SWTOR

[UnSub]

the only real reason to subscribe was for more bank space 

This. A thousand times this. Hellgate was fun enough, and different from most Diablo clones in its core gameplay that it could have become a good game. However, they didn't give us any reason to pay them for it.

All the stuff about the bugs and memory leaks (which were legit issues) are way down the list of things I thought "killed" the game. But the wonky subscription plan, I'd put at #1. With a neon arrow pointing at it.

Can I ask why you think so? I mean, I wasn't here when Hellgate happened, so I missed the fallout on f13, but to me, it was hands down the crippling bugs.

Bugs might vary from person to person (or PC to PC). However, when a company can't get their sub plan right, it destroys any trust you might have in them to be able to receive your money.

The sub plan was confusing, poorly explained and then altered post-launch so that full subscribers didn't even get what they were promised (and non-subscribers got more for free). This kind of behaviour actively scares off people from giving credit card information out.

[eldaec]

I doubt the subs problems had a chance to impact the game. Only the lifetime subscription people had any real reason to bitch about it anyway.


It's not as they had an great game going with nobody paying for it.

Personally I never saw an outright bug, but I still didn't last what would have been my month included with the box price. If I wanted to play a sub-par single player FPS/hack-n-slash retread with endless identical brown levels, and which looks like it was coded in 1996.... actually I'd never want to do that, I didn't even want to do that in 1994.

Similarly, so far this looks like a sub-par Kotor, all the thrills of a 2003 single player story RPG only with compromises made to support hypothetical co-op play which will barely ever happen. As such, I'm not that excited about it.

Kotor without companions and without the bioware writing staff = Hellgate with slightly less action packed gameplay.

[Velorath]

You seem to hate games in general aside from TF2, EVE, and Dragon Age.

[Threash]

I also don't see how the subscription stuff had much to do with Hellgates failure.  It failed because it was a BAD game, people didn't want to play it for free.

[Rendakor]

I actually quite enjoyed Hellgate, as did a number of my friends (inb4 anecdotal, etc). However, there was no reason for any of us to pay them any money because the subscriber "features" were so limited. I consider Borderlands little more than Hellgate done correctly; if you don't like that either, it's NOTFORYOU.

[eldaec]

You seem to hate games in general aside from TF2, EVE, and Dragon Age.

Give me a good run up and I can hate on TF2 every time they shit more inappropriate rpg nonsense into a perfectly good game.



But seriously, I'm just as susceptible to an attack of fanboism as anyone else here. My problem is that I post mostly about MMOGs and the last worthwhile MMOG to launch was in 2004. It is a true marvel to consider just how much must have changed in your life since the last time the entire industry was collectively able to release anything in the genre that 'turned out basically ok'.

Fuck, I managed to stay optimistic about WAR until launch.

I also don't see how the subscription stuff had much to do with Hellgates failure.  It failed because it was a BAD game, people didn't want to play it for free.

This is true. And if subscription was the main problem it would have been easy to fix as they started adding more zones. In fact all they would have needed to do would be to put a few npc vendors in prominent locations, selling gin and whores to subscribers only.

[eldaec]

I actually quite enjoyed Hellgate, as did a number of my friends (inb4 anecdotal, etc). However, there was no reason for any of us to pay them any money because the subscriber "features" were so limited. I consider Borderlands little more than Hellgate done correctly; if you don't like that either, it's NOTFORYOU.

Out of interest,

How long did you enjoy it for?
When you say you enjoyed it, did you enjoy it to the same degree as say, HL2 or God of War (earlier examples of fps and hack'n'slash)

And if the whole game was subscription only do you think it would have been worthwhile? Because if not, the problem is surely that they didn't make a good enough game, rather than just the subscription model?



I agree completely that Hellgate done right, with systems to positively reinforce player interaction, could have made for a successful game. But they set the bar too low. The shooty and hack/slash gameplay was at best shallow and dated. While the mmog elements were nonexistent.

I see swtor going the same way, they are telling us this that they've developed a story-rpg mmog, and instead of tempting us with the exciting new elements that the mmog aspect can bring to the game, their PR is saying 'ohmigawd we've acheived some of the basic things you take for granted in a story-rpg, only it's online'. Whoopdefricking do.
 

[Rendakor]

You are comparing it to the wrong game. Hellgate follows Diablo II more than HL2 or GoW. Loot + Skill trees.

To answer your questions, I played for about 3 months (through the Stonehenge patch).

If the subscription was required for online play, I still would have played, and I think a lot of people who were playing would have payed for a month or two. I'm not arguing that the game didn't have problems. However, a bad game that generates revenue can be improved (EQ2 comes to mind); a bad game that no one pays for beyond box sales dies.

[Malakili]

You are comparing it to the wrong game. Hellgate follows Diablo II more than HL2 or GoW. Loot + Skill trees.

To answer your questions, I played for about 3 months (through the Stonehenge patch).

If the subscription was required for online play, I still would have played, and I think a lot of people who were playing would have payed for a month or two. I'm not arguing that the game didn't have problems. However, a bad game that generates revenue can be improved (EQ2 comes to mind); a bad game that no one pays for beyond box sales dies.

Indeed it was supposed to be a "spiritual successor" to Diablo 2, but MMOish.  I think it actually did a good job on the former, the latter not so much.  Loot hunting in "The Wilds" with a group was actually quite fun.  For those of us that stuck around, it was even more tragic, becuase the game was finally starting to get its shit together when they announced it was going to be closing down.  The absolutely shitty launch (bad subscription system at launch could be part of this, crashing problems that made the game unplayable for some).  If you bought the game at release there was a good chance you probably just said screw it, moved on, and that was that.

"The Abyss" the patch that was on the PTR when they announced the games death was actually pretty decent too, or at least moving further in the right direction.   Anyway, I understand people just plain not liking the game, thats individual preference, but I thought the actual gameplay was quite fun after all the kinks of launch got worked out.  By then though, the damage was done.

[UnSub]

I also don't see how the subscription stuff had much to do with Hellgates failure.  It failed because it was a BAD game, people didn't want to play it for free.

People could play most of it for free and there was no real reason to sub. That's why Flagship collapsed: not enough money coming in so they had to hock everything to stay open. They didn't have a business model about how to actually collect money for the game.

Sure, it was buggy and limited, but a lot of people really appeared to like it. That they could play it for no sub fee was a bonus. It's not the only reason why HGL / Flagship failed - poor management, overly ambitious game scope, over hyped and under-delivered, etc - but it certainly helped it die more quickly. Flagship tried to throw every option at the wall to see what stuck: not much did, which left them without enough money to continue funding development post-launch.

[eldaec]

If a lot of people liked it, and were playing it for no subscription, you have to wonder why they didn't think "huh, lets make all the good loot subscription only, that'll sort this mess out".

My guess, they shut this down when they realised they had no way back to six figure subscription levels, even if they changed the subs model substantially.

[Lantyssa]

Maybe the game just sucked.  Guild Wars does fine without a sub, yet Hellfire collapsed with one.

[Malakili]

Maybe the game just sucked.  Guild Wars does fine without a sub, yet Hellfire collapsed with one.

Well, that brings up another point, which is management.  In the big interview Roper did after the fact one of the problems was that they ended up trying to do too much, spent too much money, and didn't really have a sustainable business plan.  If you look at the Torchlight guys (Runic Games), one of the things they kept stressing around the time Torchlight was released was that they were extremely careful not to overstep their means, and made the necessary cuts to put out a game given their financial and time constraints.  While some people have criticized Torchlight for a variety of things, its a damn polished, fun game that only took a year to make, they made cuts when they had to, and the overall product benefitted from it.   

Roper did bungle Hellgate though.  I mean, he gets a lot of hate from people for it, and I think people need to cool it when they accuse of him fucking up intentionally, cause I just don't think that is the case.  There is a difference between fucking up, and scamming, and Hellgate wasn't a scam, it was just a perfect storm of fail.

[Ratman_tf]

I actually quite enjoyed Hellgate, as did a number of my friends (inb4 anecdotal, etc). However, there was no reason for any of us to pay them any money because the subscriber "features" were so limited. I consider Borderlands little more than Hellgate done correctly; if you don't like that either, it's NOTFORYOU.

That's interesting. The reason I stopped playing Borderlands is because I feel it fits the complaint about repetition better than HGL. It's got the same 2 or 3 kinds of basic mobs (whacko mask dudes, critters and flying critters) and the same desert tan textures with the occasional cave thrown in. The intro was  but the game didn't keep my attention for long.

I still play HGL. 

[Margalis]

Maybe the game just sucked.  Guild Wars does fine without a sub, yet Hellfire collapsed with one.

The Guild Wars guys knew they weren't going to have subs and planned accordingly to make money from box sales and expansions.

From the outside looking in it seems pretty clear that the Hellgate guys decided to offer subs because they wanted to spend a lot of money and subscriptions represented a best-case scenario method of spending too much without going broke. It was pretty obvious that they never had any idea how their subscription model would work, they just needed it to work somehow because otherwise they were in trouble financially.

[Rendakor]

That's interesting. The reason I stopped playing Borderlands is because I feel it fits the complaint about repetition better than HGL. It's got the same 2 or 3 kinds of basic mobs (whacko mask dudes, critters and flying critters) and the same desert tan textures with the occasional cave thrown in. The intro was  but the game didn't keep my attention for long.

I still play HGL. 

Well, by done right, I don't mean less repetitive. Rather, Borderlands is much more polished, and more confident of its status as a single player game with optional coop; HGL on the other hand was a single player game dressed up as an MMO (including all the baggage that is an MMO launch).

[Lantyssa]

The Guild Wars guys knew they weren't going to have subs and planned accordingly to make money from box sales and expansions.

As Malakili pointed out, the failure was about management as much as other factors.  'Management' is so broad a generalization though that it fails to focus on what really went wrong.

My point was that the failure wasn't so much that the game having a sub or not but other factors surrounding it.  What we don't know at this time for SWTOR is the pay model nor how much they are relying on that for future development versus simply a nice return on their investment.

The Torchlight guys seem to be doing things right, as did ArenaNet.  Hopefully people will learn from them.

[Kageh]

That's interesting. The reason I stopped playing Borderlands is because I feel it fits the complaint about repetition better than HGL. It's got the same 2 or 3 kinds of basic mobs (whacko mask dudes, critters and flying critters) and the same desert tan textures with the occasional cave thrown in. The intro was  but the game didn't keep my attention for long.

I still play HGL. 

I found HG:L repetition a lot more bothersome than the Borderlands kind. Especially the darn endless brown sewer maps. I wanted to like HG:L for the cool setting and the (partially, at least IMO) good art direction, but the controls and the skill trees were fubared and very unimaginative. I remember when I first saw the skill trees in the beta I thought I was looking at one page out of many more to come, and then the game launched and we were stuck with 3-5 worthwhile talents per class.

Borderlands on the other hand manages to somehow simulate progression, as the world changes and transforms with me progressing the story line. And while the enemies are indeed not very varied (there is actually an additional kind of enemy, you forgot the aliens ;-)), the world design is consistent and has a theme, and you're not playing every second level in <random_brown_maze_00>. Too bad story feels so sluggish and stretched at times, and the quests are so darn boring. The pacing, at least to me, feels like by the time I'm advancing something I already forgot why I'm doing that in the first place. Maybe it has to do with too much driving across the landscape shooting bugs.

[eldaec]

In the big interview Roper did after the fact one of the problems was that they ended up trying to do too much, spent too much money

This is what people say when they fail. Truth is they tried to do more than they specifically were capable of, but weren't even trying to do nearly enough to make a viable mmog.

[Venkman]

Just how fun would it be to play WoW or EVE with nobody else on the server?

Not bad, I levelled my shaman on a nearly deserted PvE server and it was no great letdown.

Booooring. WoW wouldn't qualify as an RPG without the lower threshold of critique afforded shared pesistent spaces. The only way WoW solo would compare favorably to an actual RPG is if someone's leveling their fourth character so they can raid. Then they're so biased by a specific type of game play that RPGs don't have that a direct comparison becomes meaningless anyway.

[UnSub]

I'll cut to the chase:

For some an RPG is creating a deep intimate bond with a character, building an image in their mind to the point that this character is a separate entity, with its own life, hopes and dreams. This character is the centre of a personal narrative that will see them play an important role in shaping the character's world and will have real and deep impact on the psyche of the character.

For others, an RPG is maxing your stats through fat lootz to kill stuff better.

Most MMOs attract people who are in the second category. The end.

[DLRiley]

I'll cut to the chase:

For some an RPG is creating a deep intimate bond with a character, building an image in their mind to the point that this character is a separate entity, with its own life, hopes and dreams. This character is the centre of a personal narrative that will see them play an important role in shaping the character's world and will have real and deep impact on the psyche of the character.

For others, an RPG is maxing your stats through fat lootz to kill stuff better.

Most MMOs attract people who are in the second category. The end.

If I said that I would be called a troll.

[Venkman]

I'll cut to the chase:

For some an RPG is creating a deep intimate bond with a character, building an image in their mind to the point that this character is a separate entity, with its own life, hopes and dreams. This character is the centre of a personal narrative that will see them play an important role in shaping the character's world and will have real and deep impact on the psyche of the character.

For others, an RPG is maxing your stats through fat lootz to kill stuff better.

Most MMOs attract people who are in the second category. The end.

You're going to need to sub-divide that there "RPG" label hoss. I could see your argument in a Torchlight/D2 type game. It's how I play them too. Story? Whatever. Give me the lootz and a horadric cube to do shit with them.

Oblivion/KOTOR/Dragon Age/Baldur's Gate though? No freakin' way.

[Rendakor]

That's his point Darniaq; you, at least partially, fall into the first category. I know many people who played Oblivion and KOTOR just to kill shit and get loot.

[Velorath]

I'll cut to the chase:

For some an RPG is creating a deep intimate bond with a character, building an image in their mind to the point that this character is a separate entity, with its own life, hopes and dreams. This character is the centre of a personal narrative that will see them play an important role in shaping the character's world and will have real and deep impact on the psyche of the character.

For others, an RPG is maxing your stats through fat lootz to kill stuff better.

Most MMOs attract people who are in the second category. The end.

How many MMO's have been designed for people that fall into the first catagory?

[Koyasha]

The early ones, when developers thought that's what most of their customers wanted, I suppose.  I would say UO was.  EQ also, in some ways.

[DLRiley]

I get attached to characters because of the narrative not because they are the extension of me. Though that is because I look at games as either violence or stories. If a game does both  I am a very happy gamer. Any mmo can make you attached to a character though the develop rules and limitations can differ widely, attachment if you inclined to it you probably find it. Few mmos provide a narrative and even fewer provide one  I care for. Count the mmo's that have you care about supporting cast (assuming it even bothers having one).  

[schild]

The early ones, when developers thought that's what most of their customers wanted, I suppose.  I would say UO was.  EQ also, in some ways.

The correct answer was *no MMO* was created to create a deep intimate bond with your character. That whole paragraph up there is just outright ridiculous (when applied to MMOGs).

They don't care how or why you first get invested in the game, but they want you to get invested. So they have a good character creator. The first 25% of the game has training wheels. Everything at the beginning is fast paced. They throw loot in your face. Etc. Etc.

All that other flowery shit that was said was mentioned to show the incredible divide between a good RPG and a good MMORPG. Where there's really no RPG part.

Some people roleplay sure, but I like to assume they're crazy.

Edit: Also, UO and EQ weren't. RG was just insane and managed to fit all sorts of kitchen sink stuff into UO except he forgot the game, but it was so early and such a new experience that people look back at it fondly (cue WUA or Cheddar or whoever). Looking back fondly on things is fine, but UO wasn't a "game." The G in RPG means Game. As for EQ, lol. No.

[Malakili]

I get attached to characters because of the narrative not because they are the extension of me. Though that is because I look at games as either violence or stories. If a game does both  I am a very happy gamer. Any mmo can make you attached to a character though the develop rules and limitations can differ widely, attachment if you inclined to it you probably find it. Few mmos provide a narrative and even fewer provide one  I care for. Count the mmo's that have you care about supporting cast (assuming it even bothers having one).  

The supporting cast is the other people playing, I often care about those, especially the ones I choose to ally with (aka guild mates).

[Draegan]

Nostalgia is a helluva drug.

See most of you fuck's first MMOG was UO or EQ.  Mine were more primitive games so when I got to play EQ, for example, it was a buggy piece of shit game that was terrible.  I didn't last 1 month before I got fed up for dieing to a bug and losing 6 hours of "grinding" skeletons on my necro.  Fuck that noise.

Edit:
This came out more as a random rant.  Sorry.  Carry on.

[DLRiley]

The supporting cast is the other people playing, I often care about those, especially the ones I choose to ally with (aka guild mates).

har har no. Guild Wars Prophercies Campaign, Prince Rurik. In his life he pissed you off, since he always run into a fresh wave of mobs after you barely finished the last 5 he aggroed at the same time....He told his dad "shut up dad we must take action we must fight! This IS Ascalon!" And leads the half of Ascalon away from Ascalon into the mountains... His death was a combination of wtf "major npcs don't die!!", lolz, and a little sad (Ascalon just got butt raped an hour ago..).

Nostalgia is a helluva drug.

See most of you fuck's first MMOG was UO or EQ.  Mine were more primitive games so when I got to play EQ, for example, it was a buggy piece of shit game that was terrible.  I didn't last 1 month before I got fed up for dieing to a bug and losing 6 hours of "grinding" skeletons on my necro.  Fuck that noise.

First mmo was rune scape. I loved that pathetic game thinking how awesome it is fighting cows and almost jizzed my pants when I fought Saudies in the desert. Oh yes that was fun "first mmo" times until I eventually wanted to play the rpg part of mmorpg. Though it took me a while, I originally was enthralled with the idea of PvP'ing in the woods were your sole goal was to find people that was stupid enough to enter and attempt to kill them before they realize whats going on and run away. Bonus points for killing a lowbie. I even found it "exciting" when a high level or a gang of high levels figured out I venture too far into the woods and away from pve zone. So considering my "PVP" experience was running away from high levels, attempting to kill anything remotely my level, or chasing lowbies. This bored me in about a week (consider my typical runescape sessions were 5 hours a day...). When I finally did find a "quest" it pretty much broke any interest in the game. Luckily I found another mmo to play but I don't think I liked the genre much after that and eventually out right hated it when I finally discovered guild wars 4 years ago.

[rattran]

The supporting cast is the other people playing, I often care about those, especially the ones I choose to ally with (aka guild mates).

har har no. Guild Wars Prophercies Campaign, Prince Rurik. In his life you pissed you off, since he always run into a fresh wave of mobs after you barely finished the last 5 he aggroed at the same time....He told his dad "shut up dad we must take action we must fight! This IS Ascalon! And leads the half of Ascalon away from Ascalon into the mountains... His death was a combination of wtf "major npcs don't die!!", lolz, and a little sad (Ascalon just got butt raped an hour ago..).

Nostalgia is a helluva drug.

See most of you fuck's first MMOG was UO or EQ.  Mine were more primitive games so when I got to play EQ, for example, it was a buggy piece of shit game that was terrible.  I didn't last 1 month before I got fed up for dieing to a bug and losing 6 hours of "grinding" skeletons on my necro.  Fuck that noise.

First mmo was rune scape. I loved that pathetic game thinking how awesome it is fighting cows and almost jizzed my pants when I fought Saudies in the desert. Oh yes that was fun "first mmo" times until I eventually wanted to play the rpg part of mmorpg. Though it took me a while, I originally was enthralled with the idea of PvP'ing in the woods were your sole goal was to find people that was stupid enough to enter and attempt to kill them before they realize whats going on and run away. Bonus points for killing a lowbie. I even found it "exciting" when a high level or a gang of high levels figured out I venture too far into the woods and away from pve zone. So considering my "PVP" experience was running away from high levels, attempting to kill anything remotely my level, or chasing lowbies. This bored me in about a week (consider my typical runescape sessions were 5 hours a day...). When I finally did find a "quest" it pretty much broke any interest in the game. Luckily I found another mmo to play but I don't think I liked the genre much after that and eventually out right hated it when I finally discovered guild wars 4 years ago.

So stop posting your incoherent rants in the area devoted to mmos. You hate the whole genre. Fine. You contribute nothing but noise. Go troll elsewhere.

[DLRiley]

So stop posting your incoherent rants in the area devoted to mmos. You hate the whole genre. Fine. You contribute nothing but noise. Go troll elsewhere.

See didn't even take an hour.

[rattran]

If you were as cogent as Unsub, you wouldn't be a troll.

[Venkman]

That's his point Darniaq; you, at least partially, fall into the first category. I know many people who played Oblivion and KOTOR just to kill shit and get loot.

Why? Diablo has a fun combat system. I'd put Oblivion's as "acceptable" in context with driving a narrative, and KOTOR's as "shit you put up with because the rest is interesting enough". Are your friends saving, spawning an area, fighting a boss for the lootz and then reloading if they didn't like the drops? I can't see any reason why you'd play a game where loot drives the story for the loot. There are just too many better games in which to do that. Heck, that's why I play Borderlands (what story?).