| Lanys Forums http://www.lanysboard.com/forums/ |
|
| Wizardry Online http://www.lanysboard.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=9045 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Elemynt_Fyrestorm [ Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:48 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Wizardry Online |
Touting to be a "hardcore" MMO. Key aspect is Permadeath. hmmm http://www.wizardrythegame.com/ |
|
| Author: | Vanamar [ Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:52 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
Permadeath is a nonstarter. |
|
| Author: | CakvalaSC [ Thu Nov 15, 2012 7:18 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
Doing EQ Beta at the moment, I signed up for beta for this. But the perma death thing .. blah and ew. |
|
| Author: | Fribur [ Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:28 AM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
Is it permadeath AND pvp? |
|
| Author: | noojens [ Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:28 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
Concept looks cool, but SOE's new "free to play" (a.k.a. pay to play) model is fucking awful. Pass. |
|
| Author: | CakvalaSC [ Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:57 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
noojens wrote: Concept looks cool, but SOE's new "free to play" (a.k.a. pay to play) model is fucking awful. Pass. You may not see it as popular but EQ general population has increased due to this, dramatically. SOE has moved all of their games to this model with micro purchases, and soon to be DLC content. |
|
| Author: | Givin Wetwillies [ Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:55 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
EQ's F2P model isn't as stupid as the plan they have for their other games. EQ2 and Vanguard are barely playable. But let's be honest. If you're playing EQ1 today, you're not playing for the game. You're playing because you have other ties there. |
|
| Author: | CakvalaSC [ Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:45 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
I agree with that Givin, I still cant figured out who still plays Vanguard. |
|
| Author: | Tranthas [ Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:58 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
I didn't play them. What's the model like? |
|
| Author: | noojens [ Fri Nov 23, 2012 10:03 AM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
CakvalaSC wrote: You may not see it as popular but EQ general population has increased due to this, dramatically. SOE has moved all of their games to this model with micro purchases, and soon to be DLC content. I'm not really concerned with popularity, Cak. I get that opening up a watered-down version of the game for free is good for SOE's bottom line. It gets new customers in, strings 'em along, then hooks 'em. I'd wager that the average EQ1 player these days actually pays more than they used to under the monthly subscription model. The biggest issue I have with F2P is that when I play an MMORPG, I play in part to compete with other people. I like to compete on even footing. I don't like the idea that someone can just pay their way to uberness. It's the same problem that people had with people ebaying plat and toons in the old days of EQ1, just replace Yantis with SOE. The other issue I have is that F2P is just kind of a sleazy business model. "The first one's always free" is a familiar phrase, but not one that I had heard applied to MMORPGs until a year or two ago. Givin Wetwillies wrote: But let's be honest. If you're playing EQ1 today, you're not playing for the game. You're playing because you have other ties there. Yup. Most of us play for the people. Givin Wetwillies wrote: EQ's F2P model isn't as stupid as the plan they have for their other games. EQ2 and Vanguard are barely playable. What's the plan for the other games? |
|
| Author: | Tranthas [ Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:20 AM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
Foul. You're calling it "The First Hit's Free" when you want to make it sleazy, when you and I both lived through the period where more legitimate businesses preferred the concept of the "free sample", without the stigma of the earlier phrasing. What the F2P models are going for is the latter, and you're waiting until just now in your history to point out that they're the same thing. |
|
| Author: | noojens [ Sat Nov 24, 2012 12:03 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
The difference is that shampoo or toothpaste or whatever free samples you're talking about aren't addictive. I think we've all been around long enough to recognize that, for some people, MMOs are. Call me crazy, but I think that fact has ethical implications. |
|
| Author: | Vanamar [ Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:20 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
That's like blaming Grey Goose for someone being an alcoholic, because a bar decided to give out free sample shots as a promotion one night. |
|
| Author: | Fribur [ Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:14 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
I didn't see anyone blaming anyone. |
|
| Author: | Tranthas [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 5:51 AM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
All valid points. This is a touchy and delicate subject, and I'll handle it with the compassion and tact with which you've all come to know and love me. I agree that MMOs are addictive, but I also agree that the responsibility to be... well, responsible, lies with the user. We are nobody's helpless victims; each new game requires you to make enough intelligent choices to give them a credit card number, and ultimately we "victims" all have to remember we're adults with the ability to withhold informed consent. The onus is not on game manufacturers to protect escapists from their predilections. Their choice to make a game that suits that escape does not amount automatically to enabling your addiction -- enabling is a crime of intent, and those folks have never met you. Man up and break off if that's what you need to do. Resources exist to help you if that's what you need; I help fund some of the local ones. Meanwhile, you'll malign no legitimate businesses with failing to protect you from your own demons -- those are strictly yours to fight. |
|
| Author: | randy [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 10:05 AM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
Nothing about this is touchy and delicate. |
|
| Author: | Vanamar [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 12:18 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
Fribur wrote: I didn't see anyone blaming anyone. Saying something has "ethical implications" seems blame-ful to me. |
|
| Author: | Tranthas [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:44 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
Randy, your sarcasm detector is on the blink again. "Ethical implications" isn't automatically blame, but it's easily used as prep for blame in the next breath. |
|
| Author: | Fribur [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 2:58 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
To those of you reacting negatively to just the words "ethical implications" I have to ask-- is it your belief that there is no ethical implications at all to knowingly enabling addictive behavior? If you believe in the case of MMOs there isn't, but you do believe there is for offering alcohol to an alcoholic, could you describe why you have that inconsistency? What makes it different? If you believe that there are no ethical implications of any kind for either situation, do you believe it wrong for bartenders to be told the cut people off? I'm looking to clarify where your line is-- at what point is it perfectly ok vs. there being some level of culpability. At what point is your culpability zero? |
|
| Author: | randy [ Sun Nov 25, 2012 4:45 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
This game's probably a piece of the larger pile of shit that is MMORPGs. Talking about it any further is such a waste, especially when arguing for or against a Free-to-play model. This is stupid. It's nearly impossible to make a profitable game at $15 per month per user, and it's much harder to make a quality game under those budget constraints. Free to play is the way this genre is going to continue existing, because that is a way to deliver half a game at launch and finance the rest with the profits. This is a persistent service that requires constant development, and you can't do that with $15 subscriptions from an existing customer base that rarely increases. |
|
| Author: | Tranthas [ Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:39 AM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
There are other, um, ethical implications to buying stock on margin -- which is really what companies are doing when they sell you ten levels as free-to-play and expect ad revenue to fund the rest of the game. I agree with the point you've made, Randy, but what they're doing is still risky as hell. They've just found a way to take all the risks with other people's money. |
|
| Author: | Tranthas [ Mon Nov 26, 2012 3:40 AM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
Fribur, your challenge deserves an answer and I'm writing one, but this thread's derailed enough; this will get its own. |
|
| Author: | randy [ Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:21 AM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
Are any MMORPGs ad supported? Free to play doesn't mean you're being sold ads, it means you're paying $1 to regen your mana faster. |
|
| Author: | noojens [ Mon Nov 26, 2012 12:05 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
Tranthas wrote: I agree that MMOs are addictive, but I also agree that the responsibility to be... well, responsible, lies with the user. We are nobody's helpless victims; each new game requires you to make enough intelligent choices to give them a credit card number, and ultimately we "victims" all have to remember we're adults with the ability to withhold informed consent. The onus is not on game manufacturers to protect escapists from their predilections. Their choice to make a game that suits that escape does not amount automatically to enabling your addiction -- enabling is a crime of intent, and those folks have never met you. Man up and break off if that's what you need to do. Resources exist to help you if that's what you need; I help fund some of the local ones. Meanwhile, you'll malign no legitimate businesses with failing to protect you from your own demons -- those are strictly yours to fight. /shrug, I don't disagree with you on any particular point. I'm also a fan of individual freedoms and responsibilities. I never claimed that MMO addicts are helpless victims, nor did I blame game companies for enabling them. We all draw our own lines, and for me a business model that specifically trades on the addictive nature of a product crosses a line. Your mileage may vary. Our society is full of addictive things, some of which we condone, some we regulate to some degree, others we outlaw. It's an odd consensus that emerges out of a sort of ethical dissonance. We seem to have collectively decided that selling cigarettes is okay (as long as we tax the shit out of 'em!), but selling cigarettes to people under 18 is not okay, and cigarette companies must inform consumers of the health impacts. Some states have banned giving out free packs of cigarettes, some cigarette companies have fought those bans, and so on. Similarly, selling booze is okay, but not after 2AM, and not to people under 21 or to severely inebriated people, and not on Sundays (in some states), and not if it's over a certain alcohol content in certain counties in Utah.... Anyhoo, my wider point about F2P is that where's the fun in pwning n00bs when they can just buy levels or a vorpal blade or whatever. Yawn. |
|
| Author: | Neesha the Necro [ Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:43 AM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
You guys talking about "ethical implications" of are being idiots. We're not talking about giving out free smokes or liquor to kids. We're talking about VIDEO GAMES. Newsflash: VIDEO GAMES have had DEMOS, which amount to the same thing, for a very long time. |
|
| Author: | randy [ Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:05 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
The zero responses to Tranthas's misguided effort post I think make a fine testament to how dumb the conversation is. |
|
| Author: | Masjaun [ Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:47 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
Is this game going to be the famed "EQ Killer" that we've been waiting for? |
|
| Author: | Givin Wetwillies [ Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:34 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
randy wrote: The zero responses to Tranthas's misguided effort post I think make a fine testament to how dumb the conversation is.
|
|
| Author: | CakvalaSC [ Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:12 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
Masjaun wrote: Is this game going to be the famed "EQ Killer" that we've been waiting for? No this game is just another branch of the SOE tree. The EQ Killer suppose to be EQ Next whenever that game gets going. |
|
| Author: | Tranthas [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:39 AM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
randy wrote: The zero responses to Tranthas's misguided effort post I think make a fine testament to how dumb the conversation is. I dunno, Randy, 31 views on a board with 8 regular users seems pretty high-impact to me. If you'd had anything to say on the topic itself, you'd have tried to shit on my face in the thread itself; that your response has to be dug out of this thread kind of suggests that you don't have anything to say there, so it's a little odd that you should open your mouth at all, but it's a free board. By contrast, I'm the first response to your attempt at derision, so that's 31-1. Your move? |
|
| Author: | randy [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 10:42 AM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
lol are you really trying to play big man re: ethics in business |
|
| Author: | Lich Ekilam [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:25 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
Its a game. Their free to play model. I fail to see where ethics comes in at all. If people dont like it, then dont play it. Nuff said. |
|
| Author: | CakvalaSC [ Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:00 PM ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Wizardry Online |
I got into beta with this and played it for about 15 min and logged in anger.. Really really stupid .. But ill give it another try with a longer window of playing. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|