PDA

View Full Version : Free versus paid online gaming



Riper-Snifle
06-09-2005, 01:28 PM
I have played many online multi-player games, from FPS to flight sims, where I only had to pay for the game and hook it up. I have seen in stores games like Star Wars Galaxies, Matrix Online, City of Heroes and World of Warcraft where an online subscription is necessary to play these. Is there something more advanced about these games that make a subscription necessary?? Why aren't they played like Il2 Forgotten Battles for free on a server like Hyperlobby??

Riper-Snifle
06-09-2005, 01:28 PM
I have played many online multi-player games, from FPS to flight sims, where I only had to pay for the game and hook it up. I have seen in stores games like Star Wars Galaxies, Matrix Online, City of Heroes and World of Warcraft where an online subscription is necessary to play these. Is there something more advanced about these games that make a subscription necessary?? Why aren't they played like Il2 Forgotten Battles for free on a server like Hyperlobby??

EyeoftheChicken
06-09-2005, 02:18 PM
I hope those games DO NOT succeed. What if UBI only allowed its online games to be played through a portal that charges a toll? Can you even play multiplayer consoles without paying. I fear the software distributors may have bigger plans for all games. You're a ****ing tool if you pay to play!

EyeoftheChicken
06-09-2005, 02:20 PM
Sorry, I in no way answered your question...

Weather_Man
06-09-2005, 02:50 PM
No, there is nothing more advanced or otherwise better in game design or play than any other free online hosted game available. What they do offer that most games do not are access to good fast servers that can handle the capacity of 100s-1000s of players in a single room. This is essentially what the fee is for. Well, that and another way to make a profit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Raptor_20thFG
06-09-2005, 04:55 PM
Okay I have not been here in a while but I had to respond to this. I hate MMOG's. you mentioned galaxies IMHO SOE killed the RPG thats why I no longer play it. I hate it makes me cringe the idea of me playing 15 dollors a month to play a game I love online. I agree if you pay monthly to play a game you enjoy then you are a tool.

Down with MMOG.

Raptor_20thFG
06-09-2005, 04:57 PM
you know I apoligize to the poster I just reread your post. I though you were trying to say Il2 should go to that. Forgive my rant n rave. I would say it is because of profits I would also say it does not matter about lag free servers cause believe me they are not lag free. in the end it is all about the dollors

Bearcat99
06-09-2005, 06:14 PM
IMO there is no benifit.. at least niot for the simmer/gamer... If this sim ever went that way I would become and offline only or IP to IP only flier. Be sure.

Edbert
06-09-2005, 06:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Riper-Snifle:
Is there something more advanced about these games that make a subscription necessary? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've had an active account where I pay for online flight-combat sims since late 1995. Started with Warbirds when it came out of beta, been paying to play Aces High since late 1999 when it came out of beta. Disregarding the condescending and insulting opinions of EYEOFTHECHICKEN, and assuming youare honestly asking here...

What these pay-to-play games offer is an incredibly large arena/room to play in. There's no way a game like IL2 can support 750 players in one arena at one time. You not only need dedicated server farms and colocation facilities but the game has to have serious netcode built in to handle the loads.

IL2 is great for what it is...a boxed sim (with gorgeous graphics) that supports small head-to-head groups.

AerialTarget
06-09-2005, 09:46 PM
I will never, ever continuously pay to play any game, no matter how much I enjoy it. The only possible exception would be a truly realistic aerial combat simulator, which will never happen. The reason I would be willing to pay to play a truly realistic aerial combat simulator is that in order to have a truly realistic aerial combat simulator, the developers would have had to actually test fly the real life aircraft that were to be modelled in the game. That would be very, very expensive to do, and would completely justify the fees. In addition, there's nothing in this world I enjoy more than flying, so I would be willing to pay to play a game that is very close to flying.

The_Gorey
06-09-2005, 10:00 PM
been a customer of World War 2 Online for 3 years now, and don't forsee myself unsubbing anytime soon.

Persistant world, eveyrone in the same server, and an actual war going on. it gives you purpose. something that IL2 will never have.

but i enjoy both.

Bikewer
06-10-2005, 01:02 AM
Ditto for me. I played WWII online for about a year. You do get that feel of being involved in a large, coordinated effort, and being part of a squad gives you a strong sense of community.

Certainly not lag-free...constant adjustments going on to keep the graphics updated and the game playable.

I quit mostly because of the time factor; these things can get quite addictive.

HellToupee
06-10-2005, 03:09 AM
yes il2 dogfight games dont have a feeling of purpose, theres targets and stuff but theres no real need to go after them, plus it gets quite boring doing so especially on deathkick servers since ground pounders are deadmeat. What i liked about aces high it had purpose,you woulf form groups with people to do stuff like attack an enemy carrier or hit an airfield which had effects on the other side. You could take over enemy airfields with paradrops.

A mode like this is il2 would bring purpose dont need massive scale just concertate what players u have in a smaller area if you want large fights il2 can support 128 people max i think thats plenty for the right sized maps, aces high fights i was in never seemed to be larger than 50 odd planes.

AerialTarget
06-10-2005, 03:42 AM
The reason we can't have everyone on a big server is that half the people like to play on noob mode, half the people like to fly on realistic mode with external views enabled, and half the people like to fly on realistic mode with tunnel vision mode on. That actually leaves us with an extra half, and I think I hear that half drawing breath to yell at me for saying "tunnel vision mode." But you see my point, do you not?

Jex_TG
06-10-2005, 06:11 AM
I am half and half for and against tunnel vision. I like looking at the models, and I like the outside view from a SA point of view (i.e I can't move in the cockpit, so outside view makes up for that). However outside views show too much, and I like realism. SA is a major component of dogfighting and those too lazy to do it get punished for it, but then the internal cockpit views are too restrictive - we need a way to lean in the cockpit so we can manipulate our view a bit more.

As for pay for play, I'm not really for it at all. Pay for play should only be for those people who want added content regularly (new missions, campaigns and other benefits). I think that mmorpg's get away with an online fee because they continually add content to the package, though why they charge so much for the box is beyond me - it's useless without a subscription and should be very cheap or free.

Tater-SW-
06-10-2005, 09:37 AM
I'd happily pay a monthly fee for constant upgrades. If that model would make Oleg, et al more, and more consistant money, more power to them.

I've been subscribed to WW2OL for years now, and up until this last patch in beta that is taking a long time (getting ready for a box rerelease in stores) they have patched every 6 weeks or so. Usually adding new stuff, and/or more towns, etc.

I used to subscribe to Warbirds when it was hourly. I had many months over $100, had fun, it was worth every dime---and WB wasn;t even upgraded often.

Given the way Oleg does things, I can't imagine a downside to an incentive to constantly add new things, and improve the game. I suppose some are too cheap to spend $10/mo, but I'm willing to spend the cost of a few beers that I could drink in an hour for many hours of gameplay. A subscriptive service, since it requires faitly constant update (what else are you paying for?) would result in more maps, more ground objects, and presumably some server bandwidth for hosting games.

Most games also try and pitch a MMOG environment as well. Frankly, most might as well be DF servers for Il-2 in terms of gameplay. A true online war would have to work like a huge Il-2 coop mission, that would take some code changes to allow hundreds to participate in that with playable FRs (perhaps by localizing what you have to keep track of).

tater

Enthor1
06-10-2005, 10:28 AM
****ing tool here, or at least I used to be.

I have an excuse though.
I was on the rebound from the demise of multiplayer in B17-II.

During the wait for that, I got in with a bunch of ne're do wells who were learning how to fly B17s in formation in the game Screamin' Demons over Europe. We were going to lay waste the Continent online the moment B17-II hit the shelves.

Well, when B17-II multiplay went belly up, (some here probably recall the mess that made, it made a premature Maddox/1c patch release look like a Muppets episode.) I was already hooked on multiplay and Aces High was in beta.

It went pay to play, I was hooked on bombing stuff people did not want bombed and IL2 was not out yet so I paid.

One thing I never did and still do not understand is the allure of 700 people in the same map.

Aces High, while I was playing, could show no more than 32 planes on the screen at once, if there were 40 in the immediate area 8 were not visible anyhow. Add the fact that with 32 it became a lagfest and what is the point of a huge arena?

I bailed on pay to play the second IL2 got here and never looked back.

A 16 player Coop on Hyperlobby with much better eye candy available than any pay to play flightsim/game is able to provide has cured my addiction to paying for it.

Hyperlobbys many online dogfight servers are basically the same as Aces High sectors, different groups in one map area shooting the **** out of one another but with better graphics and more correct instrument panels, so no need to pay either if dogfighting is your thing.

It all boils down to different strokes for different folks, pay if you like or don't.

I really like the idea of "options" and harbor no ill will to those who exercise those options in a different manner than I.

I guess that means that while I was a "****ing tool", I am no longer one, I am sooooooo relieved!