Rift

[Funk]

Honorary topic. Don't care about this game in the least.

[Red Dragon]

Re: Rift

Played the beta, unless you want a prettier looking WoW, you really shouldn't care.

[Funk]

Re: Rift

I will continue playing ugly WoW.

</topic>

[Alzar]

Re: Rift

I got it and made a hot chick

[Funk]

Re: Rift

Post a pic here so Mora can lick her.

[Ryner]

Re: Rift

Why in the god damn world do these new MMOs think they can succeed by copying WOW? Especially since every new MMORPG not named WOW has gone free to play within like a year, that kind of suggests a success rate of 0.

Back when Everquest was the king of the market other games kept trying to do kinda new things and kept failing because you don't beat the established leader without a considerable effort. They failed even when trying new things and these WOW-inspired games are going to fail more certainly than that because they're just WOW with minor variations.

It wasn't until WOW came along with it's near-complete innovation of the genre (and company credentials/established franchise to back it up) that Everquest fell. And because WOW has a way more powerful stranglehold than Everquest ever did (I remember how it was considered amazing for Everquest to have 200,000 players) it's going to send every opponent to the land of free-to-play until somebody does what Blizzard did and completely changes the genre.

[d2king10]

Re: Rift

Move along guys, nothing to see here. Once Guild Wars 2 comes out we can come out of hiding.

[Red Dragon]

Re: Rift

Why in the god damn world do these new MMOs think they can succeed by copying WOW? Especially since every new MMORPG not named WOW has gone free to play within like a year, that kind of suggests a success rate of 0.

To be fair. This is a really nice WoW clone.

That's what this game set out to do, to try and steal some WoW players by making the combat and mission structure similar, yet visually different. In fact there's some review on a wow addicts website that talks all about this and says "would a WoW player play this?" the answer was a yes.

It tries new things, the rifts system is neat. The class system is also a nice way to customize your character. Yet, of what I played, rifts end fairly quickly and are just "Kill X in this amount of time" and the classes just went into "best dps, best tank, best control, best heal" combinations.

It's not bad. It's just not brand new. Even Champions Online, a game that did horrible until thier F2P hit a little while ago, did more things to really try something new with the setting and combat. It was shown that new things doesn't equate to money as the game did horrible after a couple months on launch, and how expensive games are to make these days. It's safer to try and copy something already established as a money cash cow. Even at the end, most people wouldn't play it because they already have a "level 80 orc inquisitor" on WoW and no reason to switch over.

Guild Wars 2, from the talks and my big fat topic there, sounds to be trying something new. Not only that but they don't really have a release date either, why? Because Guild Wars 1 is the 7th most bought PC game in the world (including expansions, and according to wikipedia). They can afford time and money to doing something new, as even if only a quarter of the playerbase that bought the first game, buys the game, they've already made a crap load of money.

it's going to send every opponent to the land of free-to-play until somebody does what Blizzard did and completely changes the genre.

Free To Play isn't bad! It's GREAT. Turbine and ArenaNet have already shown that F2P or B2P are cash cows in of themselves. It's a lot better than going DEAD like APB did and EA had already poured and crap-stain amount of money into it.

Jack Emmert has a great way of thinking about it. Mostly because he works for Cryptic and their games aren't doing to hot (personally I love Champions in quick bursts, but that's another topic)

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...-from-mmo-subs

"You're skating up hill if you don't offer a free-to-play option," Cryptic Studios head Jack Emmert told Eurogamer. "You're skating up against World of Warcraft and theoretically SWTOR. That's your competition. And unless you think your games are as good or better than those - because you also have to overcome their reputation - it's going to be highly unlikely a large number of people, meaning 200,000-plus, are going to be willing to subscribe to your game. And a lot of companies are making $50-60-70 million bets, and I just don't see that there's a market for their products."

Oh and by the way The Old Republic, is another WoW clone according to Bioware, but with a better story.

[Ryner]

Re: Rift

Free-to-play isn't bad at all but it's not the ideal. The Rift fellas sure aren't thinking "if all goes well we can switch to free to play by the end of the year."

[Red Dragon]

Re: Rift

I disagree on it not being the ideal. In fact, a free to play system draws customers in, then adding a cash shop or other similar things gets money from them.

In all honesty, if the marketing department was smart, they would have made Rift Free To Play, or at least Buy To Play initially, so that they could say "you can play WoW and rifts at the same time!" Then offer a subscription with additional benefits if the user desired. Problem is, WoW didn't do this, DDO and Guild Wars aren't the TOP MMOS OF ALL TIME. So they want to copy WoW. Which is a problem when you try and copy something that's bigger and more popular than you, then try and overthrow it with the same strategy.

In the same article I liked above I really think it explains it best. Not that I think Emmert is a genius or anything, he just said something that makes sense versus his usual BS.

"World of Warcraft has pretty much sucked the oxygen out of the subscription market and kind of devoured it itself," he added, "and those games that are currently subscription-based are battling for a very, very small market of people who either don't like WOW or are willing to pay a second subscription."

[Ryner]

Re: Rift

I don't know why you think it's better to be free-to-play than to be making 15 dollars a month from every single player, but there's no way a game going from subscription based to free can be considered anything but a failure.

[Red Dragon]

Re: Rift

Free To Play makes players choose to subscribe if they want. The point in most F2P games means that they offer a subscription or cash-shop with additional benefits that expand the game. It doesn't mean that the entire game is free forever. They would rather shut a game down then make no money from it.

but there's no way a game going from subscription based to free can be considered anything but a failure.

http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/03/30/pa...he-mmo-market/

Currie stated that they had gained over a million new subscribers(effectively doubling their player base), and revenues from the game had increased by an astounding 500% since going free-to-play.

As a marketing strategy, going F2P means that more users can pay before they play, then pay if they want more. While you could argue that your game didn't do well enough to keep a 15 dollar a month subscription. However if you start with a F2P marketing strategy, in this WoW market, it makes it a whole lot more accessible and lets the user decide if they want to pay more or not.

The F2P market is actually pretty huge right now. Sadly most of said companies also have low budgets and thus lower quality games. However with games like Perfect World Online, LoL, etc. out there being free and still making a profit. There is a reason companies do use the F2P strategy over P2P now.

It's becoming more and more clear that unless you're Blizzard, going with a P2P strategy and trying to topple WoW, just isn't going to work. You need another way of getting cash from your customers. A lot of said games that go F2P notice a huge boost in revenue after they go F2P, so there's definitely something there.

I am of the mind that if other current MMOs went F2P and offered Subs for more, we would see a healthier MMO climate out there. WoW, in my mind, can't be killed at this point so it's best to get what scraps you can. Most P2P games out now and can hold thier own, or at least are satified with the current revenue they are getting, hold a very particular niche. Aion has Korea, City of Heroes has Pre-WoW playerbase, Star Trek Online has Trekkies, etc.

[Denmo]

Re: Rift

Why play Rift when you can be a Loli prancing about in beautiful wilderness?

[Ryner]

Re: Rift

I suppose my thoughts on free-to-play could be off, which makes me free that it's all the more puzzling that developers are still just trying the "copy WOW" formula.

[Red Dragon]

Re: Rift

I will say that Rift is still really good at being a lot like wow. It's not nessarily a bad thing. Problem with MMOs is that they are ever-going as long as they make money. It's not like Wolfenstein and Doom. Both being very similar games with only a few key changes. And I think that's where the "make the game similar to WoW" comes from. WoW is still around. It's still getting updated and people that like wow, guess what, are still playing WoW. It's not like people who played Wolfenstein and beat it, now go to Doom because they like the game.

Although that's just my theory and I am not a smart man.

I would totally play Rift without the subscription fee. There are certainly some elements that I like and dislike. Without the subscription fee it would really stand out against the thing they are competing against. Heck, the tagline is "We're not in Azeroth anymore"