 'Drama Queen' by definition...

Just sayin' s'all.

I'm also capable of seeing when someone is trolling and when someone is serious, having an entire blog dedicated to the issue implies the latter. If I am incorrect in the assumption then the owner of the blog has too much free time.

[Draep]

When did a paragraph of text become a long post, anyway wouldn't the person who claimed that game was doomed before hearing any information about it be a 'Drama Queen' by definition...

Just sayin' s'all.

I'm also capable of seeing when someone is trolling and when someone is serious, having an entire blog dedicated to the issue implies the latter. If I am incorrect in the assumption then the owner of the blog has too much free time.

I'm lumpin ya'll in to the same category, so how's that? I keep my posts 2 sentences or shorter to cut out the fat, though sometimes I feel I pay the price of having people skip my posts.

[2coolforu]

I'm lumpin ya'll in to the same category, so how's that? I keep my posts 2 sentences or shorter to cut out the fat, though sometimes I feel I pay the price of having people skip my posts.

Was that an intentional rhyme? Sometimes more than two sentences are needed, I'd say the vast majority of things require more than two sentences but perhaps that's because I don't text and the type of communication and writing I do never allows me to type two sentences.

[Draep]

Was that an intentional rhyme? Sometimes more than two sentences are needed, I'd say the vast majority of things require more than two sentences but perhaps that's because I don't text and the type of communication and writing I do never allows me to type two sentences.

There's your two right there! Nothing on a forums requires much more than two sentences. Keep your big guns in reserve for when you need em.

[2coolforu]

There's your two right there! Nothing on a forums requires much more than two sentences. Keep your big guns in reserve for when you need em.

There's a fine line between concise and vapid

[Draep]

There's a fine line between concise and vapid

You're down to one sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_wit

[I Hate MMORPGs]

Taking the territory is the objective in Planetside and games like it. By losing the territory, I am feeling the consequences of my loss. In fact, that is one of the reasons that drew me to the game.

WoW is truly a consequence free game, as you cannot drop loot or take territory. I hate mmorpgs, you are def a troll and I ain't trying to feed you, but I wonder why you are trolling something so seemingly meaningless.

I mean look at these tools, they reply to your posts with textwalls and valid argument so I guess it's pretty easy, but you're putting in an awful lot of time to troll something, making me think you're serious.

Unlike the rest of the internet apparently, I don't consider myself infallible. I like to hear what other people's opinions are and share some of my own.

Group consensus is always more constructive than one person's opinion. That's one of the great things about the responses I get to stuff.

Back to consequences. They're not for everyone, obviously. They definitely wouldn't work in a game with a F2P cash shop model because people who buy stuff with money definitely should never lose that stuff (because there are liability concerns). I understand that this isn't a MMORPG, and this is why I made the Halo comparison. Not because Halo is a MMOFPS, but because it takes the same stance on progression (some aesthetic and some function on a PVP grind achievement scenario).

Either way, I hope PS2 will be fun just like everyone else, but that doesn't mean that I don't think every F2P game to date has been a complete abortion. Its just an opinion :P relax

[Graywolves]

You guys are still talking to this dude?

[Baron]

You know what ruins MMORPGs ? The people

Now for a MMOFPS that is not the case

[Wahooo]

Back to consequences. They're not for everyone, obviously. They definitely wouldn't work in a game with a F2P cash shop model because people who buy stuff with money definitely should never lose that stuff (because there are liability concerns).

I kinda understand wanting real consequences... but holy hell it would be hard to balance.

The first MMORPG I ever played? Rift. I've played plenty of RPGs, computer types and the "old" way, you know face to face with people and paper and dice.
My Guild was all X-planetsiders with some who have more time in WoW and EQ than they ever did in PS, but to the point it helped having them know my shooter back ground to walk me through some of the things RPGers take as 'normal'. I was actually a little stunned that there was no real consequence to ingame death, especially when i made level 20ish and got into the pvp zones of the open world. I started getting ganked by level geared out 50's (this was in the headstart week even). So I thought I was going to be losing stuff and they would be getting something. Nope, they really gained nothing other than to feel a little better about themselves for turning the tide of what real life had been doing to them for so many years and they got to pick on someone who was much weaker. Had their been real consequences? I probably would have quit the game. It wouldn't have made it more thrilling or exciting, simply frustrating. An epiced out 50 doesn't gain anything from a lowly level 20 they are just griefing. If I lost my stuff as well? Then it just would have made the griefing worse.

Sure then there would be ways to balance it out, but after experiencing that community for a bit and learning some what those game dynamics and players are like? I simply don't see a way to make a game with FUN, and exciting consequences to dieing. IMO.

[I Hate MMORPGs]

The first MMORPG I ever played? Rift. I've played plenty of RPGs, computer types and the "old" way, you know face to face with people and paper and dice.
My Guild was all X-planetsiders with some who have more time in WoW and EQ than they ever did in PS, but to the point it helped having them know my shooter back ground to walk me through some of the things RPGers take as 'normal'. I was actually a little stunned that there was no real consequence to ingame death, especially when i made level 20ish and got into the pvp zones of the open world. I started getting ganked by level geared out 50's (this was in the headstart week even). So I thought I was going to be losing stuff and they would be getting something. Nope, they really gained nothing other than to feel a little better about themselves for turning the tide of what real life had been doing to them for so many years and they got to pick on someone who was much weaker. Had their been real consequences? I probably would have quit the game. It wouldn't have made it more thrilling or exciting, simply frustrating. An epiced out 50 doesn't gain anything from a lowly level 20 they are just griefing. If I lost my stuff as well? Then it just would have made the griefing worse.

It makes sense that this is a Rift perspective (not an insult, just a comment), but Rift is an example of a game where equipment is anything but trivial. In a game with real PvP consequences, equipment is supposed to be a common resource that can be bought or sold easily. In that type of a system you can actually profit from being a bandit, but you can just as easily have everything taken from you.