×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Star Wars: the Old Republic Launches

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the fully-operational dept.

Star Wars Prequels 389

Today marks the official launch of Star Wars: the Old Republic, a new MMOG from BioWare, EA, and LucasArts. The game's population has been building throughout the week as players who pre-ordered were granted early access, but now the gates have been thrown open to everyone. By using the Star Wars universe and a 'story-driven' approach to MMO gameplay, BioWare hopes to draw in a new group of players who don't typically consider themselves MMO gamers. Since the game is still largely unexplored, comprehensive reviews have yet to be written, but Shack News has a write-up about the early game. An article at Eurogamer discusses whether this sort of game launch marks the end of an era for the MMOG industry — the game's budget is estimated to be as high as $100 million, and it relies on a traditional subscription model when many games are making the switch to free-to-play.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

389 comments

So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (0)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439142)

I'm not a hardcore gamer, but I've only had one subscription-based game and that was WoW.

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (4, Informative)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439168)

Subscriptions or other revenue generating methods have been traditional since games went multi-player past the point where a server in some guys basement was sufficient. Costs money to run these games, so they cost money to play.

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439370)

Which is why Guild Wars will never have a sequel.
Oh, wait...

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439552)

Tradition: a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting: "The rebellious students wanted to break with tradition."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tradition

Just because you had one out of dozens do something different does not mean something isn't traditional. The F2P trend of modern MMOs is relatively recent compared to the subscription model that has been around since the first MMOs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439646)

Guild Wars is probably the most underrated MMO in history. Way better story and graphics than WoW, it was free to play from the beginning, and moving a character between servers was as easy as a drop-down menu (allowing you to easily play with friends on different servers, something that should have been standard on all MMO's a long time ago). And yet it never got the attention it really deserved.

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439812)

Which is why Guild Wars will never have a sequel. Oh, wait...

At the rate they're developing GW2, I tend to believe your first statement.

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439172)

This is wow with light sabers

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (5, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439328)

And fully voiced quest interactions with very good writing.

I personally burned out on WoW a good while back. Several months before Cataclysm came out I quit playing. When it came out I resubed and leveled one character from 80 to 85, but then quit again shortly thereafter. I've tried many of the free-to-play games, Rift, EVE Online, and many others in the meantime. Nothing grabbed my attention.

I got early access to SWTOR 5 days ago and have already played at least 15 hours and can't wait to knock off work so I can play again.

I can honestly say that I see myself leveling at least 1 character of every class to max just to see the quest chains. Its that good.

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (5, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439534)

Dont forget the quest chains are always different depending on your choices and lightside vs darkside points. Infact there are lightside and darkside quests too and then they change again if you group a lot with your guild.

You can have 4 sith inquisitors and will have a completely different story line for each one with dark/light and solo and group alts. Cool stuff

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439624)

Always different? No, not substantially. There are a few different things, but they have little real impact. You make a choice, one superficial dialogue happens, make another, it is the other dialogue. And you still end up killing boars in the forest.

Stop pretending there is depth, it is shallow, no more.

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (3, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439396)

"This is wow with light sabers"

No it is not.

Disclaimer: I have not played the game yet, and my opinion is based on reviews and people who have played the beta.

World of Warcraft is based on a fantasy world where you can participate in it as time goes by. SWTOR is a world based on YOU. You are the center of attention and the choices you make constantly change the quest tree and storyline. For example you can play single player and the game will be different than if you play in groups according to www.arstechnica.com.

Another difference is your companion system is very advanced. At level 15 you have your own personal robotic servant too kind of like 3cpo who can help you do your profession gathering, and even your companion can go to the auction house for you and sell things while you are at work. The companions can eventually leave if you have enough dark side points or if you are an ass to them. They can even fill in for a raid while you wait for more players. They are much more than actual pets.

In essence Wow has more atmosphere and story with much richer environments that seem more realistic (sun, moon, nightime, weather, weeds moving in wind etc) while STWOR is an interactive movie with you as a star where there are no saves and the story keeps changing and so the quests. You can have 2 of the same jedi or sith, and depending on lightside or darkside points you will have different quests. Add that to playing ina guild and you will have 2 more different quest, gear, and talents.

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (5, Interesting)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439566)

What a load of crap, as someone that played in 2 of the betas for SWTOR and is in the game now as an imperial agent, "Wow with light sabers and laser guns" is actually a perfect description. The game is much richer in story with a lot more effort put into the quest dialogue and story but apart from that it is a skinned version of wow. It is a nice change but even as a star wars fan I don't think this game will last as the "just another wow clone" syndrome will hit this game hard within a few months.

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (5, Interesting)

bmwEnthusiast (1384289) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439660)

I agree %100. I was in the last beta weekend and logged 10 hours playing to level 15. WoW with lightsabers and blasters and speeders instead of flying horses. Want to know why this game is an epic fail? There is no free space flight. It's all scripted combat on rails. DUMB. The name of the game is called STAR WARS... yet your ability to have a war amidst the stars on your own terms does not exist. I canceled my pre-order shortly after the beta weekend. Will wait for the first expansion that adds free space flight.

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (2)

Snaller (147050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439784)

So not only didn't you try swtor, you didn't try wow either, eh?

"World of Warcraft is based on a fantasy world where you can participate in it as time goes by. SWTOR is a world based on YOU. "

So is Wow - yes, if you stay away for long enough (and we are talking real world years) yes there will be progression without but (and so presumably here will in swtor) but the whole point is that YOU the player get to meet all the leaders, all the leadersin the world get to know you and your name.
In swtor you are NOT going to meet Vader, or Skywalker, Princess Leia or hang out with Yoda.

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (1)

greymond (539980) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439906)

"Disclaimer: I have not played the game yet, and my opinion is based on reviews and people who have played the beta."

You should have stopped commenting right there. I was in Beta as well as started my early access on the 13th. While the voice acting is amazing and top notch graphics it is exactly like every other MMO out right now. Except they didn't put in a real LFG tool yet, though they have a PVP queue, and they don't have phasing like in WoW.

Honestly if this game didn't have STAR WARS in the name no one would care.

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (1, Insightful)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439464)

WoW is DAoC with a slightly dumbed down interface and a more vibrant and comical palette. So what was your point again?

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439712)

Nope. That one's too far off...even for a /. comment. Go feel guilty in a corner somewhere. Bad bhcompy!

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439290)

Things update and the game keeps progressing. In the past you would play the game and beat it and thats it. Wait for a sequel and buy that one. With so many millions paying monthly you have extended content that is not possible otherwise

Re:So, when did subscriptions become traditional? (1)

helix2301 (1105613) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439310)

Yeah I am not a huge fan of Subscription based games but yet I spend money on an Xbox live account. I guess it all depends on how good the game is depends on if I buy a subscription. WoW was defiantly worth it and so was Everquest.

Looks like a good game, but I wont be playin'. (3, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439152)

Its going to be too full of Star Wars fans. I learned my lesson from the Sony Star Wars MMO.

Re:Looks like a good game, but I wont be playin'. (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439334)

Wow, the rare guy who wasn't completely pleased with his Star Wars Galaxies experience.

Re:Looks like a good game, but I wont be playin'. (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439394)

SWG was great and I loved it....up untill the infamous "Combat Update." After that, people who spent months just to unlock thier force sensetive character slot got pissed on and shoved aside so EVERYONE could just start as jedi.

Re:Looks like a good game, but I wont be playin'. (2)

cmv1087 (2426970) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439584)

I'm bemused that you won't be playing a Star Wars game because there will be too many Star Wars fans playing it. Isn't that a bit like saying you won't eat at a restaurant because there's too many people eating there that like the food?

Re:Looks like a good game, but I wont be playin'. (3, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439840)

Your analogy would work perfectly, if you include the necessary bit.

I won't eat at a restaurant because there are too many slobbering, loud, annoying food fanbois there.

If you can eat and enjoy yourself without ranting endlessly how the executive chef sold out years ago, complaining about how the lobster shot first, or otherwise being a overzealous and clueless food otaku... then you won't detract from my enjoyment of the restaurant. But if you are, I'll go someplace else. And it's just unfortunate that this particular restaurant franchise has some of the worst customers ever.

Re:Looks like a good game, but I wont be playin'. (4, Insightful)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439586)

Believe me, it wasn't the fans that ruined Galaxies, it was Sony. They drove that property into the fucking ground. The "New Game Enhancements" killed it permanently back in '05, it just took them 6 years to put that final nail in the coffin.

Sony should never be allowed to touch a fucking MMO again.

Re:Looks like a good game, but I wont be playin'. (1)

Rhacman (1528815) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439616)

Does anyone know if they separate RP and non-RP servers? But yea, I'm largely staying away based on how ravenous the fan base is. In WoW if I made some off comment about some detail in the lore I'd invariably cross paths with some red-shirt-guy who could bash me on the head with his comprehensive knowledge from past-games, books, card-games you name it. When Rift came out I felt like I had a fighting chance to discuss the story since it occured in a fresh new universe. With anything Star Wars I'd sooner shut my mouth than risk trying to discuss plot details with someone who owns every plastic figurine and counts themselves as a Jedi in real life. Perhaps the feeling is mutual...

Re:Looks like a good game, but I wont be playin'. (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439848)

there are RP and non RP servers, clearly listed in th pvp/ pve section of the server description.

It's a Good Game (1)

bazald (886779) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439158)

However, I'd still rather have just bought KoTOR III through X.

Re:It's a Good Game (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439536)

So true. Well, unless they were made by Obsidian like KOTOR II was. Might not buy that. But I wish they had just made KOTOR III: I don't have time for an MMO right now, and probably won't for a while. The market is flooded with similar games, but it is not flooded with good old-school RPGs (with modern graphics, story, and voice-acting). Meaning that no matter how good it is, I just won't be playing it. For a while anyways.

Re:It's a Good Game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439830)

From the weekend of beta that I had access to, you can play ToR like like a good old-school RPG. Turn off the chat window, ignore the other players, and don't go into the 'HEROIC #+' areas until/unless you are a few levels higher than the stated level (at least as many as the suggested minimum count).

WoW 2.0 (4, Informative)

aaronfaby (741318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439194)

Played the beta. WoW Improved with lightsabers. Same old borefest. Yes, I know there are companions and mass effect style conversations. Things are slightly different and improved. Yay. Stop pretending it's this awesome new MMO experience. It's not.

Re:WoW 2.0 (1)

Sectoid_Dev (232963) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439296)

Agreed. I've been playing since early access started on the 15th and although I'm enjoying it, it's basically WoW with a few improvements. Nothing jaw droppingly new.

Re:WoW 2.0 (5, Insightful)

dward90 (1813520) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439312)

I don't understand who you're talking to. It's the best leveling experience I've ever experienced in an MMO. Sure, it's not a completely new genre. If you were looking for something that doesn't play like an MMO, then you were looking in the wrong place. You can downplay the effect that the conversations and story have all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that those elements make leveling feel extremely different from World of Warcraft (unless you spacebar every conversation, in which case you're missing the point of the game).

What you seem to be saying is that you don't enjoy MMOs. That's a valid opinion, but it's not a valid criticism for this game.

Re:WoW 2.0 (5, Interesting)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439430)

It's the best leveling experience I've ever experienced in an MMO.

This. I dont even pay attention to my level so much, I just wanna get that sonofabitch who STOLE MY GODDAMNED SHIP.

Re:WoW 2.0 (5, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439528)

Indeed. I've leveled just about every character class in WoW. I can barely remember any of the quests. The only one that comes to mind is the Lolita-like quest between Duskwood and Westfall. Other than that, it was just a bunch of "Collect 6 Bear Pelts" quests with completely uninteresting text thrown in just to say they gave the story telling a try. Leveling was a chore that was to be endured so that you could get a class to end-game.

SW TOR is different. I literally have no desire at all to do anything at end-game. Raids and such are the last thing on my mind. I just want to quest. Any game that makes questing actually the thing I log in for rather than a penance I must pay to get to the "real" game deserves a nod.

Re:WoW 2.0 (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439736)

Wouldn't a KOTOR 3 have fulfilled your wishes just as well? And without the monthly sub, mind you.

Re:WoW 2.0 (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439468)

What you seem to be saying is that you don't enjoy MMOs. That's a valid opinion, but it's not a valid criticism for this game.

Where did the GP ever say anything like that?

Re:WoW 2.0 (1)

Sectoid_Dev (232963) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439554)

If the conversation 3 choice cut-scenes are the point of the game, then indeed I am looking in the wrong place. Perhaps the choices I make now will have an impact later, but right now at level 14, they still feel hokey. Same thing with the conversation rolls during missions. We're all going down the same predetermined track, it's all a matter of nice-neutral-mean window dressing variations.
    Perhaps that's the nature of MMOs. I'll enjoy playing for a while, but this is an incremental improvement.

Re:WoW 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439580)

I must be the only person who couldn't stand the 5-minute voiceover for every 10 minutes of gameplay. When some peasant in WoW said I looked dumb enough to kill 10 wolves for 12 copper coins, I believed him. Standing with 10 other acolytes - all watching a barely-interactive video about about our mysterious pasts - just felt painful. The backstory wasn't compelling enough to make me feel invested in the grinding.

Re:WoW 2.0 (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439894)

"You can downplay the effect that the conversations and story have all you want, "

I listen to other sources of sound, I can't listen to their waffling on as well, so its skip skip skip - so they have no effect.

Re:WoW 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439358)

compared to wow's boring quests... that almost no one even bothers to read, it is a huge step forward.

voice acting, and nice cinematics for quests are two things that TOR has over wow. It gives a lot more flavor to questing, the story lines are much more in depth.

Sure, it has quests, sure, it has levels, sure it has gear, yada yada yada, you can't get away from some of the basics... but if those are what your talking about, that isn't WoW either, as those things were around long before WoW... WoW just got the lucky, as nothing they did was even remotely groundbreaking.

Re:WoW 2.0 (2)

aaronfaby (741318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439486)

The quests are still the same. Kill 10 of X. Bring me this item. Put this item on an altar and kill the elite mob that appears. The only difference is now you get to choose some conversations options that have little if any effect on the outcome.

Re:WoW 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439374)

The biggest attraction is that it isn't yet another fantasy setting. The background is something that almost anyone in the US understands, and has the "cool" factor behind it that the non-geek types want.

Right now, other MMOs are having their ranks thin because of this game, so it is making an impact on the whole genre. Will it continue to stay this way? Who knows. There have been other MMOs that have not just tried and failed, but tried and died.

The first hurdle it has to pass is release day. It seems that Bioware is doing well on this front. After that, it will be making sure there is enough content for everyone, from the person who just created an account to the endgame raider with his guild that has the ventrilo system in place and the catheters at the ready.

If Bioware doesn't keep at it, the game can easily end up hitting the Zapper just like SWG did.

Re:WoW 2.0 (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439400)

Not WOW improved, IMNSHO. More like Vanilla WOW with lightsabers. No LFD. No dual-spec. These are two things that casual players like me enjoy. It's like they took a stock MMO, added voice acting, and a veneer of KOTOR.

Now, there are a few things other MMO's need to look at. The companion system, if stolen by another company, and perhaps matured, could really help blur the lines between single-player and co-op multi-player games in a beneficial way for us casual gamers.

Re:WoW 2.0 (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439652)

You can dual spec sort of.

As you move to dark and light side points and accept dark or lightside quests you get different abilities and grea. A dark jedi can learn sith buffs for example and vice versa for lightside sith. This makes them almost like different characters or like a fire/frost mage same is true as you can meet another jedi counselor who has totally different advanced abilities as you.

Re:WoW 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439492)

Also was in beta. Same experience. WoW with lightsabers.

You're still doing the Tank/DPS/Heal routine. You're still spending points in a big old talent tree. You're still going around killing assholes to collect knicknacks off their bodies and then give said knicknacks to an NPC to turn in a quest. The first twenty five levels are absolute agony because you literally spend 80% of your time walking. Then when you finally hit 25 and get your speeder you find that Bioware made it so that the world's immediately bigger the moment you start going faster, which means that you're STILL spending 80% of your time traveling.

And while this is the case for most MMOs, it's worth mentioning that in the entire galaxy there are maybe 5 different enemies in the game that you fight under various names and skins. Small Droid, Bigger Droid, humanoid with a blaster, humanoid with a lightsaber and generic wildlife. Ugh.

But at what cost??? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439228)

Many Bothans died to bring us this information.

/. Marketing (0)

lorinc (2470890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439238)

Well, first the exciting news about the latest Kepler discovery, and now this. I suppose /. news are scheduled for better marketing impact...

Irking (4, Informative)

Jackdaw Rookery (696327) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439264)

You see, I'd love to be playing this, but at 60 for the game and 15 a month, that's just too rich for my tastes.

I think the game itself should be free and downloadable, then charge a monthly fee for the online access. I'm going to wait for the cost of the game to come down :(

But damn, it's so tempting to buy ...

Re:Irking (3, Informative)

bazald (886779) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439332)

The first month is included, so it would be fairer to say that it's $45 for the game and then $15 per month. There are slightly cheaper 3 and 6 month plans available if you're planning on sticking around.

Re:Irking (2)

Jackdaw Rookery (696327) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439442)

Thanks for the info, but 45 for a game that you then keep spending on monthly still just doesn't add up.

Why isn't the game free? Wouldn't they get more subscribers that way? After all, it is the monthly subscription that makes them the money.

They seem to be deliberatly hampering themselves by sticking to the WoW model much to closely.

Re:Irking (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439480)

By that logic carmakers should give you a car for free, and only charge you to service it.

Re:Irking (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439560)

By that logic carmakers should give you a car for free, and only charge you to service it.

Worst.

Car analogy.

EVER.

Re:Irking (1)

AnttiV (1805624) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439832)

Despite what you want to argue with that comment - yes, yes it would. Carmakers WOULD give out cars for free if: a) it was the carmaker that got the money from the services, not the service facility itself. b) it was mandatory for the car to function to service it once per month. Really mandatory, like it wouldn't run AT ALL without it. c) the service would cost upwards from 50% of the original car price PER MONTH. yes, yes they would give out cars for free. They would give them out by pairs if they could.

Re:Irking (4, Insightful)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439518)

$60 for a game, then $15 per month vs paying $60 for a game you're done with in a month, so then you're bored and go buy another one at $60. Which is cheaper?

Re:Irking (3, Interesting)

Stormtrooper42 (1850242) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439720)

Do you really have to play games as soon as they're out?

You could buy them a year (or 2 years) later, when they cost $15.

It's just a matter of preference. For the same amount of money, would you rather play 1 game all year long, or 10 different games?

Re:Irking (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439600)

Initial investment gets people hooked (sometimes). Once you spend the $60, the $15/month doesn't look bad compared to the idea that all that money was wasted. Or that is the idea, anyways. Creates a more loyal fanbase. If free, people have much less incentive to stay (but lower barrier for entry). It all depends on the type of player you want.

Don't want it too high though: a large part of the reason I never picked up WoW again was that I'd have to buy all the expansions... and not even get any game time in the mix. Not worth it at all.

Re:Irking (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439678)

Why isn't it free? Because millions of people were willing to pay for it. It would have been retarded to do anything else. The There was around 1 million unit just in preorder, including selling out the collector edition at 150$ a piece.

Re:Irking (1)

Clsid (564627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439498)

It will come down if people refuses to pay the original 60. I think they should try for something like 19.99 and then the subscription. WoW prices have been slashed, so you can get the Battle Chest for $20, the two other expansions for $30, plus if you sign for the annual pass you pay like $13 per month plus get a free copy of Diablo 3. When you think that WoW is a pretty mature and stable game at this point, and all the content you are getting, who cares about a different game that is pretty much like WoW.

Now Skyrim, that's a different story :)

Re:Irking (1)

nick357 (108909) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439658)

Its an MMO which should last a long time.

You play for 2 years for example. You pay $60 + (23 * $15) = $405.

You think you should be paying 24 * $15 = $360.

Thats less than $2 per month over the life of the game, which could probably be made up with advance purchasing.

I don't see what you are complaining about.

Wrong title..... (4, Funny)

mseeger (40923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439292)

The title doesn't really fit....

My suggestions:

- Return of the Grind
- A new quest
- The sleep deprivation strikes back

Yours, Martin

Still PO'd they betrayed the KOTOR console players (-1, Flamebait)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439294)

KOTOR sold most of its copies on the Xbox. And Bioware thanks us by going PC-only. You're welcome, assholes,

MMO on a console (1)

AdamJS (2466928) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439340)

It really just would not have worked out very well.

Re:MMO on a console (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439488)

while most xbox fans seem to be "brown shooter of the week" "dudebro gamers", is there not already an MMO on the 360 with DCUO? The PS3 actually has 4, as long as you have a CECH(A/B/E) model. FFXI, EQOA, DCUO, FreeRealms.

 

Re:MMO on a console (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439820)

is there not already an MMO on the 360 with DCUO?

No, because that game is made by Sony.

Also, your stereotype of Xbox players has as little basis in reality as any other.

SW:TOR - Too little, too late (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439322)

I've seen many MORPG players move on to other things, on top of those that have been using WoW. They aren't playing Star Wars: The Old Republic, they're using RockMelt. Especially RockMelt is an interesting browser - it completely abandons geeky stuff like NoScript or Adblock but instead caters to casual, normal people and how they use the internet. RockMelt has online Facebook friends directly on the site, along with recent news and updates from all social networks. It lets you easily add social bookmarks to sites like Reddit and Digg, along with sharing to Facebook and Twitter. Most people have been saying how wonderful it is compared to Star Wars: the Old Republic. It's an browser that actual people want.

Re:SW:TOR - Too little, too late (0)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439496)

All the point by point comparisons I've seen of the two were blatantly one sides and obvious astroturfing.

Obviously if you focus entirely on browser features and ignore game elements.. the browser is going to come out on top...

$100M really? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439356)

the game's budget is estimated to be as high as $100 million

What in the world could they have possibly spent that on? I'm struggling to figure it out. Even if 3/4 went to marketing and executive bonuses, that would still be a rather large sum of money.

Re:$100M really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439402)

It's the largest single voice-acting project...EVER.

Re:$100M really? (4, Insightful)

dward90 (1813520) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439466)

Napkin math:

200 employees (random guess, but my gut says that's a low number)
x $75k per year (another random guess, but I don't think it's absurd)
x 5 years in development
= 75 million. Add in marketing, management, and server costs, and you might be there.

Oh, and don't forget license fees. I won't speculate on what Lucas is charging them, but I bet it's mindboggling.

Re:$100M really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439562)

The game has been in development for 5 years. That's 5 years of salaries for dozens of some of the top programmers, game designers and graphic artists in the industry. Now throw in the the most voice acting ever recorded for a single project. Top it off with a few million for the infrastructure to actually run the game. Then bring in a massive advertising campaign (although sure as shit not a $75mil advertising campaign). Considering it's not uncommon for non-MMO, AAA titles with only 2 or 3 year dev cycles to run their budgets up to the $40-$50mil range, $100 million for this game really doesn't seem that outlandish.

Re:$100M really? (2)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439594)

As another poster said - voice acting. LOTS of it. That and CGI - and writers, etc. It took a lot of people a lot of man hours to develop this. That said - $100 million doesn't seem all that bad. Last I heard their pre-orders alone were approaching 3 million. Some of those are collectors editions and digital deluxe, but even at $60 a pop for the regular edition x 3 million is $180 million. There's other material costs involved there, but I'd wager that the initial sales alone will makeup for the development budget. They'll make their profit off of sustained subscriptions, which I'd wager they'll maintain a lot of.

Re:$100M really? (3, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439648)

the game's budget is estimated to be as high as $100 million

What in the world could they have possibly spent that on?

My guess: 2 Death Stars and franchise rights from Lucas.

"Largely Unexplored"? (1)

Shadow99_1 (86250) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439364)

Seriously? It's "Largely unexplored"? I was in beta for half a year and that was short compared to some. I had about half a dozen max level characters during that time and I've done quests that don't even exist in the current build (because they were removed with often unfixable bugs effecting players). Plenty of people who were in beta longer then me even have certainly explored SW:ToR pretty darn thoroughly. I think 'game reviewers' are the only ones who haven't played more than a single beta weekend and so haven't explored it much at all. Plenty of players have been there and done that repeatedly.

Re:"Largely Unexplored"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439728)

We are impressed. Honestly. We are.

Re:"Largely Unexplored"? (2)

kassah (2392014) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439858)

The difference here, is if this is like any other beta, you signed a non-disclosure agreement when you were handed beta. While you may not care about that, reputable news sources generally don't break those kinds of things, because they will get sued for it. That's if they even agreed to it in the first place, which I doubt any did.

WoW with lasers (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439366)

I've played beta. I won't be rushing out to buy this. As a previous poster said, it's WoW with Blasters/Light Sabers.

What a waste of Bioware talent and a Star Wars License. They would've been much better off using the Mass Effect 2 combat system as a basis. Instead, it's no different than the hundreds of WoW like clones out there ... EA wanted this game to cut into WoW... The sad thing is they will succeed because there are millions of people out there willing to play WoW with a Star Wars skin on it.

I'm disappointed to say the least. I anticipated much more from Bioware. If the game mechanics were anywhere near the quality of the cut scenes, I wouldn't be posting this. There seems to be very few gaming companies ready to break any molds in the MMORPG realm. EVE Online is one of few, and that game came out in 2003.

Hopefully I'm wrong, and my beta impression was due to limited time in the game. But I fear it's what it is, and what could've been a game I would be playing for years is one I'm just going to pass over.

Re:WoW with lasers (1)

Sectoid_Dev (232963) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439710)

I really enjoyed playing EVE Online because it does break the mold of MMORPGs with something unique. It's a shame that CCP is their own worst enemy. EVE will never go mainstream and that's the way the CCP wants it - which is why it will die.

I give it 12 months until it's free to play (2)

sfranklin (95470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439398)

Lots of other "big" titles that launched recently have since gone free-to-play. Star Wars Online and DC Universe Online are recent examples. I give SWTOR a year (more than the average due to the Star Wars name) before they start letting people in free. They might not call it "F2P" but at the very least they'll have playable trial accounts that expose 75% of the game.

Re:I give it 12 months until it's free to play (5, Informative)

BaldingByMicrosoft (585534) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439698)

"Free to play" is a misnomer. It should accurately be "Pay to win" or "Pay to play well regardless of your skill level".

I hate it. It's a crappy way to do a game, and represents one of the more reprehensible expectations of sociopaths on this planet.

Re:I give it 12 months until it's free to play (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439758)

If the games is a hit why would they go f2p? DCU Online went f2p because it wad losing players hence the huge server merge. Despite what the summary claims f2p is mostly being used as a last ditch effort for dying mmos or shitty Asian mmos.

early access (5, Informative)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439446)

I've had access since last Tuesday. I'm currently at level 24 (out of 50) and so far the story has been enjoyable. It does not feel like a grind, in fact most missions to kill x # of creatures are just bonus quests that you can easily skip.

The game is not revolutionary and they did take most of the best features from WoW. I really enjoy it.

Right now the only thing negative I have to say about the game is the artifcial cap they put on every server. Almost every server had a 20+ minute queue to log in during peak hours last week. My brother said he had to wait 10 minutes at 10am this morning to log in. If I have to wait more than a couple minutes I will be raising hell.

Re:early access (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439856)

I would say that if you can complete half of the levels in a week, then it should not feel like a grind because it isnt. It also sounds like it isnt a challenge, and all of the content is high level. Why not just give a intro demo and turn everyone loose at level 50

.... and fails. (3, Informative)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439538)

Waiting queues on all early-access servers, up to 1:15 on the German servers at this time despite grand announcements that this will not happen to them. They are also claiming that they increased server capacities today, which, as far as I can tell was either by an insignificant amount or an outright lie.

I predict that this will either kill Bioware or at least bring them to the brink.

Re:.... and fails. (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439570)

P.S.: SWTOR feels like a WoW with worse animations, worse interface and too much voice-acting. Nice for a few weeks, then boring.

Re:.... and fails. (2)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439632)

"Nobody goes there anymore - its too crowded.".

Queues are to be expected in a popular game on launch day. Every time you hit a queue that means that there are that many paying customers in there taking up that much room. You'll never see any business "killed" for having too many customers.

Re:.... and fails. (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439706)

They did actually add like 20 servers today, trouble is all those full servers from before are still full, as stubborn people wont go to a new one, and new players wont pick a light population server, fearing there wont be anyone to tell them how they mine for fish.

Re:.... and fails. (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439900)

Is it easy to move a character between servers on TOR? Last time I tried in WoW, it was a huge pain in the ass. A real let-down after having played Guild Wars (where you could move anywhere, anytime you wanted).

Re:.... and fails. (3, Informative)

Supermike68 (2535978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439838)

It is estimated that Bioware spent 135M dollars on the development of SWTOR.

Early estimates put pre-orders at ~3M.

You don't need to be a mathematician to figure figure out that they will make money off of this title. Thus your prediction is far from correct.

I for one am impressed with what Bioware has added to an increasingly bloated genre. I know they will continue to do amazing things in the future.

PS. Turn down the hate.

Dont Listen the the Naysayers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439620)

The game is definetly worth checking out. Its not just he voice acting but that fact that you have choice that change the story mineutly. Do you shoot Little Billy's Daddy and send him to the Sith school or like about it and let them escape? You get a little cash stipend if you shoot the dad from the Sith. :p In Dungeons your choices actually change how the dungeon progresses. Do you shoot a Captain of a ship that disobeyed orders or let him live and let his expericance help the battle? Add that to the fact that every class has its own deep backstory that your pay out between the worlds, greatly increased the chance of you rolling another toon just to see the story.

Its differently enough that burnout will not set in for a while. Because lets be honest here who is really keeping their WOW suscription running a few months after the latest expansion? Everything just starts feeling the same with it no mattter how epic they try to make it. Im actually finding that the smaller stories built into Swtor with all the good voice acting are more rewarding most of the time. Like i said try it out its definatly worth a look.

Aimed squarely at children (3, Informative)

Snaller (147050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439732)

With 20/20 vision and their nose pressed against the screen - as an adult I can apparently get lost - their interface is composed of a font so tiny that I can't read most of it which is a bit of a problem even though quests are spoken, you still need to read stuff... this is where the kids butt in and say you can adjust the chat font size - and I have to compose myself and point out, ITS THE WHOLE DAMN INTERFACE - tooltips, skill trees, subtitles, their 'codex' (and no, you can't just change resolution, they make sure to scale it so it remains at the same visual size regardless of actual resolution)

You'd think in this day and age the technology to adjust font size wouldn't be totally unheard of? Apparently Biowares programmers feel this is to abstract a concept, or perhaps they only want kids to enter their hallowed halls. The rest can bugger of back to WoW.

Well ok then.

Re:Aimed squarely at children (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439896)

Interface scaling is the one feature I miss dramatically whenever I venture into a non-WoW MMO. Playing on a TV makes all text tiny. WoW is one of the few games that i can compensate for the huge resolution and still retain readability.

No Mac Version yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38439772)

So I guess it won't take that segment from WoW. Yes it may be small but it is growing and it must be profitable or Bliz wouldn't pay attention to it.

Origin experience, horrible bugs (2)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38439860)

After my BF3 experience, with the game launched early to compete with MW3, I would never
buy another EA game again. Horrible cheating, crashing, clunky origin interface.
Time to starve the beast. Don't buy the games and make ea vanish as it should have ages ago.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...