Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games)

HellGate London To Be For-Pay Online Experience 56

Posted by Zonk from the no-freebie-for-you dept.
The long-in-development HellGate: London, which finally has a release date, has been announced as a for-pay MMOG-style game. From the article: "Drawing similarities to ArenaNet's Guild Wars, Hellgate's online is heavily instanced. Group and solo PvE is the game's main focus; PvP will exist in a small scale form, but is not a major element of the initial launch. It will also feature a Hardcore mode similar to that found in Blizzard's Diablo II, a game on which many members of the Hellgate team worked. Hellgate's multiplayer will contain all of the missions and story from the single-player aspect of the game, as well as exclusive gameplay modes and content. Like the single-player game, it will be comprised of dynamically generated areas and items. Further content will be continually added over time by a dedicated Flagship team."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HellGate London To Be For-Pay Online Experience More

HellGate London To Be For-Pay Online Experience

Comments Filter:

  • FFS..... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EvilCabbage ( 589836 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @04:49PM (#17546922) Homepage
    My interest just dropped to zero.

    I've been really looking forward to this, but the prospect of another 'mmo' honestly just angries up my blood.

    • Re:FFS..... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Pojut ( 1027544 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @04:53PM (#17546972) Homepage
      I can understand where you are coming from, however I think you read a bit hastily...

      These multiplayer elements are IN ADDITION TO the single player game. That is still fully intact and present. They are saying instead of the typical deathmatch online play, it will be mmo-style.

      To me, this is an choice which has vast potential. Implemented properly, the play style and story line and world of Hellgate could indeed prove to work well in a heavily instanced world..."safe houses" could be in the same vain as guild wars towns, while "action zones" could be instanced.

      To me, this single player/mmo mixed experience sounds like a fantastic idea. If they do it right, they will definately have my money up front and monthly.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Qzukk ( 229616 )
        To me, this is an choice which has vast potential. Implemented properly, the play style and story line and world of Hellgate could indeed prove to work well in a heavily instanced world..."safe houses" could be in the same vain as guild wars towns, while "action zones" could be instanced.

        I agree. It gets people to pick it up who might otherwise think "wait a minute, I'm paying to get a game that I'll have to pay MORE to play?"

        It's doubtful that it'll get it a lot more money monthly, but I'm sure it would b

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mbourgon ( 186257 )
        One major diff - Guild Wars is a pay-once-and-play, not a pay-per-month. My interest just died, too. This is Diablo N, not Everquest or even Eve Online.
        • Exactly. There's a reason Guild Wars is the only MMOG I've bought in years. At least the Diablos were free to play on Battle.net, which was more or less a "heavily instanced" MMOG, without the 3D chat rooms.
        • Yup, biggest thing GW has going for it is that there's no month-to month subscription.

          Hellgate London is dead to me if they try to charge for online. I see no indication that that game will have the kind of on-line experience that games like WoW provide (dynamic and changing).

          If they go that route, I don't give a shit if it's one of my favorite development teams ever. They will not see a fucking cent of my money.

      • To me, this is an choice which has vast potential. Implemented properly, the play style and story line and world of Hellgate could indeed prove to work well in a heavily instanced world..."safe houses" could be in the same vain as guild wars towns, while "action zones" could be instanced.

        I think it would work better the other way round:

        Shared "action zones" with a few instances for things like player housing or character development events. This way, players would have the MMO benefit of meeting lots of peo

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Pojut ( 1027544 )
          True, but that would require a massive recoding and redesign of the game (or at least based on my previous MMO experience which goes all the way back to gemstone III says so) This is comparatively quite easy to implement (what they are doing) and offers a much deeper experience than the standard deathmatch multiplayer
          • Yes, I guess that's what the developers thought.
            On a less friendly note, one could call it a cheap effort to participate in the MMORPG boom without providing all aspects of a real MMORPG. Other companies offer the real thing, admittedly with varying success. But it is possible.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Pojut ( 1027544 )
              considering it is being head up by Bill Roper....well, let's just say the man doesn't have to prove anything lol
              • If he wants to get a monthly fee from me, yea, he has something to prove. I don't care if his name is Jesus Fucking Christ.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Pojut ( 1027544 )
                  ...in all honesty, I would have been willing to pay to play diablo II multiplayer.....even with all the duping and everything that happend, that was a FUN game that stole many hours of my life from me.

                  Even if multiplayer hellgate was only half as good as diablo II, I would gladly pay for it.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by SP33doh ( 930735 )
          I think you need to play Guild Wars
          • I've tried Guild Wars in the Open Beta.
            Now playing EVE Online which has a big, shared world. I like it much better than Guild Wars (which has its good points, but I disliked the instanced missions).
    • Too true - I have a feeling this will simply re-hash the same tired dynamic of MMO and not bring anything new or interesting to change the way we look at this genre in general.
    • My interest just dropped to zero.

      I feel the same way, I was actually interested in Hellgate London, but not anymore.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Toridas ( 742267 )
      I've just lost interest also. The description makes it sound almost exactly like an upgraded Diablo 2: solo and group PvE, multiplaye being basically the same as single player, random dungeons,

      Except that Diablo 2 was free to play online after you bought the game.

    • I had the exact same kneejerk reaction until I thought about it a little bit.

      I have the utmost respect for Blizzard for continuing Battle.net after all these years. Free multiplayer is indeed an incredibly generous offering. However, as any Diablo player knows, Battle.net is utterly teeming with cheaters. I would be willing to pay a one-time fee (definitely not monthly) as I do for Guild Wars for corporate-hosted multiplayer as it is a controlled environment almost entirely free of cheaters. In games

  • Incorrect (Score:5, Informative)

    by TychoCelchuuu ( 835690 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @04:54PM (#17547002) Journal
    The ball's still in the air on whether or not it's going to be pay to play. ShackNews is wrong.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Thansal ( 999464 )
      How is this offtopic?

      Anyway, care to share a link with some more info?

    • Re:Incorrect (Score:5, Informative)

      by _xeno_ ( 155264 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @05:02PM (#17547168) Homepage Journal

      Why is this offtopic? It's correct. The ShackNews article has been updated to include:

      Update: Since posting our original news item on the matter, Shacknews has been contacted by Electronic Arts, which is co-publishing the game along with Namco Bandai. EA noted that there has not in fact been any final decision made as to Hellgate: London's online pricing model, be it subscription-based or otherwise. We respect this situation, while maintaining that have reported fairly on statements we received. A full interview is forthcoming.

      The pricing model for online play isn't final yet. The details on online play are fuzzy as well.

      • The pricing model for online play isn't final yet. The details on online play are fuzzy as well.

        Yup. In fact, Roper's statement is part of the design process [wikipedia.org] for their online model.
  • They keep on harkening it to D/DII and Guild Wars.

    both games that are specificly "buy once, play online for free" because they ARE instanced.....

    I will withhold judgment untill some actual solid news is out.
    • ...and yet Dungeons and Dragons Online: Stormreach [ddo.com], which is also heavily instanced, has a monthly fee.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by jdun ( 310373 )
        But DDO is crap. Less then 50k and dropping like a rock. I won't be surprise if it goes free in the next few months.
    • There's no way I'm paying monthly to play Guild Wars or Diablo II all over again. This is just a money grab IMO. I was actually looking forward to this game, but not anymore. Why the hell would they wait till now to decide if they want to make it subscription based? I'm sick of MMOs, if I wanted to play a MMO, i'd go back to playing WoW. This decision is going to piss off a lot of people that were expecting Hellgate to be a hack and slash, not an MMORPG.
  • I love MMOs. But with WoW as the leader, Everquest and GuildWars close behind, Runescape using remote power to make its mark, and 50 bajillion others, I don't think the market has enough space. Honest. I like unique takes on RPGs, but this looks like its treading into alful deep water. It might be good, but, as the devils advocate, it won't fit in unless it does something REALLY cool. Sorry, folks.
    • If my "Close" you mean "Everquest is bleeding to death" and "Both Everquests and Runescape combined might make up one sixth of WoW's subscribers". I don't know about guild wars though, for some reason there's no numbers on MMOGCharts [slashdot.org] possibly because you don't pay for a monthly subscription. And just for reference, runescape is beating the snot out of everquest.
      • Guild Wars recently sold their 3 millionth copy worldwide and released a Polish version in addition to the other 6 or 7 languages. Other localizations are pending. I believe that puts it at about 2/5 of WoW's population.
      • ... for some reason there's no numbers on MMOGCharts possibly because you don't pay for a monthly subscription ...

        The developer/publisher says it is not a MMORG. Also note that the multiplayer is not on a massive scale, it is instanced. It is more like Diablo II than WoW in this particular respect. It is an awesome game, but it is not a MMORG.

  • Update...and other thoughts (Score:3, Informative)

    by RichPowers ( 998637 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @05:15PM (#17547390)
    "Update: Since posting our original news item on the matter, Shacknews has been contacted by Electronic Arts, which is co-publishing the game along with Namco Bandai. EA noted that there has not in fact been any final decision made as to Hellgate: London's online pricing model, be it subscription-based or otherwise. We respect this situation, while maintaining that have reported fairly on statements we received. A full interview is forthcoming."

    I first thought of what Will Wright once said about his corporate bosses at EA (and I paraphrase): "if you want your project to be noticed, just tell the execs that it's like World of Warcraft."

    I only bring this up because it's so typical for management to play copycat instead of trailblazer (look no further than the early 2000s deluge of crappy "Tycoon" games). And EA is among the worst when it comes to this. Perhaps this mentality - the only MMO is one like WoW - is why the market, by and large, is incapable of advancing beyond the tried-and-true "level grind/quest/exp" model.

    In any event, I don't feel like paying more money just to enjoy my goddamn game. What's a gamer to do, between "booster packs," episodic content, microdownloads, and online play fees.
    • In any event, I don't feel like paying more money just to enjoy my goddamn game. What's a gamer to do, between "booster packs," episodic content, microdownloads, and online play fees.
      Only buy games that are a one time payment, boycott everything else. There are still lots of games out there that aren't MMORPGs.
    • Support Guild Wars. It's the only player-friendly pricing model for online role-playing games. The only sure-fire way to encourage publishers and developers to treat their customers fairly is for Arena.net and NCSoft to make a killing from Guild Wars. Plus you get to play a genuinely fun game.

    • In any event, I don't feel like paying more money just to enjoy my goddamn game. What's a gamer to do, between "booster packs," episodic content, microdownloads, and online play fees.

      What we have here is a clear case of culture envy occuring within the ranks of management. You see, in Asia they are quite content with being nickel and dimed for everything they do in games. It is an accepted part of their gaming culture. I don't pretend to know why, but for whatever reason that's how it is. It is also qu

  • If they decide to go through with this, I think it would be a big mistake. Although the game looks great from the screenshots I've seen, they'd be in trouble if they made online play cost extra. Traditional MMOs justify ongoing payments by having servers support thousands of people all together at once. The other big selling 'heavily instanced' games out there have set the precedent on this one: Diablo (1 and 2) and Guild Wars. Neither of these two games have made you pay anything more than the price of th

    • The other big selling 'heavily instanced' games out there have set the precedent on this one: Diablo (1 and 2) and Guild Wars. Neither of these two games have made you pay anything more than the price of the box (and subsequent expansions).

      Don't forget that Phantasy Star Online, which was also a heavily instanced game, managed to pull the pay-per-month scheme pretty successfully.

  • Paying monthly doesn't appeal to me. You can say I'm cheap or whatever, but I still believe in and enjoy a free multiplayer experience. Granted higher quality content will be brought to the table via the pay-to-play scheme, the joys of free online play like Diablo and Diablo II offered outweighs the MMO concept, in my opinion. What would be great if they could develop a free online system for Hellgate London as well. I don't know a lot about the game, but since it has a single player element, it seems apply

  • Played it at the last E3... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...And it was already fantastic then. I'm not even a Diablo fan, but I found the gameplay quite compelling - it felt considerably more action-oriented and immersive, while retaining the addicting collect-a-thon aspects of the earlier hellspawn-slaying games. It even looked polished - a full year before release.

    I came away from the demo impressed enough to put the game on my "To Buy at Release" list (which is rare for me for PC games). However, if they're going to release it under a subscription model, I'm g
  • We already pay two subscriptions in this house, for world of warcraft. It would take a very impressive game for us to switch. (and the other half would take a lot of convincing to pay an additional subscription for an online game.) I assume that this would be the same for at least half the 7.5 million subscribers.

    With burning crusade Xpac round the corner, a lot of people will be reactivating accounts also. I don't see many switching anytime soon.

  • Yay for Hardcore (Score:2, Insightful)

    by LunarCrisis ( 966179 )

    It will also feature a Hardcore mode similar to that found in Blizzard's Diablo II (...)

    Awesome.

    For those who don't know, this is the mode where if your character is killed, that's it, he's gone forever. In my last days of playing Diablo II I played this mode pretty much exclusively. When I first got Diablo II this mode didn't appeal to me at all, after all, why play for hours and hours only to lose your character to a monster who was a little too tough?

    One thing you learn after playing Diablo II for long enough, and coming to the point where beating normal difficulty becomes a normal

    • It will also feature a Hardcore mode similar to that found in Blizzard's Diablo II (...)

      Awesome.


      Not if they want a subscription fee. I'm not going to pay to play that. I wouldn't even bother with hardcore mode for FREE. Hell I'll savescum nethack. I don't have time to start over every time I either fuck up, or some obscure game bug kills me.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
      Hardcore is only risky if you put a lot of value into your individual characters, instead of the play itself.

      Yes but you always risk aving to play act 1 AGAIN.
    • I find Hardcore a little extreme. Losing a fight should hurt somewhat but I don't like the idea of having to start over from the beginning.
      I think a good middle ground is losing the equipment you're currently carrying. That is, for instance, what EVE Online does: your current ship is destroyed and some of the equipment can be looted from the wreck.
      This also provides a money and item sink, so the often cited "MUDflation" is much reduced.
  • To be honest, saying that the online multiplayer portion of the game may include exclusive content is making me want to puke blood. One of the biggest things that shat me to tears about Diablo 2 was that additional content was available to brittlenet players, leaving us poor LAN monkeys wondering why we bothered investing the massive time into getting out characters geared, when not everything is available to us (then we remembered the black walls of death, and sat thinking about the pretty items we would
  • "PvP will exist in a small scale form, but is not a major element of the initial launch"

    Well then, let me know when it is and I'll actually take a look at your game then. No way I'm signing on for another PvE MMO crapfest.
  • A lot of people seem to be confused with the difference between MMO-style games like WoW, and MMOish-style games like Guild Wars. When you think about it, Guild Wars isn't really an MMO, it's just an online-only game with "virtual" chat rooms. It definitely compares to D2 online, which had many chat rooms, but the actual, instanced game was separate. I'm leaning towards the "pay-once" idea.
  • I think the following points can not be stressed enough.

    1) Hellgate has an offline single-player mode.
    2) It is not yet decided whether online will be pay-for-play or not, despite what the article claims.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close