Then buy more slots!
Its still cheaper than fees.
GW1 started with 4 slots too. I have 15 slots. Its no big deal.
No subscription GW2
- Thread starter Stas823
- Start date
Then buy more slots!
Its still cheaper than fees.
GW1 started with 4 slots too. I have 15 slots. Its no big deal.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Aug 2011
- Posts
- 871
Just in case some of you haven't seen yet, the gear is going to work the same as GW1 from what I've heard. i.e. it's very easy to get the best stats in the game, but it doesn't look very good. You can then work towards fancier looking gear.
That means that there won't be any gear to buy with RL money that's an upgrade because all the gear will have the same/similar stats anyway.
That means that there won't be any gear to buy with RL money that's an upgrade because all the gear will have the same/similar stats anyway.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 1,015
- Location
- Surrey, UK
The only thing putting me off TERA is the £10/month sub. As nice as it is, think I may just wait for GW2.
I must be getting old, and must be in the minority these days, but I still much prefer the subscription model, although finding games that use it is getting harder each day it seems.
I guess each persons idea of 'Pay to win' is different, but I just get sick of seeing someone ride past on some epic looking mount, and I'll ask 'My friend, what manner of epic beastie did you slay to earn such a mighty stead!' only to be told they simply swiped a credit card. Then you get games like Lotro which add in all sorts of item tomes that add stat's as well as the dreaded lockbox key's. Maybe there is a perfect balance to be found between adding new content for subscribers, allowing them to earn items through gameplay means, and also selling stuff in ingame stores, but for me no game has managed it yet. Strangely, the fact there was no subscription to GW1 is part of what put me off the game (that and the fact it was rubbish imho
) It is also making me concerned about the future of GW2.
No, I'd much rather pay my monthly fee knowing I have the ability to earn anything in the game through gameplay rather than by credit card. Plus I always wonder how long it'll be before they push the boundaries even further and we will eventually see someone try a £10 'PvP win potion', or introduce a new PvE instance with a fire breathing dragon just as they happen to release a 'Potion of fire resistance, only £5 this month'. Besides, I get sick of logging into my mmo of choice to be faced with the middle earth equivalent of Amazon, I didn't log in to do some online shopping, I'm here to save the world for God sake!
I guess my point is I don't like the potential impact these ingame stores and items have for influencing the future game development as companies try ever harder to 'encourage' people into buying things from the stores. I judge each game on it's own merits and have stopped playing games simply because of what they have offered in ingame stores. I've never purchased a single ingame item from an MMO and probably never will, but I have no problem paying a monthly fee. Yep, i definately must be turning into a grumpy old git
I guess each persons idea of 'Pay to win' is different, but I just get sick of seeing someone ride past on some epic looking mount, and I'll ask 'My friend, what manner of epic beastie did you slay to earn such a mighty stead!' only to be told they simply swiped a credit card. Then you get games like Lotro which add in all sorts of item tomes that add stat's as well as the dreaded lockbox key's. Maybe there is a perfect balance to be found between adding new content for subscribers, allowing them to earn items through gameplay means, and also selling stuff in ingame stores, but for me no game has managed it yet. Strangely, the fact there was no subscription to GW1 is part of what put me off the game (that and the fact it was rubbish imho
) It is also making me concerned about the future of GW2.No, I'd much rather pay my monthly fee knowing I have the ability to earn anything in the game through gameplay rather than by credit card. Plus I always wonder how long it'll be before they push the boundaries even further and we will eventually see someone try a £10 'PvP win potion', or introduce a new PvE instance with a fire breathing dragon just as they happen to release a 'Potion of fire resistance, only £5 this month'. Besides, I get sick of logging into my mmo of choice to be faced with the middle earth equivalent of Amazon, I didn't log in to do some online shopping, I'm here to save the world for God sake!
I guess my point is I don't like the potential impact these ingame stores and items have for influencing the future game development as companies try ever harder to 'encourage' people into buying things from the stores. I judge each game on it's own merits and have stopped playing games simply because of what they have offered in ingame stores. I've never purchased a single ingame item from an MMO and probably never will, but I have no problem paying a monthly fee. Yep, i definately must be turning into a grumpy old git
Last edited:
Even Eve is F2P really with Plex. I am shocked that system has not taken off more as it is a rather elegant solution and shockingly good for CCP.
Really is not true.
Either way, I'm failing to see how it will make them more (or even comparable) money than a subscription system. If the game is fantastic, people would subscribe anyway and they could use micro transactions on top of subscriptions - like Blizzard.
I'm interested to see how GW2 will turn out in the long run, it's going to have a lot of initial interest but will it be able to hold it... time will tell.
The thing is, if it's subs free you can log in at any time and play for a bit, check out changes etc. Laying down a sub is a commitment - you almost feel you have to get your money's worth by logging in as much as possible in a month.
I'd never sub to DDO if it was still subscription, I just don't play it enough. But I do like a session every so often, and I've handed over money for new classes and adventure packs on occasion. If the sub barrier was there they'd never have gotten that from me.
I'd never sub to DDO if it was still subscription, I just don't play it enough. But I do like a session every so often, and I've handed over money for new classes and adventure packs on occasion. If the sub barrier was there they'd never have gotten that from me.
The reason it works isn't due to number of purchases but number of people making purchases. Removing the subscription increases the number of people willing to play the game.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 3,322
- Location
- Co. Durham
Then dont click on the cash shop.
In GW1 the cash shop was only accessible from the login screen, once in game you dont see anything about it.
I cant really see how this compares to a 'middle earth equivalent of Amazon'
Also WoW actually has a cash store too
In GW1 the cash shop was only accessible from the login screen, once in game you dont see anything about it.
I cant really see how this compares to a 'middle earth equivalent of Amazon'
Also WoW actually has a cash store too
Last edited:
No subscription is good. It becomes an issue when handing over cash results in obtaining items/skills that would otherwise be unobtainable and give an advantage over other players. Stuff like XP boosts for adults with full-time jobs? Great. Some hats and stuff? No problem. Some overpowered sword you can only get by handing over 35 quid or something? Very lame. I've heard Asian MMOs are terrible for this.
4 was just an example number mate, not the actual number so dont fret. That said It wont be anything like 40. Mainly because you want need different alts for different servers. And it will use a similar system as PleX (called Gems i think) meaning you could fund server transfers entirely with game cash (I think) So your server transfers become free meaning you dont need 40 characters. And you can buy additional slots at a small cost, again presumably with Gems meaning you can trade game money for gems and fund those additional slots (I think!)
long story short. 4 was just an example number not fact.