[Miyafuji]

Some companies, for example NCsoft were openly tolerating botters because of the fact that if they get banned they have to buy a new account, which brings huge influx of money to the company. They were even silencing those who complain rather then getting rid of the botters. That is why for example L2 had and still has much bigger free scene then the NCsoft servers ever had player-wise. That has to be take in account as well, I hope XLgames will not fail us in this matter, that they will stand by players not botters, and employ big and reliable GM team that will ensure that.


Vunak. - You mentioned "no kids are entitled to play MMO's" and that sentence.... it just bugs me. You know the fact is, people are not the same. Everyone is different. Why should the kids not be allowed to play mmo? Because they are stupid? Well most of them yeah, but not all of them. Why do you want to put people to one bag based on when they were born, sounds ridiculous to me. I remember when they did that to me in the past, forces me to be grouped with people that were same old but to me stupid and boring and it was terrible. I have been always interested in the adult stuff as young and frankly I was more "mature" then most of the adults. Not everyone is the same. Imagine someone saying things like "no girls in our clan, because they play bad and undermine morale", or "no black people here". People would go nuts about that. But, why some 18YO prick that is doing mess, using drugs, drinking and smoking whole day... should have more rights then well behaved mature thinking and responsible 14YO person. That is very wrong and very insulting to those people. How could someone got banned in SWTOR just by saying "I'm 13". Could I get banned if I say it in part of roleplay? Whats next? Will they send a commando after me if I say in chat "I'm making bombs in my basement" ? I hope that guy got the account back because that's just wrong.

All mmo games can theoretically be "adult" because the online interaction cannot be rated, you never know what people are going to start talking about. It is just crazy and stupid. I don't even know why it was implemented. For what reason? To protect someone or what? You do not protect someone by denying them stuff. By doing so, you only make them more tunnel-visioned, dull and inexperienced for the future. I don't know how it works in US for example, I heard terrible things about the education system there and other things. So be it, do what you want, where is no brain there is no wise solution, but I'm annoyed by those terms carrying world-wide. When I was little kid I remember playing games full of gore and Nazi symbols, full of stuff. When I was 13 everyone was reading porn magazines and watching stuff. And then someone says "no you should not play this game because it is rated that and that". Its like. I'm like "what?" German law for example is especially bad when it comes to this because they like force to remove blood. Blood does exist it is just normal. Looking at blood will not damage you mind.... I don't know, this always drives me crazy. Especially if someone is so willing to fallow that.

[Sarayu]

Yeah f2p has more opportunity for bots, and younger kids. I'm don't like bots, and it depends on thw kid. It may make it harder on botters if it is a f2p game, but I've seen p2p games overrun with bots too. In Dark Age of Camelot if you didnt have a bot you couldnt even compete. It made everyone even, but why not everyone drop the bots and call it even, but not everyone will...its frustrating.

As for kids, I don't mind them. There are plenty of mature kids out there. I started playing mmorpgs when I was 12 on UO, and later I was playing Dark Age of Camelot when I was 14 till I was 20. I could keep up with my guild. I was better at playing the game than 80% of them, and I was definateley more mature than the teenagers.

I personally prefer p2p because it generally pushes for more in-game merit, and usually have a more realistic and stable in-game economy. Thats the whole thing. Why should what happens in game be effected by rl money? Gold farming, and buying and selling items online are my biggest pet peeves, and f2p definately caters to more of that.

[Vunak]

I guess I should clear the whole 13 or older thing up. I wasn't saying kids shouldn't play MMO's, no I'm against that whole censoring crap as well. I mean I was one of those kids playing UO back in the day. The reason I mentioned the restriction is because someone posted that being F2P allows kids that can't afford a subscription to play, and used it as an argument as to why AA should go F2P. I was simply pointing out the flaws in the argument.

The point of accessibility to a younger audience just doesn't fit the concept that AA will be fulfilling. You don't take a mature setting (don't take that as mature rating) and dilute it with a more immature player base. AA is going to have a target audience, that audience is not going to be children. So having a business model that is a target for children just doesn't make sense. Once again was only pointing out flaws in his/her argument.

I feel I need to write this as well. Don't take this as me saying all kids are immature, because I know they aren't. There are some kids out there more mature then adults. But with that the mature kids are going to be in the minority.

Thats all I was getting at.




On the SWTOR banning; there was an investigation before the banning obviously. I do believe the account was restored after the parents contacted support saying he had permission to be playing the game. I could be wrong though and the account could have been terminated. I didn't follow it up.

[Miyafuji]

I don't know. I really never had a tons of friends, so I can only mirror to myself and I can tell you this about targeted audience:

When I was very young, I was playing UT99, Red Alert, SC1. 5 years later I was playing UT2004/Red Alert2/ F.E.A.R. Later I was playing Lineage 2. Now I play Skyrim, I play SC2, I played the Witcher2. The point is.... I still play the same style of games. I dislike themepark MMO, I dislike games like Call of Duty and such... those corridor/cut-scene stuff. And I have this opinion.... i had it 5 years ago... and would have it maybe 10 years ago. The point is, you should never market for age, but only for content. This is the key thing. Just push the idea and style of the game. Do not make any obstacles, or expectations. Thats what I would suggest to the developers. And I thin k AA is a cool game and I personally would sell it online only, and fully unrated.

[Vunak]

Miyafuji, on 28 January 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

I don't know. I really never had a tons of friends, so I can only mirror to myself and I can tell you this about targeted audience:

When I was very young, I was playing UT99, Red Alert, SC1. 5 years later I was playing UT2004/Red Alert2/ F.E.A.R. Later I was playing Lineage 2. Now I play Skyrim, I play SC2, I played the Witcher2. The point is.... I still play the same style of games. I dislike themepark MMO, I dislike games like Call of Duty and such... those corridor/cut-scene stuff. And I have this opinion.... i had it 5 years ago... and would have it maybe 10 years ago. The point is, you should never market for age, but only for content. This is the key thing. Just push the idea and style of the game. Do not make any obstacles, or expectations. Thats what I would suggest to the developers. And I thin k AA is a cool game and I personally would sell it online only, and fully unrated.

Its how the business world revolves not just in the gaming industry. When you develop something whether it be a new movie, game or simply a new cleaning supply you still have a target audience for the product your making. The Twilight movies for example are not targeting men in there 40's. Its targeted at a younger generation and mainly women.

Point is, even if you are consciously marketing your content, as you said, that content is still subconsciously targeting a specific audience; which in turn breaks down to age, gender, and in some cases even race. Even AA source has a target audience; AA fans.

In a business sense Jake Song would never do that with AA. Mainly because your losing out on a massive amount of box sales (not everyone likes digital purchases), and with no rating he wouldn't be able to release his game officially in certain countries because of restrictions.

But this thread is getting extremely sidetracked. I still stand by P2P and for reasons mentioned earlier. Its an all around better business model for a AAA MMO title.

[Miyafuji]

I think it is OK to get sidetracked a bit heh.... it keeps stuff alive.

He will not do it because there are still too many obsolete thinking people which would go for box version even without a reason. For example collectors edition with added value, I would buy it. But just the same game I can download and buy online... why I would ever go for the box.

And also because a lot of the places still has very slow internet, and even limited bandwidth per month... which is just ridiculous since it is 2012 now...

The reason why avoiding the retail market is that it is in very unhealthy state. It is being dominated by just a couple of companies and distributors. Those drive prices very high, they feed on it like a parasites and none is benefiting. The players are suffering, and the game makers are suffering. The only reason why it would be even worth stepping in, is that AA is going to be P2P and so they will earn the big numbers from people over time.

Otherwise.. if I was an developer now for example.... I would just stick to steam or my own online services. The people who cannot download the installer are not much likely to be playing anyway, and avoiding this rotting business/distribution model is just soooo benefiting for all.

And the business model is feeling its obsolete state and inevitable doom, so that's why they are trying to push things like SOPA/PIPA/ACTA to keep it alive.... very sad stuff. Sorry it is 2012... not 1996. I do not go and buy games to the nearest shop...

[Entaro]

Even on a decent connection it takes a while to download the immense 25gb game client. It'll probably get bigger by release too.

[Miyafuji]

Well,... I'm using the second cheapest cable connection available in my country, and it is 25Megabit down. That means it would be done in +- 3hours..... ( if the hosting servers or p2p engine is well made enough off course). And even if it would take a day.... i still feel like clicking at the morning and returning in the evening to find it done, then going somewhere to buy some box knowing that majority of the price I pay is actually not going to go to XLgames..... aaagh.... I will buy it online. Unless they make a collector edition with like.... character figure or such. That would make me buy it.

[Vunak]

Oh I agree completely things like steam and D2D are great and would choose steam over any other distributor any day. I have a whole library of games from Steam, but if its possible I still enjoy having the physical copy of the game. I order through amazon though and they are a good distributor that respects there customers. But its more the publishers fault that things are getting out of hand with things like SOPA/PIPA. Companies like EA that were backing it 100%.

But even the online distribution industry is being corrupted with things like Origin coming to life.

That kind of brings in a new light to the discussion, its not really whether you distribute through systems like steam or if you go through a distributor like Amazon. Its more a long the lines of who you choose as your distributor not the terms of how you do it. If AA were to release from Origin and Amazon only, even though Origin is the online distributor. I personally would go with the boxed version through Amazon, mainly because Origin is a corrupt pile. If it was through Steam and Amazon it would be a toss up. I still enjoy having the boxes version of the game, but Steam is extremely accessible. I would probably lean towards Steam.

[Miyafuji]

The issue with Origin is.... that it is made to cut the market. EA made it to cut the market and cut the growing influence of Steam. EA games in the future will probably be origin only, they would never appear on other services like Steam. Or may, but cut and gutted, like the version from Origin would give you extra IG bonuses so who would ever buy the one on Steam. So the presence of Origin is actually hurting the online distribution, not helping it.

Another issue is, that all those box distributors force certain deals, like "if you are going to sell the game online as well, it may never be cheaper then our box version". So you have this ***** stuff, like the box costing for example 100 and the online version which costs like... 110... even when it makes zero sense because it has zero production costs, it is just another download, so it should technically cost significantly less and the game developer would still get more of it... no! It cannot! Because then the distributor would not offer the best deal and would not leech enough money.... .. *sniff*.

[Kristyana]

P2P i just cant stand an item store and i believe a game with a sub has better content then a mmo without one.

[avatar12]

Miyafuji, on 20 December 2011 - 06:24 PM, said:

YES, that's the point. Archeage off course will be, especially the first month very crafting centered and resource gathering centered. But sooner or later it will turn 50/50 gathering, and fighting for the resources. Alone people will have no chance, and guilds will fight each other for every single resource. Mining alone is too risky and anyone can kill you, so next time you come in 3 people, well they start coming in 4 people so you come with whole party and that is the way how it escalates to those huge guild alliances, huge conflicts and that will just happen, the game points that direction.


Yeah you know imagining the asocial 14yo girl, always sits alone at school, talk with none, eats alone in the school cantine, always having those dark shades under eyes from sleep deprivation with, looking only to come home and sit by the computer till falling asleep on keyboard again, slowly socializes only online and only when game forces that but trough years, becomes awesome in that! Like that reminds me of someone... I mean surely not... I mean yeah uhm, I mean I think it is time for me to shut up for now.....

It's okay to admit that you're anti-social don't be ashamed.

[Asheron]

P2P. F2P with item store provides a huge incentive for developers to create 'advantage' items, and then supersede them with better items a couple months later. I am all for games where player skill is the determinant of success (or enjoyment) and not the player's level or the player's items. Many P2P games focus too much on player level and player items but in theory, they don't have to. Asheron's Call sold their expansions with the lure of new continents to explore and content to experience, not on allowing players to gain an extra 5-levels over everyone else, like Wow. Of course, +/- 5 levels in WoW is obviously huge in PvE, PvP, everything.

[winterleaf]

Neither.

B2P.

[Laetitian]

winterleaf, on 06 February 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

Neither.
B2P.

+1

And that has often been said in the thread... =)

[Cavarath]

B2P will just not happen. Forget this option. No MMO can ever be profitable with such a model. And no GW is no MMO and no GW2 is not B2P but rather "Buy to Pay in the ingame shop".

[Laetitian]

Cavarath, on 08 February 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

B2P will just not happen. Forget this option. No MMO can ever be profitable with such a model. And no GW is no MMO and no GW2 is not B2P but rather "Buy to Pay in the ingame shop".

Wow. You are something of an oracle.
A year ago you knew you weren't interested in this game at all, all the time you know that everything is crap and now you know purest facts about the impact of an ingame shop in a game that is yet to be published.

In order to refer to your unproven argument:
I would be perfectly alright with an ingame shop. What do I care if my opponent has a 20% increase of his crops. That is what I have my guild for; focus on my own main aim instead of my enemies.

That said, GWII is an example.
And I would not know why it should not be: If plenty FTP-concepts work, why would one where there is a plus of ~30-60$ per player introduced to the game not function as well?!

[Cavarath]

All i said is that GW2 will compensate missing monthly pays with its shop. Thats no secret. Its known that it has a shop.
I said NOTHING about the impact the shop will have on GW2.
But you just cant call it B2P if it has a ingame shop. Its different.

And about not being interested in ArcheAge. Yes i was probably wrong about ArcheAge. And im happy that it is like that. I like it a lot more than being right as i was a lot of times before. I have my hope back regarding ArcheAge. Not my faith so.

[Laetitian]

Quote

I said NOTHING about the impact the shop will have on GW2.
But you just cant call it B2P if it has a ingame shop. Its different.

You did say "Buy to Pay". But whether or not you pay is your very own decission.
Which is why I put my argument: There is no necessity in going for an IngameShop, as it is your own decission what you set your aim after.

And I mean, that is why I think Buying to Play is indeed a valid concept. One that shall be proven to work. Again: No reason for it, not to, being basically built on the concept of an F2P.

Quote

I have my hope back regarding ArcheAge. Not my faith so.

Why, let's seek to change that =P

[Amaterasu]

Cavarath, on 08 February 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

And about not being interested in ArcheAge. Yes i was probably wrong about ArcheAge. And im happy that it is like that. I like it a lot more than being right as i was a lot of times before. I have my hope back regarding ArcheAge. Not my faith so.

No no no, ArcheAge is bad, really really. Shoo shoo.