Games.net

The first-person-shooter-role-playing-game segregates players into normal and "elite." Is paying for goodies a good or bad trend?

A lot of gamers are allergic to subscription costs. I tried to get a bunch of friends to play an MMO with me, and they all gave the same reason for not playing: "If it was free, sure I'd play, but I'm against pay-to-play in principle." Personally, I don't have a problem with the concept, because I understand that MMOs have huge maintenance costs that other games do not, and provide more consistent updates.

Is Hellgate: London an MMO? It's kind of hard to say. It has an offline singleplayer campaign, and then the online component. It sounds like to me it's a regular game that is charging money for the full multiplayer experience. How do others feel about it?

Destructoid says:

Personally, I think this is a great idea. It's a pretty shrewd way to get people playing Hellgate: London and populating the servers. Also, it allows players to give the game a test run for free -- if it's not your thing, then you still get a (hopefully) satisfying single-player campaign and some online capabilites[sic], with the option to upgrade whenever you want.

Kotaku reveals some details:

Simply, if you don't pay the monthly fee, purported to be $9.95 USD, you're going to be flying coach in Hellgate: London. Folks who pony up for the "Elite" tier will see a number of benefits which include, but are not limited to, additional character slots, a Hardcore difficulty level, VIP shuttles, and visual distinction from lower-class players.

License to hunt n00bs: $9.95 a month

Notice the distinct focus on different classes of players. I understand that a developer wants to make those who pay feel special, but do they really need to be called Elite and made to look better than the other players? Is this where games are headed, where not only do you have to pay simply to get the "true" version of a game, but players will also be divided and pointed out as upper and lower class? Of course, the other perspective is that it offers more options to players and gives nice bonuses to those who pay for them. This seems to be the inevitable route that games are heading, and we'll have to see where it goes before it reveals itself to be a bounty of options or just another lame way to suck our wallets dry.

Hey, thanks: Destructoid and Kotaku

games

Comments [ 1 ] Post your comment subscribe to this rss feed

Blackbolt

Posted at: 05/13/07 at 1:26 PM PST

NOOOOOOO!!!!! No more fees for online please!!!! This looks like the the game of all games and it it cost fees to play online it may kill it I think. If it's like a one time fee, I could handle that but monthly, screw that. Or maybe it was like 3.99 per month, I don't mind that. Well, if the ex-blizzard employees make this game the premiere online game, it may be worth it. We'll see. Flagship Studios, don't disappoint.

Post Your Comment

Games.net's Countdown to...