Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

MMORPG Will Review PFO

Tyncale
I would drop the box price too. I guess the KS pledges and also the Adventurer Rewards that some people are still sitting on had the "digital download" as part of the value, but I think the real perks of those weren't in the download anyway but rather the DT and earlier access and other perks.

I do not think this would cause much of a backlash with pledgers, though off course some folks might find joy in labeling this as some sort of bait and switch tactic from GW.

I think the hurdle would be quit a bit lower if they dropped the box-price.
Regalo Harnoncourt, Leader of the River Kingdoms Trading Company, High Council of Callambea.
This is the character that I am playing almost 100% of the time. (Tyncale is my Sage/Mage)
Dragonfish
Hi, new guy here. For what it's worth, that article on MMORPG is what brought this game to my attention. I, like many others, learned to take any review on that site worth a grain of salt.

I'm on a trial key right now, and I might consider subbing but to be honest all the fees are what is stopping me. These days there are so many quality FTP games that it doesn't make sense to me to pay $50 up front then an additional $15 a month in addition to a cash shop.

For long term viability I think PFO will have to decide to drop at lease one of those fees. I would totally play if it was BTP with a cash shop, no sub. I would even consider a free download with a sub and a cash shop. All three of them put together makes this one of the most expensive games available to play, and for me to decide it's worth that much money it would have to be absolutely fantastic.
Aeryx
Hey, Dragonfish. First, welcome!

If I'm not mistaken, upgrading a trial account is $30 up front (followed by the $15/month or $150/year subscription). Not to mention the $30 package includes a month of game time (so the box price is virtually $15). And honestly, I've never considered anything in the cash shop. The base camps and small holdings are cool, but I don't have that kind of money and I don't feel my experience has suffered at all for lack of buying something.

Will Open Enrollment still have a box price? I'd thought that was only for getting into Alpha and Early Enrollment.

Regardless, I think the game is still only worthwhile for people interested in setting the foundation of the world. Settlements, points of interest, political agreements, and the economy will all be developed before Open Enrollment (though we'll surely see fluctuation when that time comes). If you're not interested in that kind of abstract play, it'll be hard for the current gameplay to tide you over. Later on, I'm confident we'll see improvements in every area and the game may appeal to a wider audience.
Avari
I have to admit I'm a bit shocked the box is still going, I would have sworn they were gonna nix it by March. Yeah, there was an excuse to charge it back when GW was advertising a game with a "line to get in", but let's get real, there never really was one. Right now they are charging a $15 cover charge to get into an empty club. Nobody is gonna pay the cover and you're gonna lose the few people drinking inside cuz there ain't no chicks in this damn club (bear with me and the metaphor, it's late smile).

For an extra $15 per new player GW gets to wear the marketing albatross of being THAT game that charges sub + box for its beta. I do believe GW can get away with the sub and create the small growth curve they are looking for. You can defend the sub with no xp rollback and its integral place in the pay-to-train game design. You'll still have haters, but there is a solid defense for charging it even in the current status of the game.

There is just no way to defend that box and I'd love to laugh at whatever mathematical calculation makes GW think this will make more money for their company.
Tyncale
Avari
You can defend the sub with no xp rollback and its integral place in the pay-to-train game design.

This made me think of what one of the posters in the Mmorpg.com thread said. He was harping about the unfairness of the fact that players that have been here from the beginning will have a *huge* advantage compared to others who start later. In the meantime everybody was complaining about the fact that GW dares to charge a sub already.

So right now they would not want to touch PFO with a ten-foot pole because of the ridiculous "sub for a pre-alpha product" but the moment they figure the product becomes interesting enough for *them* to pay a sub for, they think it's unfair that there is already a bunch of players running around with 2 years worth of XP behind their belts? Players that will have actually made it possible that the game made it that far in the first place, and that in the end will have gotten the exact same bang for their buck (which is 74000 XP per month at 15 dollars) as players that start later on?

That's a bit of a double standard, right? smile

Also, make one friend in the game on day 1 and you will have probably offset most of your 2-year "being behind the curve" anyway.

(not talking about DT here, I consider that a pure KS reward for daring to support this).

NB The reason I do not post this stuff in that MMorpg.com thread itself is because I absolutely hate to be involved in threads like that.
Regalo Harnoncourt, Leader of the River Kingdoms Trading Company, High Council of Callambea.
This is the character that I am playing almost 100% of the time. (Tyncale is my Sage/Mage)
Edam
Dragonfish
Hi, new guy here. For what it's worth, that article on MMORPG is what brought this game to my attention. I, like many others, learned to take any review on that site worth a grain of salt.

I'm on a trial key right now, and I might consider subbing but to be honest all the fees are what is stopping me. These days there are so many quality FTP games that it doesn't make sense to me to pay $50 up front then an additional $15 a month in addition to a cash shop.

For long term viability I think PFO will have to decide to drop at lease one of those fees. I would totally play if it was BTP with a cash shop, no sub. I would even consider a free download with a sub and a cash shop. All three of them put together makes this one of the most expensive games available to play, and for me to decide it's worth that much money it would have to be absolutely fantastic.

The cash shop is sadly a non-event and needs a facelift and makeover. The packages offered may have been value for money 3 months ago but currently if you join a settlement of any size at all most will have crafters that will give new players better stuff than in the new player pack etc. I must say the small holdings are pretty cool if you have the $200 to throw around but they are not "essential items" and you only need one per party anyway.

What the cash shop mainly needs is the cosmetic items people with cash are clamoring for with some sort of explanation to new players that these have no mechanical value in game and are not essential purchases.

I agree on the pointless up front payment. If you are already playing on a free trial it should be possible to convert that straight to a sub by paying for a single month. That way people who are unsure after 2 weeks can play for longer before deciding. For every $15 they pick up they probably lose several times that in lost subs.

Tyncale
This made me think of what one of the posters in the Mmorpg.com thread said. He was harping about the unfairness of the fact that players that have been here from the beginning will have a *huge* advantage compared to others who start later.

Which just shows they have no understanding at all of how an unlimited-XP-cap semi-sandbox game works.

EVE has a similar problem with new players coming up with all sorts of outrageous suggestions about how to "catchup" to the 10 year vets and simply refusing to listen when people explain why it is unnecessary.
Tyncale
Yes, the 15 dollars gives you a tangible reward which is 74000 XP to play with. The box-price gives you "access" to a product that many find very unfinished still. People want bang for their buck.

I do have something to say about how much "bang" that buck will give later on, when the XP costs start to rise exponentially for al those skills and feats though. Even though PFO offers a fantastic possibility to go horizontal in many skills for little xp, which is definately one of the strong points of this game, players want to go vertical too: and this is where the pay-off becomes unrewarding for that 15 dollars.

When I see how many skills, feats and Roles PFO has to offer(with many more coming) I think it is a bit on the greedy side to have it take 2.5 years to max two of these roles, where training anything in that last year is far and few in between (not rewarding). I realize that PFO does not want people to "max out" in 6 months so they can not be monetized properly anymore, I get that. However, there are SO many skills and feats to buy in PFO, that I think they can put the xp-requirements of these on a more friendly and linear scale so that when you are 4-8 months into the game, you *still* can buy some stuff every week. Pretty much all MMO's that are still around keep giving players more stuff to empower and round out their characters. Pfo especially lends itself extremely well to rounding out your character over many years to come.

Especially with the huge amount of Crafter professions, but also with many more core(and exotic) classes and weapon types coming into the game I do not see anyone "maxing out" anytime soon with this game. However, Nightdrifters calculator, on the current basic skill and feat-set alone, calculates that you will need 76! years to max a character. So I think GW has approached this with too much caution (a better word for greed, I think). They have been too afraid of the "maxes out, leaves the game" thing, imo.

Do we really want to have "specialized" roles like a dedicated Armorsmith so bad in the game that we want it to take 2.5 years to max two of these roles? After all, it has been said many times already that the crafting itself isn't that interesting or engaging of an activity in itself anyway. How long do people stay with MMO's? Do you think you can keep them longer if they look at a hill off 76 years to climb? Or will they stay longer if subbing always stays rewarding? Will they go like "Oh, takes 76 years to max all skills, I am going to sub for a loooong time!"? smile

I am afraid that PFO will hit another hurdle when full realization sets in of how slow actual character progression becomes when they are 8 months into the game. Please remember that players *do* want to go vertical with their skills too. So they will *want* to buy that 19k xp level 6 attack (8 days of xp for a single attack!). I think the curves are too steep for people to feel that progression and keep paying that sub.

I know this game is about more then Character-building: it's about building a Settlement, a social environment, a Game of Thrones. But I can *assure* you that even the most social of us want to see our avatars progres too. I think GW needs to cater better to this.
Regalo Harnoncourt, Leader of the River Kingdoms Trading Company, High Council of Callambea.
This is the character that I am playing almost 100% of the time. (Tyncale is my Sage/Mage)
Edam
If you let people cap out their roles in say 6 months they are not going to then multiclass they are going to come on here and whine about how they have maxed their single role and run out of things to do and can GW please add more features to Rogues or Fighters or whatever.

I think 2 years to max a role is good because by then even the most dedicated single focus min/maxer will be bored with it and ready to try something else.
Tyncale
But that's the thing: with PFO's multiclassing you will never max out anyway. You can't tell me that when people have bought all their Longsword Attacks, that they will never be interested in maybe training all Spear attacks too? And they can do that in PFO without having to roll another character.

This is completely different then in a MMO with fixed classes.

It should not be feasible to max out a character in PFO: however the training curves should be more rewarding imo. I think we will see a whole new batch of complaints once this part sinks in to the "wants everything for free" crowd.

I am all for paying a sub: but there is a middle road here and I think GW currently has set the path to rewarding progression on too steep of a curve.
Regalo Harnoncourt, Leader of the River Kingdoms Trading Company, High Council of Callambea.
This is the character that I am playing almost 100% of the time. (Tyncale is my Sage/Mage)
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Right or wrong, goblinworks set their eyes on satisfying a niche player, and each change that makes the game more like every other game, in order to attract people that aren't in that niche, is counter to that intent. If the choice is between the game giving up its uniqueness piecemeal to stay afloat, or failing, I'd rather write-off what I've put in and move on.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post