Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I just don't understand the Gabe Newell reference. Were you saying that your opinion is the same as Gay Ben's and thus worth something? Or did you just post that picture because someone mentioned "Game Designer"?

I do think that demotivational poster is awesome though

Melissia wrote:That is a slightly decent attempt at a half-assed and blatantly obvious dodge.

No, I just don't really want to derail the thread further with a silly argument that I was trucking along.

I'm not that great of a child to continue a pointless argument - I'd rather talk about DMO.

The Gaben reference came from Game Designer being mentioned, and since Melissia said "I'd bet money you aren't" as I bolded, it was just a sly face that I found in google images.

Ah well. Back to DMO!

I sincerely hope the guard find themselves in this game. The poor damn infantry deserves some love.

I actually find the Guard odd in 40k. Far as I can tell they seem to be the most popular 40k faction. Meanwhile, while the Space Marines are also very popular, they seem to be the most hated faction (in spite of being one of the more interesting incarnations of the super soldier in space concept). But everyone wants to be guard, which is fine, but it just seems so opposite to the way things normally go :/

I like Space Marines.

I dislike the puritan Ultramarines. Its a distinction.

I really do hope they start giving some sort of information soon. I thought LAST years E3 was going to be the big reveal - until I heard it was planned for a Q1 2013.

Going by that timeline, if it really is going strong in development right now and barring any delays, E3 2012 sounds like the time to start releasing information and actually put up a site for the game. The little two-picture site they have right now doesn't count.

The game has so much potential because of the IP, just like Warhammer Online did. I really hope that THQ doesn't rush this game for a quick buck like EA is so notorious for doing. Warhammer Online was ruined because EA forced it to be released in tandem with WOTLK.

I'll gladly take as many delays as they need to make the game right, I just want it to last.

Ehm, no, they have been saying E3 2013 all this time for the big reveal.

Also, nice cop out.

Tis a shame it won't be released this year, am looking forward for a decent mmo

This just in:

THQ Japan closes it's doors on 29th of feb.

THQ has already stated it isn't closing itst Japanese offices.

"The actions in APAC [Asia-Pacific] are related to our reduction in force from last week – same statement applies. However, 'closing' is not accurate as we still have staff on the ground there and our OZ office has always handled our business relationships in APAC."

There seems to be a lot of gakfethers out there spreading untrue rumors about THQ.

Karon wrote:No, I just don't really want to derail the thread further with a silly argument that I was trucking along.

Oh okay then, you ARE dodging the point. If you really don't want to "derail the thread further", you'd have stpped spamming worthless image macros.

Soladrin wrote:Ehm, no, they have been saying E3 2013 all this time for the big reveal.

Also, nice cop out.

Show me a source saying it has always been planned for E3 2013. I've never heard anything as such.

This is the only thing I've heard about anything revolving around DMO at E3.

http://www.darkmillennium.org/2011/09/dark-millennium-online-to-be-playable-at-e3-2012/

Karon wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Ehm, no, they have been saying E3 2013 all this time for the big reveal.

Also, nice cop out.

Show me a source saying it has always been planned for E3 2013. I've never heard anything as such.

This is the only thing I've heard about anything revolving around DMO at E3.

http://www.darkmillennium.org/2011/09/dark-millennium-online-to-be-playable-at-e3-2012/

My bad, 2013 was a typo, meant 2012.

Melissia wrote:There seems to be a lot of gakfethers out there spreading untrue rumors about THQ.

Also people who don't want to admit that THQ might actually be in real danger.

LordofHats wrote:

Melissia wrote:There seems to be a lot of gakfethers out there spreading untrue rumors about THQ.

Also people who don't want to admit that THQ might actually be in real danger.

They are in difficult financial sorts right now, yes. People are just too quick to say they are going down.

They ARE looking for a financial partner to fund DMO currently.

I just hope for the love of Tzeentch that neither EA or Activision are involved.

I doubt EA would. 40k is too close in concept to Star Wars and EA won't want to help create competition for TOR. Activision has WoW so I doubt they care. That's probably part of the problem. Its hard to get money for MMO's. Not that many people or groups will invest in such things.

Well it's high risk, high reward. If you fail, you've not only wasted money on a game, you've wasted money on a game meant to be played by thousands to millions of people at once.

On a separate note: NO! Not Mr. Sockpuppet! I though I'd destroyed you in therapy!

LordofHats wrote:Also people who don't want to admit that THQ might actually be in real danger.

There's nothing to "admit". They are not about to close down.

It's kinda like a lesser version of the people who honestly think that the US government will suddeny stop working.

Melissia wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Also people who don't want to admit that THQ might actually be in real danger.

There's nothing to "admit". They are not about to close down.

It's kinda like a lesser version of the people who honestly think that the US government will suddeny stop working.

I agree there. THQ mind be in a bit of financial trouble right now, but it's not like their just gonna go, well, that's it, we're out.

Mhm. If they really do need an influx of cash, you can't get much better than releasing an MMO that a lot of people will play for years - assuming its well executed.

Karon wrote:Mhm. If they really do need an influx of cash, you can't get much better than releasing an MMO that a lot of people will play for years - assuming its well executed.

Which is why everyone is just churning out MMO's, every single one is hugely profitable and not at all risky.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Karon wrote:Mhm. If they really do need an influx of cash, you can't get much better than releasing an MMO that a lot of people will play for years - assuming its well executed.

Which is why everyone is just churning out MMO's, every single one is hugely profitable and not at all risky.

MMOs are quite popular, yes, and THQ would be one of the last major producers to have one...

Dunno if this was considered sarcastic.

It was very sarcastic, the majority of MMO's fail pretty spectacularly.

Melissia wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Karon wrote:Mhm. If they really do need an influx of cash, you can't get much better than releasing an MMO that a lot of people will play for years - assuming its well executed.

Which is why everyone is just churning out MMO's, every single one is hugely profitable and not at all risky.

MMOs are quite popular, yes, and THQ would be one of the last major producers to have one...

Dunno if this was considered sarcastic.

MMO's are still very very dangerous, Bioware is still under the water in SWOTR because of the MASSIVE amount of money they put into making it. The next big MMO that is sub based will be one that tries just a "little bit" to not be such a reskinned WoW clone. We will see if DMO is able to break the mold.

That depends on the cost and benefit of its subscriptions I suppose..

Melissia wrote:That depends on the cost and benefit of its subscriptions I suppose..

Problem with subs can be is, there are only so many people willing to pay them no matter how small. Although I think the practical cult following Warhammer 40k tend to has there would probably be plenty willing to play.

When I said the benefits, I meant that there should also be an option of free as long as you purchased the game. That way people can still play during times that they don't have money to spend on subscritions.

It would actually be a cool idea if a developer reimbursed players for time they spent playing. For example, play (and pay) for a year and you get 30 days free as a reward. The cost wouldn't be a huge burden on profits and it would make the game appear less costly to people.

Another idea is that maybe instead of paying to play until <insert date> you pay to play <insert number of hours>. The company loses little while you're offline and people would be less hesitant to pay for those huge 6 month plans if they figured they could use that time whenever they wanted.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Karon wrote:Mhm. If they really do need an influx of cash, you can't get much better than releasing an MMO that a lot of people will play for years - assuming its well executed.

Which is why everyone is just churning out MMO's, every single one is hugely profitable and not at all risky.

Bolded the important part since it seems you missed it.

If the game has time to progress, the funding, and is not pressured by their publisher its success chance goes up exponentially with each added factor.

A large part of WAR failing was because it was rushed to be released in tandem with WOTLK by none other than EA. The incompetent developers had a part it in as well, but releasing an unfinished product is terrible when you consider the launch and the several months following is the most important time period.

It's pretty easy to say "oh just make it a good game" but to make it a good game you need to put even more time and money into it thus making it even more risky.

LordofHats wrote:Another idea is that maybe instead of paying to play until <insert date> you pay to play <insert number of hours>. The company loses little while you're offline and people would be less hesitant to pay for those huge 6 month plans if they figured they could use that time whenever they wanted.

I have also wondered why they haven't done an hourly plan yet...