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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Making specific races "pay to play" is absolute nonsense.

It's not pay to play in the traditional sense, from what Miguel has said, you can either buy the once and get access to everything, or play it for free.

TheSGC wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Making specific races "pay to play" is absolute nonsense.

It's not pay to play in the traditional sense, from what Miguel has said, you can either buy the once and get access to everything, or play it for free.

If you cannot play all races at the start and you have to pay for access to the rest of the content; it's "pay to play".

 Kanluwen wrote:

TheSGC wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Making specific races "pay to play" is absolute nonsense.

It's not pay to play in the traditional sense, from what Miguel has said, you can either buy the once and get access to everything, or play it for free.

If you cannot play all races at the start and you have to pay for access to the rest of the content; it's "pay to play".

When people complain, it's often because they're thinking it's 'pay monthly to win' (e.g. subscription model), which is what I'm responding to.
It's apparently not what you meant, so I'll say this: I have no idea why it's absolute nonsense. If you want to play CoD, you buy the game. If you want to play DoW, you buy the game. If you want to play TW, you buy the game.
Of course, you're probably comparing it to Planetside 2. I get that comparison, I even see where that comparison and desire to play the game entirely for free is coming from. Alas, though.

No, I'm comparing it to any MMO out there.

How many of them "lock" races from the basic game?
Very few--and the ones that do usually lock races that are expansion content, and instead make you pay for access to endgame content/the ability to level beyond a certain point.

 Kanluwen wrote:
No, I'm comparing it to any MMO out there.

How many of them "lock" races from the basic game?
Very few--and the ones that do usually lock races that are expansion content, and instead make you pay for access to endgame content/the ability to level beyond a certain point.

Why would you compare it to any MMO out there? This isn't like any MMO out there, bar PS2. What you're doing is looking at WoW and EC - basically, comparing apples to oranges. Yes, they're both fruits, but not the same in the least.
There is no endgame content in this, and there is no traditional leveling system in Eternal Crusade. All of your points are moot.

I'm actually comparing it to SWTOR, WHO, AOC rather than WoW, but if you want to go with WoW go for it.

I still don't get why you are comparing it to traditional MMOs. Honestly - your comparison makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever.

Because the idea of "massive PvP" is not new to Eternal Crusade and however much the devs and fans say it, it is a MMO.

Different formats have been tried before and they still are MMOs.

TheSGC wrote:
I still don't get why you are comparing it to traditional MMOs. Honestly - your comparison makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever.

Trying to argue with Kan is like trying to knock yourself out by punching your reflection in a pool of water.



And I mean this is a good way, I find it rather endearing.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything, I just don't see why anyone would think that faction locking is a good idea for a F2P game.

There are other games which have done F2P and shown that faction locking is a Very Bad Idea.

So you'd compare the economic system of PS2 to that of TOR, AOC, WoW? That's pretty nuts bro - not going to lie. MMORPG =/= MMOTPS/MMOFPS. Let me ask you a question; would you compare Skyrim to BFIII? Dark Souls to CoD? The MMO genre is far, far more broad than any other genre, and actually encompasses other genres, like FPS, TPS, RPG into it. Gameplay is vastly, vastly different. It'd be like comparing website content over the Internet according to, say, what yahoo provides on their homepage, to PC Gamer's website. You're not going to blast IGN for not keeping up to the news coming out of Egypt. But by your logic, it's all the internet, and therefore IGN sucks for not providing world news.

As you say, for TOR, for WoW, for AOC, you pay for end-game content, or leveling. Leveling is not horizontal - as, say, a mage, you must level up to gain access to better equipment, because equipment damage scales with level directly. In a PS2-like system, there is no leveling up (not that directly affects what weapons you can field, anyhow). Progression through the game is very little, in terms of personal achievement. Progression is instead horizontal; you can gain access to newer guns either through killing more enemies, or microtransactions. Since you will be paying for the entire game, it's possible that you get a lot of those items already, but still must earn others through in-game play. Rarely are weapons payment-exclusive, and in PS2, those that are end up being holiday exclusives.
With an expansion, gameplay remains the same for a traditional MMORPG, you just pay for plot content. There is a minimalist plot in PS2 style games. Instead, if an expansion does come, you pay for gameplay. PvP warfare drives the progression of the game itself - what you do directly affects the outcome of the game. That is not the case in MMORPGs.

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:

TheSGC wrote:
I still don't get why you are comparing it to traditional MMOs. Honestly - your comparison makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever.

Trying to argue with Kan is like trying to knock yourself out by punching your reflection in a pool of water.



And I mean this is a good way, I find it rather endearing.

His comparison makes literally no sense. It's as if he hasn't seen a single bit of media about the game, and is just blatantly assuming that it's a WoW clone or something. I mean, has he even heard of PS2?

It is you who keeps bringing up WoW.

I have no clue why you're doing that or assuming that is somehow my only frame of reference.

With that said, I'll repeat myself:
Free to Play should be just that. One should not lock out other factions simply to get the player to purchase.

It is downright worrying that they are currently discussing, seriously, doing just that.

Like the cathar in swtor... ugh what a disappointment

 Kanluwen wrote:

and instead make you pay for access to endgame content/the ability to level beyond a certain point.

This only happens in MMORPGs (like, uh ... WoW?). Why don't you understand this? It doesn't happen in all MMOs.

TheSGC wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

and instead make you pay for access to endgame content/the ability to level beyond a certain point.

This only happens in MMORPGs (like, uh ... WoW?). Why don't you understand this? It doesn't happen in all MMOs.

"Endgame content" does not necessarily mean raiding nor is it necessarily exclusive to MMORPGs.
It can mean high end equipment or things that would take one a lengthy period of time to unlock.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything, I just don't see why anyone would think that faction locking is a good idea for a F2P game.

There are other games which have done F2P and shown that faction locking is a Very Bad Idea.

Because as it is said. It is not a true F2P model if you would've read the first post carefully..

Seriously, our model is called F2P Premium Hybrid Model. Yes the Orc Boys is the F2P factions but a free player will be able to do EVERYTHING in the game... forever EXCEPT Leadership. To be a leader you need to buy different packages or you can upgrade your Boyz into Noobs through MTC. What I mean by Premium is that you can buy one of the package and play the rest of your life without paying anymore (Like Guild War 2) and what I mean about Hybrid is that we have solutions in between all of this in a ''a la carte'' approach.

 Kanluwen wrote:

TheSGC wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

and instead make you pay for access to endgame content/the ability to level beyond a certain point.

This only happens in MMORPGs (like, uh ... WoW?). Why don't you understand this? It doesn't happen in all MMOs.

"Endgame content" does not necessarily mean raiding nor is it necessarily exclusive to MMORPGs.
It can mean high end equipment or things that would take one a lengthy period of time to unlock.

....do you know what Planetside 2 is?

So this is either going to be "buy to play" like GW2 (pay your 60USD and get everything) or "free to play" like swtor (extremely limited unless you buy little bits of the game or pay a subscription).

Right?

TheSGC wrote:

....do you know what Planetside 2 is?

Is it like the darkside of the moon, that bit of the planet you can't see?

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:
So this is either going to be "buy to play" like GW2 (pay your 60USD and get everything) or "free to play" like swtor (extremely limited unless you buy little bits of the game or pay a subscription).

Right?

With 'stuff in between' the two. As in, free to play, with microtransactions likely to unlock other units/races if you want. Except the content you pay for is more like paying for BFIII than a traditional MMORPG.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything, I just don't see why anyone would think that faction locking is a good idea for a F2P game.

There are other games which have done F2P and shown that faction locking is a Very Bad Idea.

Because as it is said. It is not a true F2P model if you would've read the first post carefully..

Seriously, our model is called F2P Premium Hybrid Model. Yes the Orc Boys is the F2P factions but a free player will be able to do EVERYTHING in the game... forever EXCEPT Leadership. To be a leader you need to buy different packages or you can upgrade your Boyz into Noobs through MTC. What I mean by Premium is that you can buy one of the package and play the rest of your life without paying anymore (Like Guild War 2) and what I mean about Hybrid is that we have solutions in between all of this in a ''a la carte'' approach.

So the "F2P Premium Hybrid Model" is not "F2P model"?

Well that makes perfect sense!

Seriously, how can you read that and not smell the market doublespeak?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheSGC wrote:

 Ma55ter_fett wrote:
So this is either going to be "buy to play" like GW2 (pay your 60USD and get everything) or "free to play" like swtor (extremely limited unless you buy little bits of the game or pay a subscription).

Right?

With 'stuff in between' the two. As in, free to play, with microtransactions likely to unlock other units/races if you want. Except the content you pay for is more like paying for BFIII than a traditional MMORPG.

Oh so now it's sets of DLC with maps, guns, and challenges?
And "microtransactions" which actually subscribe to the "Pay to Win" model where you unlock things that you would not have at the start of the game otherwise?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Oh so now it's sets of DLC with maps, guns, and challenges?
And "microtransactions" which actually subscribe to the "Pay to Win" model where you unlock things that you would not have at the start of the game otherwise?

Dude. Seriously. Look up Planetside 2. Please. I beg you. Please look it up. Go to wikipedia. Right now. Just go there, right now, and check it out. PS2 isn't pay to win. One side does not benefit from everyone being a wallet warrior.
I reiterate: please, please, please look up Planetside 2. And don't do the three-second 'lolreadthe1stparagraph' off the Wiki. Take a couple hours, explore what the game is all about, go to the official forums, see how people are reacting to the game.

TheSGC wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Oh so now it's sets of DLC with maps, guns, and challenges?
And "microtransactions" which actually subscribe to the "Pay to Win" model where you unlock things that you would not have at the start of the game otherwise?

Dude. Seriously. Look up Planetside 2. Please. I beg you. Please look it up. Go to wikipedia. Right now. Just go there, right now, and check it out. PS2 isn't pay to win. One side does not benefit from everyone being a wallet warrior.
I reiterate: please, please, please look up Planetside 2.

Why do you keep bringing up PS2 and then making COMPLETELY opposing examples?

Planetside's whole "we only sell cosmetic changes and in-game convenience items" is not the same as locking factions unless you have bought the game.

Because it's lightyears closer to Eternal Crusade than anything you've brought up so far.

And yet your example still does not work because per your example, the player is only paying for "cosmetic and convenience options" alongside of "things they will get over time anyways".

That's not how they are talking about this. If you want to play a faction other than Orks--and even want to play something other than an Ork Boy--you have to pay.

If Miguel wants to come in here and correct my current perception, I'd gladly appreciate it but so far nothing about this is filling me with confidence of a balanced and fun game experience.

Oh, and if you want a "close example"?
Look at how Defiance is doing their DLC structure.

So F2P Eternal crusade is like playing PS2 where you can only play as a medic for the Terran Republic?

I've never said it'll be exactly like PS2. I'm saying it's most similar to that model, not to your traditional MMORPG one. You'll be paying for what you want, and if you want to buy the entire game, so be it. That's what it seems like to me (I don't want to put words in Miguel's mouth, or anything like that though, so I'll keep off 'THIS IS WHAT HE SAID HE PROMISED'). I'm trusting that the balance will be set such that Ork Boyz will be playable - especially if vehicles are a big part of gameplay, I think it's totally possible.

So kinda like Tribes: Ascend? Only you can't unlock new stuff by playing for a long time you'll have to buy it?

Kanluwen wrote:
Oh, and if you want a "close example"?
Look at how Defiance is doing their DLC structure.

Thanks for a finally relevant example.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:So kinda like Tribes: Ascend? Only you can't unlock new stuff by playing for a long time you'll have to buy it?

Horizontally, I'd imagine that all Ork Boyz weapons and stuff would be unlockable, other units wouldn't though.

think of it more as a unlimited free trial, but you can only play one race/class unless you ether
a) buy the full game.
or
B) do micro transactions and only buy the races you want

I love PS2 but having cash to buy stuff is a significant time saver. It is a definite advantage, because the certs saved go to improving the weapon I just bought or my character.

I think putting the F2P players on the Ork faction is a great idea. They can zerg to their heart's content and will fight pretty much as an Ork Waaagh would.

If SM were F2P the game would be overrun with them.


What still irks me (even as somebody who will put money into this game) is that idea that people who pay are calling the shots politically. That I don't feel happy about.

Which is why I would prefer to see the entire faction Ork faction be F2P. If all but the lowest level is locked out the player has little to work toward -which may discourage many folks. And it may provoke a certain mentally in the Ork leadership where they think it is their divine right to boss F2Players around.