TOR Release Date(s) And Subscriptions


Star Wars: The Old Republic has a release date or two: December 20th in North America and on December 22nd in the Europe. Speaking at the Eurogamer Expo, Bioboss Ray Muzyka said: “This is an incredible moment for everyone at BioWare and our partners at LucasArts who have dedicated their lives to build this extraordinary game. We appreciate the patience from the millions of fans who have been waiting for the game’s release.” No problem, Ray! We had plenty of other games to play, to be fair.

Pricing was also revealed this weekend:

1 Month Subscription: $14.99 (£8.99/€12.99)
3 Month Subscription: $13.99 per month (one-time charge of $41.97/£25.17/€35.97)
6 Month Subscription: $12.99 per month (one-time charge of $77.94/£46.14/€65.94)

145 Comments

  1. Red_Avatar says:

    In other news: Europeans are getting shafted once again.

    • Kilrathi says:

      2 days qualifies for shafting? a 2 day difference is no more than a light spank in my book.

    • Azhrarn says:

      @Kilrathi: I’m assuming he means the subscription price. :) $14.99 isn’t equal to €12.99, €11.10 is what the current conversion rate would come out to. The difference isn’t that huge though. :)

      2 days delay is positively tiny in my book. I just hope the postal services get the game to me with the Christmas rush going on… This could mean some serious delivery delays, but that’s obviously not Bioware’s fault.

    • John P says:

      This is an MMO; there will probably be entire guilds at the level cap within 2 days.

    • G915 says:

      wow, no thanks.

    • WeFlySpitfires says:

      Regarding the subscription fee, don’t forget that we (and the other Europeans) have to pay VAT. The yanks don’t.

    • Jazz42 says:

      Actually if you add up the amount of time someone would play an MMO and the cost difference, that is actually a rather massive difference. If you take WoW for instance using those numbers, since 2004 that would be 158.76 euros difference…at least that’s what my early morning erghh calculations say.
      Sure that’s spread over 7 years, but still that’s ridiculous.

    • fenriz says:

      WoW. No thanks.

    • bit_crusherrr says:

      Isn’t that the same pricing as WoW?

      At least they didn’t do an EVE Online and charge UK and the rest of europe €14.99 and Americans $14.99. Then purposely increase the price of timecards in $ so they could get more dosh from Europeans.

    • Wulf says:

      Yeah, but there’s no excuse charging that sort of subscription any more. In this day and age we realise how much of a con subscriptions are. A number of free to play and buy to play MMO developers and publishers have managed to prove this with the evidence of their numbers beyond the shadow of a doubt.

      I think it’s risky to even try for a subscription, currently. They might as well have a “We’re going to con you.” sticker on the box.

    • runtheplacered says:

      “I think it’s risky to even try for a subscription, currently. They might as well have a “We’re going to con you.” sticker on the box.”

      Hey look. It’s exactly the kind of thoughtless low quality posts I’ve come to expect from RPS regulars these days. Sad.

    • aircool says:

      I doubt if anyone who wants to play the game is going to be bothered over a slight price difference. The UK always gets overcharged, but that’s simply because we’re better than everyone else and the world hates us for that ;)

    • Trousers says:

      “Hey look. It’s exactly the kind of thoughtless low quality posts I’ve come to expect from RPS regulars these days. Sad.”

      I believe it’s possible to voice your disagreement with someone without coming off as an arrogant ass (I have obviously not figured it out). Why not point out what you think is wrong with what he said instead of attacking him directly?

      I myself don’t know enough about how much it costs to run an MMO to argue his stance. All I know is that all the money/time I wasted on WoW was almost never for the reason of having fun, but because I felt like the more time I invested in it, the more I felt like I had to keep playing.

      I believe that fits the definition of “sad” more than Wulf’s opinion on MMO subscription fees.

  2. Commander Gun says:

    From the bit of experience i have with mmorpg’s, it might be a (very) good idea to wait at least two months after launch before actually trying to play this. Release often is a beta part 2 for some weeks.

    • jti says:

      How about 6 months? Or maybe more? At least you’d know not to bother if it flops completely.

    • PaulMorel says:

      Right. And the first month is always overcrowded. AND they’re throttling logins.

      I have such mixed feelings about SWTOR. I’ll probably try it, but I’ll probably wait a month or two.

    • KlaxonOverdrive says:

      Might as well wait till it goes free to play in June.

    • Valvarexart says:

      That or there comes along a free trial. I am not paying a penny (except maybe for the bandwidth) towards SW:TOR.

    • Wulf says:

      It’ll go free to play before they’ve ironed out all the issues and bugs. That’s what I see. Mark my words and see if I’m wrong.

    • Premium User Badge

      Nathan says:

      @KlaxonOverdrive – It feels that enough people are buying and preordering this that EA won’t feel the need to go F2P any time soon. Didn’t they already say it was their most preordered title ever?

    • aircool says:

      Rift was pretty solid straight out of the box as was Lotro. I think a solid launch is a major factor in an MMO’s success.

      Hopefully swtor will be polished straight out of the door. Even though I’m not keen on it myself, I know a lot of people who are looking forward to it.

    • Alceste007 says:

      The Beta was pretty polished. All in all, I was pretty impressed with my Bounty Hunter. If the 200 hours per character hold up. I would get 400 hours between my Bounty Hunter and trooper.

  3. StingingVelvet says:

    As a singleplayer gamer who loved KOTOR and loves Bioware I was on the edge about TOR. It’s an MMO and I dislike MMOs, but it’s Bioware and KOTOR! OMG!

    The online requirement is a bummer, the fact it will cease to exist someday is a bummer, and now they’re officially sticking with the $15 a month BS. So… probably gonna pass, despite being a potential customer.

    They make a lot of money ignoring me though, to be fair.

    • ASBO says:

      This. Absolutely this.

    • MrXswift says:

      There are so many games out there, i dont see what makes ToR so special
      that someone would pay 15£/month.
      ill pass

    • Bull0 says:

      1. It’s £9/month, or less if you buy 3 or 6 month subscription, nothing like £15/month. There to be read in the article

      2. Millions of people already pay that much for WoW, which is nearly eight years old.

      3. Star Wars License – while it might not be to your personal taste there’s no denying Star Wars still brings in the crowds – the blu-ray release last week broke all existing sales records

    • LionsPhil says:

      This is what Jim gets for listing the funny foreign money first.

      Also, do you really want to compare to WoW? Because, y’know, it’s kind of left a trail of broken bodies of contenders in its wake…

    • Bull0 says:

      In terms of “people saying they honestly can’t imagine anyone paying a subscription fee for an MMO”, I think pointing to the game that millions of people are still paying a sub for is a pretty good example, yes. The quality of the experience isn’t what’s being called into question in that specific instance. Have I missed something?

      *edit* I get your point, now. I still think anyone stating “I can’t imagine anyone paying (the wrong amount but never mind) to play a game” when there are a large number of people doing exactly that is dumb. The model isn’t broken, we just haven’t seen another game capture the cultural zeitgeist the way WoW did, but that in no way means it’s impossible and if we’re talking about cultural phenomena I’m pretty sure Star Wars outstrips World of Warcraft by a fair old margin

    • fenriz says:

      It depends on the MMO.

      If you enter a enormously complex multi-layered sci-fi simulation, like 10 times as complex as SWG or EVE, a virtual world the staff puts their efforts to make it feel alive, like hiring hundreds of persons to impersonate shopkeepers and politicians(loved you UOL) then, oh yeah, suddenly you will feel you can give ’em 15 $ to live in a REAL sci-fi world.

      but a themepark is not a virtual world, it’s just a little gamey, it’s not seriously alive, it’s not really multiplayer since you play solo. So obviously people wonder why they should pay for a solo game.

    • Bull0 says:

      It isn’t a “solo” game. You don’t “play solo”. It’s an MMORPG in every sense. Shared zones with other players, group activities, player-versus-player combat, trading, serverside data, the full works. If you think the definition doesn’t apply somehow then you’re straight wrong, there’s just no nice way to put it, sorry to sound mean. Your (frankly daft) idea about hiring actors to “impersonate shopkeepers” is actually closely realised in TOR as it’s fully voiced. So yeah, really not sure where you’re coming from at all.

      But yes, it’s a different game to EVE. Well spotted. The game is arguably less “complex”, but you’re paying a sub fee for server rental, content development and QA and support either way. The only difference is the EVE developers charge a higher rate for their subscription and then channel the money into baffling console-only side projects, and also shaft subscribers by opening up a seperate cash shop. Thus, subscribers might be better served asking why they pay CCP a fee and are then asked to pay them additional fees for ingame content than asking why TOR deserves a fee. IE, they’d be served “in any small way at all” asking the former, but asking the latter is just a really stupid troll-born question

    • bit_crusherrr says:

      I’d rather pay a monthly fee for an MMO than it be “freemium” where you have to pay to win. I really hate F2P stuff I’m glad TOR isn’t going down that route.

    • fenriz says:

      It isn’t a “solo” game. You don’t “play solo”. It’s an MMORPG in every sense. Shared zones with other players, group activities, player-versus-player combat, trading, serverside data, the full works.

      -group activities being the usual pve crap ofc. You player being used as spam dmg bot. or at best you chattering with your 3 pug. How social. It’s so socialist i feel like flipping Lenin.
      -how many times were you in the middle of a crowd and yet felt lost in your own thoughts? Me? 2 days ago on the s-way.
      -pvp? Just because inside that boar drawn like a dude you just killed lies a player somewhere on the planet you don’t give a shit about? Do you care to talk to him? When was the last time you spoke to a character in-game and not thru the damn /general chat? It’s PvP if the player’s choices affect you, not just that his character stumbled in your way in the same instance(and the instance doesn’t let you decide anything about your pvp). In EVE pvp is real because what you face is real players’ decisions, players are there because they have certain intentions. This doesn’t happen in any themepark and probably it won’t happen in TOR.


      If you think the definition doesn’t apply somehow then you’re straight wrong, there’s just no nice way to put it, sorry to sound mean.

      Obviously i don’t. In a real MMO there’s always a global economic and political status that every player can try to manipulate and affect. That is the ONLY way to avoid SOLO, that is the ONLY way to “share” something, by sharing the same problems, not just if you see some dude around he has nothing to do with you. Remember it and accept it.


      Your (frankly daft) idea about hiring actors to “impersonate shopkeepers” is actually closely realised in TOR as it’s fully voiced. So yeah, really not sure where you’re coming from at all.

      omg what? a MMO is based on real-time, on liveliness, on dynamicty, on progression, on persistancy, and you’re telling me about recorded dialogue talkies? ARe you fucking kidding me? I don’t remember you calling UOL’s Richard Garriott’s appearances with his entourage in-game daft, and him paying people to impersonate “elders” in a “lyceaum” to teach the basics of Alchemy.


      But yes, it’s a different game to EVE. Well spotted. The game is UNarguably less “complex”, but you’re paying a sub fee for server rental, content development and QA and support either way. The only difference is the EVE developers charge a higher rate for their subscription and then channel the money into baffling console-only side projects, and also shaft subscribers by opening up a seperate cash shop. Thus, subscribers might be better served asking why they pay CCP a fee and are then asked to pay them additional fees for ingame content than asking why TOR deserves a fee. IE, they’d be served “in any small way at all” asking the former, but asking the latter is just a really stupid troll-born question

      do i look like The crazy martyr that has to pay for others’ sins? It’s not my problem they screwed it up with that console junk and the clothes. CCP charges 15$ because EVE is so huge and articulated and realistic the mere thought of being free makes you feel stupid.
      That’s what every game should have, it should have a political system, an economic, trading, artisanry, corporative system, a professions system, a folklore system, all so complex, multi-layered, interconnected that, i repeat, the mere thought of asking “hey should i pay for this??” should make you feel in a paradox, like “hey should i pay for this ferrari made of solid gold?”

      For the record, Mortal Online is trying ti go THAT WAY, maybe missing the target i don’t know, but they’re trying to make a REAL fantasy simulation.

      it’s high time they realized that an exclusively story-driven game, with a linear story from A to B, and the concept of MMO, which implies persistancy and eternity, just don’t go together, unless TOR’s storylines were like 10% of the whole game’s content, and i seriously doubt it’s the case. So naturally people feel they shouldn’t pay, with good reasons. And they wonder that even if they’ll just play for 2 months, just time to finish the story. So yeah, the whole genre is very much going nowhere if nobody comes up with a SERIOUSLY next-gen, next-level of complexity MMO like the one i mentioned.

    • Bull0 says:

      Whatever, you’re a nutter. You’re point-blank refusing to communicate and I’m not interested in talking to you anymore, so I’m going to block you – anyone who says “An MMO that doesn’t innovate is no MMO at all” (albeit in a badly-worded, sweary, stupid sort of way) isn’t somebody I want to talk to. I don’t want to talk to you. This is me avoiding a sweary argument with a mentalist. I must be growing up.

      Also NEVER EVER quote somebody and change what they’ve written WITHIN the quote without formatting it so that it’s clear where you’ve made the change. But I don’t know why I’m giving you tips because as your ideas are all awful, you’re really rude and I’m blocking you, your incredible lack of conversational ability doesn’t really matter a toss now does it

    • Bull0 says:

      reply fail

    • fenriz says:

      watch me giving a shit about you, there’s others.

      It’s not about innovation, man, it’s all about thoroughly designed content for each activity.

      A profession(doctor, cook, butcher, blacksmith, vampire, thief, murderer, sorcerer, necromancer, explorer) has to be designed thoroughly, with books to studies, courses to take, tactics, items to acquire, puzzles to solve, libraries to visit, castles to explore, guilds to join, it has to be an independent underworld, so well done and complex and realistic like in real-life, and yet being 5% of the whole game, so much so that it becomes a game-in-game. Picture Blood-bowl, with its tournaments, trainings, leagues, squads, activities… it should be a small part of a multi-layered warhammer online cosmos. It’s a sport inside a world that’s warring. That gives the idea of what a real MMO is, a gothic creation, giant, a terrifying vision of a leviathan. God, what a wonderful sight.

      A real MMO is not about originality or ideas or innovating because everything you need to know about the gameplay is in the real world, just copy how this works, it’s just about how LIFE-LIKE you are prepared to do it, it’s just a question of how large you want it.

    • DeCi says:

      @Fenriz,
      Wow, you must be either trolling or the most depressing sob i’ve ever encountered on RPS.
      Your arguments are void and based upon false information and your own personal drama of real life. It seems to me that you don’t have any enjoyment playing MMO’s whatsoever.

      In some way that makes me glad that i wont have to suffer whining idiots like you on the servers.
      I’ll have fun in this quality game SWTOR and i know alot of my “foreign people i don’t care about” Friends will aswell.

      Good day sir.

      -Edit- probably a guild Wars 2 fanboy like Wulf

    • fenriz says:

      i lead a wonderful life, full of satisfaction, money and trips. It’s because i’m so at peace with my real life(degree, professor, engaged, and contracted lyrics writer, essayist and so on) that i can seek to explore harsh and realistic worlds and commit to them.

      Also, you’re a numbshit, you can’t make the assumption that the desire for exaustive virtual simulations is lack of real-life, it’s just wrong, everytime, it’s quite the opposite, you’ll find that all those who love online credible and challenging simulations are very accomplished and mature persons, i’m one of those, i know that much.

      the only possible NEW MMO players will never complain about monthly fee for is a SANDBOX because they naturally tend to complexity, to long-term play. A themepark online game will naturally be about a linear solo story-driven experience, and that’s precisely why some won’t play it because they’d rather get a proper single player game, they’re not PvPers, they don’t care about other players, and others, who play it, they will complain about the fee and they stick around only for 2 months. It’s only logical, the themepark scheme has just failed.

      My game is Mortal Online and i assure you, everyone who plays it shares my ideas, a game for hardasses who don’t want to “enjoy” little flowers and colorful cuteness in enchanted forests of childish faggotry, but the pleasure of being succesful in a coherent and harsh world.. and each of them is ready to fuck your dumbass if they see you ;)

      (online and in a debating way, ofc)

    • Starky says:

      Wow! I Clicked fenriz’s link and he actually is properly mental.

      So yeah I think it is probably safe to disregard everything he says because frankly, he’s operating on a level of crazy that is amusing from the safe distance of the internet.

    • Snakejuice says:

      You’re calling him crazy/mental because you don’t share his vision of the perfect MMO. What the fuck is wrong with you?

      BTW I really like your vision fenriz, especially the idea of paid actors that play characters in the game! Didn’t know they had that in UO, bet they don’t any more tho, I regret never paying any attention to it back in the day.

    • Starky says:

      No I’m calling him mental because I clicked his link read a bit of his blog, and saw the fragmented ramblings of a loony person.

    • fenriz says:

      @Starky

      i’ll have you know some of those “fragmented ramblings” made front page of one of the best sites of journalism/developing.

      at least i have enuff brains to formulate my personal ideas, unlike you, who don’t even have the smarts(or guts), to argument against them. You just don’t like someone’s opinions so you boycott them by calling that man crazy. You’re not even a man for doing that, forgive me saying it.

  4. Tei says:

    This is the type of game that you play 2 months, 3 if you enjoy the combat. And maybe return another 2 months after a year, to play other classes and see if a jesus patch has changed the game. 13 € is a bit high, but not outrageous.

  5. hangmansjoe says:

    I really want a retail copy, but they have pretty much said that if you don’t pre order it of Origin, then at best you can expect long waits to long in. So waiting it better.

    • Llewyn says:

      No, they’ve claimed that if you don’t pre-order at all you might have delays getting into the game. No requirement for it to be on Origin – pre-ordering retail copies* also gives a pre-order code which can be registered online, giving the same benefits as an Origin pre-order.

      *Assuming your retailer does their bit, Amazon UK have been fine.

  6. RF says:

    The only real reason this game qualifies as an MMO is because of the online requirement, which is less an attempt at doing a reasonable MMO and more an attempt at hilarious restrictive DRM.

    I can just imagine an EA manager going, “Holy shit, people are having to PAY to PLAY a game? WHY DO WE NOT HAVE MORE OF THIS?!” And I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

    I mean, think about it, being an MMO is basically the best way to do DRM. If that MMO is basically a singleplayer game with some co-op elements? Even fucking better.

    • jon_hill987 says:

      No, you are thinking about Diablo III, now there is a game that should be able to run locally.

    • RF says:

      That’s true, at least. But this is definitely a game that has “attempt at DRM” written all over it.

    • Captchist says:

      Requiring telephones to connect to the phone system was also clearly an attempt to DRM telephones

    • Bull0 says:

      If you want a persistent world with persistent characters and massive player numbers interacting, you make it a server-client configuration and then you charge a subscription fee to pay towards:

      1) the cost of running servers
      2) support team – both customer support and QA
      3) ongoing new content development

      It’s as simple as that. It isn’t just a cynical move to make their game more profitable or more tightly controlled. You don’t start from a position of “super expensive to develop, fully-voiced licensed game” if you’re just trying to make a quick buck. Use some common sense.

    • RF says:

      Except, from pretty much everything I’ve heard, the game isn’t really worthy of being called an MMO. It’s more a singleplayer game with MMO elements tacked on in order to justify the subscription fee. Mind the fact boxes are costing roughly equivalent to a console game and the dodgy sales tactics EA are currently employing to force pre-orders, and you start to see an entire picture of “sell a singleplayer game and charge people to play it after release”.

    • Bull0 says:

      Well we’ve established quite clearly where the money goes; we’ve also established that it was an obscenely expensive project (quite likely the most expensive computer game project to date); I don’t know what else there is to be said here, really, so we’d better just agree to disagree. This “it’s just a singleplayer game” stuff gets banded around a lot, but unless we’re also calling WoW a singleplayer game I don’t really see it; and if we’re calling the MMORPG genre heavyweight “not an MMORPG” then the term kind of loses all meaning, and I prefer not to debate in nonsensical terms

      Also: £34.97 on amazon. Stop complaining.

    • bit_crusherrr says:

      Why exactly isn’t this a MMO?

      It has all the hallmarks of an MMO, persistent world, dungeons, raids and battlegrounds. Just because the quests have voice acting and you have your own personal story doesn’t make the game not a MMO. I’m pretty sure GW2 has a personal story line and that IS an MMO.

    • Vandelay says:

      @Bull0 – Do you really think that the vast majority of your $14.99/£8.99/€12.99 is not profit. TOR is looking to compete with WoW, so it seems fair to compare the numbers. Wikipedia says WoW had 11.1 million in June 2011. A quick calculation means they made $166,389,000 from those subscribers in that month. I tiny proportion of that money would go towards the servers and ongoing support of the game. You could probably half the fee and still be making a massive profit margin.

      TOR might of had a massive budget and might take a little longer to get into profit, but, if it is as big as they hope, it will not take that long. If TOR sales even only a couple of million in the first month (probably a conservative estimate – I believe pre-orders are already at about half a million,) it will make $1,200,000,000 gross profit alone from the box sales, plus $29,980,000 from subscriptions (if all those subscribers only take a month out and excluding those that buy the limited edition.)

    • Bull0 says:

      I’m sure they’re making a healthy profit – if they weren’t, I’d question the whole operation – when did private companies stop being entitled to make a profit on their efforts? And if I think I’m paying a fair price for the service I’m getting, why should I care how much profit the company as a whole is making?

      Man A is selling a service for £10/month. Man B wants that service, and pays for it. So does Man C, and Man D, but this does not affect Man B. Man B, C, and D, all enjoy a service they like at a price they’ve chosen to accept and Man A makes a profit on his idea and his labour.

      Please point out in the above equation where the thing to get upset about is happening. I can’t spot it. All looks pretty good to me. If you think the price is unfair, you don’t buy it, and if enough people agree with you, the project fails and the next project learns from that. TOR might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back; subscription-based MMOs at the £8+ pcm point may no longer be tenable after it fails. When this happens, it’ll be the right time for it to happen, and you shall not mourn its passing. That’s all completely fine. Until then, what possible harm does it do you if people are paying a price they’re happy with for a service they want? Cough up or don’t, that’s capitalism, baby.

    • Vandelay says:

      Oh, absolutely. I have no qualms with them making a profit. The game industry would stop pretty quickly if companies just wanted to break even all the time. However, we are dealing with some ridiculous numbers here. Personally, and I think many other would agree, the profit margins on MMOs just make me think they should be charging a lot less for what we actually get. It’s not like they still wouldn’t be raking money in.

    • Llewyn says:

      Vandelay: “If TOR sales even only a couple of million in the first month (probably a conservative estimate – I believe pre-orders are already at about half a million,) it will make $1,200,000,000 gross profit alone from the box sales”

      Are you seriously claiming that EA are making $600 profit per box? That’s impressive.

      Also, just in case you don’t understand this already, games publishers don’t receive 100% of the retail price. Assuming for a moment that all copies sold at $60 (and I know my pre-order was way cheaper than that), EA are likely to make somewhere around $30 per box. And that’s revenue, not gross profit.

    • Vandelay says:

      Balls! Knew I would get it wrong and look like an idiot. Too many zeros. But I still can’t believe that a big name MMO couldn’t half their subscription fee and make a large profit.

      And I never meant that they would be seeing 100% of box sales. In fact, is 50% not a little high? Of course, don’t forget this is an Origin game too. Any sales from that will be 100% for the publisher.

    • StingingVelvet says:

      @bit_crusherrr

      Games where you solo to the level cap or just play with a friend or two, then raid and pvp in relatively small groups, are not really MMOs if you ask me. Your actions have no real effect on anyone else and your interactions with others are limited to basic coop or competitive style interactions seen in any genre or coop game.

      EVE and Ultima Online are real MMOs, where an online world is really lived in and impacted by the players. I can see paying a subscription to those games, but stuff like WoW should really be free to play after the initial purchase with some paid DLC content.

      Obviously 12 million people disagree with me though, so whatever.

    • Bull0 says:

      The fact that you can now trade hats in TF2 doesn’t mean contemporary MMO mechanics like item trading and cooperating with trade skills are now null and void.

  7. Brumisator says:

    Soooooooooooo… free trial? Anytime soon?

    • The Army of None says:

      Hahahahahahaha. Heh. Heheh.

    • Gnoupi says:

      And F2P in a year :)

    • diamondmx says:

      Unfortunately, MMOs seem to see the beta as the only free trial they need to put out there. And the free trials even well established games are giving are often basically useless. For example:

      WoW’s trial makes you play single player.
      Almost every WoW clone out there does the same.
      Guild wars breaks the mold and lets you try a whole 2 people grouped together (really feeling the massive there guys)

      I know they’re doing it to hinder spammers and such, but it really does make it impossible for a player to try a game without putting down cash for the full game purchase. And MMOs are really a love it or hate it sort of game.

      There are a lot of MMOs I’d have given a fair chance, if they’d given me a chance to try them without throwing £20-40 for what will be a demo. (An MMO you play for less than a month does not feel like a full game unless you have a lot of free time)

      What’s worse, this doesn’t even make a lot of sense – they would *easily* get more people into the game if these games allowed trials.

  8. Bull0 says:

    So when does my preorder early access start, bioware? WHEN

    • jti says:

      They promised that? Maybe you have an hour or something.

    • Bull0 says:

      I’m down with that, as long as it’s something ;) we’ve safely established from Valve’s potatogate that “early” doesn’t have to mean “very very early indeed”, it can just mean “before the standard”. And yes, yes they did – it’s on my preorder box and I had to register and am awaiting an email, etc, etc. :)

  9. GoliathBro says:

    I think I’ll give it a whirl once it goes free to play.

    • Frankie The Patrician[PF] says:

      THIS. I think at current rate it could be quite soon(ish).

    • Myros says:

      I’m about at the same place. With DiabloIII and Guild Wars2 coming I just cant see paying any additional monthly cost.

      I guess if the reviews are hot and it turns out not to be another WoW/EQ clone (which I have done to death) then I might reconsider.

    • MCM says:

      All these “it’ll go F2P” comments are so laughable. They will have 1 million+ subs on Day 1. Anyone who thinks this game will be going f2p anytime is wrong. WoW isn’t going to be F2P anytime soon, is it? Nope. Neither will this.

  10. wodin says:

    I wouldn’t pay a subscription for a game even if it was the greatest game ever made. Not a chance.

    Going by how much money they have pumped into this and how bloody awful it looks from it’s ancient look to it’s mincing animations I expect free to play in 2 years time.

    • Wulf says:

      Good for you. Really, no sarcasm implied. It’s nice to see gamers waking up and accepting that subscriptions really are just massive cons. The only place where I find subscriptions acceptable are for tiny, niche games which have only a 100 players, if that, and are absolutely relying on their players to stay afloat. Istaria is a great example. But for a game that may have millions of box sales, and microtransactions? Piss off.

    • Hmm-Hmm. says:

      Come on now, Wulf. Sure it’s a hefty price tag. Take WoW: box price + subs + expansions + possible microtransactions. And people are still happily paying and playing WoW.

      We all know this. And we all know there’s a lot cheaper games available. But they’re not ‘conning’ us. Possibly if they’d hide their pricing system, or would claim to give more content than offered. And sure, the franchise plays a role in people even buying that stupendously expensive Collector’s Edition (or was it the limited edition? Or the limited collector’s.. never mind. You know what I mean).

      I mean, it was -sold out- (let’s not go into the digital game, yet limited CE thing here). There’s definitely a demand here. Regardless of whether these gamers are Starwars fans, they are excited about it. Maybe we should take a look at the demographic figures in the gaming market.. who is excited about what and cares about game/system/service X, Y or Z.

      Sure, to many of us here it seems like a system designed to make as much money off the customer as possible without offering anything near the value said monetisation would warrant. But that’s just us (and not all of the Hivemind).

  11. billyphuz says:

    Wow, seeing the pricing structure is eye-opening – almost $80 to be able to use a game for six months? No way, not ever. No.

    • RF says:

      No, it’s $140 to be able to use the game for six months since you have to include the initial purchase. (Which is ridonkulously expensive compared to other PC games.)

    • bit_crusherrr says:

      I paid £35 for WoW… I paid £25 per expansion (When £25 is the going rate for NEW FULL PC titles.) This ridiculous price is no different than another MMO that came out a few years ago.

    • Vafthrudnir says:

      You are not going to play this game for 6 months anyway.

    • Wulf says:

      Exactly. If the only content they have that is viable, worthwhile content is the massively singleplayer stuff (as I’ve been told by a number of people in the TOR beta), then you have no replay value. It’s not like they have something like… oh, say, dynamic events, which are going to add replay value, is it?

      You’ll exhaust the content in a couple of months and never go back to it. Expensive bloody game, that.

    • MCM says:

      Unless every background has its own plot from level 1 to max. Which I thought it did?

    • RF says:

      At the moment, it’s only up to level 20. It might be they’ve disabled it for beta, it might be that this will be the way it is (as it kinda was in Age of Conan).

  12. CMaster says:

    I’ve paid an MMO sub before. I would again, for the right game. However, there are two things I don’t like about it:
    One – while I’m paying that much money (almost certainly more than I spend on games as a whole the rest of the time, if you averaged out my purchases across the whole year). I feel that has to be the game I’m playing most of the time. The vast majority. It dissuades me from paying other things (sunk cost fallacy and all that). And if I’m not finding it taking up a good chunk of my gaming time, I’ll unsub.
    Two – It really, really galls me, that when real server and support costs are probably a <$2/month per customer, to be asked to pay for a full price box first, then give them the same amount of money again (because if it's any good, 3 months is probably the minimum you'd play for) and more over time. Charge a subscription. Charge for the boxed game. But do both, and it really gets on my nerves.

    Sadly, it's rare to see a game offer the "subs but no account charge" system.

    • UnravThreads says:

      Or, of course, what you could do is wait a few months for the inevitable client-price drop. I got Cataclysm CE for £35 a few months after launch. Rift and a few others dropped to £15 or so online fairly quickly, and the same goes for a lot of MMOs.

      If you think the client is expensive, don’t flipping buy it at full price. You give yourself time to read thoughts on the release version of the game, you give the game time to be patched and possibly get some extra content, you get to think even more about whether it’s something you want.

    • Wulf says:

      Like I said below, I give it five months at most (being generous) before they announce free to play. Everything comes to those that wait, as the old axiom goes.

  13. Rii says:

    Just because it worked for WoW in 2004 doesn’t mean it’ll work in the here and now EA.

    I think they should’ve gone with $10/mo as the baseline.

    • KillahMate says:

      But it’s Star Wars.

      No, really. I am absolutely certain this is going to break some sales records. *So many people* are going to buy it, regardless of the ridiculous prices.

      Not me, though. But then who cares what we think? It’s Star Wars!!!

      (can you tell I’m thoroughly sick of Star Wars?)

    • Zogtee says:

      Raise your hand if your sick and tired of Star Wars.

      /raises both hands

    • Coins says:

      I never really cared for Star Wars, so I can’t see the appeal of this seemingly sub-par MMO.

    • hench says:

      Same here, Coins. This MMO just looks bad.

    • Bull0 says:

      True though – the star wars license makes a big difference – just look at the blu-ray releases last weekend, broke all sales records.

      Love it or hate it (I’m pretty much ambivalent, although of the various star wars properties I think bioware’s Knights of the Old Republic stuff has been the most compelling in years) it’s got obscene pulling power

    • 0p8 says:

      I have to admit/confess, that although every bone in my body is telling me its a bad idea, i will no doubt purchase and subscribe to this because its STAR WARS and i positively love it despite what i know.

    • Hallgrim says:

      Why would they choose $10/month? I’m unaware of any mainstream game that chose this price point. Once someone is willing to pay $10/month for something, they are probably willing to pay $15/month. Conversely, if it *was* $10/month, the same people would be complaining that it should be $5.

      It is an MMO, it is mostly unlike KOTOR except for branding.

    • Wulf says:

      I’m weird. :|

      I love Star Wars but I hate the mainstream of Star Wars. There is interesting stuff going on in that Universe, but you’re not going to find it via anything by LucasFilm or LucasArts. And sadly that includes TOR, which shares the same old bloody boring setting.

      There really are some very interesting things going on in that Universe, but apparently they’re too challenging for the average punter. More is the pity. (Not that I believe that they are, mind you, but apparently Lucas believes that this is the case.)

  14. RF says:

    Obligatory GW2 comment.

    (Though, to be fair, it IS going to be a lot better than this shitfest.)

    • Gnoupi says:

      And if it’s not better, at least we’ll have only the box paid, and no subscription guiltiness. So that I can play it 3 days on a busy month without feeling bad about wasted money.

      But it will of course be better.

    • KillahMate says:

      How do they do it?

      Do you guys know any articles I could read about ArenaNet’s development process and budgeting? They can’t possibly be earning a fraction of the money SWTOR is expecting to pull in, and yet the amount of content and production values seem to be in the same ballpark (better, even). Their ROI should be abysmal, and yet they have a sequel coming out any minute now. Where’s the money come from?

    • Jazz42 says:

      Only if it’s nothing like the original (and I will agree that GW2 looks wonderful) but god..GW1 was THE worst MMO I’ve ever played which I can only put down to how far they’ve advanced in recent years.
      I really hated it and god do I hate the NCSoft account protection garbage. I’m sure it does the job, but how am I supposed to remember a character I created 4 years ago? They pulled the same crap in AION with the ever changing keypad numbers, to be fair I didn’t see the ‘the numbers change each time’ so thats my fault, but seriously..way to over do it. Now I can’t log into AION at all (no real loss) and I shiver to think what they’ll do with GW2.
      Origin has a tendency to say that my password is invalid every 2 weeks or so, causing me to reset it..when in fact it just needed to update itself.
      I have no problem however with Blizzard’s mobile authenticator.

      Well I’ve got my pre-order down. I’ll probably just play the first month or so as an Imperial Agent or Smuggler and leave it at that. I still think that the amount you get for the amount you pay is more than generous.

    • UnravThreads says:

      Jazz; Guild Wars isn’t an MMO, which is why you likely found it the worst one you’ve played.

    • hench says:

      I thought GW2 will have cash shop and expansions/DLC.

      Basically, a F2P MMO you have to buy.

    • Jazz42 says:

      As in the instancing? Or do you mean something else?
      When i say worst, I mean I hate (and I really mean hate) the UI, the levelling system, the way skills work, the storyline, pretty much everything about the game actually. It just really frustrated me…and I spent 3 months playing EVE before hand..so yeah…

    • UnravThreads says:

      I mean everything. Even ArenaNet don’t call it an MMO.

      link to guildwars.com

    • John P says:

      I thought GW2 will have cash shop and expansions/DLC.

      Basically, a F2P MMO you have to buy.

      No, FP2 MMOs require you to buy extra things to make yourself un-gimped. With GW2 you’re buying a complete game. It has a store but if it’s anything like GW1 it’s almost totally cosmetic stuff and more storage or whatever. Far preferable to a subscription, or the grind of a typical F2P game.

    • Ace McAwesome says:

      I played GW2 and TOR both at PAX. While I didn’t get enough time on either to see much past the graphics and the basic combat mechanics, those thinking either one are the second coming of the MMO are going to be disappointed. It’s still your basic hotkey MMO, only GW2 adds “dodging” which in practice is a bit “dodgy.” (See what I did there?)

      Oddly, GW2’s graphics don’t look as good as the trailers make them out to be when the game is in motion. They are still very good for an MMO, and superior to TOR in quality, but by a very small margin. Also, the aesthetic is identical to WoW. I mean, there’s only so much you can do with the high fantasy beaten to death theme, and GW2 is just WoW graphics on steroids. TOR on the other hand looks substantially better in motion than the trailers make it out to be, but it’s still pretty lolcartoony.

      Ultimately your preference between the two comes down to features and if you don’t mind swallowing a subscription. If you prefer a more WoW-esque model of questing, linear storyline, etc. then you’ll like TOR, but if you want something more PVP focused and dynamic than you’ll like GW2. Or, alternatively, you can be like me and do both.

    • Felixader says:

      Note how they never call Guild Wars 2 a Free to Play MMO, just an MMO that you only pay for once.

      That detail is a difference in view/attitude wich is very important

    • Wulf says:

      Saying Guild Wars 2 is PvP focused is like saying that Call of Duty is a game about pacifistic hippies. I hate it when TOR fans parade as objectively unbiased whilst making snide shots at GW2. In fact, it sounds like GW2 has more sorts of content than TOR when it comes to PvE. Does TOR have anything like dynamic events? No. TOR is a massively singleplayer RPG with WoW mechanics, it’s Dragon Age Online then. Whereas GW2 is a true massively multiplayer game.

      Furthermore, the notion of the graphics not holding up is patently ridiculous and an outright lie, too. An utter lie. I mean, there are plenty of videos on Youtube of the demo that disprove this outright. Like the battle with the Shatterer, for example. In fact, you only need to watch that to realise what nonsense is being spoken here. I know how to do the whole bilious dialectic thing, I also know how verbal diarrhoea works, so I’m going to call shenanigans and just drop a link.

      link to youtube.com (Be wary, it has a beep at the start, so mute and wait for that to pass.)

    • Chris D says:

      Wulf, come on. I’m not saying you’re wrong exactly, I’m looking forward to Guild Wars 2 as well, but this constant trashing of TOR just looks mean spirited. I don’t think it will be a terrible game, I think it will be a decent game that for me isn’t going to justify the asking price. But there are going to be people who like the look of it and decide it’s worth the price to them and good luck to them, it doesn’t affect me (or you) if they’re enjoying something we’re not.

      Freedom of expression is all well and good but most people are going to read the whole thread, you don’t have to make the same point individually to every poster.

      You are right about the graphics in Guild Wars 2, though. Those Asura are looking awesome :)

  15. Maxheadroom says:

    Good to see the short lived trend of the ‘Lifetime’ subscription option has died out.

    Probably dont want egg on their faces when it goes F2P in a year

  16. GHudston says:

    A subscription? That’s brave. Most developers have figured out that MMO gamers will usually only pay one subscription and that they’re already too invested in their MMO of choice to switch to another game.

    • Wulf says:

      It’s getting to the point where MMO gamers are beginning to realise that they’re being conned, so very conned, and that they’re not willing to pay for any subscriptions any more. Good for them.

      ArenaNet and NCsoft are always releasing numbers which prove subscriptions to be a total con.

  17. Freud says:

    I’ll save a bit of money not playing it then.

  18. Big Murray says:

    I know it’s mimicking the prices of WoW, but WoW has steep prices. As a result, this has steep prices.

    Not for me.

  19. hivess says:

    One thing I can’t understand – why so many people still believe, that only MMO games with subs are proper, good MMO games? *cough*Guild Wars 2*cough*

    I mean – sure, F2P MMO suck, but first Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 are perfect example, that developers can earn enough money to support the game all the time and even make a sequel without monthly fee.

    GW2 will be 100% proper MMO with open world. We will even get more innovations in GW2 than in TOR (TOR has PvP a’la WoW’s Battlegrounds, GW2 has Battlegrounds… and massive World vs World vs World PvP for hundreds of players with destructable environment, keeps, fortresses etc, that’s just 1 example), but tons of SW fans believe blindly, that subs have to be there, because instead TOR would be silly, buggy, small and unfinished. Weird.

    • Wulf says:

      Champions Online is free to play and it’s still the most damn fun I’ve had with an MMORPG ever.

      I mean, it just has so much more in the way of things that I like. The other night, a friend and I were hanging around a bunch of VIPER. Now if this was WoW the VIPER would walk left a bit, they’d walk right a bit, and sometimes they might even play an idle animation! Oh my! I expect TOR to be like that.

      But in Champions Online the NPCs actually do stuff when you’re not fighting them. For example, we flew past a bunch of VIPER on the roof of the clutch. A soldier was kneeling down and poking the floor with two squad leaders and a brickbuster watching him. We assumed that they were forming some kind of plan, but this this line popped up and had us in stitches:

      “Oh stop. That’s not how you draw a smiley face, you buffoon! Here, let me show you.”

      That had us both in stitches.

      The NPCs are always doing stuff and talking, all NPCs, including all hostile NPCs. And very frequently it’s really funny stuff. We actually voice chat and leave the chat window on the NPC tab so that we don’t miss anything, because the NPC lines are just that good. It’s a very funny game. It’s always making us laugh. And suffice it to say, we absolutely love VIPER’s stuff.

      Playing CO is like playing a really good animated film. The residents of the Universe won’t understand why what they’re doing is sometimes completely ridiculous, but the viewer will, and it’s often going to be so, so funny.

      But the point of this is is that it’s becoming that the more interesting games are free to play. I can honestly say that the games I’ve had the most fun with either currently are free to play, or are going free to play (City of Heroes and Star Trek Online are also going down that route).

      Subscriptions these days are just an out and out con.

      Onlive couldn’t even get away with a subscription for continuously streaming audio/viideo. So why do we let MMO developers get away with a subscription for the paltry server costs that they have? (Server costs that ArenaNet have proved are already covered by box sales and microtransactions, creating a juicy profit–not revenue–without even needing to charge a subscription.)

  20. Ace McAwesome says:

    Why are you guys so hung up on sub fees? It’s $15 US a month, at max, not to mention you get the first 30 days free (so you can play it for a month and ditch it if it’s not for you, and I’d say a month is as long or longer than most games I buy last). If TOR is as expansive and content rich as it claims to be, and you end up playing it often, you will actually save money by paying 15 a month over 60, or 120, for multiple new titles. I know that now that I don’t play WoW I spend more on games than I did while playing it, sub fees included.

    We go through this same thing every time there’s TOR news on RPS. Have you played GW2? Have you played TOR? How do any of you know how good/bad it’s going to do based on shit trailers alone (in fairness, the trailers are shit). Have there not been games with amazing whiz bang trailers that were also shit?

    MMORPG’s like TOR derive their success through stupid huge amounts of content coupled with social ties to the game (ala WoW). There are something around 400k physical preorders right now in the US alone, so that doesn’t count digital and it doesn’t count European. Not to mention the 1.5 million people signed up for beta. I think you “zomg f2p in 3 months” doom and gloomers are going to be very mistaken. And even if you’re not mistaken, if you’re right as can be and TOR tanks, why does every single TOR news thread have to degenerate into “it’s the worst game evaaaaaarrrrrrr”?

    • Jazz42 says:

      It’s not the game per se;
      EA+Bioware(post DA2..or even ME2)+Hype+Origin+Shitty Videos+General fanboy reaction+WoW boredom= Worst game evaaaaar
      and to be honest It’s totally understandable. My pre-order is in, but i can understand the backlash. I’m just waiting for the GW2 backlash…man that’ll be really nasty.

    • Ace McAwesome says:

      I hear where you’re coming from mate, but a couple things: 1) Can we please dispel the Origin myth that keeps getting tossed around? TOR does not require Origin for anything except a digital purchase. If you purchase it digitally you can axe Origin after you download with no consequence. And if you go boxed copy, you never have to interact with Origin at all.

      2) Until recently Bioware, and to a lesser degree EA, were the paragons of large studio entertainment. While recent offerings and developments have made them out to be a little chode-tacular, I don’t know that it overshadows their entire history of offering top notch games.

    • RF says:

      Ace has obviously not been around for more than five years.

      EA used to occupy the place that Activision is in now. They seem to be fighting for that spot, too.

    • Wulf says:

      A good reason to get hung up on subscription fees?: Guild Wars 2 is offering the same as TOR (and it has better gameplay mechanics too, in my opinion). Subscription cost? $0/month.

    • Starky says:

      You know Wulf, I’m a GW fan (maybe 200 hours played), and really looking forward to GW2 – but you evangelizing for the game in every MMO related thread on RPS is actually starting to make me wish that the game is a buggy PoS that flops harder than APB did.

      Just to spite you.

  21. myaltisa says:

    I buy a lot of games, and more than half are day 1 purchases, and I finish most of them in under 15 hours, usually in the first 2 weeks. I spend approx £10 to £30 a game. I quite like MMO style games, and generally play one for 6 months before going back to playing other games.

    So there are other of ways of looking at this pricing.

    A standard edition is £39.99, and 6 months is 46.14. So this turns into £12.30 a month (first month free). Not bad for 8 unique KOTOR class stories, which if Bioware are to be believed are 8 distinct gaming experiences with some shared mini games\online pvp\dungeons etc.

    So I pay more than that a month at the moment. That’ll take me to August, and the good games generally work their way into the latter end of the year anyway. It’s releasing late enough for me to have had my fill of Rage and Skyrim.

    Even if I factored in a collectors edition at £129.99, this only raises this to £25.16 a month. A lot for one game yeah, but again, less than I spend at the moment.

    • Wulf says:

      Wait, is that number of ‘unique KoTOR stories’ going up and up and up?

      And considering that Guild Wars 2 offers the same but sans subscription, I still think the subscription is a con.

    • Starky says:

      Guild wars 2 will probably be great, and it is a day 1 buy for me – but you are seriously kidding yourself if you think GW2 will have 1/4th the scope and production values as TOR has, especially in storytelling, voice acting and characterization. Hell just in world size alone.

      That said I have no intention of buying it, not having the time or inclination to play a sub based MMO (though I may cave if the game manages universal praise after a few weeks launched)…

  22. Kaiji says:

    Based on my experiences in the TOR beta, Bioware have done what I thought was the impossible by making a less appealing MMO than Auto Assault.

    It’s like their design mandate was “Make it as bland and vacuous as possible”.

    Horrible, dull MMO.

    • Ace McAwesome says:

      Thanks for offering an opinion backed by experience sir, something TOR threads on RPS generally lack. I will note that my buds are in beta, and they are all reporting to be enjoying it immensely. I played it at PAX and enjoyed my 20 mins, but that’s not saying much.

    • Wulf says:

      @Kaiji

      That’s what I’m hearing, too. It’s getting the “I fell asleep whilst trying to play it.” response. It’s just very long, very drawn out, and very grindy. It’s trying to catch the WoW feeling of grind where to finally get out of an area you’ve been trapped in for days you’re wondering whether it’ll be quicker to just outright grind X or Y mob, or do quests.

      I never want that in a game again. The game I play at the moment (Champions Online) is vehemently anti-grind and all players progress quickly, which means I can have fun with alts and trying out various powersets and stuff without losing my mind over being trapped eternally in one segment of the game. Any game I care about playing is like that – sans grind.

      To me, TOR sounds like they took the dwarven tunnels of Dragon Age: Origins (the part I loathed the most) and made an entire game out of it. Long-winded, boring, keeps you doing the same thing for far longer than you’d want to, and is only for people who have far, far too much time. It’s going to be the sort of game that you’ll play for 10 hours without really getting anywhere.

      In 10 hours in CO I can complete an entire zone, and I can spread that up over a week. There are upcoming games that share this philosophy of not making their game work, realising that most people already have a job and they don’t want their gaming fun time to be a second job. They want something fun, and entertaining, and not just one endless, soulless grind.

      People talk about Korean grinds, but to be honest, WoW had the most grind of any game I played. I only played it for a short time and all I kept asking myself was why I was still trapped in the same area, why I hadn’t moved on to something else, how much more would I have to do before I’d even see a new environment? It was horrible. And what I’ve heard is that TOR is that.

      Fine for people who want that. Me? Not so much.

    • Starky says:

      Meh there is a lot of “speaking from someone in the beta” flying around right now, never with any specifics or seemingly real knowledge, NDA usually touted as the excuse/reason.

      It may all be true and the game may be a massive failure, but I’m gonna take the internet rumour mill with a massive pinch of salt.

      @Wulf

      When did you play WoW? Because If you seriously felt like that you were doing something wrong – back when WoW launched it was the least grind and samey MMO of all MMO’s of that period. Each of the zones was small and focused with a few quest hubs, and it took very little straight grinding to level up.
      There was about 3-4 zones for every level range, and while some of them were not great (decolace), they could be largely avoided – hell you could almost level up just running dungeons if you liked.
      And very few of the zones looked even remotely the same.

      Sure compared to champions, or say Warhammer (or hell, even WoW itself) today the vanilla WoW was a bit grindy (not any more apparently though with cataclysm) – still compared to MMO’s of the time, DaoC, Everquest and such it was much less of a grind.

      Sure as the game aged those zones began to look blander and more out of date (especially compared to the much improved TBC design and quest variation). Still WoW was never really a grindy MMO while leveling. And from what I’ve heard they’ve boosted XP gain at low levels so much now that it is a breeze to level up all the way to 60/70 (I no longer play, I quit shortly after Wrath launched).

      Seriously if you were “trapped” in the same environment, grinding with no quests to do, no goals to achieve or dungeons to run, you were playing the game wrong… Or just not looking for new content.
      Hell the only time in vanilla (pre TBC) wow that was really grindy to level was between levels 45 and 50, where there was a bit of a gap in content (50-55 was a bit of a pain too, but more due to how spread out the 50-55 zones were from each other).

      Hell one of the main goals behind cataclysm (which I’ve not played) was to fix that – by changing some of the old 55-60 content to 45-50 content (and all the level 60 dungeons and such).

      There are many (many) things wrong with WoW (like right now it is apparently face smashing into the keyboard easy, and the mechanics, skills and builds have been heavily dumbed down) – but WoW was never “grindy”.

    • Alceste007 says:

      I have been in the Beta for awhile and have never seen anyone with your writing style. My guild is still planning on migrating to SWToR after playing in the Beta. That says enough on our enjoyment level.

  23. Wulf says:

    I’ll be generous. I give it four months before they do a free-to-play press release.

  24. Ultra-Humanite says:

    These threads about TOR and Guild Wars 2 are so useful in figuring out whom I should block.

    • Wulf says:

      Good luck with that, though. A large amount of RPS is polarised around this. You’ll probably end up blocking the vast majority of posters and end up in a nigh unpopulated wasteland, most of the time you’ll only be stepping over spambots, and when you meet a person it’s going to be like finding an oasis in a desert.

      Which could work, I suppose! If you like that sort of thing.

    • Chris D says:

      I’m not sure he can hear you.

    • Starky says:

      Oh, Chris, you sir win 1 internets.

    • Sardukar says:

      Yep. I block based on troll-to-troll posts like Ultra’s, for example! Oh..damn..now I’ve done the same. /Self Block/

  25. Dawngreeter says:

    I wanted to say something negative but couldn’t be bothered. Sail away TOR, be remembered as the headstone of current MMO generation.

  26. mmalove says:

    SW:TOR may well be the last of its kind. Most MMOs seem to be coming out now in a hybrid sub/cash shop option, or even going full out cash shop.

    • Sardukar says:

      WoW 2 and probably Titan, I’ll bet on being sub model. Blizzard has great numbers to justify it, too.

    • Starky says:

      Actually I’m pretty sure blizz stated that Titan would specifically not be on a subscription model (though what exact model it was they didn’t say) – everyone was assuming FTP. They did state that the game was going to be a very casual MMO – hell some people were even thinking it might be a facebook game (after the attempt by Blizz to link B/net and facebook).

  27. Scarves says:

    I won’t play MMO’s without subscriptions. If a game I play goes F2P, I’ll drop it then and there. Oh well.

    The cosmetic items I can live with, but I don’t want purchasable XP potions, character slots, equipment slots, storage space, renames, server transfers, character remodels, or any of that. I loathe ‘free’ games. I like the idea that you pay to get in and you earn stuff in game. You know, by playing it. Seems like a nice even footing that way.

    Yes, that means I won’t be playing GW2 either, even though Ree Soesbee rocked when she was doing Legend of the 5 Rings.

    I will be purchasing TOR, and I hope it is good and does well and, hell, I hope whatever games you all play are good and do well too. Even if they’re yucky free games. :P

    Some of you seem way too angry about this stuff, by the way. Just saying.

    • Dawngreeter says:

      You might want to move to a subscription-based news site. This one is F2R.

    • Kaiji says:

      Don’t count your chickens.

      If TOR turns out to be a lame, dull game and GW2 turns out to be outstandingly good I can’t honestly believe many people would stick with the former and refuse to play the latter.

      It’s not like great MMOs show up every five minutes.

    • Alceste007 says:

      The problem is the first guild wars was awful. What makes this one better?

  28. lobstilops says:

    I was thinking of trying this maybe, no real appeal for me. But 15 bucks is ridiculous. This is going to be a popular game that a lot of people play, they are just throwing away a larger audience for a smaller group paying more. I think that 5 even 10 would have been reasonable. This is 2011, for me this just doesn’t cut it.

    Back to Guild Wars 2, good try Bioware. Better luck next time.

  29. MataDor says:

    Finaly a release date. Just booked 5 days off from work to play this from day 1. Perfect :)

  30. aircool says:

    Also, F2P != P2W…

  31. jezcentral says:

    Whether I play this or not, I hope this game is the greatest thing ever, redefining what people thought was possible in gaming, and bringing in hundreds of millions to our beloved pastime.

    Mind you, I wish that of every game that comes out. I’ve never understood people who hope that a game will be rubbish, and the company concerned will collapse.

    And here’s another view on F2P, from Penny Arcade:
    link to penny-arcade.com

  32. neolith says:

    After watching SWTOR at gamescom I have no hope left for the game.
    Sure, it’ll most likely sell like crazy just because it’s StarWars – but I’ll avoid it like the plague.