Planetside 2

[Speedy Cerviche]

So if they wanna creep players and box sales from games like BF3 and CoD, why are they making it F2P?  Your 10million players means nothing if they only play for 1 week, for free, and dont dip into RMT because the game lacks depth.

Then again, seeing as how they're dumbing down playstyle choice and making things more generic, it makes sense to F2P the biz model because that'll be the only way to distinguish yourself - with money.  Ahah!  I see the genius now.

Cuz the hook to distinguish it from CoD/BF3 will be the MMO elements & persistance. WHich requires ongoing revenue streams to support the added infratsructure beyond a server browser. It's F2P cuz that's the thing to these days, straight  subscriptions are 2000 and late for the John Smedleys of the industry. They are hoping the game, and it's MMO elements are entertaining enough to keep the 10 million around for more than a week, years infact, and a decent % will spend some premium money on it.

[Ghambit]

PS1 was not a great success because of just two things: The lack of meaningful updates, improved networking, and anti-cheating technology because all of the programmers apparently bailed early on, and the fact that $15/month is too god damned much for a FPS.

A re-released PS1 with a new client to allow for needed technology upgrades and a price drop would own.

Don't forget the release of SWG and 1942.  Back in those days people moved into/out-of games in flocks.  Even if PS1 was the perfect game, I really think back then it wouldn't have mattered.   It still would've been labeled "niche" due to only hardcores being left in their playerbase once the horde moved onto the next game.

This is pretty much where we're at with MMOs now.  As has been said, you've gotta do your 'niche thing' well or else you'll fail.

[HaemishM]

So if they wanna creep players and box sales from games like BF3 and CoD, why are they making it F2P? 

Because nobody is paying to play BF3 or CoD multiplayer monthly, and one of the big hindrances to PS1's success was that FPS games were sold with multiplayer as a free add-on, not a subscription service. The market was not prepared or wanting a subscription fee to play.

[Ingmar]

PS1 was not a great success because of just two things: The lack of meaningful updates, improved networking, and anti-cheating technology because all of the programmers apparently bailed early on, and the fact that $15/month is too god damned much for a FPS.

A re-released PS1 with a new client to allow for needed technology upgrades and a price drop would own.

Three things: lattice. I know a bunch of people who quit when they added that.

[Mrbloodworth]

So if they wanna creep players and box sales from games like BF3 and CoD, why are they making it F2P?  

Because nobody is paying to play BF3 or CoD multiplayer monthly, and one of the big hindrances to PS1's success was that FPS games were sold with multiplayer as a free add-on, not a subscription service. The market was not prepared or wanting a subscription fee to play.

So why not address that, while keeping the original philosophies and design principles? AKA: War game. Not Session based shooter.

My entire point has been. They are addressing things that were not the problem, because Battlefield did it.

PS problems were net-code/responsiveness. Horsepower required. Bad management. Stagnation due to tech limits. Subscription fee. Outside, a host of other games came out at the same time.






Completely beside the point:  http://www.callofduty.com/elite

[01101010]

PS1 was not a great success because of just two things: The lack of meaningful updates, improved networking, and anti-cheating technology because all of the programmers apparently bailed early on, and the fact that $15/month is too god damned much for a FPS.

A re-released PS1 with a new client to allow for needed technology upgrades and a price drop would own.

Don't forget the release of SWG and 1942.  Back in those days people moved into/out-of games in flocks.  Even if PS1 was the perfect game, I really think back then it wouldn't have mattered.   It still would've been labeled "niche" due to only hardcores being left in their playerbase once the horde moved onto the next game.

This is pretty much where we're at with MMOs now.  As has been said, you've gotta do your 'niche thing' well or else you'll fail.

We like to throw this niche word around a lot like some sort of scarlet A. What game out there is not niche? Niche is used for every game not in the top spot of its genre.

PS1 was my first game I paid a monthly fee on. I had no issue with it as I saw the value in my investment of that monthly cost. Previously it was all UT and its mods as well as America's Army: Online. PS1 was a war game with FPS clothing. I was paying for that part, not the shooter part. FPS games without the underlying structure are team deathmatches with different coats of paint. Without the structural levels of a wargame, PS2 is just another Brink.

[HaemishM]

My entire point has been. They are addressing things that were not the problem, because Battlefield did it.

Because SOE could fuck up a wet dream? SOE is not known for innovative thought, especially these days. They are known for taking what should be home run concepts and skullfucking them into abject failure. These are the guys who couldn't even make a 1 million + subscriber STAR WARS GAME. They fucked up the biggest sure thing nerd IP on the goddamn planet. They couldn't even make a successful sequel to the most successful MMOG at the time, nor transition that at the time massive player base into a game with the same IP. In short, they are chasing BF/CoD dollars because that's all their tiny minds can grasp, and because the head honchos at Sony want big dollar successes, not piddling niche games that barely break even.

For the Planetside you want to be made, it would have to be made by a garage outfit, not a company like SOE.

Completely beside the point:  http://www.callofduty.com/elite

A completely optional add-on is not the same thing as requiring a subscription fee to play and you know it.

[Speedy Cerviche]

So why not address that, while keeping the original philosophies and design principles? AKA: War game. Not Session based shooter.

What exactly do you mean by "war game"? You make PS1 sound like it had WW2OL level FPS sophistication while Battlefield is basically Quake. Besides from some MMO related world logistical issues (continental assaults, rear sneak assaults), I don't remember it being much more sophisticated than Battlefield on a FPS level. Infact a lot of elements like weapon depth, single hitbox, poor physics modelling, low depth of terrain, it was arguably less sophisticated than Battlefield.

[01101010]

So why not address that, while keeping the original philosophies and design principles? AKA: War game. Not Session based shooter.

What exactly do you mean by "war game"? You make PS1 sound like it had WW2OL level FPS sophistication while Battlefield is basically Quake. Besides from some MMO related world logistical issues (continental assaults, rear sneak assaults), I don't remember it being much more sophisticated than Battlefield on a FPS level. Infact a lot of elements like weapon depth, single hitbox, poor physics modelling, low depth of terrain, it was arguably less sophisticated than Battlefield.

 

[shiznitz]

So why not address that, while keeping the original philosophies and design principles? AKA: War game. Not Session based shooter.

What exactly do you mean by "war game"? You make PS1 sound like it had WW2OL level FPS sophistication while Battlefield is basically Quake. Besides from some MMO related world logistical issues (continental assaults, rear sneak assaults), I don't remember it being much more sophisticated than Battlefield on a FPS level. Infact a lot of elements like weapon depth, single hitbox, poor physics modelling, low depth of terrain, it was arguably less sophisticated than Battlefield.

You sound like you believe that if 2 games use the right mouse button to fire a gun, they are almost identical.  Your variables to determine sophistication ignore all the tactical elements of the game.  It is the tactical elements that are currently unclear in PS2 but that made those of us who liked PS1 like it.

[HaemishM]

I would hazard a guess that most of those things that made PS1 a "war" game, such as strategic positioning, logistics, etc. won't mean diddlysquat to 90% of the player base, kind of like how the commander mode was ignored by most in Battlefield 2 and 2142.

[01101010]

I would hazard a guess that most of those things that made PS1 a "war" game, such as strategic positioning, logistics, etc. won't mean diddlysquat to 90% of the player base, kind of like how the commander mode was ignored by most in Battlefield 2 and 2142.

And those are the people that fled PS1 within a month or two. Sadly, I'd say you are right... business model be damned.

[Malakili]

I would hazard a guess that most of those things that made PS1 a "war" game, such as strategic positioning, logistics, etc. won't mean diddlysquat to 90% of the player base, kind of like how the commander mode was ignored by most in Battlefield 2 and 2142.

Right, and it is there to SOME degree either way, so the experience for that type of player is probably going to be worse than just going and playing CoD or BF3 or whatever.  So if you are going to do a "war" game, do it right, if you aren't going to do a war game, just make a futuristic CoD style game and be done with it.

[HaemishM]

I agree you SHOULD do it right, but... well, SOE. 

[Ghambit]

I guess we could kinda look at this like how Arma(2) stacked up against 2142, BF3, CoD, etc.  Arma and Arma2 are w/o a doubt the finest tactical FPS's ever to hit a PC (it's not even really a game as it's based on the govt's VBS).  No "game" did it better, and yet no one bought it.  It's a niche game full of people from tacticalgamer, simhq, and burnt out vets who miss the suck.

The problem was the studio didn't really take the time to hold a newb's hand.  They threw you into a hardcore sim amongst the wolves and expected you to like it.  Games like that need to do a better job of initiating the new/casual player.  In WW2O they actually would tag someone "green" to denote newb/unsquaded status.  It basically was a huge signpost that said "help me pls."  If you werent squaded you were also generally a hindrance and couldnt move up the CoC nor be on VOIP.  So it was in everyone's best interest to make sure the new people were taken care of.

PS2 could indeed go niche and challenge the player similarly, but they'd have to make entry more "lubricated."  Make knowing how to play an accomplishment in itself and allow fellow players to lend a helping hand.  Things like green tags, newb clans with volunteer leaders, training servers, etc. really help this.  This will give people a reason to actually fuckin play and feel a sense of accomplishment, rather than it just being another simple diversion.

[Speedy Cerviche]

You seriously cannot compare planetside to Arma and WW2O... It is a lot closer to Battlefield than Arma/opflash/WW2O which are in another league of sophistication (to the point they can be called sims, not action games).

[Ghambit]

You seriously cannot compare planetside to Arma and WW2O... It is a lot closer to Battlefield than Arma/opflash/WW2O which are in another league of sophistication (to the point they can be called sims, not action games).

Funny.  I didnt think I was comparing it, since the game doesnt actually exist yet.
It was a hypothetical design comparison based on the assumption they'd consider going 'niche.'  I used the sim comparison to just drive a point, which was they can up the ante and challenge the player in some format w/o losing their playerbase, as long as they take the time to incorporate the casual/new player gently.

FPS's typically dont have the luxury an RPG does with regards to easing a player into a world/playstyle.  You drop in with a gun and that's it.  You perform or die.  What I was alluding to is that it doesnt have to be that way (and it's not in games like WW2O).  So instead of dumbfucking the game into oblivion so that weekend warriors can feel like a special snowflake, they CAN make their game a real challenge and let the newb earn his mettle through informed trial via the tools I cited.

Ok so enough monday morning developing for me.     As Haemish says it's entirely fruitless anyways.  It'll be a generic SOE shooter with a pasted on Settlers of Cataan world map and that's likely it.

[Mrbloodworth]

[Speedy Cerviche]

mmm quad stunts

[Ghambit]

So if they wanna creep players and box sales from games like BF3 and CoD, why are they making it F2P? 

Because nobody is paying to play BF3 or CoD multiplayer monthly, and one of the big hindrances to PS1's success was that FPS games were sold with multiplayer as a free add-on, not a subscription service. The market was not prepared or wanting a subscription fee to play.

Ya kinda sorta missed my point.  The point was if they were going to go the simplistic route they might've been better off just charging a box fee.  Dollhouse F2Ps (wherein the microtrans is only cosmetic) don't work if they lack depth in gameplay and crafting (something PS2's design is seeming like).   So if they're going the BF3 route, well... uhh why would people utilize the microtrans?   They'd be better off charging for the box (just like BF3/CoD) but say $30, and then maybe a $5 monthly or something.

The business logic just fails.  "Let's make an MMO like BF3, but make it FREEEEEEEEEEE."  I don't see how the moneytrain rolls here unless they DLC like they did with CoreCombat, which was a terrible choice in itself.

Essentially it might be wiser to just take people's money and run is what I'm sayin.    The game has enough momentum to do that at least for a quarter, then pull the F2P switch like everyone else seems to be doing.

[HaemishM]

The business logic just fails.  "Let's make an MMO like BF3, but make it FREEEEEEEEEEE."  I don't see how the moneytrain rolls here unless they DLC like they did with CoreCombat, which was a terrible choice in itself.

Essentially it might be wiser to just take people's money and run is what I'm sayin.    The game has enough momentum to do that at least for a quarter, then pull the F2P switch like everyone else seems to be doing.

That's kinda my point with saying "Well, SOE." There's lots of better decisions to be made on this title from the business plan to the IP to just about everything. But SOE. It's Smedley's pet IP so it's got his backing, it has enough of a core following for someone above him to buy that it might be a money maker if Smedley points to the successes of BF3 and the CoD series. However, it does sound suspiciously like every decision they are making along the way, INCLUDING actually calling it Planetside 2, is a compass pointing to magnetic wrong.

Or, in other words, LOL SOE.

[UnSub]

The major issue that any MMOFPS has to deal with is baby-eating i.e. the erosion of new players who are crushed by the more experienced / overpowered players.

Being F2P means a lot of PS2 trialists will be available, but how many stick around depends a lot of SOE's design decisions about making the game engaging even when you are losing.

I don't think SOE will be able to master that problem.

[01101010]

The major issue that any MMOFPS has to deal with is baby-eating i.e. the erosion of new players who are crushed by the more experienced / overpowered players.

Being F2P means a lot of PS2 trialists will be available, but how many stick around depends a lot of SOE's design decisions about making the game engaging even when you are losing.

I don't think SOE will be able to master that problem.

PS1 dealt with that problem already, and quite successfully. Too bad SOE seems to have forgotten about it.

[UnSub]

I'd be interested to hear how you think PS1 solved that problem, given that PS1 is generally considered to be a quirky semi-failure of a MMO title in terms of player base (and paying a sub fee for an FPS was part of the issue there).

[01101010]

I'd be interested to hear how you think PS1 solved that problem, given that PS1 is generally considered to be a quirky semi-failure of a MMO title in terms of player base (and paying a sub fee for an FPS was part of the issue there).

PS1 had its problems most of which have already been spoken about at length. However, there was very little in the way of "new players who are crushed by the more experienced / overpowered players."

[Lantyssa]

That's because there weren't a lot of new players...

However I'd say that is patently false.  Now if a new player got in a good squad, they could do pretty well, however if one didn't make that connection quickly, they could quite easily be crushed and discouraged.

[shiznitz]

A solo new player and a solo old player were on the same level of screwed though, excepting cloakers and aircraft.  Put a newbie who does what he is told in a good squad and that newbie could contribute.  The experience of other players raised his game.  Put a newbie in the middle of a tower fight and he will get some kills and have some fun.

The fact that the fodder program worked pretty well suggests that there was enough fun in low skill action to get people to sign on.

[Speedy Cerviche]

As long as they don't decide to add high level or "premium" weapons that are superior to starting weapons... any newbie should be able to pick up a rifle or rocket launcher, hit a "jump to action" button, start pew pewing and pick up some kills if his aim is decent. When he decides he wants another layer of sophistication he can go find some outfit that runs stormtrooper or commando squads, or that is involved in strategic command organizations.

My big worry with the F2P model is SOE will always be tempted to juice their revenues by adding shop items that are not just aesthetic or gimmicky variants with downsides pros/cons, but pure upgrades to normal ones, a straight up rifle +1.

[01101010]

That's because there weren't a lot of new players...

However I'd say that is patently false.  Now if a new player got in a good squad, they could do pretty well, however if one didn't make that connection quickly, they could quite easily be crushed and discouraged.

I am speaking solely about the playing field in a fire fight. A new player that did the "tutorial" around Sanc would come out @ lvl 7 and enough certs to pick up medium assault rifle, cloaker, engy tools, even a MAX unit. That person could go into a battle with level 20s and compete due to the horizontal leveling scheme. Gaining levels granted you a bit more toys, but everyone pulled from the same toybox. Now if the person completely sucks at shooters, then he or she will have a rough time of it. However, you can compete right out of the box with someone who has been in the game for months. Add in the fact squads and platoons were only really hampered by a person's skill in the PS environment and not their player level since you could hold your own even with a limited equipment list.

[Lantyssa]

Yes, if one is good at games, follows the tutorial, and/or joins a good squad, they can do quite well as a newbie.  For a game looking to reach critical mass, none of these things can be assumed.

The fodder program worked because there were a massive amount of people around.  Tons of them weren't very good at the game.  There were enough of them that being a vet only gave a slight advantage to their numbers, and being a newbie meant you had ample targets to shoot.  In a stagnating game where the barrier to entry is $15, new or old, the difference in experience is much more significant.

[01101010]

Yes, if one is good at games, follows the tutorial, and/or joins a good squad, they can do quite well as a newbie.  For a game looking to reach critical mass, none of these things can be assumed.

The fodder program worked because there were a massive amount of people around.  Tons of them weren't very good at the game.  There were enough of them that being a vet only gave a slight advantage to their numbers, and being a newbie meant you had ample targets to shoot.  In a stagnating game where the barrier to entry is $15, new or old, the difference in experience is much more significant.

Exactly on it. Population is very important. I was just commenting on the even field of access to equipment, which leaves the rest to the player's skill level. Having a target rich environment will always heighten the enjoyment... especially on a battlefield the size of a continent.

[Ghambit]

Speaking of target-rich environment.  Note that PS2 is going more "open terrain" with their combat rather than choking it up.  If they don't get their critical mass of players this means they'll probably have to resort to "Area of Operations/Attack Order" type play, wherein you cant even combat in certain areas unless command gives a parceled attack order.  Otherwise it'd end up just being squad-based warfare and solo-cloaked takeovers.

Reminds me of a few nights of WW2O before they put in AO's, we used to screen our main attacks with 2-3 man squads sent to uncontested zones.  Run around, set off the alarm, cap a few things, etc.  Generally making ourselves look bigger than we were.  Good times.  That all ended when they realized they didnt have the playerbase to combat those tactics given the size of the battlespace.

Same thing could will happen to PS2.

Actually, have they even said whether or not they're gonna have AO's?  Or is it just going to be command level mission-based?
/iwouldliketoknowmore

[Mrbloodworth]

Speaking of no Vehicle enter/exit animations.

Weapons and gear will magically pop out of your ass. Instead of being shown on the player as before.

 

[shiznitz]

Speaking of no Vehicle enter/exit animations.

Weapons and gear will magically pop out of your ass. Instead of being shown on the player as before.

 

What the fuck are they saving by not doing this?  In this era of 8GB RAM PCs and 2GB RAM vid cards, WHAT THE FUCK?

[01101010]

Speaking of no Vehicle enter/exit animations.

Weapons and gear will magically pop out of your ass. Instead of being shown on the player as before.

 

What the fuck are they saving by not doing this?  In this era of 8GB RAM PCs and 2GB RAM vid cards, WHAT THE FUCK?

MOAR PLAYERZ ON DA SKREENZ!!

This game is going further down the ferrit hole, the more they talk about this stuff.