@Geertvdheide I don't think people are adverse to playing an MMO that is P2P - I think they have a problem with a P2P model for a Themepark MMO that has a very finite amount of content. Let's consider a few things:
WoW started right smack dab in the midst of the P2P glory days. It was launched right on the boot heels of about 3-4 major MMO titles that totally bombed because of lame development timing standards and QA testing (SOE had no competition, what do you expect?) Even though WoW at the time was pretty buggy and some long queues... it was YEARS ahead of any of the competition at the time. Not only that, it took Blizzard literally 3-4 months to iron out all of the glaring flaws. That's good service. But, WoW is a P2P service and it is a Themepark MMO. What's the problem?
WoW today has what... 9 years worth of content? It's not exactly content lite. There's plenty of stuff there to warrant someone shelling out $15 a month. These new Themepark MMOs that are coming out... people eat through the content in a matter of weeks. There was a dude on my server in SWTOR who was level 50 the very first day of Live. He had the week of headstart to play, and by the time the rest of the world joined him - he was already done with the game. Why on earth would he spend $15 a month on doing the same daily crap? THAT is exactly why the P2P model is not working. They're competing with leveling speeds against 9 years worth of WoW content.... WoW can afford to let its players burn through content.... it has the content to burn through. It wasn't always like that, though...
Anyway, I think the answer to the P2P question is a good Sandbox game that doesn't hold your hand every step of the way, or tell you where to go everytime you finish something. Look at EVE Online. Yeah - I know it's a niche game... that doesn't matter. What matters is it has absolutely no reason whatsoever to even think about going F2P. Why? Maybe it isn't trying to be something it wasn't supposed to be, sure. My guess is that people continue to pay and play it because they can do whatever they want - they don't burn through the content in a week.
Well... this is very disappointing but it is also very unsurprising. Bioware took absolutely no risks with this game, and it shows. They made a crisp WoW clone, and then completely ruined it as soon as it went Live. They have added nothing to the game that shouldn't have already been there in the first place. They have added ZERO content in nearly 8 months, other than a single WZ map. The Legacy system is... pointless. It's a special title put on a pretty basic achievement system most other games already have. There is no guild support. PvP is a total wreck (it was the FIRST thing they screwed up.) "Space" is a total laughing-stock waste of time. Ever since the game launched, all they've done is redesign and nerf what made it through Beta with a pretty unanimous "thumbs up" from the players. The worlds, while numerous and somewhat expansive, are dull and boring with "tileset" written all over them. It was fun while it lasted, but there is nothing about it that I felt was going to stand the test of time. I think the problem with MMO's is not that a P2P business model doesn't work or that F2P is "becoming very competitive"; it's the fact that Themepark MMO's do not work with P2P models. F2P models are where failed MMO's go - and Bioware even considering it tells me that's exactly what they think about it. Not even a year into it, and they're jumping ship. To be fair - I think this is EA more than anything. MMO's as a P2P game worked a lot better back when they were more like Sandboxes - that's what this genre needs: a good Sandbox title with some budget behind it.
I think the whole story is going to be utter bullshit, to be perfectly honest. I'm sure it will be a fun game, and it will probably "OOOO" and "AWE" people over how "dark" and "gritty" and "real" the story is. But... the whole thing is purely fantasy bullshit from the word go. Here's the deal - want to know what makes Spiderman a believable character? Nevermind the whole spider stuff. Even without the super-powers, Peter Parker would STILL be an interesting character. Here's why: He constantly suffers from the duality between providing for the needs, safety, and care of every human being in New York City vs... just doing whatever the hell he wants to do. This is the core of what makes Peter Parker/Spiderman a great character to begin with. He is a great character, because his core is totally based in reality. Men understand this very simple and very basic concept. "I want to do this.... but this here really needs to be done, even if it means I can't do what I want." This is called sacrifice. We do this on a constant basis. Lara never had a character outside of fantasy. She was a female character written by a male who has no understanding of male/female social psyches. "Rape victim turned strong, independent woman." Bullshit. Rape doesn't make a woman strong or independent. She doesn't wear that shit like a girl scout patch of honor. If anything - it does the exact OPPOSITE. I'm so sick of this crap running rampant in our media. Anyway... I really hope they have something better than that planned. Everything else aside, if "surviving rape" ends up being the turning point that really "changes" this Lara into the Lara we presume she is supposed to be (even though her character has always been paper thin), then all I can do is hope that people are smart enough to realize the bullshit when they see it. What would be WAY more awesome, and WAY more realistic, and WAY more interesting, is if her turning point (her character core conflict) was to find her way back to being able to put her trust in someone (anyone) once again, AFTER she was raped. Her entire reasoning to all the dungeon spelunking that ensues later in her life, is really just her trying to defy that very basic, human need - to need and understand and appreciate the value and joy that others can bring to your life. She constantly seeks danger, and adventure in these tombs of solitude because it's the only thing that she can identify with. She is alone, lonely, desperate to LIVE once again. She isn't looking for treasure - she is looking for herself - someone she lost a long time ago. Anytime someone tries to get close to her, she runs away, again and again on some other adventure - she uses it as an excuse. She doesn't really care about the treasure and reward (she's stupid rich anyway.) She just wants to be alone because she is dealing with the abuse that she experienced. The "fame" haunts her, because she is ashamed of when she was "weak". When she is Tomb Raiding, she is actually deep in thought - she should start running into manifestations of her mind in these games, by the way - constructs that represent her fears and struggles. THAT would be interesting, and THAT would be realistic, and THAT would be the positive character image that girl gamers could identify with and relate to that isn't full of bullshit and make-believe, and male gamers could actually appreciate rather than her hotness. That sort of story is worth telling and reading/listening to. Anything short of that is just a waste of time and money if you ask me.
I agree with most of this article. I don't agree with the Fallout 3 notion completely, however. I think in some respects, when the music was part of the atmosphere and story (like the orchestral fanfare) then yes, it maybe was a little out of place - like Bethesda put a little too much cliche on it. They might have done better with a different styling - I'm not sure. I mean... SOMETHING had to be there, but I think the actual music was a little too generic to be worth-while. But I think the radio portions are highly important to the game. Those old tunes from the 30's and 40's, the old jazz... they were there as remnants of the world before. To me, it's like they played that music, because it's all they had, and it was weird because you know the inhabitants might not completely understand the memory experiences the music is supposed to invoke. I remember I used to take some of my own songs and plug them into the game. Songs that were from the same era and would fit with the theme. It was great! But the minute I tried something different... I had to take it out of the game... because the rest of the game was designed with a very specific theme in mind. I think my favorite game of all time (musically) would have to be Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. The music wasn't just generic fanfare. It was emotionally charged - and I still remember every single melody from that OST, because they were written so well.
To be perfectly honest, I could care less about Blizzcon.... or Blizzard for that matter. I may be alone in my thinking, but in all honesty, Blizzard has only made one game that I would consider "worth playing": Diablo. I don't like RTS, so all of their Craft games automatically go out the window. I've tried just about every major RTS since Empire at War, and the fact is... I just don't find them very fun. So for me, other than that, the only other thing is Diablo 2... which I didn't play all the way through. Why? Because it was basically the same game as Diablo, and by then... it was boring. "Click the same button to do everything - YAY!" No thanks. Diablo 3 looks like it might be actually worth the wait, but we will see. And I must say I am a little curious to see what this Titan project is all about. But, I just don't see how that is worth any amount of money when I will hear about it the very next day for free.
RaiceGeriko's comments