All Posts by SagaBoy

This post came to mind after finishing off the Ever quest II free 7-day free trial 4 days ahead of schedule.  The main question is simply what is the right or wrong way to implement a free trial.  I'll just jump right in by doing a comparison of trials I've used and the results they yielded in no particular order.

Ragnarok Online: It was a free 7-day trial an eternity ago.  Didn't have any restrictions and allowed unlimited access to the game.  After playing the trial I ended up subbing to the game for ~ 2 years.

World of Warcraft BC: I had played WoW up until the Rogue review that was implemented around August 2006.  I saw an offer in my mail from Blizz to try BE for 7 days.  Now though I still found that the game no longer interested me, the trial gave me full access to the game.

Dark Age of Camelot: I honestly can't remember if the trial had any restrictions but I know I ended up subbing for at least 4 months.

Planetside:  A while back there was this thing called "Reserves," which basically meant you could play absolutely free of charge for like 6 month period I think it was, but the catch was you could only level up to BR 6 and CR 2 I think it was.  The restriction wasn't that big of a deal because leveling in PS only gives you more combat options and doesn't necessary make you stronger/ better than your opponent.  In addition to the that you had a wealth of time to actually see how the game worked.  I didn't sub up when reserves were around; however, after quitting WoW I remembered having so much fun with it that I am currently subbed and have been for 3 months now.

City of Hero / Villian:  I forget if it was a 7 or 14 day trial but anyway it too had no restrictions and I ended up subbing to it for 3 months or so at which point tedium of doing the same thing over and over got to me.  Quicky burn out due to my WoW experiences I'll admit.

Star Wars Galaxies: 7-day free trial.  Now when I played this you started out on some kind of station in space and you did some rather lack luster quests.  All of this was to lead up to traveling to the main planet / outpost but *BAM* Restriction...if you want to go on you have to get the full game.  I hadn't been shown enough of anything to be interested so I didn't bother subbing.  If I had to base my entire view of the game off of that heavily quest driven tutorial....no thanks.

Everyquest 2:  This one happened recently.  It is a 7-Day trial called "Play the Fae," which is (at the time of this posting) still available to download.  As a said before, it's a 7-day trial; however, you can only level up to level 10 and travel is rather restricted depending on what race you roll.  Having not been too impressed by the first 10 levels, I've decided not to sub.

OK OK we get it, you've experienced a lot of free trials...what's the POINT??!?!?!?

The point is that for me having experienced WoW and a few other MMO's, I expect a free trial to be just that.  I don't want what might amount to the sugarcoated beginner portion of your game.  I want to know what happens after that.  I get the feeling that SoE has something to hide when they put restrictions on their trials like in Everquest and SWG. 

I know there are a plethora of reasons for restrictions.  For example, in RO and WoW trial accounts became little more than endless loops of bot / gold seller accounts.  I also realize there are players out there that use free trials as a means to kill time and have no intention of buying the game.  That is very true, but shouldn't a company have enough confidence in there game to assume that the end product will be so enticing that it'd make even the most adamant of freeloaders take notice.

I know the risks, it's just that I personally feel that the tactic of handing out free trials works against itself when a better portion of the game is set aside as restricted.  This seems to be something that SoE does more so than other companies but please don't let that insight a SOE flame war.  I'm just making observations.  Furthermore, in the case of EQ 2 I really believe limiting the advancement to level 10 ultimately hurts them more than helps because from my personal experience all the classes seem very similar in the 4 or 5 different categories (i.e. scouts, healers, fighters, etc).  And, though I read on the forums that the class differences become apparent in later levels I won't even have the chance to find out for myself.

And there it is.  I'm just wondering what you all think about the "how to," of free trials. 

Don't get me wrong I too love Max Payne, but what can they really do to move the series forward.  Other than a story update what new game mechanics will / can they add to make pt 3 a reality.  I loved Max Payne 2, but other than a darker film noir feel, part 2 didn't really do anything innovative when compared to the first.  You can only ride a one trick pony so far before someone starts to wonder where the rest of the show is hiding.

I think it's a bit odd that people take this "I refuse to share my wealth," attitude as if that is the main issue.  To me, they come off as rather small minded in that you miss so many things that are included in the "big picture."  Let's suppose that we get national health care and are taxed more heavily.  In exchange for this tax there would need to be an overall increase in payroll period.  A big selling point of anyone's salary is knowing that they get benefits (medical, dental, etc.).  If we have national health care the money companies budget for health packages then becomes more or less free money they can then re-invest back into the company and hopefully the employees.

  If I stood back and really looked at just how many times I go to any doctor, in any given year; the amount typically comes out to about six visits averaging about 20-30 bucks to me each visit.  [I'm being very conservative as I make it a point to see my eye doctor three times a year, my general health doctor twice a year, a dermotologist at least once a year, and other specialty doctors for cancer checks/ physicals twice a year]  Now I've been told that I go to the doctor more times than a normal healthy American but I'll have to take my numbers as the norm simply because I don't much feel like looking up statistics.  Having seen the actual bill from these offices for the tests they run I'm often astonished at just how much all the crap cost, and this is just PREVENTATIVE tests.  I'm quite healthy save for dodgy vision.  My bills alone for just going in when nothing was actually wrong with me rounded out to approximately 2500 for the year, most which was covered by my medical benefits leaving me to only foot the bill on co-pays.

The point I'm trying to make is that in one way or another you get screwed over on the medical end of things as it is.  The question I'd pose is if you'd rather be screwed while helping each other (read: fellow man) or screwed while only "thinking" you're helping yourself.  Of course I'm just an average joe with little to no knowledge of the in's and out's of the industry.  Maybe I'm the one with the narrow view on things.

I'm sorry but I have to side with Perception on this one.  The list of Dad-friendly qualifiers is so...(what's the word) so vague.

1) What are the specifics of a reasonable amount of time?  If EQ2 can be viewed as reasonable then so too can WoW.  Secondly, what qualifiers serve as the benchmark for "progress."  Progress to me might be achieving max level while progress to someone else is a new weapon, or some crafting achievement, in which case one game for sure needs to be removed from the list.

2) To be entertained?  I'm not going to even speak on how open-ended that one is.

3) You don't have to invest an insane amount of time in EQ2 or CoX?  I guess that all comes down to the ends vs. the means argument, as well as your definition of progress.

4) A game that doesn't interfere with family?  Um...it's a game, if you don't plan and schedule around family time or don't find a social network that understands your parental responsibilities then the fault lies with "you" not the game.  While I played Everquest, WoW, CoX, Rag, etc we always had people who would leave at the drop of a dime to attend to family matters and it was perfectly fine with us (the guild/outfit).  I don't see how a game can ever interfere with family.

I guess this comes of negative but that list is just so subjective that it's sickening.   I suppose I see what you're trying to do but in the end it very much comes off as a shameless plug for your site.  I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, just that a list with baseless criteria really carries no weight for anyone other than the small group which supports it.  If you had done a list that had more formal indicators such as:

A) Game allows one to level from base level to max level in a reasonable amount of time with steady loot acquisition.

-notice how I at least attempt to define the standards upon which I base "progression"

B) Allows for active, thought evoking, and fun game play with a minimal amount of time spent on remedial tasks.

-I again try to quantity what "entertainment" is.

C) A game that shows tangible character progression per hour/minute of time invested in the arena of....(gear, skill points, etc)

D) A game with mechanics structured around "short burst" play.

I'd preface this post with a question.  If I were to knowingly do the immature thing when I knew what the mature thing was...am I an immature person?

Definitions of immature:

Now for me a game, especially one of this genre(MMOs) pushes one to truly break away from reality.  You create an in-game avatar, you level it up and dress/customize it as you see fit.  I say this because though I don't act immature for the most part, I know I have my moments where I could care less about the right thing to do.  After working in a lab for 6 hours and then researching some problem associated with the lab work for an additional 4 hours; sometimes you just want to break loose.  And, sadly enough, when I choose to break loose often coincides with when I've logged into the "virtual world," of my choosing.

Now I have the tool set availble to step back and view my actions of inappropriate (what you'll call immature) behavior, but I can choose to go down that path because of my personal desire.

The point I'm attempting to make (and failing) is that maybe immaturity is the wrong word to use when trying to qualify a community associated with something that asks you to to become something other than yourself to begin with.  Everyone plays for his/her own reasons and maybe, sometimes people play to act like immature twats as a form of stress relief.

So, there really is no way for developers and players to make online communites feel more mature, unless you do as other have done in the past and enforce strict rules upon the community that inevitably drive away both the bad and good elements of said community.  If I had to suffer through the rules of good etiquette at work only to PAY to play in a world that enforces those same rules...why bother.  I'd also like to state that for me, maturity and common decency walk a very fine line.  While not necessarily being one in the same, they are closely related.

**Not saying I act like an idiot on a constant basis, I just like knowing that once in a while you can without be slapped by rules and regulations...if that makes any sense.

Just stop it.  Stop it right now.  I too have played that game and fall on the opposite end of the spectrum.  Complete grindfest with even more of a grindfest way to level skills.  Alas, I've come to expect more from MMO's so maybe it's just me.  Go ahead and try it - I know I quit and that was back when the game was entirely free.

I don't know very much about SoE but just from playing Planetside I can assume this is nothing more than a marketing strategy.  SoE isn't stupid or overly naive.  They know that a lot of people shy away from any "one" game that may be under their control.  The total value of any one SoE game in the MMO market doesn't equate to much of the gamer population; however, take the cumulative earning potential across each game and you have a light-weight WoW type following.

I started to think about this a bit more with the recent Planetside monthly fee increase.  I mean the game is losing people and developement has slowed to a snail's pace...so where is the justification for "increasing" the monthly fee to 15 bucks.  Then it dawned on me that a station pass is only 30 bucks.  Statistically speaking, the chance that I'd play another MMO (SoE or not) is pretty high.  Now add in the fact that for all intents and purposes each SoE MMO is relatively unique, and it stands to reason that maybe I'll end up having an interest in 2 SoE games.  I'd then have one of two options.  Pay for one and refuse to pay the other OR hype myself up to the point where I rationalize the station pass as being a good thing because I'd gain access to a whole bunch of of MMO's even though I know I'll never actually be whole-heartedly interested in them.

Once, I've purchased a station pass it would be harder still to actually stop using it simply because the logic behind the pass is actually pretty good.  It actually seems like quite the deal when SoE is slowly pushing for all their games to have a base price of 15 bucks a month.  So now even though I may not actually use the full potential of a station pass (to be fair no one really can unless you literally play atleast 20 hrs a day) I have it and have fooled myself into believing that I'm coming out ahead.  The catch to all this is that an MMO should be so immersing that you would only ever need one, but SoE knows that no one MMO they currently have is worth a damn.  (Personal opinion no flames needed)

So what does this do for SoE?  Oddly enough this gives them WoW like earning on PoS games.  I think the strategy is quite ingenious.  This ensures a steady amount of cash flow for lesser developed easily abandoned games.  If you get sick of one game you'll inevitably try the next piece of garbage in the list if only because it's there for your convenience.

Then SoE goes a step farther and actively seeks to acquire none crap games to make the pass seem even more desireable.  Blinded by the new game, you again will rationalize the 30 bucks and fool yourself into believing that it's a good deal.

The more I think about it the more it seems that a station pass ensures that SoE can continue to make and under develope PoS games and then basically hault development and await the next big thing.  No matter how you cut it, you will play one game more than the other and that will lead to you basically paying 15 bucks for the game you actually play and distributing the other 15 to the long forgotten PoS games that clutter the list which you occassion play.  I mean it really is a gem of a strategy to ensure continued financial support.

The plan is for the long-term.  Sure as assuredly as every great civilization falls - so too will any great MMO.  Wow was a blast for me for 2 years and now I hate it, but that's Blizzard's one trick MMO pony.  SoE on the other hand seems to more or less have a plan to monopolize the market "in the long-term" because they've actually planned for player burn out.  I'm done spouting on about my biased conspiracy theory so I'll end the post here.

I actually like the idea.  I mean after being deprived of capital raids in WoW due to bad design; I'd rather not have a capital than to worry with faction imbalances.  Truth be told I actually like being outnumbered in the underdog position so long as class balance isn't the issue holding my side back.  All things equal, the uderdog force often "has" to put e-drama aside and work together.  If it can happen with the WoW community I have absolute faith that WAR will be ok.  I say let the drums of war beat on and the feeble fall where they may.

If you're anything like me, then one good guild can make every other guild feel like absolute crap.  I'd say enjoy the journey and take the bad things each guild has and turn it into comedy.  Once you do find a good guild that you actually love, it'll be the best thing and the worst thing that ever happens to you.  You'll log in and actually want to speak to the member of your guild.  You'll actually get along and can handle the politics of the guild with little stress.  The downside is that the guild will become some dear to you that it becomes the "one," thing holding you to the game sometimes.  You soon notice this fact and start resenting the good guild for being....so...good.  It's all just a vicious cycle.  Do yourself a favor and just enjoy the entire guild hunting experience.

A coupla things about your post annoy me.  Firstly you keep saying "No, other MMORPGS didnt make your gear obsolete every expansion."  As far as I know WoW has only given you one true expansion.  (this assumes you follow the EQ definition of expansion which means 30-50 every year for new content)    So in their first expansion they manage to make a lot of the old gear obsolete.  Now far be it for me to see that they raised the level cap an additional 10 levels.  Also I'd have to neglect the fact that leading up to 60 I changed gear just about as often as a drank health pots.  In a game that basically centers around gear advancement I'm a bit awed by the fact that you wish it to be a stagnant thing.  I mean if your gear wasn't constantly becoming outdated exactly what would be left for you in WoW.

You make the case that gear in other games didn't become obsolete for several expansions.  If I look at where WoW started and where it is now in terms of PvE then I'd say WoW does not in fact, have a trend of making PvE gear absolute.  (even when considered against PvP)  There was Onyxia, then MC, then BWL, then AQ 20/40, and finally Naxx.  (forgive if I fumble as it has been a long time since I played WoW)  When those dungeons were added gear has a VERY linear progression to it.  You needed gear from MC to have a prayer in BWL, and even after getting BWL on farm there were still some bonuses from MC gear (such as priest 3 set item bonus) that people simply would not do without.

Secondly, you have this chip on your shoulder as if Blizzard has to answer to you and your personalized play style.  Why should the game have to cater to you?.  Why does every aspect of the game that disagrees with how you think things should be, have to be wrong or "lousy."  I, for one, was a pretty hardcore raider and I found the changes to TBC to be a breath of fresh air.  It was tedious work getting 40 people together on a continuous basis and dealing with loot politics.  Does that mean that Blizzard, or more specifically WoW, is not lousy?

PvE is skill based and PvP is time based.  I suppose I can grant you that claim as I've went though the hell of both grinds; however the PvP grind goes exponentially faster if you actually have skill and can kill enemies in multiple sitiuations.  When I did the grind, more kills, meant more honor, which meant I got my gear that much faster.  Next, you have beef with how fast classes can die in WoW.  Again, another game mechanic that you don't agree with makes the game lousy for you.  I rather appreciate the fact that battles were over and done with rather quickly.  Playing as a rogue once I was out of stealth literally every second was critical to the outcome of a battle.  That for me was exciting and gave me a bit of an adrenaline rush.

You last bit about allowing someone with skill to kill multiple enemies pretty much tells me right off how much *skill* you had.  People who embrace game mechanics and put in the time to gain the upper hand, do just that.  Granted gear gives you a slight to moderate advantage which can not be denied.

In summary, I'd ask you to re-evaluate the way you perceive things and ask if the game was lousy...or were you just a lousy player?  Sounds like an elitist question I know, but consider that the game was not made for you, and it has its own ruleset created by and possibly for someone that isn't you.

The bashing rap music received in this thread was nowhere near what I thought it'd be.  For me personally there is no better or worse when referring to music.  There are terrible extremes in rap music as well as rock.

From my own experiences I find that rap music tends to be a lot more clever than any other genre, and often times holds more of a reference to life in general.  I'm not well versed enough in "rock" to speak with any degree of certainty about it; however from my expedition into the category of alternative rock I will say that the music is definitely easier to listen to and comprehend.  For me though, the tempo, syncopoation, and pure lyrical ingenuity found in rap just can't be duplicated in any other genre.  There also seems to be more musical freedom (and I use the term loosely) present in rap music.  One of my favorite things about rap is the tendency for artists to take some old song, mix it, update it, and give it a whole new flavor.  Songs like Lil Wayne - Earthquake or Kayne West's - Through the Wire.  I yield that this phenomenon is not seen only in rap but often times, for me, it feels as though the music is given a new type of power because so many of the melodic undertones of the old are laced into the underbelly of what seems to be a whole new beat.

I suppose the majority of people right off rap music because of what mainstream rap puts out and I grant that, that opinion is fair.  I just feel a lot of people really miss out by accessing the face value of rap music and not realizing the pure genius behind it.

Originally posted by Gotrede
I bet Blizzard would want all the glory to themselves.. "Blizzard's a great company! Look at them actually fighting the gold farmers instead of all the other lame companies!" BAH!

Have you ever heard the expression "Damned if ya do - Damned if ya don't," because your reply epitomizes that expression.  A previous thread on this subject criticized Blizzard for not going after IGE because they wanted to simply give off the impression that they cared.  Now even after they actually choose to invest the money it'll take to bring up a lawsuit against IGE, you now spit in their face and criticize the method in which they choose to fight.  I mean Blizzard really is damned if they do take action or damned if they don't.

This is not meant as a personal attack at the poster I quoted so much as just a general notification of the irony that I often find on these mmorpg.com forums.

*I only skimmed through some of the previous posts.

The thing that boggles my mind about the whole concept of homosexuality is how one is viewed as close-minded or a homophobe if he/she doesn't "accept" it.  Even the term "acceptance," implies a compromise, and a compromise usually entails the relinquishing of something one side sees as fair or just (even if only by a slight degree).

I was brought up in a Christian house hold, but as I began to experience life for myself, my outlook changed.  I only say this because it was due to this that I actually got a better understanding of this homosexual phenomenon.  For me, being gay isn't wrong because of some Christian doctrine - it's just outside of the norm.  The fact that I scuff at the very concept of it doesn't make me any less of a person.

The more I think about it, the more this comes to be nothing more than a moot philosophical point.  Some time ago I took a couple of classes and in them something very powerful was handed to me.  One was the concept of Sophism and the other was the concept of "relative pleasure."

A Sophist, in the most general of terms, is someone who believed that man held absolute knowledge.  If you attempt to read into them you'll quickly see that their argument collaspes in upon itself due to the concept of rhetoric; however, I digress.  Basically the same method of arguing "they" used to dispute facts is exactly what I see going on when relating to the topic of homosexuality.  To put it bluntly people on both sides of the argument will use whatever tools (read bullshit) necessary to try to prove that they are right, when in reality neither side knows two shits about anything.  Right and wrong will never been known.  The only thing that we will ever see is one side's attempt to rationale his/her side of the argument using the morale foundation that he/she was built up over the years?  So who is right?  Who really knows?  For me, homosexuality is unnatural - that's just what I believe.

So what then, makes a person gay?  Recall the previously mentioned concept of relative pleasure.  Basically some guy (I'll look it up if I absolutely have to) made a statment which basically said that "pleasure is law."  That is a very very rough translation and doesn't even feel quite right even now as I type it.  The basic argument for him was that things taken in moderation begat pleasure.  His argument was later countered when someone made the point that pleasure is relative to  he person.  What one person enjoys and WHY he/she enjoys it does not follow a formula.  The only thing that is known is that we choose what we allow to bring us pleasure.  From here they go on to give the example of sadists, etc, POINT BEING that as a straight guy I will never understand what makes a gay person enjoy being gay.  To speak more sharply on the point - if I ever do understand and accept  the rationale behind what gives a person pleasure by being gay then in truth I would have to be gay myself.  It's a stupid paradox that simply says that I like what I like and he/she likes what he/she likes.

There will always be holes in the logic of a particular argument simply because we as humans don't know anything in absolute truth.  This means that the art of refutation will always exist.  To put it simply, we don't have divine wisdom.  Sure you can read a few books and pray to our  respective gods, etc - but at the end of the day the ONLY thing you can do is try to believe that our side holds the closest resemblance of truth.

To the previous posters bashing one another and trying so desperately to justify your side, I'd say just let it go.  Unless you can accept that wisdom is knowing when to say you don't know then just be done with the whole affair.  There is a whole lot more I'd like to say on the topic but it'd come from the boring realm of physics and would be lost on most people, so I'll end the post here. (I'm not being arrogant...just honest)

I will be playing devil's advocate in this thread so if you're easily offended I wouldn't bother reading.

Every time something like this happens I can't help but view the American response with anything other than heavy handed irony.  It's no secret that the Islamic faith covets the sacredness of their women and imposes harsh penalties upon them should they break them.  That's their society.  The young girl was not born yesterday.  She was 17 years old - I won't believe for a second that she was dumb to the fact that what she was doing might be punishable by death.

Next there is the cruelty involved in exactly "how" she died.  She was stoned to death by 8 or 9 men who acknowledge the same or similar religious principles as she did.  In no way is this a compassionate way to deal with things but who are we (assuming you're American like myself) to speak on anyone else being cruel?  People have been lync'ed, dragged behind moving vehicles, burned alive, pulled apart, and castrated as LEGAL punishment for crimes in AMERICAN HISTORY.  Who are we to then point the finger at another culture that is only adhering to the religious foundation upon which their society is built?

For an American to scrutinize any other culture for cruelty be it based on religious or political mandates for punishment, is nothing more than idiotic hypocrisy.  And don't give me that speech about reform and the "America of today," because as stated in a previous reply some people feel that the old ways should be brought back.