Richard Garriott interview on WarCry

Surprised nobody's posted a thread about this for discussion.
Part 1 - http://www.warcry.com/news/view/129...the-Avatar-Gives-History-to-Player-Made-Items
Part 2 - http://www.warcry.com/news/view/129...rt-2-World-of-Warcraft-Model-of-MMOs-Overdone
Part 3 - http://www.warcry.com/news/view/129...w-Part-3-Seeking-Greatness-in-a-Game-Designer

Some interesting quotes:
RG: "In Shroud of the Avatar there will absolutely not be a quest log..."

I thought they were still kicking around this idea, so I guess they decided...for now, anyways.

RG: "SotA is going to be borrowing a combat mechanic from Tabula Rasa, and will feature a cover system that both players and NPCs can use. "

This sounds vaguely familiar but I can't remember when this was mentioned previously.

RG: "So we're going to charge $40ish to play the game..."

I'm surprised pricing was mentioned so early. If that remains true, that's a pretty good deal given how large in scope this game is vs even the $60 titles in the market today.

RG: "While we're giving some [in-game property] plots to backers for helping to game to get going, for everyone else who comes in later, there will be a load on that, $5 per month, or something like that."

So there you have it. Property tax can be optionally paid for with real life cash. How does everyone feel about that actual amount of tax? I think tax-free deeds just skyrocketed on the black market.

RG: "We're going to try and avoid the issue of selling power, but we do want to say that if you want to be a player in the world, you need to be supporting us...We're going to have some caps on things such as inventory, but if you don't want that, you can just pay us $5-10 per month and just forget about it."

I'm sure this pricing is all speculation on his part but it's interesting nonetheless that he's throwing around figures on uncapping inventory limits.

RG: "And in fact, we're also making it so that players can pay their rent with in-game currency too."

I think that's a very key point to call out. You aren't required to pay with real life cash, but can pay off those things with in-game currency. At least for property tax / rent. It's unclear if he also meant everything, such as removing inventory caps.

EDIT: updated to include all 3 parts of the interview

 

I get so tired of the negative comments on other sites, I stopped looking.
So I miss good stuff.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention!

 

Smack, thanks for posting this! Hmm, I wouldn't be surprised if the actual retail price for the game and monthly property tax turn out to be somewhat higher than what RG mentioned in the interview. Interesting comment about the monthly fee for removing the cap on inventory. I can't say I'm surprised though - the developers do need to find ways to generate a steady source of income in order to stay afloat. I expect we will be seeing more types of transaction fees popping up later on

 

Many of the statements in that interview are ominous, to me.

 

Hmm... not sure what to make of it. I'd actually be fine paying a straight subscription fee for $9.99 a month, but I don't wanna be charged a little bit a month for this little game thing here and this little thing there. If they are going to go with cash for stuff in game then they should just create some kind of general premium monthly subscription. Otherwise it really is "nickel and diming" as people like to say.

 

Money sinks in game are bad enough, now RG is creating real world cash money sinks? Is he trying to scare people away from this game on purpose?

I mean, he's going old school quests because todays MMO's are too brain dead but if you pay $5-10 a month you don't have to worry about managing your inventory. How do I get my pledge back?

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but based on how RG phrased that second quote I think he really meant "but if you don't want that, you can just pay us $5-10 per month [and use a house for more inventory storage]"

'Cover' being part of the combat system intrigues me, as it implies strategic movement and flanking are important factors in skirmishes, which is great...
But...as I start to imagine possible formation plays and terrain scenarios using cover, I can't help but think combat is getting farther and farther away from a traditional rpg pace.
If things continue as they are I can see a noticeable skill gap forming among players in the future, a particularly harsh one at that, since cover always provides reduced visibility for an assailant.

If a player hasn't played Gears of War, or any of the Mass Effect games, then I would think they would be in for a steep learning curve.
The entire feel of PvP is dramatically changed with this revelation as well. - If any of you plan to go straight to PvP without previous experience with 'cover'... all I can say to you is best of luck in your endeavours, cuz you'll need it.

 

So much for "Buy to own". Beging to think this game is a massive case of fraud

 

Hope you are right. Sure wish they would wake up and post concurrent, precise information when these interviews hit.

Just waiting for the forum noise to start up again because the message in that interview was muddy at best.

 

That may very well be.

I think it's also critical to reiterate that last quote about being able to pay with in-game currency. It would be an entirely different story if those can only be paid for with real life cash. Please do read the entire article for full context, in so much as you can with interview articles on the web, which usually don't provide full transcripts. I wish journalists would also provide full transcripts in addition to their condensed articles with quotes edited and sprinkled here and there.

 

I reaaaaallllly hope that's what he means... AND that it can be paid EITHER with RL or IG cash. Cause the way it sounds in that article... $5 a month here, $5 a month there, maybe another $10 a month for that... Just NO. I'm not putting in over $500 on a game that was touted as 'you buy it you own it, no nickel-and-diming' and THEN end up having to pay a monthly subscription fee after all. If that's the case, I'd be nodding along with Asguard, and that's just a scary thought. (No offense, Asguard )

 

I wonder how much how much in game gold is needed to cover these monthly costs (i.e., what's the exchange rate?). For a player who can only spend a very limited amount of time online each month, it might be cheaper to pay these monthly fees with real world money...

 

That's why I'd be fine with an either/or... but if it's real-world only, I'd be furious, as I am the exact opposite... I have all the time I could ever want, but my funding is extremely limited, and it was because it said so clearly that this game would NOT nickel and dime its players for real world money that I jumped in so heavily.

 

Hmm, I guess the developers may argue that the game is "buy to own" for the single player offline mode only; all of the online modes require all of these transaction fees....

 

But then the cake is a lie. This was sold as pay-to-own. Not a subscription or any other pay model.

Even if you dont log in for 6 months, why do you need to pay a maintanence fee disguised as something else?

Which is going to bring out a lot of haters. Misleading people is going to put them worse off, especially in their case when they dole out info in drips.

Just dont get what game they are playing at here really.

 

From the front page of the Kickstarter:

Okay, they still aren't charging a subscription, but if it ends up the way that article made it sound, it will be only in the most technical sense... you can 'play' without it, but at a distinct disadvantage, just like every other pay-to-win MMO game model. And there have been other things said that are not as easily found in a few seconds, that led many of us to jump in with both feet... but now it looks like the rug might get pulled out from under us before we can even land properly.

Still hoping that was just poorly quoted and Rampage is right that it's just referring back to the housing itself.

 

Yeah, it does seem that they are trying to get around the monthly subscription fee on a technicality NirAntae, excellent point about playing at a disadvantage. The monthly fee to remove the inventory cap is a perfect example of this. It's not really clear from the interview whether or not RG was referring to what you could store in your house or the bank or your personal inventory. If it's your personal inventory, that could really be a problem...

 

Which is my point, misleading.

This is why they need to post clear, poignant information when articles are posted. They are not doing any service to themselves letting the best tool they have for longevity (the internets / marketing yo!) sit idle and dole it out one piece of candy at a time.

Make the community you are trying to establish sell it for you.

When no one here, people who've been here since day zero, have a clue wth you are doing, or what the message you just blasted to the world even means, ....?

 

Technically, that statement is true about not being a subscription model. Perhaps we can look at these as convenience features that you can optionally pay for with RL currency, and hopefully with IG currency as well. It's just not clear from the article. Inventory caps don't really bother me, since they've talked about being able to unlock new skill trees with RL currency, but even then it wasn't clear what that really meant. Did that apply only to people playing the free demo who then want to to unlock that skill tree, or did that apply to all backers and retail purchasers to get new skill "content packs". Muddy indeed, but not unexpected as perhaps this topic is also the sausage making part.

But one can only guess though why they're talking about pricing and transactions again in the media this far in advance of launch. Testing the waters over time and seeing the reaction? Perhaps.

 

I love that a game in development has excited such passions on and off this forum. RG and company will experiment with a number of game mechanics and concepts as they work to create a compelling world, to bottle this passion, and share it with as broad an audience as possible. While making money. If they make lots of money, they'll attract the best game developers, and make better sequels.

Sacred cows will be slaughtered. The game will evolve. Remember UO's living ecology that was promptly wiped out by a plague of players? Each innovation in SOTA risks a similar miscalculation. That's part fo the fun. Let's debate them. Let's play them. Then we'll debate them all over again.