Wonkadude Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 BUT IF EA SAYS IT THEN ITS EVIL!!! Thanks for understanding ps loved dic the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drom Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 actually that's an interesting point about TCG. It's obvious it's only purpose was to be a tie in to the animated series. The question is who aproaced who about making it. Did Sony go to Lucasarts or did Lucasarts go to Sony and tell them they have to make it if they want to keep SWG running. EQ2 got its own TCG years bofore SWG so I think SOE just saw the potential and in combination with SWG housing it was goldmine for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 EQ2 got its own TCG years bofore SWG so I think SOE just saw the potential and in combination with SWG housing it was goldmine for years. i'm sorry i meant The Clone Wars game not the trading card game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shingara Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) If Bioware didn't care about money then why did they sell out to EA? They didnt buy Bioware exactly, they bought VG Holding Corp who owned bioware and pandemic if i remember right. Was alot of money involved too, think it was something like $650 mil and then another $150 mil after. Edited June 21, 2012 by Shingara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuscad Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) They didnt buy Bioware exactly, they bought VG Holding Corp who owned bioware and pandemic if i remember right. I don't know but this will not end well for Bioware, I edited the post you quoted to include a list of 15 companies that died after being aquired by EA. Why Pandemic? WHY?! Edited June 21, 2012 by Tuscad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shingara Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) I don't know but this will not end well for Bioware, I edited the post you quoted to include a list of 15 companies that died after being aquired by EA. Why Pandemic? WHY?! Alot of those were change from companys to departments of EA, infact alot are actualy named as departments, as such when the department close most if not all of the staff went somewhere else in EA, westwood is a good example, most of them were spread across EA and i truly love westwood but they did themselves no favours with so many failed games. they cost EA millions. As for pandemic not a clue what happened to them. Another example is mythic, they closed but in reality they were folded into bioware. Another thing to remember is they shipped alot over to south korea, EA are freaking huge over there. Edited June 21, 2012 by Shingara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drom Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 i'm sorry i meant The Clone Wars game not the trading card game. Clone wars adventures is reskined free realms (another SOE's game), so I guess SOE came up with it and LA agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuscad Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Alot of those were change from companys to departments of EA, infact alot are actualy named as departments, as such when the department close most if not all of the staff went somewhere else in EA, westwood is a good example, most of them were spread across EA and i truly love westwood but they did themselves no favours with so many failed games. they cost EA millions. As for pandemic not a clue what happened to them. Another example is mythic, they closed but in reality they were folded into bioware. Another thing to remember is they shipped alot over to south korea, EA are freaking huge over there. The Dark Knight Video game killed them, I read that it was because EA kept wanted the direction of it changed from controlled to a sandbox when it was nearly done. I don't remember where I read that, I think it may have been Kotaku. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_(video_game) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shingara Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) The Dark Knight Video game killed them, I read that it was because EA kept wanted the direction of it changed from controlled to a sandbox when it was nearly done. I don't remember where I read that, I think it may have been Kotaku. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_(video_game) Ye looks like most of them were moved into EA los angy. Looks like most of westwood went there too. Edited June 21, 2012 by Shingara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegedeluxe Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Additional revenue can only be good for SWTOR. More money means they can keep running this game. So long they don't go overboard with the micro-transactions, then I DO NOT CARE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Clone wars adventures is reskined free realms (another SOE's game), so I guess SOE came up with it and LA agreed. you can't say that because you have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NermalDetonator Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 For those out there who want Microtransactions and love the idea; Why do you want it? What's so wrong with the subscription based model? Do you think it will be cheaper in the long run? I just don't get why people other than the game makers would want this type of system. I get to pick and choose what I want to purchase. Its casual friendly, because I can play whenever and not have to maintain a subscription. Moreover, it speeds development. Look at City of Heroes, and the vast amount of powersets, costumes, etc which come much faster with micro transactions than subscription, and the cost ends up being roughly similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NermalDetonator Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 This actually seems kind of scary the way it's described as similar to going to The Gap. Queued for Ranked Warzones? Well one just popped; will that be credit, debit or Paypal? $4.99 for a 1000 pack of Daily Comms $8.99 for 3000 pack of Warzone Comms ad infinitum... Yeah, since this isnt an asian P2Win mmo, highly doubtful. But you enjoy that tinfoil hat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Yeah, since this isnt an asian P2Win mmo, highly doubtful. But you enjoy that tinfoil hat... exactly i can't think of a single western MMO that has Pay 2 win where you can buy armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraith Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 SWG had MT while still being a Sub game. The TCG made SOE tons of money during its initial years. A game CAN have MTs while still maintaining a Sub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shingara Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 exactly i can't think of a single western MMO that has Pay 2 win where you can buy armor. Depends how you define pay to win i suppose, does it have to be weapons and armour, if you can buy something to make you level faster or increase currency gathering i would class that as pay 2 win, also STO sells ships and items that really are pay to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Depends how you define pay to win i suppose, does it have to be weapons and armour, if you can buy something to make you level faster or increase currency gathering i would class that as pay 2 win, also STO sells ships and items that really are pay to win. I would say Pay 2 Win would either be being able to buy armor/ weapons or items that can give you an edge. DDO and LotrO for example sell quests, classes, races, and vanity items. Also all those items can be purchesed with an in game currancy that can be earned. Warhammer Wrath of Heroes has a heroes that can be either rented with gold, bought with gold or bought with cash. These are examples of Free to Play and NOT Pay to Win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Don't compare SWG with this game if you clearly don't know what was going on. SWG didn't go F2P cos they introduced TCG - microtransaction lottery for the game. And they knew that SWTOR will come in a year or so (it was a bit longer due to delays, but that they couldnt expect) and they would have to close the game. It's not free to transform game like SWG into F2P. There is player housing with 1000s of items, huge crafting system etc. It would be costly. Same advice to you. The information you've given above is also completely incorrect with one exception--that being the difficulty of converting SWG to F2P would have been. On-topic for the thread: The article is talking about games in general. That includes not just MMOs but the single-player games as well. This model already exists to an extent--even within EA. The Sims 3 has a tremendously successful content store. Not that I like that kind of model, but there are ways to balance things. For myself? I dislike microtransactions. But if you look at it from a business sense, it's the way the market has been headed for the past several years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shingara Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) I would say Pay 2 Win would either be being able to buy armor/ weapons or items that can give you an edge. DDO and LotrO for example sell quests, classes, races, and vanity items. Also all those items can be purchesed with an in game currancy that can be earned. Warhammer Wrath of Heroes has a heroes that can be either rented with gold, bought with gold or bought with cash. These are examples of Free to Play and NOT Pay to Win. I would call it anything that gives you an edge over others that you can purchase for real money. I dont care if its in a free to play game or subscription based game. Edited June 21, 2012 by Shingara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kourage Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Title of the thread should be; "Microtransactions will be in every game" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Title of the thread should be; "Microtransactions will be in every game" but then people can't hate EA and Bioware Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunny_Bun Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I think this is a Ratners moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urael Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Interview with EA COO Peter Moore from kotaku: Kotaku: "How do you balance the effectiveness of any microtransaction-based game design or business model with the anxiety a gamer might feel that they're being nickel and dimed?" Moore: "I think, ultimately, those microtransactions will be in every game, but the game itself or the access to the game will be free. Ultimately, my goal is... I measure our business in millions of people have bought our game. Maybe when I'm retired, as this industry progresses, hundreds of millions are playing the games. Zero bought it. Hundreds of millions are playing. We're getting 5 cents, 6 cents ARPU [average revenue per user] a day out of these people. The great majority will never pay us a penny which is perfectly fine with us, but they add to the eco-system and the people who do pay money—the whales as they are affectionately referred to—to use a Las Vegas term, love it because to be number one of a game that like 55 million people playing is a big deal." Kotaku: "You're saying inevitably all games are going to be that model?" Moore: "I think there's an inevitability that happens five years from now, 10 years from now, that, let's call it the client, to use the term, [is free.] It is no different than... it's free to me to walk into The Gap in my local shopping mall. They don't charge me to walk in there. I can walk into The Gap, enjoy the music, look at the jeans and what have you, but if I want to buy something I have to pay for it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degarmo Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Yes, yes, but to use his analogy, he'd walk into the gap, pay for the jeans, get home then have to pay for the times when he wanted to use the pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarloves Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Yes, yes, but to use his analogy, he'd walk into the gap, pay for the jeans, get home then have to pay for the times when he wanted to use the pockets. yes yes it's a bad analogy lets move on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts