Wrong, the cheapest plan is 1 DVD with 2 per month. The cheapest per DVD plan is 3/time.
1 at-a-time (2 a month) for $4.99 ($2.50 / movie flat rate)
1 at-a-time (Unlimited) for $8.99 ($9/movie/time)
2 at-a-time (Unlimited) for $13.99 $7/movie/time
3 at-a-time (Unlimited) for $16.99 ($5.67/movie/time)
4 at-a-time (Unlimited) for $23.99 ($6/movie/time)
5 and up are all $6/movie/time
The 3/time plan use to be $6/movie, but they dropped the price of that plan by $1/movie as a move to bring Blockbuster Online members back as Blockbuster raised their rates (twice) and by some plans, a massive amount (like 66%).
Tossing out the limited number rental, lowest tier plan, the best deal for any Netflix user is 3/time, assuming you pick a plan that allows you to watch the same number of films a week as you plan allows per time. Meaning, 1 movie a time means you'll watch 1 movie a week, 3 movies at a time and you'll watch 3 movies a week. Which I think it probably about what Netflix expects you to watch and will throttle people to this degree.
The difference is very negligible. That would amount to a cost of $1.41 a movie for 3/time and $1.50 per movie for anything above that. (Assuming the watching habits I described) To round out the numbers, it's $1.75 per movie at 2/time and $2.25 per movie at 1/time (based on a standard 28 day / 4-week month which obviously isn't an exact monthly schedule given most months have more than 28 days)
I'd imagine a substantial portion of their customers will now pay for two accounts. The rest will make due with one queue for two people. It'll also reduce their maintenance cost. Pretty sleazy, nonetheless.
Actually, from a pure consumer standpoint, this change makes no difference. Netflix already has a pricing model such that, the CHEAPEST plan is 3 DVD / time. If you move from 3 to 4 out at a time, you actually pay more and from 4 to any other number, the price is the same (per DVD at a time).
If you had 6 at a time and choose to go to 3 at a time with 2 accounts, you'll actually save money (mere pennies, though). Since it was a separate login/password for each profile, there's no difference between having a separate account, expect for the "master user" having full view access. For those who allow their children to rent, they will still just use one account and they'll have to spend more time on their end managing their queue and that's an unfortunate hassle.
But I think you're right. I think profiles are causing a real PITA for the site programmers to maintain code and scrapping it all together will allow faster and more flexible programming models. They're probably finding legacy code such that the programmers are like "we want to do this but the way profiles currently work, it's preventing us from doing it without a complete programming change to the profiles system".
Instead of sinking a large cost into fixing profile code, they're probably just going to scrap it all together so they can implement whatever new and shiny features or improve database speeds or whatever.
I thought the feature was awesome, but from a "money" standpoint, I don't see how Netflix is doing this to "screw customers" out of more money, as their current payment plans emphasis 3/time movies over any other. Unless there's some research that says that 3/time people keep their movies longer than 6/time people or something.
Hehe, I find it amusing that these people are hoping to "quit their day jobs" off this game but couldn't afford $3,000 for a decent computer to render the games they took screen shots of!
Actually, it's a major advantage to new low level players
Please note, I said "new" players, not "low-level" characters. There is an inherent difference between the two.
New plays are at a disadvantage to these goods just like they are at a disadvantage to find groups to run a dungeon. "low-level" characters of a higher level character likely has other high level characters to supply them with man-power for dungeons (instance run) or easily/quickly farm resources for crafting.
New players have to... A) Understand the economy (what items are valuable, such as cloth and green items) B) Understand the Auction House (or even know it exists) C) Be able to acquire resources cheaply and easily (which requires them to level up to a higher level first) D) Learn about and acquire some trade professions (ore, leather, and herbalism gathering are all impossible without having learned their respected trade professions first) E) Not have a profession that will consume the resources they're gathering (it's hard to make money of cloth if you're a tailor and are working to level your trade skill). F) Actually be interested in spending time farming stuff for money, so they can buy the items that alts of high level characters are buying with their pocket change, instead of continuing to level their character to make farming eventually easier.
I think what I'm really trying to say is that, Blizzard has spent a lot of time making it faster to level and fighting gold farmers, without balancing the actual monetary progression or effects of inflation. Now that people are leveling even faster than before (which was already fast), they're out leveling quests, money and item rewards, and having less loot to turn over to vendors or AH for cash, before having to buy more spells for their character.
Those with high level characters have no problem. Brand new players, should probably just be given 100g credit when they start so they can at least compete on a financial scale.
Similarly, there's no value in low-level trade goods, like there once was
Er... you're not playing the WoW I'm playing. Actually, the reverse is true. Low-level goods and items are drastically higher in cost than they can reasonably purchased by new players at those levels.
This is do to primarily to the inflation of money injected into the economy with daily quests. It's very easy to farm money for any level 70, and as such, they transfer that money to alts. Not wanting to spend endless hours leveling up trade skills (again), they just purchase the trade goods off the Auction House, and they're willing to spend 5g-10g for a stack of 20 wool cloth, to save them 20 mins farming it.
Likewise, some nice class stat green items are selling for several gold for levels in the teens. However, the main point is the same. This is a major disadvantage to new players. Players whom I've come to hand out 100g to just so they can buy some decent stuff.
It seems that as the initial "shiny factor" wears off for the new darling MMO, the bugs and complaints just continue to pile up resulting in a fair bit of buyer's remorse.
Formally know as "the honeymoon period", this is just par for the course for all MMO's as well as human behavior for a lot of things (including marriage apparently, as the name suggests). AoC isn't really any different than any other MMO I've seen, including WoW, which suffered greatly from server crashes and lag issues in the first 2 weeks that prompted them to give time credit to all accounts. I think I have 8 days of "free" time to play beyond the "free" first month.
The only MMO I've played at launch that I recall having the least issues was LOTRO. However, they had plenty of server issues and quest bugs as well. Just a lot less than I've seen normally. WoW's problems stemmed mostly from unprecedented demand.
Or the most obvious answer... parents don't want their TV tied up for 16 hours at a time while their 26 year old son "Johnny" does back to back raids. =P
Another argument about his lack of job hunting skills and the small TV in the bedroom doesn't cut it. =D
Wow, that's incredible that the US can STILL be the largest manufacturer in the world while not manufacturing anything! If you want to stir up fear, uncertainty and doubt as least aim it at the truth, such as the declining amount of manufacturing in the US, not some sort of asinine statement that it doesn't exist anymore. Speaking from a person who works for a US manufacture who's products can be found in a Home Depot, Lowe's, and an endless number of wholesalers, just to name a few. Who's products are all stamped with "Made in America" and can be found in everyone's home.
RE4 and MP3 primarily use the pointing (ie IR camera) function of the Wii remote
Very true. However, it wasn't the primary aspect of Metroid that make this version (compared to the previous 2 on the Gamecube) better, IMHO. It was the interactive use of the Wii remote to grab, twist, and pull power conduits out of the wall to push, twist, and lock them back into place somewhere else (to solve a puzzle). And then there was the grappling hook which you yanked your nun-chuck back to rip the shield off an enemy. That was also very cool.
Those little touches really enhanced the game from being, "another typically good Metroid game" to being much more interactive or immersion. Of course, I do wish there was more of that kind of thing. I'd agree with saying that it wasn't enough. But I disagree that it wasn't of "great benefit" to the game, because it was.
RE4, I just didn't play on the Wii. I played it every which way on the gamecube (and loved it) but didn't feel like spending money on it again. I don't see much use of the accelerometer there. The game just wasn't designed for it (as it was designed before the Wii)
Why does absolutely no developer actually use the damn wii-control in the way people want/expect.
DragonQuest: Swords for the Wii. Your "slashes" translate to the 2D plane of the screen. up/down slashes are up/down on the screen. Horizontal are horizontal and diagonal are based on your direction given.
Go play that. Then come back here and remind us why it's better game play to just "shake = B". DQ:Swords isn't horrible, but I'll be damned if it's very easy to do a proper directional slash because what you *think* was a horizontal slash was actually a diagonal slash because you twisted the remote a little when you slashed, given the remote a different dimensional perspective. Of course it's natural to do that, but how in the world is a game developer going to be able to tell if person A will do it this way but person B will do it another?
Simple answer, they can't. The only possible use for real world translations of the Wii remote will have to incorporate some sort of limitation of the true translation to make sure when a person *thinks* they're trying to "slash up and down" the game responds accordingly. Not doing so just pisses a person off... like in DragonQuest (which unfortunately also comes with a mini-game that requires precision slashes to beat the clock. It'll frustrate you to no end.
Basically, as a developers try to give people more and more precision with their movements, they're taking away actual translation to the point that games are actually more fun with just "shaking = B" because it's a more accurate expected response.
The only games we can say successfully used wii-mote it were RE4 and Metroid Prime as they actually used the aiming ability for it. Still, no actual games exist that actually uses the motion to any great benefit.
That's contradictory. First, I've not played RE4:Wii, only Gamecube. But Metroid's use of the Wii controller was of great benefit to the game. Thus, there's at least one "actual" game that uses it. And according to you, there's a second, RE4.
You should attend some GameDeveloper conferences and talk to the developers of your MMORPGs of interest.
You're right, I should attend more.
Although this scenario was hyperbole (yours), the bahavior of players in WoW, Shadowbane, EQ, Lineage, Lineage2, on and on (both due to the creators making too difficult content or bugged content) has already played out this scenario and I have described the behavior, which is part of the theory (players will access content at almost any cost) comes from.
Gotcha. Except, isn't saying "people will access content at almost any cost" the same thing as saying, "people will try to progress at any cost"? Though, I think a cleaner statement is saying people will try to play a game until the cost of trying to play it out weights it's value (to them). Each person has their own tipping point. Some are even "any cost" kind of people. They're the one's who annoy developers as they find wall-hacks, print-screen jumps, and so on to access areas not meant to be accessed.
If the "end of content" is in the form of a raid dungeon or the END of that raid dungeon, does it matter? All players are faced with the same choice. What to do in the face of NO progression.
First, I'll have to say that I didn't quite follow along your train of thought on this one. Second, I just thought of something. Isn't it funny how we (third person plural) call such content "end" content. Signifying that there's no progression after?
Progression does not need content if you simply reuse the same content with increasing difficulty. WoW Heroic Dungeons? Lineage 1+2/WoW/EQ/UO/SB/CoV+H/DaoC reusing monster models in increasingly harder areas?
Interesting argument. However, I'd say that re-using content does not mean content ceases to exist. (just because content is reused does not mean it is not content) It just ceases to be the motivation behind progression.
Usually content is the primary motivation. People want that shiny new item or to see that far away city.
In the case of WoW Heroics, they added new content in terms of items. Though, I'm sure if they didn't, there are some people who would do it for the challenge.
In the case of re-skinned models, people are motivated to progress for the sake of gaining character levels, seeing new lands, and/or gaining new abilities or items. Even if the monster content is reused there's other content that drives a player to progress.
I disagree, progression still needs content, even if it's old or reused content.
But this does not explain WHAT PLAYERS ACTUALLY DO when faced with no option of progression (even if the option is to find a guild and get into a raid, many players wont do this and are faced with the same issue as an endgame raider). They either find new non-progression content to chase or they quit.
A very interesting point. What I would ask you is, what do you consider "non-progression" content?
In the end, getting something different or even NEW is considered its own minigame (people still go back to do level 12 quests to see things they may have bypassed, although more commonly in the form of an alt).
Completely agree.
If you have an MMORPG player who cannot find or create their own motivation (in the form of change), you have a cancelled subscription.
Interesting that you say "create their own". After all, isn't that what the game is suppose to provide for you? Why should one have to create their own content to entertain themselves? Why *would* anyone pay someone else to create their own content? This is an interesting part of the social networking side of MMOGs.
You should ask all the WoW PvP players or the Gunbound players who buy special hats that look cool but have NEGATIVE stats.
I agree with you actually and I think this still falls into pr
I have talked to MMO developers and people involved in MMO games. They were called MUDs back then, though. I've also known people from game studios Raven and Humanhead. They're not MMO companies though. Lastly, I've written research papers in college on virtual worlds for a computer science class on networking and graphics. I'm no guru for sure, but I know enough to form some strong opinions.
They will tell you the same thing. Players devour content.
This is true. No one is arguing they don't, which is why you're missing the point.
"Stupid on it's face." sounds a lot like "I'm talking out of my ass."
Here's a tip, saying: "ALL MMOG players strive for [...]", no matter what is a stupid comment to make. All I need is one person to disagree with your statement (myself) and your statement is false. Instead, say "a lot". Any holistic statement where anyone claims "all people do this" are stupid on their face.
Once anyone gets to the top progression they quit?
Generally yes.
How long was MC the highest dungeon in WoW?
I didn't write it down. I see where you going, but you'll be wrong because you're missing the point.
The moment that PvP BGs came out (where there is no "progression" only new content in terms of items) people ate it up.
You're wrong. The BG's offered lots of progression, which is why a lot of people "ate it up".
People auction special mounts or pets or toys that have no game function other than visuals.
"toys" have a game function. You'll have to remember what it means to play an RPG, which is more than just "Min/Max"-ing your stats.
If players needed to kill level 70 elites to get the 2nd level dungeon, [...]
You're trying to re-design my hypothetical situation to fit your needs. Obviously, you're missing the point.
You discount content as a motivator like you have real evidence to the contrary.
Wrong. Content and progression are two sides of the same sword. They are both required for an MMORPG to be sustainable. However, my point is that people are wrongly apply the term "content" to "progression". Let me reiterate...
Simplified, Progression is an action. Content is an object. Progression needs content. Without it, what is there to progress through? Content does not need progression. You can create all the content you want, but prevent anyone from accessing it. Of course, why would you want to do that?
Progression is not just your character level. It is not just being level 70 of 70. It is also not a black and white value of being done or not done, max level or not max level. It's also a perception. If a player feels like they're not progressing or that the time it takes to progress is too daunting, it has the same effect of actually not being able to progress. Everquest's "hell" levels are an example of this. Some players got so frustrated with the extremely slow progression through these levels that they quit. Myself included.
Progression can be gaining character levels, reputation faction, advancing a story line, gaining more powerful weapons or items, gaining wealth or prestige, explore all of the land, or more. As you can see, this means that the BG's allowed progression. At first it gave you ranks that you need to progress through. Then it gave you points (wealth), that allowed you to purchase more powerful items. It's also competition which allows person to gain prestige by being the "best" PvP player by whatever metric they want such as being the top of the kills list or just being 'famous' on the server for being hard to kill.
Eh. I was a fan of Tecmo Super Bowl. This looks like it's a remake of the original Tecmo Bowl, which was good, but only had limited teams and stats and stuff. I'm waiting for TSB so I can run Barry Sanders up and down the field a few times, watch people bounce of Christian Okeyea(sp? the FB from the Chiefs), and block extra points with LT.
I hope this game does well so they release the Super Bowl version. *fingers crossed*
Except all Blizzard do is add new content for the bloody endgamers.
I've made this comment before, recently, on Slashdot. There's a difference between content and progression for which my argument was (and is) that progression is more important than content, though they are both required and closely linked. What you're referring to is not content, but progression. You're pissed that even though Blizzard adds new things to the game, you cannot do them. So, you're not pissed at the "new stuff", you're pissed at the lack of progression or ability to DO the new stuff.
And I believe you're right. Although TBC was better than the "original" level 60 cap end-game for progression, Blizzard is still far too slow to add progression for the masses to keep them sustained. Lack of progression is what drives people towards other games. That includes running out of content, because if you run out of content you also have nothing else to progress too. However, (depending on your play style) there could also still be content you've not seen (40-man raids or other major end game dungeons) but if it's more-or-less impossible for you to do it, it's the same as if it wasn't there at all. However, it's clear Blizzard knows this as they've been moving away from this kind of progression brick wall to their content since TBC. WOTLK appears to be making another huge step in that it appears they're making all dungeons 10 or 25 man optional. That should make content more accessible to a lot more people.
NOTHING ever changes in the game. [...] ou'd think there wouldn't be any fucking gnomes left in Gnomeregan now, but oh no, those refugees still come running up that slope.
Now you're talking about something that's completely outside the realm of content or progression. I'll continue my habit of linking to what I believe to be one of the most interesting MMO books out there... Designing Virtual Worlds by Richard Bartle. This book talks about what you're referring too. There are many types of virtual worlds. They go from very dynamic (everything you do changes the world) to static (no matter what you do, little changes). Most MMORPG's on the market today are far closer to the static side of the spectrum. It sounds like the type of Virutal World you'd like is a more dynamic system. However, dynamic worlds are very hard to play in, to program, and to run. If everything you do changes the world, you might not like it that someone changes a part of the world you liked. I recommend checking out that book for more interesting reading about this aspect of Virtual Worlds. Yes, there use to be very dynamic text based MMO's (MUDs) back in the day. They typically didn't last long. The reason MMO's today are (more) static is partly due to the fact that it's also what 'sells'. Survival of the fittest.
By being popular, WOW is cursed
Popularity brings with it the people who hate popularity. I guess you could say this, but it's a short sighted and ignorant view of things.
Blizzard are so terrified of any major changes
This could easily be argued against by just looking at patch notes and expansion pack details. Class talent changes have dramatically changed over the years. The addition of Paladins and Shamans to both factions was a very major change to the game. The addition of a 3rd dimension with flying mounts was a major change.
The game outside of Outlands, aside from a few minor additions (Dustwallow quests for example), is identical to the one I started playing three years ago.
That's game design (see previous comment about static/dynamic worlds), not laziness of Blizzard or their curse of being popular. It's a technical issue. You'd have to know more about client/server architecture to know that it's pre
Since your post makes it painfully obvious that you haven't used Wii Fit at all,
Indeed. I go to the gym 3-5 times a week (depending on my work schedule) for a mix of cardio and weight training. I have the Wii fit and after a few exercises, my heart rate is up and I'm sweating. Some of the strength training exercises were actually hard to do because of the focus on balance, something I lack when I lift free weights, better balance.
A lot of the strength training exercises are quite good and directly out of fitness magazines (Something else I'm familiar with as I've been reading Men's Health on/off for years) such as: Push-Ups, Lunges, and sit-ups (I've not even unlocked the advanced stuff yet).
Don't even get me started on the Yoga. hehe that kicked my butt. Flexibility and stability are also great ways to tone and strengthen your muscles. It's not just how big the dumbbell is in your hand. Most people can probably drop a good percentage of their lifting weight and focus on form, balance, and speed (slower speeds, most people go far to fast and I'm guilty as charged) and get a far better work out.
You mean CONTENT, which is what ALL MMOG players strive for, not progression.
Wrong. I mean Progression. And it is NOT what all MMOG players strive for. Such a holistic comment is stupid on it's face.
Thet's really the key.
Wrong. Progression is the key. All the content in the world is pointless if you cannot progress through it. Example, what if WoW required you to kill a level 70 elite monster at the end of a dungeon to reach level 2? You cannot leave the starting area until you reach level 2. All other "content" is still in WoW. Not very fun if you cannot progress. Eh?
The WoW-killer will be the game where the designers figure out how to add content 100x as fast as Wow
Progression is an action, Content is a thing (albeit virtual thing in this sense). Progression implies content (you cannot progress through anything if there is nothing there), but content does not imply progression (see my previous example).
This is a human trait and the same feelings can be found in the real world. As one example: I can pile up all kinds of math books (content) in front of you. Pre-Algebra, Algebra, Algebra II, Calculus, Linear Algebra, etc. To read (progress to) the Algebra book, you'll first have to finish/understand pre-Algebra (ok, it's not entirely true, but you get the idea). To get to Calculus, you have to finish/understand through Algebra II. If you cannot understand/finish pre-Algebra, all the other high level math books I throw at you is pointless! You'll never understand/progress through or to them. However, if you started progressing through pre-Algebra and really started to understand the concepts more and more, and your progression increased you really start to enjoy math a lot more! Because you "get it". You're *progressing*! Of course, until you hit Calculus and that all comes to a screeching halt because they forgot to tell you that you need better equipment to raid that book. =P
That's my point. Bliz. can add all the Black Temples, Sunwell's, Gruul's, AQ's, ZA's, Karazahns, etc. but if you cannot do them, they're as good as not even existing. Any casual gamer, like myself, does not have the time to invest in a lot of these. Progression has gotten to be slow to the point of non-existence (or at least slow enough to remove enjoyment from the game). As I said in my previous comment, 2-years is far to long to add progression back to the game, at least for WoW. Even casually playing and taking an 8 month break has made me run, more-or-less, out of progression as a fairly casual gamer. Now the Sunwell is nice because they gave all those new daily quests... except, I've progressed through the reputation points/levels and there's nothing I can really spend my money on to progress my characters items (BoP items are to thank for that, I'm not sure if they're really a better solution than my days playing EQ *shrug*)
So, there you have it. It's a confusing topic because progression actually implies content. So, you cannot have it without content. But you can have content without progression. Which makes the notion of adding content "100x faster" fine... if you could progress through it at whatever rate you enjoy the most.
I think WoW will see a lot of defections as players who've hit the upper limit and gotten everything it's possible to get in the game, start looking for a new challenge and a less happy candy colored world.
I think this really sums up WoW right now. It's not that AoC is "better" than WoW, it's that WoW is killing itself with a nearly 2-year release between expansions and game progression.
MMOers want to continue to progress their character(s). 2 years is FAR too long to give people really something to progress with besides horizontal progression with a couple new dungeons thrown in once in a while.
Having Beta tested AoC, I think it's an ok game, but I do not see anything in there that I think is "better" than WoW. Except that it's "new". That means new classes, new lands to explore, new quests to do, more levels to grind. That's what people are really going to be leaving WoW for. Progression. If WotLK came out today, AoC wouldn't be so "big" in the news right now, nor would people be "leaving in droves" to play something else.
I'm sure most of the people who will leave for AoC will be back for WotLK. Until then, I think it's great to eat up the new stuff as well as it being particularly fun to be apart of an MMO launch. Given that a lot of new people start MMOing with WoW, this will be their first major chance to play an MMO from launch. I'm just waiting for the servers to crash at the stress and all the kiddies to come out in droves to forums and start flaming funcom for being worthless programmers. hehe It happens in ever MMO launch.
And fuck your nitpicking - copying is stealing. Period.
Wow, the Parent Poster is a thief! To access *any* website (including/.) you need to download a copy of the files on the slashdot servers. Opps, score one for holistic generalizations!
Then again, the AC poster was obviously just trolling. No one is stupid enough to actually mean that.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong, the cheapest plan is 1 DVD with 2 per month. The cheapest per DVD plan is 3/time.
The 3/time plan use to be $6/movie, but they dropped the price of that plan by $1/movie as a move to bring Blockbuster Online members back as Blockbuster raised their rates (twice) and by some plans, a massive amount (like 66%).
Tossing out the limited number rental, lowest tier plan, the best deal for any Netflix user is 3/time, assuming you pick a plan that allows you to watch the same number of films a week as you plan allows per time. Meaning, 1 movie a time means you'll watch 1 movie a week, 3 movies at a time and you'll watch 3 movies a week. Which I think it probably about what Netflix expects you to watch and will throttle people to this degree.
The difference is very negligible. That would amount to a cost of $1.41 a movie for 3/time and $1.50 per movie for anything above that. (Assuming the watching habits I described) To round out the numbers, it's $1.75 per movie at 2/time and $2.25 per movie at 1/time (based on a standard 28 day / 4-week month which obviously isn't an exact monthly schedule given most months have more than 28 days)
Actually, from a pure consumer standpoint, this change makes no difference. Netflix already has a pricing model such that, the CHEAPEST plan is 3 DVD / time. If you move from 3 to 4 out at a time, you actually pay more and from 4 to any other number, the price is the same (per DVD at a time).
If you had 6 at a time and choose to go to 3 at a time with 2 accounts, you'll actually save money (mere pennies, though). Since it was a separate login/password for each profile, there's no difference between having a separate account, expect for the "master user" having full view access. For those who allow their children to rent, they will still just use one account and they'll have to spend more time on their end managing their queue and that's an unfortunate hassle.
But I think you're right. I think profiles are causing a real PITA for the site programmers to maintain code and scrapping it all together will allow faster and more flexible programming models. They're probably finding legacy code such that the programmers are like "we want to do this but the way profiles currently work, it's preventing us from doing it without a complete programming change to the profiles system".
Instead of sinking a large cost into fixing profile code, they're probably just going to scrap it all together so they can implement whatever new and shiny features or improve database speeds or whatever.
I thought the feature was awesome, but from a "money" standpoint, I don't see how Netflix is doing this to "screw customers" out of more money, as their current payment plans emphasis 3/time movies over any other. Unless there's some research that says that 3/time people keep their movies longer than 6/time people or something.
Cheers,
Fozzy
Hehe, I find it amusing that these people are hoping to "quit their day jobs" off this game but couldn't afford $3,000 for a decent computer to render the games they took screen shots of!
A Players Hand Book? Those are my kind of engineers! What about Monster Manuals and Dungeon Master Guides?
Please note, I said "new" players, not "low-level" characters. There is an inherent difference between the two.
New plays are at a disadvantage to these goods just like they are at a disadvantage to find groups to run a dungeon. "low-level" characters of a higher level character likely has other high level characters to supply them with man-power for dungeons (instance run) or easily/quickly farm resources for crafting.
New players have to...
A) Understand the economy (what items are valuable, such as cloth and green items)
B) Understand the Auction House (or even know it exists)
C) Be able to acquire resources cheaply and easily (which requires them to level up to a higher level first)
D) Learn about and acquire some trade professions (ore, leather, and herbalism gathering are all impossible without having learned their respected trade professions first)
E) Not have a profession that will consume the resources they're gathering (it's hard to make money of cloth if you're a tailor and are working to level your trade skill).
F) Actually be interested in spending time farming stuff for money, so they can buy the items that alts of high level characters are buying with their pocket change, instead of continuing to level their character to make farming eventually easier.
I think what I'm really trying to say is that, Blizzard has spent a lot of time making it faster to level and fighting gold farmers, without balancing the actual monetary progression or effects of inflation. Now that people are leveling even faster than before (which was already fast), they're out leveling quests, money and item rewards, and having less loot to turn over to vendors or AH for cash, before having to buy more spells for their character.
Those with high level characters have no problem. Brand new players, should probably just be given 100g credit when they start so they can at least compete on a financial scale.
Er... you're not playing the WoW I'm playing. Actually, the reverse is true. Low-level goods and items are drastically higher in cost than they can reasonably purchased by new players at those levels.
This is do to primarily to the inflation of money injected into the economy with daily quests. It's very easy to farm money for any level 70, and as such, they transfer that money to alts. Not wanting to spend endless hours leveling up trade skills (again), they just purchase the trade goods off the Auction House, and they're willing to spend 5g-10g for a stack of 20 wool cloth, to save them 20 mins farming it.
Likewise, some nice class stat green items are selling for several gold for levels in the teens. However, the main point is the same. This is a major disadvantage to new players. Players whom I've come to hand out 100g to just so they can buy some decent stuff.
Formally know as "the honeymoon period", this is just par for the course for all MMO's as well as human behavior for a lot of things (including marriage apparently, as the name suggests). AoC isn't really any different than any other MMO I've seen, including WoW, which suffered greatly from server crashes and lag issues in the first 2 weeks that prompted them to give time credit to all accounts. I think I have 8 days of "free" time to play beyond the "free" first month.
The only MMO I've played at launch that I recall having the least issues was LOTRO. However, they had plenty of server issues and quest bugs as well. Just a lot less than I've seen normally. WoW's problems stemmed mostly from unprecedented demand.
Or the most obvious answer... parents don't want their TV tied up for 16 hours at a time while their 26 year old son "Johnny" does back to back raids. =P
Another argument about his lack of job hunting skills and the small TV in the bedroom doesn't cut it. =D
Wow, that's incredible that the US can STILL be the largest manufacturer in the world while not manufacturing anything! If you want to stir up fear, uncertainty and doubt as least aim it at the truth, such as the declining amount of manufacturing in the US, not some sort of asinine statement that it doesn't exist anymore. Speaking from a person who works for a US manufacture who's products can be found in a Home Depot, Lowe's, and an endless number of wholesalers, just to name a few. Who's products are all stamped with "Made in America" and can be found in everyone's home.
My friend just found his copy of Tie Fighter. I guess that's why I haven't seen him in a long time. He prefers blowing up Rebels.
Very true. However, it wasn't the primary aspect of Metroid that make this version (compared to the previous 2 on the Gamecube) better, IMHO. It was the interactive use of the Wii remote to grab, twist, and pull power conduits out of the wall to push, twist, and lock them back into place somewhere else (to solve a puzzle). And then there was the grappling hook which you yanked your nun-chuck back to rip the shield off an enemy. That was also very cool.
Those little touches really enhanced the game from being, "another typically good Metroid game" to being much more interactive or immersion. Of course, I do wish there was more of that kind of thing. I'd agree with saying that it wasn't enough. But I disagree that it wasn't of "great benefit" to the game, because it was.
RE4, I just didn't play on the Wii. I played it every which way on the gamecube (and loved it) but didn't feel like spending money on it again. I don't see much use of the accelerometer there. The game just wasn't designed for it (as it was designed before the Wii)
Cheers,
Fozzy
DragonQuest: Swords for the Wii. Your "slashes" translate to the 2D plane of the screen. up/down slashes are up/down on the screen. Horizontal are horizontal and diagonal are based on your direction given.
Go play that. Then come back here and remind us why it's better game play to just "shake = B". DQ:Swords isn't horrible, but I'll be damned if it's very easy to do a proper directional slash because what you *think* was a horizontal slash was actually a diagonal slash because you twisted the remote a little when you slashed, given the remote a different dimensional perspective. Of course it's natural to do that, but how in the world is a game developer going to be able to tell if person A will do it this way but person B will do it another?
Simple answer, they can't. The only possible use for real world translations of the Wii remote will have to incorporate some sort of limitation of the true translation to make sure when a person *thinks* they're trying to "slash up and down" the game responds accordingly. Not doing so just pisses a person off... like in DragonQuest (which unfortunately also comes with a mini-game that requires precision slashes to beat the clock. It'll frustrate you to no end.
Basically, as a developers try to give people more and more precision with their movements, they're taking away actual translation to the point that games are actually more fun with just "shaking = B" because it's a more accurate expected response.
The only games we can say successfully used wii-mote it were RE4 and Metroid Prime as they actually used the aiming ability for it. Still, no actual games exist that actually uses the motion to any great benefit.That's contradictory. First, I've not played RE4:Wii, only Gamecube. But Metroid's use of the Wii controller was of great benefit to the game. Thus, there's at least one "actual" game that uses it. And according to you, there's a second, RE4.
Hehe, funny. Just replace step 1 with "RENT" and save yourself some money and landfill space.
You should attend some GameDeveloper conferences and talk to the developers of your MMORPGs of interest.
You're right, I should attend more.
Although this scenario was hyperbole (yours), the bahavior of players in WoW, Shadowbane, EQ, Lineage, Lineage2, on and on (both due to the creators making too difficult content or bugged content) has already played out this scenario and I have described the behavior, which is part of the theory (players will access content at almost any cost) comes from.
Gotcha. Except, isn't saying "people will access content at almost any cost" the same thing as saying, "people will try to progress at any cost"? Though, I think a cleaner statement is saying people will try to play a game until the cost of trying to play it out weights it's value (to them). Each person has their own tipping point. Some are even "any cost" kind of people. They're the one's who annoy developers as they find wall-hacks, print-screen jumps, and so on to access areas not meant to be accessed.
If the "end of content" is in the form of a raid dungeon or the END of that raid dungeon, does it matter? All players are faced with the same choice. What to do in the face of NO progression.
First, I'll have to say that I didn't quite follow along your train of thought on this one. Second, I just thought of something. Isn't it funny how we (third person plural) call such content "end" content. Signifying that there's no progression after?
Progression does not need content if you simply reuse the same content with increasing difficulty. WoW Heroic Dungeons? Lineage 1+2/WoW/EQ/UO/SB/CoV+H/DaoC reusing monster models in increasingly harder areas?
Interesting argument. However, I'd say that re-using content does not mean content ceases to exist. (just because content is reused does not mean it is not content) It just ceases to be the motivation behind progression.
Usually content is the primary motivation. People want that shiny new item or to see that far away city.
In the case of WoW Heroics, they added new content in terms of items. Though, I'm sure if they didn't, there are some people who would do it for the challenge.
In the case of re-skinned models, people are motivated to progress for the sake of gaining character levels, seeing new lands, and/or gaining new abilities or items. Even if the monster content is reused there's other content that drives a player to progress.
I disagree, progression still needs content, even if it's old or reused content.
But this does not explain WHAT PLAYERS ACTUALLY DO when faced with no option of progression (even if the option is to find a guild and get into a raid, many players wont do this and are faced with the same issue as an endgame raider). They either find new non-progression content to chase or they quit.
A very interesting point. What I would ask you is, what do you consider "non-progression" content?
In the end, getting something different or even NEW is considered its own minigame (people still go back to do level 12 quests to see things they may have bypassed, although more commonly in the form of an alt).
Completely agree.
If you have an MMORPG player who cannot find or create their own motivation (in the form of change), you have a cancelled subscription.
Interesting that you say "create their own". After all, isn't that what the game is suppose to provide for you? Why should one have to create their own content to entertain themselves? Why *would* anyone pay someone else to create their own content? This is an interesting part of the social networking side of MMOGs.
You should ask all the WoW PvP players or the Gunbound players who buy special hats that look cool but have NEGATIVE stats.
I agree with you actually and I think this still falls into pr
Try TALKING to any mmorpg developer.
I have talked to MMO developers and people involved in MMO games. They were called MUDs back then, though. I've also known people from game studios Raven and Humanhead. They're not MMO companies though. Lastly, I've written research papers in college on virtual worlds for a computer science class on networking and graphics. I'm no guru for sure, but I know enough to form some strong opinions.
They will tell you the same thing. Players devour content.
This is true. No one is arguing they don't, which is why you're missing the point.
"Stupid on it's face." sounds a lot like "I'm talking out of my ass."
Here's a tip, saying: "ALL MMOG players strive for [...]", no matter what is a stupid comment to make. All I need is one person to disagree with your statement (myself) and your statement is false. Instead, say "a lot". Any holistic statement where anyone claims "all people do this" are stupid on their face.
Once anyone gets to the top progression they quit?
Generally yes.
How long was MC the highest dungeon in WoW?
I didn't write it down. I see where you going, but you'll be wrong because you're missing the point.
The moment that PvP BGs came out (where there is no "progression" only new content in terms of items) people ate it up.
You're wrong. The BG's offered lots of progression, which is why a lot of people "ate it up".
People auction special mounts or pets or toys that have no game function other than visuals.
"toys" have a game function. You'll have to remember what it means to play an RPG, which is more than just "Min/Max"-ing your stats.
If players needed to kill level 70 elites to get the 2nd level dungeon, [...]
You're trying to re-design my hypothetical situation to fit your needs. Obviously, you're missing the point.
You discount content as a motivator like you have real evidence to the contrary.
Wrong. Content and progression are two sides of the same sword. They are both required for an MMORPG to be sustainable. However, my point is that people are wrongly apply the term "content" to "progression". Let me reiterate...
Simplified, Progression is an action. Content is an object. Progression needs content. Without it, what is there to progress through? Content does not need progression. You can create all the content you want, but prevent anyone from accessing it. Of course, why would you want to do that?
Progression is not just your character level. It is not just being level 70 of 70. It is also not a black and white value of being done or not done, max level or not max level. It's also a perception. If a player feels like they're not progressing or that the time it takes to progress is too daunting, it has the same effect of actually not being able to progress. Everquest's "hell" levels are an example of this. Some players got so frustrated with the extremely slow progression through these levels that they quit. Myself included.
Progression can be gaining character levels, reputation faction, advancing a story line, gaining more powerful weapons or items, gaining wealth or prestige, explore all of the land, or more. As you can see, this means that the BG's allowed progression. At first it gave you ranks that you need to progress through. Then it gave you points (wealth), that allowed you to purchase more powerful items. It's also competition which allows person to gain prestige by being the "best" PvP player by whatever metric they want such as being the top of the kills list or just being 'famous' on the server for being hard to kill.
Molten Core all
I stand corrected (happily). This does seem to be a remake of Tecmo Super Bowl. I guess I'll be stopping at the local game store to pre-order it tonight!
Right franchise, wrong game. Tecmo Super Bowl is the 2nd game in the series. Tecmo Bowl is the first, which I believe this is a remake of.
Eh. I was a fan of Tecmo Super Bowl. This looks like it's a remake of the original Tecmo Bowl, which was good, but only had limited teams and stats and stuff. I'm waiting for TSB so I can run Barry Sanders up and down the field a few times, watch people bounce of Christian Okeyea(sp? the FB from the Chiefs), and block extra points with LT.
I hope this game does well so they release the Super Bowl version. *fingers crossed*
Except all Blizzard do is add new content for the bloody endgamers.
I've made this comment before, recently, on Slashdot. There's a difference between content and progression for which my argument was (and is) that progression is more important than content, though they are both required and closely linked. What you're referring to is not content, but progression. You're pissed that even though Blizzard adds new things to the game, you cannot do them. So, you're not pissed at the "new stuff", you're pissed at the lack of progression or ability to DO the new stuff.
And I believe you're right. Although TBC was better than the "original" level 60 cap end-game for progression, Blizzard is still far too slow to add progression for the masses to keep them sustained. Lack of progression is what drives people towards other games. That includes running out of content, because if you run out of content you also have nothing else to progress too. However, (depending on your play style) there could also still be content you've not seen (40-man raids or other major end game dungeons) but if it's more-or-less impossible for you to do it, it's the same as if it wasn't there at all. However, it's clear Blizzard knows this as they've been moving away from this kind of progression brick wall to their content since TBC. WOTLK appears to be making another huge step in that it appears they're making all dungeons 10 or 25 man optional. That should make content more accessible to a lot more people.
NOTHING ever changes in the game. [...] ou'd think there wouldn't be any fucking gnomes left in Gnomeregan now, but oh no, those refugees still come running up that slope.
Now you're talking about something that's completely outside the realm of content or progression. I'll continue my habit of linking to what I believe to be one of the most interesting MMO books out there... Designing Virtual Worlds by Richard Bartle. This book talks about what you're referring too. There are many types of virtual worlds. They go from very dynamic (everything you do changes the world) to static (no matter what you do, little changes). Most MMORPG's on the market today are far closer to the static side of the spectrum. It sounds like the type of Virutal World you'd like is a more dynamic system. However, dynamic worlds are very hard to play in, to program, and to run. If everything you do changes the world, you might not like it that someone changes a part of the world you liked. I recommend checking out that book for more interesting reading about this aspect of Virtual Worlds. Yes, there use to be very dynamic text based MMO's (MUDs) back in the day. They typically didn't last long. The reason MMO's today are (more) static is partly due to the fact that it's also what 'sells'. Survival of the fittest.
By being popular, WOW is cursed
Popularity brings with it the people who hate popularity. I guess you could say this, but it's a short sighted and ignorant view of things.
Blizzard are so terrified of any major changes
This could easily be argued against by just looking at patch notes and expansion pack details. Class talent changes have dramatically changed over the years. The addition of Paladins and Shamans to both factions was a very major change to the game. The addition of a 3rd dimension with flying mounts was a major change.
The game outside of Outlands, aside from a few minor additions (Dustwallow quests for example), is identical to the one I started playing three years ago.
That's game design (see previous comment about static/dynamic worlds), not laziness of Blizzard or their curse of being popular. It's a technical issue. You'd have to know more about client/server architecture to know that it's pre
Micro-transactions. The company will sell gold and items to people who don't care to spend weeks/month farming it themselves.
Indeed. I go to the gym 3-5 times a week (depending on my work schedule) for a mix of cardio and weight training. I have the Wii fit and after a few exercises, my heart rate is up and I'm sweating. Some of the strength training exercises were actually hard to do because of the focus on balance, something I lack when I lift free weights, better balance.
A lot of the strength training exercises are quite good and directly out of fitness magazines (Something else I'm familiar with as I've been reading Men's Health on/off for years) such as: Push-Ups, Lunges, and sit-ups (I've not even unlocked the advanced stuff yet).
Don't even get me started on the Yoga. hehe that kicked my butt. Flexibility and stability are also great ways to tone and strengthen your muscles. It's not just how big the dumbbell is in your hand. Most people can probably drop a good percentage of their lifting weight and focus on form, balance, and speed (slower speeds, most people go far to fast and I'm guilty as charged) and get a far better work out.
Wrong. I mean Progression. And it is NOT what all MMOG players strive for. Such a holistic comment is stupid on it's face.
Thet's really the key.Wrong. Progression is the key. All the content in the world is pointless if you cannot progress through it. Example, what if WoW required you to kill a level 70 elite monster at the end of a dungeon to reach level 2? You cannot leave the starting area until you reach level 2. All other "content" is still in WoW. Not very fun if you cannot progress. Eh?
Progression is an action, Content is a thing (albeit virtual thing in this sense). Progression implies content (you cannot progress through anything if there is nothing there), but content does not imply progression (see my previous example).
This is a human trait and the same feelings can be found in the real world. As one example: I can pile up all kinds of math books (content) in front of you. Pre-Algebra, Algebra, Algebra II, Calculus, Linear Algebra, etc. To read (progress to) the Algebra book, you'll first have to finish/understand pre-Algebra (ok, it's not entirely true, but you get the idea). To get to Calculus, you have to finish/understand through Algebra II. If you cannot understand/finish pre-Algebra, all the other high level math books I throw at you is pointless! You'll never understand/progress through or to them. However, if you started progressing through pre-Algebra and really started to understand the concepts more and more, and your progression increased you really start to enjoy math a lot more! Because you "get it". You're *progressing*! Of course, until you hit Calculus and that all comes to a screeching halt because they forgot to tell you that you need better equipment to raid that book. =P
That's my point. Bliz. can add all the Black Temples, Sunwell's, Gruul's, AQ's, ZA's, Karazahns, etc. but if you cannot do them, they're as good as not even existing. Any casual gamer, like myself, does not have the time to invest in a lot of these. Progression has gotten to be slow to the point of non-existence (or at least slow enough to remove enjoyment from the game). As I said in my previous comment, 2-years is far to long to add progression back to the game, at least for WoW. Even casually playing and taking an 8 month break has made me run, more-or-less, out of progression as a fairly casual gamer. Now the Sunwell is nice because they gave all those new daily quests... except, I've progressed through the reputation points/levels and there's nothing I can really spend my money on to progress my characters items (BoP items are to thank for that, I'm not sure if they're really a better solution than my days playing EQ *shrug*)
So, there you have it. It's a confusing topic because progression actually implies content. So, you cannot have it without content. But you can have content without progression. Which makes the notion of adding content "100x faster" fine... if you could progress through it at whatever rate you enjoy the most.
Cheers
Fozzy
iRack and iRan of course.
I think this really sums up WoW right now. It's not that AoC is "better" than WoW, it's that WoW is killing itself with a nearly 2-year release between expansions and game progression.
MMOers want to continue to progress their character(s). 2 years is FAR too long to give people really something to progress with besides horizontal progression with a couple new dungeons thrown in once in a while.
Having Beta tested AoC, I think it's an ok game, but I do not see anything in there that I think is "better" than WoW. Except that it's "new". That means new classes, new lands to explore, new quests to do, more levels to grind. That's what people are really going to be leaving WoW for. Progression. If WotLK came out today, AoC wouldn't be so "big" in the news right now, nor would people be "leaving in droves" to play something else.
I'm sure most of the people who will leave for AoC will be back for WotLK. Until then, I think it's great to eat up the new stuff as well as it being particularly fun to be apart of an MMO launch. Given that a lot of new people start MMOing with WoW, this will be their first major chance to play an MMO from launch. I'm just waiting for the servers to crash at the stress and all the kiddies to come out in droves to forums and start flaming funcom for being worthless programmers. hehe It happens in ever MMO launch.
Wow, the Parent Poster is a thief! To access *any* website (including /.) you need to download a copy of the files on the slashdot servers. Opps, score one for holistic generalizations!
Then again, the AC poster was obviously just trolling. No one is stupid enough to actually mean that.