well i'm surprised! EA usually are right on the ball with their careless attributes and greedy assumptions.
well to be fair warhammer was doomed from the get go as it looked and felt like a straight up clone of wow(yes i know warhammer came first but WOW published first) now if their first mmo had been from the 40k universe the game might have stood a chance as it would be different(in how combat actually was portraied at the very least)Sixcess said:Not if EA's expectations were that it'd launch with two million. I stress if because I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me - they've been very very ambitious with TOR. EA didn't throw this kind of money around to get a moderately successful MMO.Azuaron said:Let me get this straight, an MMO that got over a million subscribers in under two weeks, making it the fastest growing MMO at launch ever, isn't doing good enough?
One million isn't really that good. Warhammer Online, an infamous flop, launched with 800,000 subscribers, and that wasn't hyped to near the level of The Old Republic.
TOR runs the real risk of being unable to live up to the unrealistically high expectations of not only its playerbase, but of its investors, and that's not a good place for it to be at.
Doesn't help that Warhammer was kinda crap on it's own merits and had no PVE server options; a design choice that will not fly outside of the Korean market.ecoho said:well to be fair warhammer was doomed from the get go as it looked and felt like a straight up clone of wow(yes i know warhammer came first but WOW published first) now if their first mmo had been from the 40k universe the game might have stood a chance as it would be different(in how combat actually was portraied at the very least)
well not haveing pve servers didnt help them warhammer wasnt that bad a game, just not different enough from WoW and when they both cost the same you go with the one that looks better.(and wow both played better and looked better then warhammer not in graphics but in astedics)Sylveria said:Doesn't help that Warhammer was kinda crap on it's own merits and had no PVE server options; a design choice that will not fly outside of the Korean market.ecoho said:well to be fair warhammer was doomed from the get go as it looked and felt like a straight up clone of wow(yes i know warhammer came first but WOW published first) now if their first mmo had been from the 40k universe the game might have stood a chance as it would be different(in how combat actually was portraied at the very least)
On another note, seeing all these warnings thrown out has taught me never to engage the contributors/mods in discussion. Huh, kinda feels like EA in here.
Ironically I felt that part of the problem with WAR was that it didn't look enough like WoW, or more precisely that WoW's exagerated art style was closer to the tabletop miniatures than WAR's own character models. Mind you, that was the least of WAR's problems.ecoho said:well to be fair warhammer was doomed from the get go as it looked and felt like a straight up clone of wow(yes i know warhammer came first but WOW published first) now if their first mmo had been from the 40k universe the game might have stood a chance as it would be different(in how combat actually was portraied at the very least)Sixcess said:One million isn't really that good. Warhammer Online, an infamous flop, launched with 800,000 subscribers, and that wasn't hyped to near the level of The Old Republic.
anyone dumb enough to beleave you can judge a mmo by how its first month goes is an idiot mmos take about 1-2years to get a good ieda of how they will work.Sixcess said:Ironically I felt that part of the problem with WAR was that it didn't look enough like WoW, or more precisely that WoW's exagerated art style was closer to the tabletop miniatures than WAR's own character models. Mind you, that was the least of WAR's problems.ecoho said:well to be fair warhammer was doomed from the get go as it looked and felt like a straight up clone of wow(yes i know warhammer came first but WOW published first) now if their first mmo had been from the 40k universe the game might have stood a chance as it would be different(in how combat actually was portraied at the very least)Sixcess said:One million isn't really that good. Warhammer Online, an infamous flop, launched with 800,000 subscribers, and that wasn't hyped to near the level of The Old Republic.
How combat would be handled in a 40K MMO is an interesting question of whether or not it would be different. Pure sci-fi MMOs (like Fallen Earth and Star Trek Online) use first or third person shooter style mechanics, but 40K, like Star Wars, puts a lot of emphasis on melee combat, which I've yet to see done well in an MMO without using the hotkey system (that said I haven't played Age of Conan, so maybe they got it right.)
I don't seriously think SWTOR will be another WAR though. It's not inherently bad... I just think that it's in danger of not living up to the insanely high expectations that have been built up for it, and the level of scrutiny it's under - both from within and outwith the gaming community - isn't helping that at all.
It went free to play very recently (about a week ago). Tried the game myself, but just couldn't get into it.F-I-D-O said:It's not like Star Trek Online which had very few subs and little support (did they just shut it down, or is it free to play?)
I hate to be the cynic, but you should really add:octafish said:YOU DON'T NEED ORIGIN TO PLAY TOR! BUY A DISK AND YOU WILL NEVER HAVE TO SEE ORIGIN ON YOUR PC.
I don't mind Origin, it works as well as if not better than Steam for me. TOR isn't even released here yet, but then again I don't get enough time to play games that any P2P game is a worthwhile indulgence. I'll play it when it goes F2P.
joe-h2o said:I hate to be the cynic, but you should really add:octafish said:YOU DON'T NEED ORIGIN TO PLAY TOR! BUY A DISK AND YOU WILL NEVER HAVE TO SEE ORIGIN ON YOUR PC.
I don't mind Origin, it works as well as if not better than Steam for me. TOR isn't even released here yet, but then again I don't get enough time to play games that any P2P game is a worthwhile indulgence. I'll play it when it goes F2P.
You don't need Origin to play TOR *YET*.
This is EA. I fully expect they'll spring Origin as a requirement on the TOR subscriber base when they're nice and entrenched with their characters. Then they'll have no choice but to install it if they want to keep playing.
It's like having unprotected sex with someone you know is sleeping with random people - eventually you will get a nasty disease.
Best not to take the risk in the first place - they have made their intentions with Origin very clear.
........ok a few things first TOR only costed 200million it was posted twice in this thread once as a link to the sorce and once by me in all caps. next EA does not publish COD they publish battlefeild.darthotaku said:I'd need to see some actual, real numbers before calling this. all we have is speculation right now. yes, it may have cost half a billion dollars and been expected to be hailed as the second comming. or it may have cost a realistic amount and is actually quite a success. we won't know until EA puts out some solid information, which they should probably do to stop the guesses from actually making things worse.
unless the estimates are pretty close or even lower than what actually happened. in which case EA would probably make up for the losses with the next COD.
Well, they're definitely greedy, and based on many of their actions they're not all that smart.ecoho said:joe-h2o said:I hate to be the cynic, but you should really add:octafish said:YOU DON'T NEED ORIGIN TO PLAY TOR! BUY A DISK AND YOU WILL NEVER HAVE TO SEE ORIGIN ON YOUR PC.
I don't mind Origin, it works as well as if not better than Steam for me. TOR isn't even released here yet, but then again I don't get enough time to play games that any P2P game is a worthwhile indulgence. I'll play it when it goes F2P.
You don't need Origin to play TOR *YET*.
This is EA. I fully expect they'll spring Origin as a requirement on the TOR subscriber base when they're nice and entrenched with their characters. Then they'll have no choice but to install it if they want to keep playing.
It's like having unprotected sex with someone you know is sleeping with random people - eventually you will get a nasty disease.
Best not to take the risk in the first place - they have made their intentions with Origin very clear.
im pretty sure that illegal as hell and EA would risk complete shutdown of their buisness and well they arnt going to risk that, EAs greedy not stupid.
well I guess that makes me a dumbass doesn't it. I commented without reading most of the other comments, and I didn't care enough to look up which of those two series they actually published. thank you for correcting me.ecoho said:........ok a few things first TOR only costed 200million it was posted twice in this thread once as a link to the sorce and once by me in all caps. next EA does not publish COD they publish battlefeild.darthotaku said:I'd need to see some actual, real numbers before calling this. all we have is speculation right now. yes, it may have cost half a billion dollars and been expected to be hailed as the second comming. or it may have cost a realistic amount and is actually quite a success. we won't know until EA puts out some solid information, which they should probably do to stop the guesses from actually making things worse.
unless the estimates are pretty close or even lower than what actually happened. in which case EA would probably make up for the losses with the next COD.
ok the only reason they can do it with ME3 is because its a stand alone game, they cant do that with a TOR expansion because it would be a form of entrapment(it might be called something else not sure) and would be considered robbing their custmers. As for them not being smart......they kinda are. Look making ME3 origen exclusive make be a dick move but from a buisness stand point its very smart as people will buy the game anyways and this way you get all the profits. Now i can look at this objectivly because i dont play the PC version(360 all the wayjoe-h2o said:Well, they're definitely greedy, and based on many of their actions they're not all that smart.ecoho said:joe-h2o said:I hate to be the cynic, but you should really add:octafish said:YOU DON'T NEED ORIGIN TO PLAY TOR! BUY A DISK AND YOU WILL NEVER HAVE TO SEE ORIGIN ON YOUR PC.
I don't mind Origin, it works as well as if not better than Steam for me. TOR isn't even released here yet, but then again I don't get enough time to play games that any P2P game is a worthwhile indulgence. I'll play it when it goes F2P.
You don't need Origin to play TOR *YET*.
This is EA. I fully expect they'll spring Origin as a requirement on the TOR subscriber base when they're nice and entrenched with their characters. Then they'll have no choice but to install it if they want to keep playing.
It's like having unprotected sex with someone you know is sleeping with random people - eventually you will get a nasty disease.
Best not to take the risk in the first place - they have made their intentions with Origin very clear.
im pretty sure that illegal as hell and EA would risk complete shutdown of their buisness and well they arnt going to risk that, EAs greedy not stupid.
It's no different to what they're doing with Mass Effect 3 - yes, it's a different game (to ME1 and ME2) but PC users are being forced into Origin if they want to carry on when they didn't require it for the first two games. EA will just mandate Origin with the release of the inevitable expansion pack for TOR.
lol its ok very rarly do people read the whole thing i just didnt want you to be misinformeddarthotaku said:well I guess that makes me a dumbass doesn't it. I commented without reading most of the other comments, and I didn't care enough to look up which of those two series they actually published. thank you for correcting me.ecoho said:........ok a few things first TOR only costed 200million it was posted twice in this thread once as a link to the sorce and once by me in all caps. next EA does not publish COD they publish battlefeild.darthotaku said:I'd need to see some actual, real numbers before calling this. all we have is speculation right now. yes, it may have cost half a billion dollars and been expected to be hailed as the second comming. or it may have cost a realistic amount and is actually quite a success. we won't know until EA puts out some solid information, which they should probably do to stop the guesses from actually making things worse.
unless the estimates are pretty close or even lower than what actually happened. in which case EA would probably make up for the losses with the next COD.
Even that 200 Million quote is unsourced in the LA Times article. In fact, they quote it twice in that article... without sourcing anybody. It's just as legit as saying 500 Million as was stated in the OP.ecoho said:........ok a few things first TOR only costed 200million it was posted twice in this thread once as a link to the sorce and once by me in all caps. next EA does not publish COD they publish battlefeild.
Dear sir, perhaps you should read the rules?Andy Chalk said:I see plenty of worthwhile conversation taking place in here. If you can't handle an "MMO discussion" that doesn't involve acting like a pissant howler monkey, then maybe you're in the wrong thread.Sixcess said:People get heated when discussing games that they may very well play, or have been playing, for years. If you can't handle critical discussion of TOR then don't run stories on it.