PDA

View Full Version : Star Wars Galaxy Ships June 26, 2003!


Darkstar
17-06-2003, 20:40:11
Found at: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/starwarsgalaxiesaned/news_6030154.html

SW Galaxy will be shipping very soon! This is going to be a pricy game according to LucusArts. They justify it because, "HEY! IT'S STAR WARS!". Standard game will cost $49.95 with 30 days online, and then you can get the Collector's Edition which weighs in at $79.95 with lots of extras (like a hardcopy of SW Galaxies artwork). No mention of how long you get pre-paid online, but one would presume it's just 30 days as well.

Subscription prices are set so that SW fans will be motivated to commit for six months or a year. Pricing released is: month-to-month fee is $14.99, three-month plan is $14 per month, the six-month plan is $13 per month, and the 12-month plan is $12 per month. More info can be found by following the link, or going to your favorite SW Galaxies newsie or your favorite (and secret) SW otaku sites.

Funkodrom
17-06-2003, 21:46:26
That's too expensive. They just killed the interest I had in the game.

Sir Penguin
17-06-2003, 21:55:45
Apparently they're only going for the Star Wars crowd, so why not charge $20/month?

SP

Funkodrom
17-06-2003, 22:19:51
They certainly don't want casual gamers buying it.

Normal game, with online play is what $50? Cheaper if you get it on offer or something.

This is $50 + $132 for a year. 4 times the cost of a normal game?

Sir Penguin
17-06-2003, 22:28:22
I think the usual price for an MMORPG is around US$10/month, plus the box fee. Of course Project Entropia (http://www.project-entropia.com) is free. :)

SP

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
17-06-2003, 23:11:25
The Sims Online wasn't a whole lot cheaper, IIRC.

MDA
17-06-2003, 23:51:23
They'll still make a killing on it from the hardcore crowd, then they'll lower the price six months later and make even more from the regular Joes.

Then the regular Joes will register on the forums where the hardcore crowd will have been for years and the newbie flame wars will begin. A sticky thread will be posted suggesting the newbies try the broken search engine before bothering the high and mighty die hard players with questions that are answered in both the manual and FAQ.

Its the circle of life.

Venom
18-06-2003, 02:10:32
Originally posted by Funkodrom
That's too expensive. They just killed the interest I had in the game.

Absolutely agree.

King_Ghidra
18-06-2003, 08:00:37
$50 is like 30 so that's a normal price for a game

the pricing plan is almost exactly the same as ultima online and comparable mmorpg's

so if you don't like it, wake up and smell the coffee, that's how much this form of entertainment costs these days

Funkodrom
18-06-2003, 08:31:40
That's how much it costs doesn't mean it's worth it though.

I've never been interested in these before so I didn't know how much they cost. I'm sure there are a lot of other people out there who would be the same, interested in this more than any other online rpg because it's Star Wars, but that cost is prohibitive for anyone but a hardcore gamer I think. Sucks because it sounded fun. Oh well.

Venom
18-06-2003, 11:56:10
Yep. I was hoping for some incentive to jump into the MMO world. This looked to be the game that was going to do that. But 50 bucks? Even 6 months ago that's not what games were costing. More like 40. Only a company like Lucas Arts were pimping out Jedi Knight 2 at that price, and it stopped me from buying JK2 as well.

King_Ghidra
18-06-2003, 12:14:34
dare i say it, mmorpg's are by definition intended for a more hardcore gamer.

development, and ongoing support costs are obviously higher, so the guy or gal who wants to play the game for a couple of months and have a laugh just isn't worth having on board, stwg needs obsessive nuts who will play for a year at least, otherwise they won't make any money and the online community won't be worth a shit

also, most of these type games have the character development skewed at the long term, so unless you play regularly for a fairly long period of time, your character sucks anyway

as far as the cost in concerned, i don't think a tenner a month is all that much. You can say well that's over 100 quid a year for a game, but for something you play most nights that sounds pretty cheap to me

but if you want to play a star wars rpg wait a little while and try knights of the old republic, that looks cool

Beta1
18-06-2003, 12:17:04
Friend of mine is on the beta for galaxies. He seems to like it but from his description its sounds shite.

He keeps going on about writing macros to string dance moves together.

Venom
18-06-2003, 12:37:48
You have to play every night to justify the cost.

maroule
18-06-2003, 13:42:05
yep, that looks about right
that's why i'll keep away from MMORPG for a while

but steel yourself for the MMORPG on Middle Earth, that's in development as we speak (IMO it's Vivendi, who has the rights, which is preparing it)

Venom
18-06-2003, 13:55:47
If it's Vivendi, I won't buy it. They're the Devil Bastard's Master. The source of evil.

maroule
18-06-2003, 14:12:26
I thought that was Sierra?

Funkodrom
18-06-2003, 14:23:17
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
development, and ongoing support costs are obviously higher

$144 a year per user higher than something like Battle.net? OK so every person playing can only play online. So the useage per sale is obviously higher, and I can see that the server etc is more demanding. I was just a little surprised by the price. Converting $ to it doesn't sound so bad, just a little higher than I expected. The main surprise is the game price. From what I've seen game prices tend to follow more of a straight to $ conversion. A PC game that sells for $40 will be 40 here.


Originally posted by King_Ghidra
also, most of these type games have the character development skewed at the long term, so unless you play regularly for a fairly long period of time, your character sucks anyway

Fair point. I imagine these games have to cope with crap characters so that people new to the game can still enjoy it even if they start playing when most people have been working on their characters for a year. Or for when people want to try out new characters? So in theory you could play less often and develop slower...

Originally posted by King_Ghidra
as far as the cost in concerned, i don't think a tenner a month is all that much. You can say well that's over 100 quid a year for a game, but for something you play most nights that sounds pretty cheap to me

Ok but if you get a 'normal' online game or any game then you can play that every night for a year and it just costs you your initial money for the game. I guess the question is, is this type of game that much more enjoyable than a 'normal' game online or not. Hard to tell without trying one.

I'm not opposed to paying for online games as you use them, I can see that happening more and more. I just think that if you are going to to that it might make more sense to make the software cheap. If you get lots of people getting the client software to see what it's like then you are more likely to end up with people playing it all the time.

I dunno. I suppose at the end of the day when you buy any game you are taking the risk that it might be crap. With this it's just that if you find you don't like it in the first month you basically can't ever go back to it.

Venom
18-06-2003, 14:27:16
Originally posted by maroule
I thought that was Sierra?

Own Goal?

Vivendi owns Sierra. Hence they are the Devil Bastard's Master.

Venom
18-06-2003, 14:31:08
I think the same way, Funko. It's not the monthly fee, I understand that's how they keep all the servers up and running. It's the price of the damn game. 50 bucks is too expensive for a game as is. At least in my opinion.

Part of buying a regular game for me is buying it, playing it like hell. Shelving it for a few months and then going back to that. Something like that isn't really plausible for a MMO game.

maroule
18-06-2003, 14:37:23
no own goal, I thought you meant Sierra was inherently evil by itself, not because of its parent company

King_Ghidra
18-06-2003, 14:37:37
Funko, some very fair points there.

But to address this one:
Ok but if you get a 'normal' online game or any game then you can play that every night for a year and it just costs you your initial money for the game.

Well if i jump on a random counter strike server it might seem free, but someone is paying for it. My clan counter strike server cost about 300 pounds a quarter, between 10 or so paying members that's only 30 a quarter, cheap. But the point is it's not free. Online communities which don't have persistent company run servers are dependant on people like me and my clan mates paying for servers which everyone benefits from.

These days, internet gaming is only free to the casual gamers who play on certain games and certain servers.

Funkodrom
18-06-2003, 14:39:19
I was thinking specifically of Battle.net when I said that. Paid for by the game producers, free for the game purchaser.

Venom
18-06-2003, 14:41:28
Originally posted by maroule
no own goal, I thought you meant Sierra was inherently evil by itself, not because of its parent company

Sierra is evil. Being owned by Vivendi makes them more evil.

Nav
18-06-2003, 16:52:01
I thought battle.net was more of a hub (ie to find games) than an actually gaming server?

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
18-06-2003, 17:02:19
Originally posted by Funkodrom
I was thinking specifically of Battle.net when I said that. Paid for by the game producers, free for the game purchaser.

paid for through the profits made from sales of the software, with a little bit of upfront money to get the thing developed in the forst place. If it wasn't making them money somehow, they wouldn't do it. Not cost-effective.

I agree with charging a little (or nothing) for the client, then charging per month OR put the full price into the client that also runs standalone and make the service free.

The only reason I can see charging full price for the client and THEN charging per month on top is either (a) because you think the game is crap and need to get an RoI in the initial sale, regardless of any fees paid to the monthly service, or (b) because you want to fleece your customers so you can make a higher profit.

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
18-06-2003, 17:03:56
Originally posted by Nav
I thought battle.net was more of a hub (ie to find games) than an actually gaming server?

AFAIK, it's a bit of both. It definitely hosts games, but it also has a game matching service (at least, for D2).

(edit because my fingers don't work)

Darkstar
18-06-2003, 22:38:25
I'm sure the US $50 tag is because it is Lucas Art's Star Wars. You are basic paying $10 to $15 because it has their name on it. Anyone else, you'd be looking at $35 to $40 for the box. That's how Ultima Online went on sale here, and it's replacements, Sony's EverQuest... Same retail price for the box and first **3** to **6** months (depending on the particular package). Same price as any other new retail game.

Breaking that $40 to $45 mark is still rare right now for a new game in retail, here in the States. Never Winter Nights was one of those rare few. Lucas Art's recent Jedi games. Not too much else has even tried...

And The Sims Online came out at a mere $35 with 3 months pre-paid, from all the marketing spam I got on it. A few places charged $40 on their shelves, but hey, thems the breaks. People will charge what they think they can get for something...

Funkodrom
19-06-2003, 07:56:44
Originally posted by Nav
I thought battle.net was more of a hub (ie to find games) than an actually gaming server?

Hmmm... good point, I think the games are actually hosted on the machines. Anyway, it's not paying for the server that's the problem it's the up front cost. Sims Online sounds much more reasonable from what Darkstar said.

Greg W
20-06-2003, 10:19:24
Ont thing to think about MMORPG's. As Kg pointed out, to really get the best out of them, you really need to play for a minimum of 20 hours per week. That's 1000 hours per year, so does $150 for 1000 hours really sound that bad? Heck, I paid $90 for Freelancer, and finished it in 16 hours. :cry:

Oh, and never compare an MMORPG to any type of other game that youy can play online. It's like comparing chalk and cheese.

Funkodrom
20-06-2003, 10:46:43
20 hours a week? I can't really imagine how anyone who works can have 20 hours a week to spend on games.

Venom
20-06-2003, 12:07:09
So you need to spend that much time the game for it to be worthwhile? Jesus. That's just as bad. Yes, yes. Hardcore gamer, I got all that, but I'm not exactly a casual gamer and I can only get in about 15 hours a week, at most.

So what you guys are saying is that the game is therefore not for me, and I should just fuck off?

King_Ghidra
20-06-2003, 12:18:27
well say a couple of hours a night during the week and then x amount at the weekend and you're looking at between 10-20 hours, easily done if you ask me

you don't need to spend that amount of time on it, you can play at your own pace, but i do generally agree with what greg said

venom, i wouldn't be completely put off, if you like the sound of it go for it. It's only money right? :)

Funkodrom
20-06-2003, 12:36:48
When I was playing absolutely shitloads of WCIII I think on a good week I'd manage about 6 hours but some weeks I wouldn't play at all.

King_Ghidra
20-06-2003, 12:47:37
but as greg said, mmorpg's are fundamentally different

with wciii once you finish an online game you can have a break or play another game, but in a mmorpg you never 'finish the game' so you can just keep going and going and going and going

Funkodrom
20-06-2003, 13:07:19
It's not that, it's just lack of time and motivation to play games. It's very rare that I ever end up playing a game these days. Last PC game would be before christmas sometime.

Since my PS2 games seem to have died I don't play anything anymore. The only game I've played in the last couple of months was that lemonade game Snappy posted the other day.

Venom
20-06-2003, 13:15:31
My god that's sad. Get the hell off my forum you bastard.

Funkodrom
20-06-2003, 13:18:32
Hey, that lemonade game is really good.

Sean
20-06-2003, 13:26:22
Get a GameCube and WE6FE. Then you can hear John Kabira sing.

Greg W
20-06-2003, 15:22:29
I believe that I said "to get the best out of them", not "in order to play them". There are many people with no lives that play 40-60 hours per week. I'm not kidding you. MMORPGs are like a normal game, on steroids, with chat built in. My playtime usually consiste of a couple of nights per week, logging on to Everquest at 6.30pm or so, and logging off around 11.30pm. I do that about 3 nights per week, maybe 4. Then I try and play a bit on weekends if I get the chance, though nowhere near as often as during the week.

They're addictive like you wouldn't believe, mainly for the social aspect (I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but it isn't). I have been playing my main character now for 3.5 years, with about 12 months off in breaks. He has about 80 days played. That's real time days played - 24 hours worth of online time. That's 1600 hours+. And that's not many compared to most people in my guild, who have over 150 days played. It helps that a lot of my friends play, so we get on together and stay in touch this way.

Sad, I know. :cry:

MDA
01-07-2003, 17:18:58
Too many players! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3034518.stm)

Yet another rocky start for an MMORPG, can't believe they couldn't adequately prepare for this. Probably didn't give a damn.

Venom
01-07-2003, 17:27:51
It happens every time. You'd think some company would catch on by now.

King_Ghidra@home
01-07-2003, 19:21:36
Originally posted by Greg W
Sad, I know. :cry:

:D greg i'm there with you man, at the height of my UO addiction i couldn't even contemplate playing any other game - i eat, slept and breathed UO

like you say, the social aspect is so important, you can meet the most amazing people (and the biggest assholes).


To get back to the topic, i have ordered SWG - i did quite enjoy the beta and i suppose my feeling is, let's see how it turns out, if i get bored of it, fuck it, it's only money :)

Greg W
02-07-2003, 01:00:47
I think that eventually, SWG will be a great game, I really do. Mainly cos Sony cannot afford to fuck it up, so they'll throw what they need to at it until it is good. Once they get Space Travel happening, and put in good background details, it'll probably totally rock. Heh, EQ was as buggy as all heck when first released, servers crashed hourly for days, then daily for weeks if not months. Odd they haven't kearnt their lessons really.

Yes KG, unfortunately in order to know wth we're talking about you really need to have played an MMORPG yourself (or understand someone that has very well). The infidels just won't get it. :D

Darkstar
02-07-2003, 21:27:15
It's SW, so I am sure it will get money poured onto it. I do wonder why they keep missing the flood of people that run into these things. What did they do, look at their numbers from opening EQ and say, well, let's add a 10% margin to that, just to be safe, and that will handle the start...

I suppose it all came down to a risk/benefit line somewhere though. "Ok, it will cost X amount to set up to handle 10K of people. It will cost X^4 to set up to handle 100K of people. It will cost X^16 to handle 1 Million people." "Well, that's just too expensive, so lets just cover the 100K..."

I can say that it's hard to "stress" test the load of 1 Million simul users on a system. Your actual network tends to have a larger effect then most people plan on, and some kinds of stress like to hide until roll out. And every bad 'presumption' made about what reality means one more untested element to fracture and split under the stress. I think that's why these general first full roll outs of the MMPs always crumble under the pressure...

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
02-07-2003, 22:31:20
Nah, it's more likely to be the fault of half-wit programmers taking short cuts.

Darkstar
02-07-2003, 22:54:50
Well, that fault is equally shared by their half-wit managers and half-with engineering and support teams, I'm sure...

Qaj the Fuzzy Love Worm
03-07-2003, 00:05:07
Too true, too true :)

Nav
03-07-2003, 17:21:56
interesting first impressions feature on gamespy.

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/july03/starwarsgalaxies/

I had a check on play.com and the UK release date seems to be mid-september. Hopefully all the bugs will be fixed by then.

MDA
03-07-2003, 18:18:31
It finishes off with a "has potential, check back in a month", for those of you too lazy to read the whole thing.

King_Ghidra@home
03-07-2003, 20:15:24
Originally posted by Nav
I had a check on play.com and the UK release date seems to be mid-september. Hopefully all the bugs will be fixed by then.

:lol:

Ah Nav, sweet, naive Nav

BigGameHunter
03-07-2003, 20:38:03
Of greatest concern to KG is the potential for Princess Lea's wardrobe to be incomplete.

MDA
03-07-2003, 21:07:11
If you have the complete set, you get a bonus to your skill when entertaining the Hutt. That's on top of all the individual bonuses that come with each piece of the set. The cinnamon roll hair attachments increase your scoundrel attraction rating, for example.

Nav
03-07-2003, 22:55:53
Originally posted by King_Ghidra@home
:lol:

Ah Nav, sweet, naive Nav shit, I forgot to add ;)

Greg W
04-07-2003, 14:50:37
Mate, EQ has been going for 4 years now, and still constantly has bugs. :D

Nav
04-07-2003, 21:22:57
seriously though I think I meant 'show-stopping' bugs.

Greg W
05-07-2003, 10:02:06
seriously though I think I meant 'show-stopping' bugs.:lol:

Ah Nav, sweet, naive Nav

Nav
05-07-2003, 17:13:34
:shoot:

Nav
22-09-2003, 14:42:49
new update...

London, U.K. - 19th September 2003 - Activision today announced that LucasArts' Star Wars Galaxies: An Empire Divided is to be released on October 31st in the U.K., Nordic and 'Rest-of-Europe' regions and on 7th November in Spain, Italy, France and Germany.<snip>

BigGameHunter
01-10-2003, 15:15:32
Why so late? We've had it here for weeks...

Darkstar
01-10-2003, 18:11:28
Well, the injection of all those "u"s take some time, you know. ;)

BigGameHunter
01-10-2003, 18:37:38
Plus, redoing the voices so all the robots are British and all the alien scum are French probably added weeks alone.

King_Ghidra
09-10-2003, 16:07:45
Originally posted by BigGameHunter
Why so late? We've had it here for weeks...

i think it's partly to do with server load and space. Most mmorpg's have had disastrous crashes all over the place on release due to high numbers of users, releasing one territory at at a time helps to spread things out.