The Secret World

[Sacman]

Imma be honest... I'm not interested... the MMo market is way overblown... honestly there's way too many... we just need to start letting them die now...<.<

 

[Tayh]

EA's with Ubisoft on my list of companies not to buy anything from until they change the way they do business, so that's kind of a bummer; my other half would have been intrigued by this, and I wouldn't have minded playing it with them to see how it was.

You should be free to play TSW, then, since it is produced and developed by Funcom.

 

[Syzygy23]

I haven't played a P2P game since... 2008 I believe, which is when I graduated and decided to quit WoW. None of my friends have touched a P2P game since they graduated either.

They just aren't worth it compared to a lot of F2P games out there, like DC Universe Online, Tribes Ascend, every single MOBA (If you can stand the toxic communities) etc.

And, considering the current trend of games that start out P2P and inevitably end up F2P a few months to a year down the line.

I mean, just look at The Old Republic. Ouch.

I see your point, but if you look at the facts it took Funcom almost 4 years for Anarchy online to become Freemium (Still have to pay for access to expansions) and 3 years for AoC to have the same business model.
If you're going to look at trends, it doesn't seem like this game will be going F2P anytime soon.
Personally, I prefer P2P games myself. It's just a feeling, but to me P2P games just feel more complete. You know what the game holds and you know exactly what you are getting for your money. Without the pressure to buy additions.

Then again, I bought a liftetime subscription so it's essentially just like a very expensive GW2. (Even though it's to PvE as GW2 is to PvP)

Oh, no, I totally get what you're saying. F2P will invariably rely on microtransactions, which means the main game can end up feeling... incomplete.

Also, I did not know they offered that lifetime subscription thing. The ability to pay a larger up front sum for what is essentially as you described (Pricier Guild Wars) might sway me, depending on if that is a package deal with the initial purchase or not.

 

[Busard]

I love how the escapist hive mind hits again. EA is not publishing, it's just distributing. Funcom PAYS them just to have boxes on shelves and whatnot.

I love the game, it actually has originality for an mmo, although the pvp is really sub-par, which saddens me a bit (I do hope they will improve it in the future). Like someone said above, it is to pve what Guild Wars 2 will be to pvp, which will be a nice balance for me.

Also, yes, it is pricey, but I'd rather pay that than play any free to play at the moment with the only exception of guild wars 2. Seriously, free to play only block your brain from thinking the game is bad only because you don't spend money, even if the game itself will cheapen out at every corner (as it always has been the case). Plus it's a good filter for an acceptable community.

 

[Maeshone]

Oh, no, I totally get what you're saying. F2P will invariably rely on microtransactions, which means the main game can end up feeling... incomplete.

Also, I did not know they offered that lifetime subscription thing. The ability to pay a larger up front sum for what is essentially as you described (Pricier Guild Wars) might sway me, depending on if that is a package deal with the initial purchase or not.

Unfortunately the game is not included in the lifetime subscription, so it'll cost you 250 dollars for that. What is included is one free name reservation and an additional character slot, as well as some experience potions.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

EA's with Ubisoft on my list of companies not to buy anything from until they change the way they do business, so that's kind of a bummer; my other half would have been intrigued by this, and I wouldn't have minded playing it with them to see how it was.

You should be free to play TSW, then, since it is produced and developed by Funcom.

...And published by EA, so they still end up with some of the money.

 

[Maeshone]

EA's with Ubisoft on my list of companies not to buy anything from until they change the way they do business, so that's kind of a bummer; my other half would have been intrigued by this, and I wouldn't have minded playing it with them to see how it was.

You should be free to play TSW, then, since it is produced and developed by Funcom.

...And published by EA, so they still end up with some of the money.

It's not published by them, only distributed. There's a difference.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

EA's with Ubisoft on my list of companies not to buy anything from until they change the way they do business, so that's kind of a bummer; my other half would have been intrigued by this, and I wouldn't have minded playing it with them to see how it was.

You should be free to play TSW, then, since it is produced and developed by Funcom.

...And published by EA, so they still end up with some of the money.

It's not published by them, only distributed. There's a difference.

You're really splitting hairs here, considering EA doesn't distribute the game for free, either. Christ.

 

[Nimzabaat]

What is the subscription fee, anyway? In pound sterling please, since I'm British and want to know what it costs over here, not having to convert from dollars and then find it's wrong anyway because of different pricing structures. I've been looking forward to getting and playing this for a long time, you see, but I need to know if I'll be able to actually afford it each month and if it'll be worth the time and money anyway...

IT's £11.49 a month, which is very high.

Considering WoW and SW:TOR are both priced at £8.99, it's way too high.

Well i'm paying about 14.99 so I think that's closer to £9.50 or so. So it's pretty comparable.

Oh and loving the game as well.

 

[Maeshone]

EA's with Ubisoft on my list of companies not to buy anything from until they change the way they do business, so that's kind of a bummer; my other half would have been intrigued by this, and I wouldn't have minded playing it with them to see how it was.

You should be free to play TSW, then, since it is produced and developed by Funcom.

...And published by EA, so they still end up with some of the money.

It's not published by them, only distributed. There's a difference.

You're really splitting hairs here, considering EA doesn't distribute the game for free, either. Christ.

It's not really splitting hairs. Publishing would mean that EA had a hand in the funding of the creation of the game, which they didn't. Distribution means they only handle the printing and shipping of the game, as paid for by FunCom, not your money, unless you count your payment as retroactively paying for the expenses FunCom incurred when contracting EA.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You're really splitting hairs here, considering EA doesn't distribute the game for free, either. Christ.

Funcom is not a subsidiary of EA the way Bioware is, so it's a fairly substantial differentiation. EA doesn't really have their tentacles in the game to any significant degree. You could hypothetically buy The Secret World and still feel good about an anti-EA embargo.

Ironically, though, their triple dipping pricing scheme and the outrageous prices in their cosmetic item shop would give EA a total boner, leaving this as one of many examples that you don't need to be EA to be completely evil.

 

[OrpheusTelos]

I like it. Reminds me a lot of Shin Megami, which is always a good thing.

 

[Maeshone]

You're really splitting hairs here, considering EA doesn't distribute the game for free, either. Christ.

Funcom is not a subsidiary of EA the way Bioware is, so it's a fairly substantial differentiation. EA doesn't really have their tentacles in the game to any significant degree. You could hypothetically buy The Secret World and still feel good about an anti-EA embargo.

Ironically, though, their triple dipping pricing scheme and the outrageous prices in their cosmetic item shop would give EA a total boner, leaving this as one of many examples that you don't need to be EA to be completely evil.

Blizzard proved that ages ago with World of Warcraft which uses the exact same principle of a subscription game with a cosmetic itemshop.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Blizzard proved that ages ago with World of Warcraft which uses the exact same principle of a subscription game with a cosmetic itemshop.

This is not good analogue. Blizzard introduced microtransactions after their 2nd or 3rd expansion, at which point the game was already a runaway hit with a massive subscriber base and an almost unprecedented amount of content available for "free" via your sub.

New games always suffer to some extent from a lack of content, which is totally defensible as trying to launch with the content depth of an established and long running MMO is a mug's game and completely impossible using WoW as a benchmark. When some of that content is locked away in an item shop, people are going to wonder why their subs don't entitle them to it. Whether you think that's sensible or not, it's an optics problem. It's going to be a HUGE optics problem when GW2 launches without a sub fee in a month and a half, right after the free month has expired for many TSW subscribers and they've experienced the bulk of the content on initial offer.

It's a curious business decision, and it has the potential to backfire horribly for Funcom.

 

[Maeshone]

Blizzard proved that ages ago with World of Warcraft which uses the exact same principle of a subscription game with a cosmetic itemshop.

This is not good analogue. Blizzard introduced microtransactions after their 2nd or 3rd expansion, at which point the game was already a runaway hit with a massive subscriber base and an almost unprecedented amount of content available for "free" via your sub.

New games always suffer to some extent from a lack of content, which is totally defensible as trying to launch with the content depth of an established and long running MMO is a mug's game and completely impossible using WoW as a benchmark. When some of that content is locked away in an item shop, people are going to wonder why their subs don't entitle them to it. Whether you think that's sensible or not, it's an optics problem. It's going to be a HUGE optics problem when GW2 launches without a sub fee in a month and a half, right after the free month has expired for many TSW subscribers and they've experienced the bulk of the content on initial offer.

It's a curious business decision, and it has the potential to backfire horribly for Funcom.

On that I agree with, and it's up to personal preference whether or not you find Funcoms cash shop acceptable. (I'm perfectly fine with it since it only sells cosmetic clothes and pets, and there's already a huge amount of those in the base game)

However, I feel the comparison can still stand since Blizzards shop actually sell stuff that can affect the game (In a very minor and mostly cosmetic way) such as mounts that scale with the user (effectively saving several thousand gold for the character) and a pet that is bind on use meaning it can and is being sold in the in-game auction house for obscene amounts of gold (effectively a legal way of buying gold in-game).

In comparisin, Funcom only has exclusively non-combat pets and clothes, none of which have stats or are bind on use.

 

[shintakie10]

Blizzard proved that ages ago with World of Warcraft which uses the exact same principle of a subscription game with a cosmetic itemshop.

This is not good analogue. Blizzard introduced microtransactions after their 2nd or 3rd expansion, at which point the game was already a runaway hit with a massive subscriber base and an almost unprecedented amount of content available for "free" via your sub.

New games always suffer to some extent from a lack of content, which is totally defensible as trying to launch with the content depth of an established and long running MMO is a mug's game and completely impossible using WoW as a benchmark. When some of that content is locked away in an item shop, people are going to wonder why their subs don't entitle them to it. Whether you think that's sensible or not, it's an optics problem. It's going to be a HUGE optics problem when GW2 launches without a sub fee in a month and a half, right after the free month has expired for many TSW subscribers and they've experienced the bulk of the content on initial offer.

It's a curious business decision, and it has the potential to backfire horribly for Funcom.

On that I agree with, and it's up to personal preference whether or not you find Funcoms cash shop acceptable. (I'm perfectly fine with it since it only sells cosmetic clothes and pets, and there's already a huge amount of those in the base game)

However, I feel the comparison can still stand since Blizzards shop actually sell stuff that can affect the game (In a very minor and mostly cosmetic way) such as mounts that scale with the user (effectively saving several thousand gold for the character) and a pet that is bind on use meaning it can and is being sold in the in-game auction house for obscene amounts of gold (effectively a legal way of buying gold in-game).

In comparisin, Funcom only has exclusively non-combat pets and clothes, none of which have stats or are bind on use.

One small correction, you save at most a few hundred gold, tops, by buyin a mount for WoW. Mount costs have significantly dropped since back in Vanilla to the point that the only way to not afford trainin and a mount by the time you reach the point you can buy one you'd have to be absolutely horrible with your money.

 

[Maeshone]

One small correction, you save at most a few hundred gold, tops, by buyin a mount for WoW. Mount costs have significantly dropped since back in Vanilla to the point that the only way to not afford trainin and a mount by the time you reach the point you can buy one you'd have to be absolutely horrible with your money.

Heh, thanks. Shows how out of touch I am with WoW currently, been a while since I played it

 

[BloatedGuppy]

On that I agree with, and it's up to personal preference whether or not you find Funcoms cash shop acceptable. (I'm perfectly fine with it since it only sells cosmetic clothes and pets, and there's already a huge amount of those in the base game)

However, I feel the comparison can still stand since Blizzards shop actually sell stuff that can affect the game (In a very minor and mostly cosmetic way) such as mounts that scale with the user (effectively saving several thousand gold for the character) and a pet that is bind on use meaning it can and is being sold in the in-game auction house for obscene amounts of gold (effectively a legal way of buying gold in-game).

In comparisin, Funcom only has exclusively non-combat pets and clothes, none of which have stats or are bind on use.

Again though, this is a question of optics and perception. It does not matter that the two cash shops are comparables, because the games are NOT. WoW was an established industry titan with an enormous and captive player base. TSW is a brand new game with a new IP and a developer with a reputation for shaky launches. It needs to ward off not only the larger and more heavily advertised GW2, but also MoP, in the months immediately following its release.

If you have a long time friend, who you've known for many years, and that friend asks to borrow money, you'd likely not think much of it. Now imagine you have a new friend you've known for only a day, and they are also asking to borrow money. This is TSW and the cash shop.

Funcom is in a very vulnerable position with TSW. They need to be doing every thing they can to marry subscribers to their product, because they face one of the most ugly lineups of competition I've ever seen a new MMO exposed to. The sub drop-off for new MMOs tends to be between 50-80% after the free month, WITHOUT competition. Games that have a Blizzard expansion dropped on them have lost up to 90%. TSW has that, and then some, to look forward to.

ANYTHING they do that puts people off buying or staying is playing with fire.