Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Wildstar To Launch On June 3

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the movin'-on-up dept.

Games 64

An anonymous reader writes "Carbine Studios, a game company founded by former Blizzard developers, has been working on a new sci-fi MMORPG called Wildstar. The game has now gotten a release date: June 3rd. Rock, Paper, Shotgun's preview described the game thus: 'it's trying to out-MMO every other MMO. Not with big talk of moving narratives or ever-changing worlds, but by ramping up the unreal theme pack nature of its peers and predecessors. This is a game where you're constantly presented with a legion of things to do, numbers to increase, boxes to tick, things to collect, factions to impress, points to earn, monsters air-dropped in to battle without warning and/or preferably all of the above simultaneously. It might even be too much, too overwhelming in its parade of sideshows.'"

cancel ×

64 comments

So I need to know now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46469265)

Or can it wait until June 2?

How to Falsify Evolution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46469291)

Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.

Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?

You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon. Therefore we can dismiss the theory of the blue interior of watermelons as being pure speculation and guess work, not science. You can not say something is true without demonstrating how it is not false, and you can not say something is not true without demonstrating how it is false. Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously. If one could demonstrate clearly that the watermelon appears to indeed be blue inside, without being able to demonstrate what colors it is not, we still have no absolute confirmation of its color. That is to say asserting something is the way it is, without being able to assert what it is not, is a useless claim. Therefore, in order for any theory to be confirmed to be true, it must be shown how to both validate and falsify its claims. It is circular reasoning to be able to validate something, without saying how to falsify it, or vice versa. This is the nature of verification and falsification. Both must be clearly demonstrated in order for a theory to be confirmed to be true or false. Something can not be proven to be true without showing that it is not false, and something can not be proven to be not true, unless it can be proven to be false.

Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory, which means evolution has not properly been proven, since it has never been demonstrated what the evidence does not suggest. In the event that evolution is not true, there should be a clear and defined method of reasoning to prove such by demonstrating through evidence that one could not possibly make any alternative conclussions based on said evidence. It is for this reason we must be extremely skeptical of how the evidence has been used to support evolution for lack of proper method of falsification, especially when the actual evidence directly contradicts the theory. If it can be demonstrated how to properly falsify evolution, regardless if evolution is true or not, only then can evolution ever be proven or disproved.

It will now be demonstrated that Darwin never told us how to properly falsify evolution, which will also show why no one can claim to have disproved or proven the theory, until now. It must be able to be demonstrated that if evolution were false, how to go about proving that, and while Darwin indeed made a few statements on this issue, his statements were not adequate or honest. In order to show Darwin's own falsification ideas are inadequate, rather than discussing them and disproving them individually, all that needs to be done is demonstrate a proper falsification argument for evolution theory. That is to say if the following falsification is valid, and can not show evolution to be false, then evolution theory would be proven true by way of deductive reasoning. That is the essence of falsification; if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true.

So the following falsification method must be the perfect counter to Darwin's validation method, and would therefore prove evolution to be true in the event this falsification method can not show evolution to be false. As said before; if something is not false, it must therefore be true. This would confirm the accuracy of this falsification method, which all theories must have, and show that Darwin did not properly show how evolution could be falsified, in the event that evolution was not true. In order to show evolution is not false (thereby proving it to be true), we must be able to show how it would be false, if it were. Without being able to falsify evolution in this manner, you can not validate it either. If something can not be shown to be false, yet it is said to be true, this is circular reasoning, since you have no way of confirming this conclusion. Example; If we told a blind person our car is red, and they agreed we were telling the truth, the blind person could not tell another blind person accurate information regarding the true color of the car. While he has evidence that the car is red by way of personal testimony, he has no way of confirming if this is true or false, since he might have been lied to, regardless if he was or not.

So one must demonstrate a method to prove beyond any doubt that in the event that evolution is not true, it can be shown to be such. To say evolution is true, without a way to show it is false, means evolution has never been proven to be true. If evolution be true, and this method of falsification be valid, then by demonstrating the falsification method to be unable to disprove evolution, we would confirm evolution to be right. Alternatively, if the falsification method is valid and demonstrates that Darwin's validation method does not prove evolution, then evolution is false indeed.

Firstly, the hypothesis. If evolution is incorrect, then it can be demonstrated to be so by using both living and dead plants and animals. The following is the way to do so and the logical alternative to the theory. The fossil record can be used as well, but not as evolution theory would have us believe. In order to properly falsify something, all biases must be removed, since assuming something is correct without knowing how to prove its false is akin to the blind person who can not confirm the color of someones car. Since evolution has not correctly been shown how to be falsified, as will be demonstrated, we must be open to other possibilities by way of logic, and ultimately reject evolution by way of evidence, should the evidence lead us in such a direction.

If evolution be not true, the only explanation for the appearance of varied life on the planet is intelligent design. This would predict that all life since the initial creation has been in a state of entropy since their initial creation, which is the opposite of evolution. If this be true, then animals and plants are not increasing in genetic complexity or new traits as evolution theory would have us believe, but are in fact losing information. This would explain why humans no longer have room for their wisdom teeth and why the human appendix is decreasing in functionality. The only objection to this claim that evolution theory would propose is that evolution does not always increase the genetic complexity and traits of an organism, but rather, sometimes decreases them as well. This objection is only made because we have only ever actually observed entropy in living creatures, which suits the creation model far better than evolution, which shall be demonstrated.

If the creation model is true, we can make verifiable predictions that disprove evolution. For example; the creation model states that life was created diversified to begin with, with distinct "kinds" of animals, by a supernatural Creator that did not evolve Himself, but rather always existed. Without going into the debate on how such a being is possible to exist, it must be said that either everything came from nothing, or something always existed. To those who say the universe always existed; the claim of this hypothesis is that the Creator always existed, which is equally as viable for the previous logic.

In order to demonstrate that the Creator is responsible for life and created life diversified to begin with, the word "kind" must be defined. A kind is the original prototype of any ancestral line; that is to say if God created two lions, and two cheetahs, these are distinct kinds. In this scenario, these two cats do not share a common ancestor, as they were created separately, and therefore are not the same kind despite similar appearance and design. If this is the case, evolution theory is guilty of using homogeneous structures as evidence of common ancestry, and then using homogeneous structures to prove common ancestry; this is circular reasoning!

The idea of kinds is in direct contrast to evolution theory which says all cats share a common ancestor, which the creation model does not hold to be true. If evolution theory is true, the word kind is a superficial label that does not exist, because beyond our classifications, there would be no clear identifiable division among animals or plants, since all plants and animals would therefore share a common ancestor. The word kind can only be applied in the context of the creation model, but can not be dismissed as impossible due to the evolutionary bias, simply because evolution has not been properly validated nor can it be held to be true until it can correctly be shown to be impossible to falsify.

One must look at the evidence without bias and conclude based on contemporary evidence (not speculation) if indeed evolution is the cause of the diversity of species, or not. It must also been demonstrated if the clear and distinct species do or do not share a common ancestor with each other, regardless that they may appear to be of the same family or design. In order to verify this, all that needs to be done is to demonstrate that a lion and cheetah do or do not have a common ancestor; if it can be demonstrated that any animal or plant within a family (cats in this case) do not share a common ancestor with each other, this would disprove evolution immediately and prove supernatural creation of kinds.

However, since lions and cheetahs are both clearly of the same family or design, and can potentially interbreed, we must be careful not to overlook the possibility of a very recent common ancestor If such is the case, this does not exclude the possibility that the two are originally from two separate kinds that do not share a common ancestor previous to them having one. It is therefore necessary to build an ancestral history based on verifiable evidence (not homogeneous structures in the fossil record) that can clearly demonstrate where exactly the cheetah and the lion had a common ancestor. If no such common ancestor can be found and confirmed without bias, and this test is performed between two or more of any plant or animal life without ever finding anything to the contrary, we can confirm with certainty evolution did not happen, and that kinds do exist.

In the event that fossils are too elusive (compounded with the fact that they can not be used as evidence of common descent due to circular reasoning e.g. homogeneous structures), then there is a superior and far more effective way to falsify evolution. Evolution states by addition of new traits (new organs, new anatomy) that the first lifeforms increased in complexity and size by introduction of new traits, slowly increasing step by step to more complex life forms. Notice that the addition of such traits can not be attributed to the alteration of old ones, for obvious reasons, since detrimental or beneficial mutations are only alterations of already existing traits, and can not account for an increase in the number of traits any given life form possesses.

That means a bacteria becoming able to digest nylon is a mere mutation of already existing digestive capabilities, and can not be classified as an increase in traits. Evolution theory would predict that the process of gradual change and increase in traits is an ongoing process, and therefore should be observable in todays living animals and plants through new emerging traits that any given plant or animal did not possess in its ancestry. Those who say such changes take millions of years and can not be observed today only say so because no such trait has ever been observed to emerge or be in the process of emerging in contemporary history, which is what the creation model predicts. If evolution theory be true, we would expect that at least one animal or plant would contain a new trait or be in the process of growing such a triat over its known common ancestors (that is not simply a multiplication or alteration of a trait it already had).

At this point, the fossil record can not be used as evidence to prove that evolution can produce new traits due to the fact that two animals that appear to be of the same family (T-rex and Brontosaurus, dinosaurs), while they do indeed exhibit distinct trait differences, may not have a common ancestor, but rather were created differently with all their different traits. It is therefore of paramount importance to show a single instance of such an increase of traits exists within a provable ancestry (stress provable) in contemporary times, and not assume anything concerning where the traits in the fossil record owe their origin. If it can not be shown that any animal or plant living today (or very recently deceased) exhibits any trait variance that can clearly and thoroughly be proven to be a new addition over its (stress) provable ancestors, compounded with the reasoning that two similar animals (such as a penguin and a woodpecker) do not necessarily or provably share a common ancestor, then evolution is clearly absent entirely, and supernatural intelligent design and creation is thereby proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

In conclusion, should any two animals or plants within a family (a palm tree and a coconut tree) be proven to not share a common ancestor, or if no provable increase of traits can be demonstrated to be in its beginnings or actively present in the animals and plants living today over their provable ancestry, then The Bible is correct when it says God created all the animals and plants as distinct kinds with their traits to begin with. This is the only way to falsify evolution, and it is amazing (and convenient) that Darwin never encouraged people to attempt to falsify his theory in this manner.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46469403)

First, this is way off-topic. Like, seriously.

Second, what if the posited hypothesis is that some watermelons go from red to blue over time? And then we cut open a bunch of watermelons that are different shades of purple, and some that are blue? Even if we never cut open a watermelon that is an almost-blue-purple, we can say that the hypothesis is useful (and likely accurate), especially if we can calculate the rate of color change and the circumstances needed for it to happen, and use those measurements as predictions.

In other news, this doesn't seem like a very interesting game.... and why is the considered news for /.?

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (0)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 4 months ago | (#46470257)

Dude is probably flummoxed on whether the Refrigerator light is on when the door is closed too.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (0)

s13g3 (110658) | about 4 months ago | (#46475065)

Stop feeding the troll, kids.

Seriously, this is being reposted to multiple threads with no intent other than disrupting normal discussion, no different from the GNAA trolls of years past. Just move along and ignore it, nothing to see here.

Re: How to Falsify Evolution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46469761)

Tl;dr

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (-1, Offtopic)

TheRecklessWanderer (929556) | about 4 months ago | (#46469969)

I can prove that God is not omnipitent and therefore does not exist. Can God create a rock he cannot lift? Either way, there is something he can't do, therefore he does not exist. Therefore there is no intelligent design, therefore evolution exists.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (-1, Offtopic)

The Cat (19816) | about 4 months ago | (#46470639)

Yes, God can create a rock He cannot lift. God can create a rock he can simultaneously not lift and lift. God can be omnipotent and powerless at the same time. God can be in two places at once. God can understand women. God can order a Big Mac that looks just like the one on the menu.

Stop being so linear.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (2, Funny)

TheRecklessWanderer (929556) | about 4 months ago | (#46470707)

I can't argue against magic and fairy dust. You win.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (-1, Flamebait)

The Cat (19816) | about 4 months ago | (#46470755)

Do you believe all men are created equal?

If so, you aren't being scientific.

If not, you aren't being American.

Are all men created equal? Scientifically speaking? No. In the eyes of the law? Yes. So here we have a question that has true answers of both yes and no.

It has nothing to do with magic and fairy dust. It has to do with your point of view.

If you think human understanding is the limit of reality, you are not only ignorant but stupid as well.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (-1, Offtopic)

TheRecklessWanderer (929556) | about 4 months ago | (#46470823)

You are using one word in different contexts in the same question and expecting one answer for all of them. Is that supposed to be clever? It's not. Here are the answers with the context in quotes: US Law: Yes all men are created equal. Biological: No, some people's DNA plays nasty tricks on them. Soviet Cold War Era: All men are equal but some are more equal than others. US Society: He with the gold makes the rules. He born to gold is a lucky bastard. Depending the context there are different answers. You are using light and mirrors to try and prove your point. Good luck with that. As to the limit of reality, humans certainly don't know the nature of the universe, and probably never will. Maybe in 2 or 3 billion years. I think that you should get off your high horse, because in truth it's falling over.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (-1, Flamebait)

The Cat (19816) | about 4 months ago | (#46470877)

You are using light and mirrors to try and prove your point.

I'm not trying to prove anything. You are attempting to fit a transcendent concept into your limited understanding and failing at it, then blaming the universe for your own limitations.

There are some things you cannot understand, in much the same way a muskrat can't understand the New Jersey insurance code. That doesn't mean the New Jersey insurance code doesn't exist.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472831)

The answer to both questions is 'No'. Only a moron would believe that everyone is equal under the law. Most 'laws' these days are narrowly focused and grant special favor from our imperial government on a subset of people. In general, if it is a beneficial law, me and mine don't qualify for the benefit. If the law is criminal, then should me or mine be charged, we will get the full measure of punishment. If you are rich, you can buy your way out. If you are poor and on imperial assistance, your life won't change measurably.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472357)

And then he went on to prove black is white and got run over at the next pedestrian crossing.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46473313)

Can a software developer create a virtual simulation which contains a rock he cannot lift?

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46473647)

Your argument is fallacious. You equivocate on the word "can't."

The assertion is: God can create objects of any size and mass. God can also move objects of any size and mass. This is because God is without limitation.

The statement "God can't be limited" has the grammatical structure of a limit, but semantically it is not itself a limit but rather a denial of limitation. This is the sense in which you use the word "can't" in the first phrase "God can't create [a limitation on himself]... In your second phrase, "...that God can't lift" you are using "can't" in the ordinary, limiting sense of the word.

So you appear to be pointing out a contradiction, but it is because you are using two different meanings for the same word. This is equivocation, and it is demonstrably unsound.

This rebuttal does not prove the existence of God, of course, but it does demonstrate that the concept of limitlessness is not inherently self-contradictory. And no magic or fairy dust is needed, just clear-headed semantic analysis.

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46474957)

Okay so you have proved that god is not omnipotent (spelling). How does that prove god does not exist?

There is also the possibility that god can create a rock he cannot lift. You are assuming the not being able to lift is lack of omnipotence, however since the goal was to not being able to lift it does that still make sense?

Re:How to Falsify Evolution (0)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 4 months ago | (#46470247)

Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong?

You can't explain that! Bill O'Reilly has come to slashdot.

Re: How to Falsify Evolution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46471133)

You smash it open with a blunt force object

Scientific vs historical conclusions (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46474267)

Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.

You equivocate!

The scientific method includes the falsifiability requirement for hypothesis, yes. When dealing with historical claims, falsifiability cannot logically apply. For example, I posit that Hitler actually existed and actually led during World War 2, which actually happened. We cannot rewind the universe to prove this. We cannot put Hitler's historical reality in a test tube. There is no test we could construct today to falsify this claim.

Instead, we must operate under a preponderance of historical evidence. We gather documents or geological data (bomb impact sites, etc.) to compile a list of indicators that this claim is probably true. With enough indicators, you can say "this happened," even though you have not proven it in a scientific sense.

So, claims like "natural selection produces change in the phenotype of a species" are falsifiable. Experiments that demonstrate this have been done, and can be done again, with animals that have short life spans. It is falsifiable, provable, and proven.

The claim "all life on this planet got here, and attained its current form, by means of evolution (powered by natural selection)." That is actually a historical claim. It is not "historical" in that it is not a claim specifically about human actions. But it is "historical" in that it is a claim about what happened on this planet in the past. You cannot rewind the universe, nor can you put such a claim in a test tube. But you can gain evidence, such as fossil records and such, to create enough support for the claim to accept it as true. This, also, has been done.

Your argument is bogus.

Re:So I need to know now? (1)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | about 4 months ago | (#46469709)

In this case you need to know that you can safely ignore the announcement on June 2nd.

I love how the author desperately attempts to explain the lack of originality as a strength and a very brave thing to do and the biggest selling point of the game.

"Boldly going where everyone and his dog has gone before!"
*weeeooo oooo weee ooo oo oo oooooooo* (etc)

I guess that is how they get invited back for more pampering at PR events. Its good to be an embedded journalist.

Re:So I need to know now? (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 4 months ago | (#46472221)

They're letting us know early so we can begin collecting wolf pelts in advance.

Horrbile theme park theme (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46469283)

Made for little kids and girls.

Re:Horrbile theme park theme (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 4 months ago | (#46470739)

Naw, it's made for people who liked WoW's art style but are getting tired of WoW's out dated graphical engine.

Re:Horrbile theme park theme (1)

NotDrWho (3543773) | about 4 months ago | (#46472251)

From the description, it sounds more like it was designed for WoW users who actually want MORE grinding. Good news for all you autistics and obsessive compulsive types out there.

To summarize (4, Insightful)

Stickerboy (61554) | about 4 months ago | (#46469331)

This is a game where you're constantly presented with a legion of things to do, numbers to increase, boxes to tick, things to collect, factions to impress, points to earn, monsters air-dropped in to battle without warning and/or preferably all of the above simultaneously.

So this is the most job-like game on the internet?? Awesome! Sign me up.

Less facetiously, I didn't think the answer to the common complaint of, "We're sick of killing 10 generic monsters to collect 5 generic trophies to advance a quest" was, "Here's more stuff to grind!"

Re:To summarize (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46469425)

Its a subscription-based MMO. $15 a month. In today's market, that is a recipe for fail.

They have a way you can grind for gold and pay to pay for your next month's subscription that way...there is no way one month's of grinding will cover the cost of one month's play though. Its just there to get attention.

When it goes free to play I will try it out.

It does look cool, though.

Re:To summarize (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 months ago | (#46469647)

Its a subscription-based MMO. $15 a month. In today's market, that is a recipe for fail.

On the other hand, I only play games that I pay for. I don't want anything for free, and most definitely not a game. Every single F2P game gives me a creepy feeling.

And I figure, since I'm not exceptional in any way, there are probably other people like me, who are happy to pay for a game that provides value. In fact, if the game was good enough, and provided enough value, I'd pay even more than the current price-tag for an AAA game.

I'm not much on MMO's or really, multiplayer anything, but by charging for their work, at least Blizzard has placed Wildstar in the category of games that I will consider playing.

Re:To summarize (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46469927)

Buy to play games, like Guild Wars 2, work well. It is a high quality game that you pay for...once. Then, if you want some boosters or cosmetic upgrades, you can pay a little more.

In theory, the subscription allows subscription-based MMOs to continue to deliver new content, thus justifying the subscription. In practice, you could by a brand-new game every 4 months that you play a subscription based MMO, and the new content they deliver doesn't even come close to this level of variety. Further, with many subscription based MMOs, you also have to pay again for expansions (WoW does this, as did Everquest), and on top of that there is special in-game content which requires a fee on top of your subscription (WoW did this too, dunno about others). They just suck your money away like vampires, and don't deliver nearly enough content to justify the cost.

And anyway, that market is saturated. Another subscription-based game won't pull new players into the market, so it has to be awesome enough to justify making existing players quit their existing subscriptions (or pick up an additional subscription game)...good luck with THAT!

Re:To summarize (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46474741)

Then don't fucking play if the cost of the game isn't worth it to you. Shut the fuck up otherwise. I'm so sick of this bullshit where people complain that the game company asks for too much of their money. So the fuck what? If it's too much for you to handle, then take your minimum wage bullshit job and shove it up your ass. For real, if you don't like the payment system they set up, then vote with your wallet and move on to something else. Complaining that they "suck away your money like vampires" doesn't do anything other than make you look like a little whiny bitch.

Trollolololol! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46475567)

Here troll, have some food.

Complaints, and presentation of opinion, are primary purposes for this forum. This is exactly the place where people should say things like that. Telling them to shut up will have no effect, and shows that you lack understanding of these forums.

Re:To summarize (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 4 months ago | (#46476751)

GW2 is not a pay once game. It's "microtransaction hell free to play model if you want to play the game with any comfort, but we'll charge you AAA price up front because we have good brand name" game. That's one of the reasons why so many people dropped it - after all the empty promises, they ended up making even legendaries puchasable from auction house with in game money, and in game money purchasable with real money strait from the developer. After spending months telling everyone they won't sell in game money for real money.

On the other hand as FF14 showed, people are fully willing to pay if you have a good game worth paying for. Problem was and still is that most people only pay for one sub at a time, so you need to produce enough quality to make people want to switch from WoW, or FF14, or whatever sub game they're playing. And quality level there is much higher than F2P.

That's the main reason why so many MMORPGs nowadays went F2P. Not that the model is great, but because bad and average games simply could not compete with WoW. F2P let's you release anything from average to shovelware and finance it at least for some time, as long as it's not completely awful.

But great F2P MMORPGs are essentially all P2P nowadays, and will likely remain this way for a while, simply because to compete in that market you need to provide people with consistent influx of high quality content. F2P budgets are simply not sufficient for that sort of thing, as SWTOR showed. When they went F2P, they had to drop the constant new content updates.

Re:To summarize (1)

Brulath (2765381) | about 4 months ago | (#46480553)

On the other hand, I only play games that I pay for. I don't want anything for free, and most definitely not a game. Every single F2P game gives me a creepy feeling.

Games funded by microtransactions, like F2P games, tend to activate a defensive mode for me; I'm constantly on the look-out for mechanics that try to make me spend money, to avoid them, which distracts me from focusing my full attention on the fun portion of the game. The money mechanics are going to be presented in a way which is tempting, so it's not easy to let my guard down. I'd take a game that costs money up-front and doesn't require me to guard myself over one with a microtransaction system any day.

Eve Online Buying More Time with Ingame Currency (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46469799)

"They have a way you can grind for gold and pay to pay for your next month's subscription that way...there is no way one month's of grinding will cover the cost of one month's play though. Its just there to get attention."

Interesting, Eve Online has a similar mechanism where you can buy Pilot License Extensions ("PLEX") which is a 30 day subscription with in game currency (ISK), going for about 674 million ISK. It's hard, but by no means impossible, to earn that kind of income per month. Some income streams are passive, in fact I'm training my alternate characters to generate income for me through various means, etc., as well, to build up PLEXes.

Re:Eve Online Buying More Time with Ingame Currenc (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 4 months ago | (#46470723)

Yep, they took EVE's model, as a means of trying to keep out RMT. I'm sure there are still some entrepreneurial gold farmers that are going to try it, anyway.

Re:To summarize (1)

Ceriel Nosforit (682174) | about 4 months ago | (#46470725)

It does look cool, though.

Really? At a glance I thought it looked simplistic and trite.

Re:To summarize (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 4 months ago | (#46470737)

TESO is also a pay to play. XIV:ARR is pay to play and they're approaching a population of two million since launch last fall, which is kind of crazy.

F2P games have their place, but so do P2P games. If Wildstar thinks it can compete with the big boys, then more power to it.

Re:To summarize (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46471097)

XIV:ARR is pay to play and they're approaching a population of two million since launch last fall, which is kind of crazy.

Where does this bullshit number keep coming from? They're possibly approaching 2 million SALES, which is not the same thing as SUBSCRIBERS, which is certainly not the same thing as ACTIVE PLAYERS.

The one time they've released actual numbers to their investors, they revealed that the game met sales figures of something like 300,000 in the first month. That was it. I have no idea where this "nearly 2 million" figure comes from, but I somehow doubt it's grounded in reality. Unless they're doing something shady like counting "number of characters created."

Re:To summarize (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46471167)

Where does this bullshit number keep coming from? They're possibly approaching 2 million SALES, which is not the same thing as SUBSCRIBERS, which is certainly not the same thing as ACTIVE PLAYERS.

1.8 million players, 6.7 million characters. According to this polygon article, which is according to Square Enix [polygon.com]

Re:To summarize (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46471185)

Or, in other words, SALES, not subscribers. Which would be more impressive if you weren't aware that the game had been on sale for less than a month's subscription constantly since December. (What, Square Enix desperate for cash? Who'd ever see that coming.)

In the context of this discussion, what we really want to know if how many subscriptions there are, which they haven't told us and almost certainly won't reveal. The reality is subscription-based MMOs are dead, no matter how much you try and fudge the numbers.

Re:To summarize (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 months ago | (#46473825)

There's just three motivating factors for creating multiple characters per account. The first is to grant the player multiple "lockouts" regarding raiding content. The second is to play on multiple servers. The third is to experiment with character creation IF you want to see how the character looks in game, since you can save character creations without actually creating the character.

The majority of characters created are undoubtedly gil sellers. The fact that it's 6.7m players for 400m hows just a month ago (when the game has been out for 4 months) making it just shy of 60hours per character is pretty indicative of that fact.

Re:To summarize (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 4 months ago | (#46472279)

At least 100,000 players of the original game didn't have to buy the new version. They got a copy of the client handed to them for free. Are they counted among the "sale" numbers? I'm pretty sure the source quoted below uses the phrase "accounts" which is not the same as sold copies of the game. (Whether those accounts are active or not is up for debate.)

Re:To summarize (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46475765)

Someone else already pointed this out: the majority of those "1.8 million accounts" are gold sellers. It makes sense when you remember that the game has been on a near constant "sale" for less than the cost of a month's subscription since the end of November, and that a "new" copy of the game comes with a month's subscription...

Not exactly an indication of the revival of subscription-based MMOs!

Re:To summarize (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 4 months ago | (#46476639)

Actually it's a recipe for success. FF14 is doing quite well now after they fixed the idiocy of the first attempt of launching a crappy game and made a decent one. WoW is moving along with subscriber numbers that are a wet dream for any publisher.

If you can provide quality, people will happily pay. The issue is that few can match the quality of WoW, and that's what you're going against. FF14 is a good example - they have their own thing, and when they did it wrong, it wasn't enough to pull people off WoW. But when they did it right, they got the subscribers to stay.

On the other hand, free to play market is utterly oversaturated. You have to go against everything from juggernaughts like SWTOR to smaller and more niche titles like Firefall.

Re:To summarize (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46469441)

Except instead of a job where these things are tedious, it's all about the immediate enjoyment, they throw more stuff at you, give you rewards and you go after the next fix.

Depending on how they ramp it anyway.

So . . . (5, Insightful)

Traciatim (1856872) | about 4 months ago | (#46469357)

In other words: Welcome to the grind fest, where if it doesn't consume your entire life then you lose.

Re:So . . . (5, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 4 months ago | (#46469427)

In other words: Welcome to the grind fest, where if it doesn't consume your entire life then you lose.

Or, by losing you win, but feel you didn't win, so keep trying and keep losing, until you are good enough to win and thus lose.

Re:So . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472993)

Beer, Whiskey, Cigarettes, Pot, Ecstasy, Blow, LSD,Soma,PCP,Oxycontin,Crank, Heroine and now Krokodil [wikipedia.org] . Where will it stop ?

No Linux client (3, Insightful)

future assassin (639396) | about 4 months ago | (#46469393)

no money. Thanks for playing...

Re:No Linux client (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46471557)

no money. Thanks for playing...

Damm man, Stop beating that dead horse. Linux makes up less than 5% of the market. At best.
Even mac beats it. And while it's a 'form' of nix. You're still not running their shit either.

You want game companys to seriously spend double the money to support 5% more people? That's fucking stupid. Nobody who doesn't have other motives will ever do that.

Really expect it to change? Help people migrate to linux. No. Not by being snarky fuckwads telling people with questions to "RTFM".
By actually helping! Making it easy for the average braindead windows user to switch.

Do that. And you might.... MIGHT... reach a percentage that game companys will care about.

Until then.. STFU about linux support in mainstream titles. It's just not going to happen no matter how much you wish it.

Re:No Linux client (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46471991)

You want game companys to seriously spend double the money to support 5% more people?

It does not take double money to support two platforms instead of one. First, a large percentage of the work to develop a game needs to be done on OS independent assets (textures, models, sounds, maps, etc.). Second, even the engine code does not need to be duplicated, only the parts that interface with platform specific APIs. If code is designed and written to be portable from the beginning, then supporting multiple operating systems is relatively easy compared to the total amount of effort that is needed to make the game.

STFU about linux support in mainstream titles. It's just not going to happen no matter how much you wish it.

So, why do you care about Linux users stating that they will not buy something that does not work on their OS, and just STFU yourself ? If the market is really insignificant, then it does not matter anyway, and you can just ignore such comments.

Re:No Linux client (1)

thunderbird32 (1138071) | about 4 months ago | (#46473723)

STFU about linux support in mainstream titles. It's just not going to happen no matter how much you wish it.

Now that CryEngine, Source, and Unity are all on Linux, it just might happen. Anything that lowers the barrier to entry for the developers is a good thing, and increases the possibility for AAA games on Linux. We already have one AAA title on Linux, Metro Last Light.

Re:No Linux client (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 4 months ago | (#46472847)

no money. Thanks for playing...

Damn straight.

Re:No Linux client (1)

Mirar (264502) | about 4 months ago | (#46500351)

Ah, that's actually annoying. A Linux client would have been a complete win.

NCSOFT Killed City of Heroes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46470269)

They won't get one single penny from me.
Never Again.

Re:NCSOFT Killed City of Heroes (1)

Chas (5144) | about 4 months ago | (#46470929)

I'm in this camp as well.

NCSoft has a nasty habit of killing off properties on short notice and then squatting the IP pretty much forever.

Now, I'm realistic enough to understand that all these games are going to close at some point. It doesn't change the fact that NCSoft killed the game that kept their US division afloat, then reformulated the division after stripping the coffers bare.

And there WERE efforts made to purchase the game outright. NCSoft didn't meet with them and decide the deal wouldn't work. They just ignored it. Flat out.

A company that tone-deaf to their player base is a company I simply refuse to give my money to. Sure, it sucks for the studios that built these other games. But they're the ones who sold their souls to this publisher.

I still think that NCSoft is somehow convinced that a bunch of ex-WoW guys are going to build a WoW-killer.
If so, they're nuts.

Re:NCSOFT Killed City of Heroes (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | about 4 months ago | (#46471617)

I still think that NCSoft is somehow convinced that a bunch of ex-WoW guys are going to build a WoW-killer.

I'd be happy if they build something that has some of the spirit of CoH/CoV. Weird, colorful, etc.

I'd be even happier if they don't kill it after two years.

CoH/CoV was fun. The right thing to relax for an hour or two after work. That's not enough to see most of the "content" of WoW, and unlike WoW, combat in CoH/CoV was actually fun even if you were just beating up trash mobs on the streets.

Re:NCSOFT Killed City of Heroes (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 4 months ago | (#46473135)

I don't think these asshats realize what they're doing when they close something. I had about 200 hours of base construction with well over 4000 pieces placed (which is somewhat clumsy in their method).

Let's just shut down Minecraft, taking everybody's painstaking lands along with it.

It was making a small profit along with regular ongoing updates and releases. This was not some money pit.

It's nothing but spite on their part. Supposedly they re-used the servers to help with. guild wars ii to help the initial bulge without buying more, which would be redundant in a few months.

Again, thanks asshats.

Wildstar is awesome (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | about 4 months ago | (#46471641)

Not as a game, mind you... I got bored out of my skull way before level 10... but the marketing videos were super. I enjoyed those. Had they made this franchise into a 3D cartoon instead of an MMO, I think they might have hit a veritable gold vein.

But as an MMO? No thanks. I have better things to do... such as staring at my wallpaper.

My experience (2)

argStyopa (232550) | about 4 months ago | (#46471945)

Granted this was beta, but here's what I found:

- a slavish determination to mimic World of Warcraft's aesthetic. Unsurprising, since the dev team AFAIK largely came from Blizzard. IMO this is a little too slavish, coming off like "WoW sci fi with guns". To me it's jarring that you have nicely-detailed characters with hi-rez textures, but you're running around a world with a klunky geometry that screams "this is all computers can handle in 2004". TF2 showed that you could adhere to a non-representational, 'cartoony' theme without necessarily deliberately going so far as to mimic the design compromises of a decade ago.

- Obviously this is entirely subjective, but there's a very fine line between quirky/kitschy and cheesy. The "bad guys" n00b island story line in Wildstar is cheesy; the good guys story is cheesy AND sappy. WoW had a certain sort of self-referential humor to a lot of what it did (at its best), and that has seemed to dominate latter releases *cough* *cough* Pandas *cough*. Wildstar continues this unfortunate narrative/editorial choice, with everything from animations to storyline being so "over the top" that it has to be self-mocking (with the 'good guy' side adding a further drippy saccharine layer of narrative - the tutorial quest has you saving a guy's pregnant wife...)

- They've already very much adopted the modern-mmo paradigm of "go to quest hub, get a bunch of quests, complete those quests, move to next hub". There's almost never (at least in the first 12-15 levels) a point where you go backward, for any reason. Everything is very conveniently placed; when you hit a place where you level up, there's a new-skill trainer already waiting for you.

- Some clever design ideas in UI, communicating what enemies are doing and what you're doing (and the area effects) clearly and intuitively.

It's WoW40k, nothing more, nothing less. Personally, I don't find the modern design choices in MMOs for 'everything to be easy' to be interesting or engaging, but that's not Wildstar's fault at all. They're very solidly in the current mainstream.

Re:My experience (1)

B33rNinj4 (666756) | about 4 months ago | (#46489495)

You pretty much nailed it.

Too late. (1)

B33rNinj4 (666756) | about 4 months ago | (#46489487)

I played the beta, and I was not very impressed. If this had come out five or six years ago, I'd be much more excited about it. I played each class, and brought them out of the starting area, but I never really felt like there was any conflict, and it never really kept my attention. The game has some interesting mechanics, but I feel like they attempted to not "be WoW" to the extent that the enjoyment was watered down. Plus, there's the subscription. As it stands, after playing Guild Wars 2, I've seen how the F2P model can work. Sure, I can earn game time by playing, but I can't see myself really playing this enough.

roleplay? (1)

Mirar (264502) | about 4 months ago | (#46500349)

So is it a good game to roleplay in?

Or is LoTRO _still_ sadly best for that aspect?

jordans shoes http://www.shoesctv.com (1)

kvcnmoui (3582745) | about 4 months ago | (#46523855)

Hello! everybody, give you recommend a good shopping place. cheap sunglasses http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] NFL cap wholesale http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] designer handbags http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] cheap jordan shoes http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] designer sunglasses http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] handbags On Sale http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] all jordan shoes http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] jordans shoes http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] jordan store http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] michael jordan http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] Air jordan 13 http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] discount jordan shoes http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] cheap designer handbags http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] NBA cap wholesale http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] best handbags http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] cheap jordan http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] Jordan for cheap http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] Air jordan 11 http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] ray ban sunglasses http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] handbag store http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] handbag patterns http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] mens sunglasses http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] imitation handbags http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] replica rolex http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] jordan release dates http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] NHL cap wholesale http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] wholesale from china http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] Jordans For Sale http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] cheap designer handbag http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com] designer handbags wholesale http://www.shoesctv.com/ [shoesctv.com]
Check for New 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...