All you need to know is that WOW fanboys said for months that GW would never have any content upgrades for free. They would say things like "that is why we pay 15 bucks a month."
1 WoW pve content upgrade in 7 months : BWL.
1 GW pve content upgrade in 3 months : 2 explorable areas.
So where are the Blizzard Fanboy's eating their crow now that GW has come out with a content upgrade for free... not to mention in less time than WoW took?
I think it's a misconception to believe that 15 bucks a month buys you better service.
First, as this article nicely points out, that if A.net sells enough copies, they can easily turn the same profit that a subscription service can. So both companies have the same money to spend on developement/content/patches.
Second, subscription services have a trackrecord of being horrendous for a reason : the treadmill will make the adverage person forget about the payments. That gives companies like SOE and Blizzard the feeling that they can spurn the user base.
Third, without the subscription, A.net is forced to create a product that people will come back to and buy expansions for through other means than the treadmill. Such as a quality product.
"You are killing brain dead NPCs by the hundreds of thousands for thousands of hours of your life so that you can watch you stats go up."
If he is talking about Guild Wars, you are completely wrong. It doesn't take hundred's of hours to hit max lvl, let alone thousands.
"When are game companies going to learn? Quality assurance and play-testing should not be an afterthought!"
When people stop buying into hype.
How else can you explain the popularity of WoW or the pet rock?
After just leaving their display area, I must say that Blizzards display was one of the least popular areas in all of E3 so far.
1. WoW displayed a single battleground, which the Blizzard rep's said was still in beta. I was treated to waiting in a que to test that single battleground, and even once in that battleground it lagged.
2. Ghost was hyped more than WoW at the Blizzard booth. Although, Ghost looks archaic compared to Halo 2, so I was very disappointed.
Some of the more interesting displays so far...
Unreal 3 engine. Almost CGI quality. Their displays drew many crowds.
Vanguard. I have no intention to play it, however it looks surprisingly alot like EQ2. The Vanguard reps explained that it would be time consuming in the way the original EQ couldn't even imagine.
Slashdot Mirror
they got it all wrong. Female orgasms should be more like video games.
All you need to know is that WOW fanboys said for months that GW would never have any content upgrades for free. They would say things like "that is why we pay 15 bucks a month."
1 WoW pve content upgrade in 7 months : BWL. 1 GW pve content upgrade in 3 months : 2 explorable areas. So where are the Blizzard Fanboy's eating their crow now that GW has come out with a content upgrade for free... not to mention in less time than WoW took?
I think it's a misconception to believe that 15 bucks a month buys you better service. First, as this article nicely points out, that if A.net sells enough copies, they can easily turn the same profit that a subscription service can. So both companies have the same money to spend on developement/content/patches. Second, subscription services have a trackrecord of being horrendous for a reason : the treadmill will make the adverage person forget about the payments. That gives companies like SOE and Blizzard the feeling that they can spurn the user base. Third, without the subscription, A.net is forced to create a product that people will come back to and buy expansions for through other means than the treadmill. Such as a quality product.
"You are killing brain dead NPCs by the hundreds of thousands for thousands of hours of your life so that you can watch you stats go up." If he is talking about Guild Wars, you are completely wrong. It doesn't take hundred's of hours to hit max lvl, let alone thousands.
"When are game companies going to learn? Quality assurance and play-testing should not be an afterthought!" When people stop buying into hype. How else can you explain the popularity of WoW or the pet rock?
After just leaving their display area, I must say that Blizzards display was one of the least popular areas in all of E3 so far. 1. WoW displayed a single battleground, which the Blizzard rep's said was still in beta. I was treated to waiting in a que to test that single battleground, and even once in that battleground it lagged. 2. Ghost was hyped more than WoW at the Blizzard booth. Although, Ghost looks archaic compared to Halo 2, so I was very disappointed. Some of the more interesting displays so far... Unreal 3 engine. Almost CGI quality. Their displays drew many crowds. Vanguard. I have no intention to play it, however it looks surprisingly alot like EQ2. The Vanguard reps explained that it would be time consuming in the way the original EQ couldn't even imagine.