So, uh LotRO Beta

[Yegolev]

[Arthur_Parker]

April 24th Release date

In 1955, shortly after “The Lord of the Rings” was published, J. R. R. Tolkien began to worry his creation had become a “vast game” for some readers. This was not good, he wrote, even “for me, who find that kind of thing only too fatally attractive.”

Now, Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” and the imaginary setting he painstakingly built, Middle-earth, has become that “vast game.”

Tomorrow in Las Vegas, Turbine Inc. of Westwood, Mass., is to announce an April 24 release date for The Lord of the Rings Online: Shadows of Angmar, the year’s most anticipated massively multiplayer online game, or M.M.O. A digital Middle-earth will open its gates to thousands of virtual characters embarking on quests, plumbing subterranean realms and slaughtering plenty of goblins and trolls.

“Expectations are fairly high for this game,” said Michael Goodman, digital entertainment program manager for the consumer research division of the Yankee Group, a consulting firm. “This is literally a franchise with a brand that spans the globe. There aren’t a lot of those around.”

Some 200 million copies of “The Lord of the Rings” have been published in 39 languages. The 2001-2003 Peter Jackson film trilogy amassed gross revenues of more than $3 billion worldwide.

Yet for the online “Rings” to succeed, Turbine cannot depend on existing gamers alone. It also needs to lure Tolkien devotees who don’t play video games by making it “accessible to just about anyone,” Andrew Park, senior editor at GameSpot, an online gaming news and review site, said in an e-mail interview.

“From what I gather, Turbine is targeting two different audiences for this game: hard-core online game players,” Mr. Park said, “and more-casual or nongame-players who are fans of Tolkien’s works.”

But visualizing hobbit villages and evil armies for Tolkien’s Middle-earth, an already meticulously detailed and plotted world, is complicated. Fans expect its parameters — the languages, geographies, histories, races, nomenclature, mythologies and what Tolkien called the legendarium — to be strictly obeyed.

“Basically, the main challenge of creating an authentic Tolkien experience is building something that won’t make Tolkien’s many fans angry by straying too far away from the original works,” Mr. Park said. Sticklers for detail will be quick to point out any inconsistencies. Even a character’s eye color, Mr. Park said, can’t be off, not by a “nanometer.”

A further challenge is that immersive M.M.O. worlds must entertain for hours, days, even years of play. They have to be infinitely detailed and vast enough that tens of thousands of players can interact with one another at the same time.

Since September some 300,000 users have beta-tested the fates of elvish lore masters and hobbit burglars in a 50-million-square-acre Middle-earth still under construction (and giving the game great advance word of mouth). Most players expect “creative leaps” to adapt a reading experience into compelling play, said Larry Curtis of TheOneRing.net, a Tolkien fan site.

“You’ve got to have a good game,” he added. “It’s not an easy balance.”

Many readers of the novels feared their dumbing-down when the films were first released, Mr. Curtis said. To head off such criticism of the game, Turbine hired “Rings” experts to ensure that any ideas or inventions were consistent with the rules of Middle-earth.

The consultants “would write back with notes on a script: ‘an elf might not do that,’ or, ‘if you’re looking for a more dwarven name, this might work as a family tree,’ ” recounted Jeffrey Anderson, Turbine’s chief executive. His team also worked closely with Tolkien Enterprises, which manages “Ring” merchandising and film rights, seeking its approval for any major departure from the books.

Turbine created Asheron’s Call, its first online role-playing game, in 1999. Last year, the company released Dungeons & Dragons Online, based on the original pen-and-paper role-playing game. (Loosely based on Tolkien’s milieu, D & D was credited with establishing the fantasy gaming genre.) And this isn’t the first time “Rings” has gone digital: Tolkien-esque computer games — some authorized, some not — have been around since the early 1980s.

But Turbine’s is the first Tolkien-based M.M.O. Like the immensely popular World of Warcraft, it will allow anyone — anyone willing to pay about $50 for the software and a monthly subscription fee of up to $15, that is — to not only battle monsters, but also increase virtual skills, wealth and renown. The game makes provisions for the peaceful: Some gamers may be content with their characters weaving and talking (via voice-chat technology), jamming in bands at the local tavern (using an in-game music system) or raising crops and families.

A game this size is bound to invite some dissent among the dedicated. On the lotro.com forum, one observer, Draeconea, grumbled that character movements appeared “unnatural ...They run as if having a sore back, and got several planks of wood underneath their clothes.” In another thread, players argued about whether their avatars, or online beings, should be as powerful as a main Tolkien character like Aragorn.

Concerning these and other details, Mr. Anderson said that “there’s been lots of debate about it.” He added, “We’re going to continue to listen to the community about these topics.”

Until recently, the job of interpreting Tolkien has fallen to Tolkien experts, not film or video-game directors. While many scholars are tolerant of the blockbuster adaptations, a few would prefer that “Rings” remain a reading experience, not a virtual playground.

An online game “may indeed trivialize Tolkien’s legacy,” Wayne G. Hammond, co-author of the “J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide,” said in an e-mail interview, “if one comes to view ‘The Lord of the Rings’ as popular culture more than as a work of literature, or feels that it cannot be a serious work of literature if it has outgrowths in popular culture.”

The game may signal “democratization,” he said, “but it isn’t Tolkien.”

So far, reviews on sites like mmorpg.com and GameSpot.com have been positive. Tolkien’s United States publisher, Houghton Mifflin, also is enthusiastic. “Our hope for the new game is the same hope we held during the time of the films,” said Webster Younce, senior editor at Houghton Mifflin, “that people who might not have read Tolkien will want to go directly to the source.”

[geldonyetich]

NDA should be dropping any day now.  Unless they've decided to keep it in affect all the way up to release or something.

[Pendan]

Had stress test invite in my mail this morning. Really nice of them to send this to me the day after Vanguard beta ends.

[Soln]

12 weeks ahead. 

FWIW Turbine is warning people not to preorder with retailers until Turbine can announce their own incentive deal.  Otherwise people won't get whatever shineh or pet or other vanity item they'll give.  At least for DDO it was a semi useful item for lowbies.

[Edit: le spelling]

[Sunbury]

The game makes provisions for the peaceful: Some gamers may be content with their characters weaving and talking (via voice-chat technology), jamming in bands at the local tavern (using an in-game music system) or raising crops and families.

Wha wha whaaat?

First I've read anything about 'raising crops and families'.   

[HaemishM]

They are preparing for the Chinese farmer market?

 

[tazelbain]

EDIT wrong thread.

[Jamiko]

http://www.lotro.com/preorder

Preorder benefits: $9.99 a month or $199 for a lifetime. Misc other items...

[Trippy]

http://www.lotro.com/preorder

Preorder benefits: $9.99 a month or $199 for a lifetime. Misc other items...

Okay this preorder crap is spinning out of control.

[Cheddar]

Didn't AC2 have a lifetime option as well?

Turbine is slowly withering my heart.  Asherons call is still one of my all time favorite MMO's, but everything else they have produced seems like it is from another company. 

[shiznitz]

$199 is a decent deal for lifetime since it is slight greater than 13 months at $15/month. I expect LotRO will at least survive for 13 months even if it doesn't succeed.

[geldonyetich]

I actually seriously considered that $199 for a lifetime thing.  Being able to play a MMORPG without the inconvenience of subscribing and subscribing to would be awesome.  It's bought and paid for City of Heroes, play or take a break whenever I want.  Kick ass!

Then I looked at the price tag.  $199.  I don't think there's an MMORPG I'd play long enough to be worth that much.  Maybe my very first MMORPG ever, before I burned out from it.

If it was $100, I'd consider it, but that's typically the 1 year plan.

[Lantyssa]

At a box cost of normally $50, the total comes out to box + 10 months under a normal plan.  I wouldn't do it for every game, but if it was one I had a chance to play in beta and could honestly see 10 months of playtime, I certainly would..

[palmer_eldritch]

April 24th Release date

etc . . .

Nice to see a mainstream newspaper writing a pretty good article about games.

[Azazel]

That $199 is actually a pretty decent deal, actually for something you know you'll like.

I'd actually do that if WoW offered it. Unfortunately the drawback with the LoTRO deal is that they're asking people to pony up that much for a game-sight-unseen pre-order. 

[shiznitz]

That $199 is actually a pretty decent deal, actually for something you know you'll like.

I'd actually do that if WoW offered it. Unfortunately the drawback with the LoTRO deal is that they're asking people to pony up that much for a game-sight-unseen pre-order. 

That is the business dilemma of offering a lifetime pricing scheme. A player that KNOWS they will play LotRO until the lights go out will jump on the $199, thereby costing Turbine monthly subscriptions since the player is getting the service for free from month 11 onward. Is the $199 low enough to get LotR fanatics who haven't played an MMO before (do they even exist?) to pony up sight unseen? Launching with a lifetime pricing plan seems shaky to me. Better to offer one after a solid year of play when the diehards are hooked.

[Venkman]

After two years into WoW (18 months cumulative), I might consider a 6-mos sub, for the reasons Geldon notes: convenience. Money's not the issue for me, rather it's one of faith.

All this time in, and not as a hardcore-banging-on-Naxx-day-he-was-patched player, I have nothing but faith that whatever Blizzard puts into WoW, if I'm in the mood for diku or contrived diku-style PvP, that's the game for me.

Everyone else still has to prove themselves though.

And I'd never EVER pay that money for a game that hasn't been out at least a year. Ever. I'd very MUCH recommend nobody do that, particularly the people here who've been around awhile and know better. Ya just have no way of knowing what launch+6mos will bring. The game could last for years but so fundamentally changed you hate it thereafter. Think of the pre/post NGE folks. My God man, think of the children!

And $199 to defray the cost of 13 months isnt' really a good motivator in my view. Anyone considering this has probably been paying that for years already anyway (given the audience this game and company target). And if you're eating cat food b/c you can only afford a subscription or food, $199's an even worse proposition. And I don't say that with a smilie on purpose.

[Soukyan]

I agree. I think the $199 for a lifetime may be a mistake if a lot of the subscriber base takes advantage of it. It seems to me that they can offer in-game rewards and still get the same number of takers. Although, there may be some industry information about lifetime subscribers and actual rate of play. I took advantage of the lifetime sub to Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates, but I only pop on there once every couple of months. Even if every other lifetime subscriber were to act in the same manner, this is not necessarily advantageous to a game that should be promoting players, community and interaction. I'm sure you see my point, but I feel as though I didn't clarify very well. In short, lifetime sub - bad. Other incentives - better. A gamer is a gamer is a gamer. It was hard enough to carve a slice of players out of the market when AC2 hit the shelves. With WoW flourishing, carving a playerbase out will be even more difficult. I would wager that most players of MMOGs now are WoW subscribers and "one other". The one other being the variable one that they feel like checking out on any given month. I see via email today that Saga of Ryzom is somehow still making a go of it. That means Ryzom, Vanguard and soon LoTRO will all be competing with the existing batch for players. I hate to sound like a critical mass doomsdayer, but honestly, how many subscriptions are people going to maintain at this point? What is the critical mass of $ per month? Is there one? Or is it just an industry issue of here's the pool of people and it will ebb and flow to each and every game. Try to maintain your minimum for breaking even and the rest is gravy?

On a personal note, if LoTRO becomes unfeasible, bring back AC2, Turbine. Oh, and port it to Mac. ;)

[Xilren's Twin]

I agree. I think the $199 for a lifetime may be a mistake if a lot of the subscriber base takes advantage of it. It seems to me that they can offer in-game rewards and still get the same number of takers. Although, there may be some industry information about lifetime subscribers and actual rate of play. I took advantage of the lifetime sub to Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates, but I only pop on there once every couple of months. Even if every other lifetime subscriber were to act in the same manner, this is not necessarily advantageous to a game that should be promoting players, community and interaction. ......
 how many subscriptions are people going to maintain at this point? What is the critical mass of $ per month? Is there one?

Just two points.  Firstly, I am sure in that great hidden data vault in the sky, Turbine and other dev shops have the all important "average customer lifespan" number, and I bet that number has been dropping for every game out since EQ.  So if the average duration of a sub in EQ1 was say 16 months, it might be down to 6 months now (please, note numbers pulled directly from rectum).  Market competition and experienced users continue to push that lower over time.

If Turbine know say their average sub length is even 9 months, getting 11 months worth of fees, and up front money at that, probably IS good business sense.  Guaranteed money now is always most attractive then potential money a year or more out.  Plus i bet you dev houses love people who pay up, but play either limited amounts or not at all.  It's there perfect customer :-p

The second point is simply this; having a game you pay one large upfront fee for and no monthly sub fees from there out could actually allow you to try MORE games.  You asked "how many subscriptions can people maintain at once?", but this option eliminates the subscription fee.  Hell most teenagers I know who aren;t even working get at least 200 for a birthday or christmas and for that one hit they game til the servers melt.  It could prove to be a very attractive offer...

[Venkman]

The average length of an account actually was 6 months, estimated, six months prior to WoW's launch. It then jumped to 14 months, but oddly enough, the people making that estimate were doing so 14 months after WoW launched. Imagine that.

So yea, figure six months on average, with WoW being the very-first-MMO for millions, and as such, anamoly.

I don't think anyone can argue a lifestime subscription offer makes good business sense. But my point is it doesn't make sense for a gamer.

Now, not everyone in this genre considers themselves a gamer. I actually don't think I am one either. Rather, I'm more of a hobbiest. But my hobby ties together the whole of the genre, including the dev community and discussions about the games. The reason I'll never pay a lifetime fee is because of experience and knowing myself. I want to jump around, freely, without worrying about the huge/massive investment I made to a single game. $15/mo * 6mos or even a year is less than $199, and comes with the freedom to vote for the game on a monthly basis.

Lifetime fees are basically for those that believe the game is worth it forever. That's putting a lot of faith into a particular developer, publisher and business plan that quite honestly this genre has yet to prove it deserves. This genre as a whole could be a lifetime fulfilling thing for us. But asking for that of one game is going too far in my opinion.

But people do it. I know plenty from UO, EQ and SWG that'll never EVER leave those games, until the servers close, or the sun goes nova.

[Azazel]

Lifetime fees are basically for those that believe the game is worth it forever. That's putting a lot of faith into a particular developer, publisher and business plan that quite honestly this genre has yet to prove it deserves. This genre as a whole could be a lifetime fulfilling thing for us. But asking for that of one game is going too far in my opinion.

Not entirely. I've dropped from WoW a couple of times for months at a time. But right now, at the moment, I can see myself getting another two years worth of fun out of WoW so the lifetime sub would be worthwhile. Spending that on something, sight unseen is a very different proposition however.

[pxib]

The lifetime membership was designed as a way to get a funding injection. Every fee-for-service has tried it from time to time. It will always be a niche product, but the folks who do pay for it pay for it NOW. The money comes in a chunk instead of over time. This is why, I believe, MMOGs have only ever been offered in the beta process... economics. Get a few people to pay and you can say to the accounting department (and your investors) "See? Cash! People are willing to make a long term commitment to this game. We just need a -little- more funding to get through launch."

[Hound]

That $199 is actually a pretty decent deal, actually for something you know you'll like.

I'd actually do that if WoW offered it. Unfortunately the drawback with the LoTRO deal is that they're asking people to pony up that much for a game-sight-unseen pre-order. 

That is the business dilemma of offering a lifetime pricing scheme. A player that KNOWS they will play LotRO until the lights go out will jump on the $199, thereby costing Turbine monthly subscriptions since the player is getting the service for free from month 11 onward. Is the $199 low enough to get LotR fanatics who haven't played an MMO before (do they even exist?) to pony up sight unseen? Launching with a lifetime pricing plan seems shaky to me. Better to offer one after a solid year of play when the diehards are hooked.

Hi all, long time lurker first time poster here. I don't think it is sight unseen the way I read the FAQ

http://lotro.turbine.com/index.php?page_id=103

pre order beta starts starts March 30, public open beta April 06
pre order boxes will be available up till launch day
you do not have to commit to a pricing plan until you create your account with the regular game key at launch so you have almost a month to decide

[Endie]

If that 199 dollars lifetime thing was usable on euro servers I'd jump at it.  With the dollars currently hovering somewhere around parity with the potato, that would be about the same price to me as one fairly decent, but by no means outrageous, night out.

[Endie]

For those not in the Beta, there is a Gameradar article here which interrupts a fairly content-lite piece to stick in a very interesting article about community tools and out-of-game progression, amongst other things:

A Google Maps version of Middle-earth will be accessible to subscribers. Each character you create will get his or her own page on the game's official website, and you'll be able to blog it. Minigames on the website will affect your real progression in (currently unspecified) ways. The site will also feature an online Wiki encyclopedia of info about the LOTR Online universe

Edit:  It's not a content-lite article at all.  There is a "next" button, which I maintain should be made more obvious for terminal smacktards like myself.

(Not really a double-post, since there was a day in-between)

[Soln]

like huh and hmmm.  That is innovative.

[Venkman]

The minigames thing for out-of-game advancement is pretty insane. The maps and blogs and whatnot are also pretty unique, though appear in a few other games (SB, PS, EQ2Players), but that doesn't make them derivative. It just means individually they've been done before but Midway brings them all under one roof.

Interesting they go with the $9.99/mo model (now that it's public). This couldn't have been a cheap game to make, but perhaps they consider it a competitive advantage?

Regardless, I do think LoTRO will do pretty well. It'll launch just as a fair chunk of people are hitting or close to 70 in WoW, looking into the same abyss of raiding or BGs or just-for-the-ubers Arenas and wondering what else they could be doing instead of trying to go from fun to hardcore.

[Arthur_Parker]

They want to make a big splash with the pre-orders, they clearly want a lot of subscribers at launch, being cheaper monthly if you pre-order should help a lot.  I think it's a smart way to help their cash flow and it's probable that larger subscriber numbers will attract even more players.  The lifetime thing is genius, everyone talks about the number of subscribers, if 15% of people sign up for that they get to count those lifetime players forever.

[ahoythematey]

I like the lifetime sub idea as $200, while looking pretty steep, is not much more than I usually spend in night out expenses over the course of a month.  Steel Battalion did the same thing pretty much.  It won't be for everybody, and I'd still worry about the team behind it: I love Asheron's Call, but Turbine has done nothing but fail with each new game they have made since.

I'll probably get the lifetime sub in a reckless moment of randomness.  Who knows, maybe they'll get the Moria or Mirkwood experience right.

[WayAbvPar]

If I end up buying a box, I very well might go for the lifetime subscription. I like the idea of being able to come back any time I want and play without having to re-subscribe. Perversely, it fits my casual player persona pretty well.

[Soukyan]

The minigames thing for out-of-game advancement is pretty insane. The maps and blogs and whatnot are also pretty unique, though appear in a few other games (SB, PS, EQ2Players), but that doesn't make them derivative. It just means individually they've been done before but Midway brings them all under one roof.

Interesting they go with the $9.99/mo model (now that it's public). This couldn't have been a cheap game to make, but perhaps they consider it a competitive advantage?

Regardless, I do think LoTRO will do pretty well. It'll launch just as a fair chunk of people are hitting or close to 70 in WoW, looking into the same abyss of raiding or BGs or just-for-the-ubers Arenas and wondering what else they could be doing instead of trying to go from fun to hardcore.

And will the maps and blogs remain "free" to paying subscribers? If so, that's another good thing, especially at the 9.99/month price point. After all, SOE charges for the additional web features. Or perhaps Turbine plans something similar with a basic blog and pumped up features on the blog for an additional 1.99 per month. On any case, it would be a good additional revenue stream and at the subscription price point, it would still cost less to subscribe to LoTRO than to other MMOGs.

[bignatz]

If Turbine had offered pre-order lifetime subscriptions for AC2, they wouldn't have cancelled it?

[shiznitz]

Yes. Selling a lifetime subscription does not guarantee the game will be around for even a week. Caveat Emptor.

[Nebu]

Yes. Selling a lifetime subscription does not guarantee the game will be around for even a week. Caveat Emptor.

Are you suggesting that buying a lifetime subscription to E&B was a bad idea?