PDA

View Full Version : Free to play model / micro transaction



blackmajik2021
Apr 13, 2011, 04:53 PM
I did a quick search and didnt find anything on the subject, so I apologize if there is already a thread on this.

I know that sega is working on a shenmue mmo type game thats going to be free to play / micro transaction based. I was wondering if anyone has heard any details about pso2's business model?

I think micro transactions are the worst thing to happen to online video games since the crash in the 80's. Making people who have more disposable income in real life more powerful in game =/= fun.

anyway, I had no worries that they would do this with a franchise like pso until I heard about shenmue. If they would do it with a franchise as "hardcore" as shenmue, who knows...

what do you think?

EDIT: I found this on a forum

"In Japan, Phantasy Star Universe has micro transactions and a F2P (sort of) system where lapsed subscribers can keep playing with some restrictions. I wonder if PSO2 will go fully free to play."

GreenArcher
Apr 13, 2011, 05:16 PM
PSUJP: If you don't pay monthly, you can still play but you cannot access your room (so no player shops), no trading/drop trading, no rare missions, and probably a few minor restrictions I'm forgetting.

They have a guardians cash system, micro transactions which are the only? source for most of the strongest weapons in the game, give guaranteed grinding up to +8, and can add/change/increase elements to your weapons/armor.

I agree with your stance, but probably only because I have the ability to put an adequate amount of time into gaming. Using a subscription basis, those who have more free time in real life are more powerful in game. Micro transactions open up the equation a bit to include money. A mix of the two are probably best for gaining customers. But one things should be certain: micro transactions should not be game breaking, such as having top end gear in a cash shop in PSUJP

Itoshi
Apr 14, 2011, 09:01 AM
A free to play model would be pretty effective for PSO2, especially stateside. As long as game breaking gear isn't cash shop only, I'm all for it. Most of the time, if the game requires any kind of skill, having the skills can make up for not having the gear.

Randomness
Apr 14, 2011, 11:09 AM
A free to play model would be pretty effective for PSO2, especially stateside. As long as game breaking gear isn't cash shop only, I'm all for it. Most of the time, if the game requires any kind of skill, having the skills can make up for not having the gear.

If SEGA limits themselves to time-savers (EXP boosts, drop rate boosts, etc) it's fine. But we all know that won't happen.

Itoshi
Apr 14, 2011, 11:23 AM
If SEGA limits themselves to time-savers (EXP boosts, drop rate boosts, etc) it's fine. But we all know that won't happen.

So very unfortunate.

Nitro Vordex
Apr 14, 2011, 02:21 PM
If SEGA limits themselves to time-savers (EXP boosts, drop rate boosts, etc) it's fine. But we all know that won't happen.
Sorry, but I'm not going to pay the game company just so an item I want can drop.

NoiseHERO
Apr 14, 2011, 03:17 PM
Theres just something less natural feeling about micro transactions...

I don't wanna pay real micro transactions for pixelated clothes or for more room functions, that'd feel like a downgrade from psu, which, would be horribly sad...

and I don't wanna pay 50 bucks a week as opposed to 10 a month, just to survive in what will probably instantly be an annoying to cope with economy, and an also annoying and segregated community since the people paying will abandon the people playing for "free."

and f2p games are usually horribly run, which is I can't trust SoA doing any better of a Job at, or SoJ caring if we're somehow under them.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Apr 14, 2011, 09:41 PM
Really, as long as everything available through microtransactions is also available in some way through regular play, I don't have a problem with it.

Given what they've done with GC, I'd say there's a fair chance PSO2 might have some microtransaction system.

Randomness
Apr 14, 2011, 11:11 PM
Sorry, but I'm not going to pay the game company just so an item I want can drop.

The good version: Droprates are basically the same as with PSO/PSU, but you can pay to make things easier

The bad version: Droprates for medium-rarity stuff is on par with Lavis Cannons.

Seth Astra
Apr 14, 2011, 11:15 PM
I've said before that I find the ideal would be keeping any and all mircro transaction content to clothes, stuff for your room, etc. Stuff that has no real effect on gameplay. Being able to just pay for upper level gear (even if it's not the best) or other such things isn't fair for people who can't/don't want to pay. But that's just me.

NoiseHERO
Apr 15, 2011, 05:41 AM
I don't want them seperating any of the game's content at the price of something outside of the monthly pay.

Especially clothes. e_e

It was fine the way they were doing it before, I'm assuming PSP only had it because the servers were free to play on.

RAGNAGELPPOD
Apr 17, 2011, 09:10 PM
Do free to play, micro-transaction games make the companies more money than the subscription kind do?

Corey Blue
Apr 17, 2011, 09:21 PM
Do free to play, micro-transaction games make the companies more money than the subscription kind do?

I guess so..but they piss us the customers off more then anything.12-15 dollars a month is really cheap for everything imo

Kyrith_Ranger_Pso
Apr 17, 2011, 09:48 PM
i really hope they make it an FTP for some online content and then if you pay like 50-100 more dollars the game is totally open to you forever, cuz i hate monthly subscriptions

RemiusTA
Apr 17, 2011, 11:33 PM
Micro transactions and F2P models destroy MMOs.

If PSO2 is F2P with cash shop, i will never pay a cent towards the game. It's destined to be unbalanced, unfair, economically slanted and biased towards grinding and terrible drop rates. I like to feel like i have an equal chance with those im playing with. F2P cash shop games essentially ensure that you'll be on a lower tier than those who utilize it. But, it's highly effective. And since PSO2 is currently PC only, i believe we're at a serious risk of following this model.


In order for the players to use the Cash Shop, there has to be an incentive. This almost always comes at the cost of something dealing with gameplay that drives you into a corner. Prepare for the most annoying weapon breaking/grinding/success rates on earth if this game is F2P.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Apr 17, 2011, 11:37 PM
It's destined to be unbalanced, unfair, economically slanted and biased towards grinding and terrible drop rates.So basically PSU, then.

Seth Astra
Apr 17, 2011, 11:39 PM
I don't want them seperating any of the game's content at the price of something outside of the monthly pay.

Especially clothes. e_e

It was fine the way they were doing it before, I'm assuming PSP only had it because the servers were free to play on.
Would you rather have clothes, or high-tier equipment and other things that significantly effect gameplay as paid content?

BIG OLAF
Apr 17, 2011, 11:42 PM
Would you rather have clothes, or high-tier equipment and other things that significantly effect gameplay as paid content?

Obviously a cash shop should (keyword there) only have cosmetic things such as clothing, etc., I think. If high-tier equipment was added to something like that, it would be extremely unfair. Then, the kid that relies on his parents for his income would have a harder time acquiring the "good" gear in a game than the 20-something-year-old guy that has a good, full-time job and can actually afford to buy all the stuff.

NoiseHERO
Apr 17, 2011, 11:44 PM
Would you rather have clothes, or high-tier equipment and other things that significantly effect gameplay as paid content?

I don't know what you're asking, I don't want a f2p business model affecting the game period. and I can't complain if people actually worked for their equipment instead of buying it with money they "worked" for in with a job. :\

edit: and I definitely don't want my characters customization cut off by half of the non-fugly crap being cash shop only.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Apr 17, 2011, 11:50 PM
The simple solution is to have things such as cosmetic items (clothes, room shit, etc.) and gameplay shortcut items (EXP boost, e.g.) offered through the cash shop, but also make sure that every item there is also available through regular gameplay in some manner or another.

That way, you can get all the content without spending anything extra, and SEGA still gets money from the impatient dopes who want to ruin the game for themselves.

RemiusTA
Apr 17, 2011, 11:57 PM
So basically PSU, then.

Unfortunately.

PSU seemed to be designed to run off that model on purpose. At this point, it was either really clever preparation for what they're doing now, or just bad game design.

PSU made you pay monthly and STILL gave you shitty rates and penalties for attempting to better yourself.




That way, you can get all the content without spending anything extra, and SEGA still gets money from the impatient dopes who want to ruin the game for themselves.

Almost every F2P game on earth does this. It's why they're able to say "if you dont like it then dont play it, it's not like you're paying us". Either through in-game currency or trading with other players, the work required to obtain the real-life money items are always going to be enough to either 1) make you quit or 2) give in to the pressure and pay the bastards.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Apr 18, 2011, 12:04 AM
That isn't what I mean. I mean they would be drops/exchange items/whatever that you could get through normal gameplay, even if the cash shop did not exist at all.

So basically, the cash shop would only be for impatient jerks who demand instant gratification.

Kent
Apr 21, 2011, 04:35 PM
I'd much rather they not try this "free* to play" nonsense, or even the subscription-based model.

I'd like to see it managed the way it was back in Dreamcast V1 or the way games like Diablo or Borderlands handle things. I'd much rather have a game that's neither microtransaction-based nor subscription-based, and just buy expansions every few months down the road, as how Borderlands was handled, and then have server-side data storage. To pay for server costs? Throw up some banner ads where they'd make sense in town or in lobbies.

Aside from a critical population failure from the game just plain bombing, there's not really a reason this couldn't be done. It allows the players to get the best bang for their buck without charging subscription fees, having microtransaction cash shops in an allegedly-free-to-play game, or subjecting the player to intrusive advertisements they have to sit through in order to play at all.

NoiseHERO
Apr 21, 2011, 05:55 PM
I do miss sega's old school ads in their games advertising other games.

I do hope they bring that back at least if they're gonna be cheap(non-existant) with commercials...

Like how pso I think, was advertising in sonic adventure 2/battle.

RemiusTA
Apr 21, 2011, 06:53 PM
I'd much rather they not try this "free* to play" nonsense, or even the subscription-based model.

I'd like to see it managed the way it was back in Dreamcast V1 or the way games like Diablo or Borderlands handle things. I'd much rather have a game that's neither microtransaction-based nor subscription-based, and just buy expansions every few months down the road, as how Borderlands was handled, and then have server-side data storage. To pay for server costs? Throw up some banner ads where they'd make sense in town or in lobbies.

Aside from a critical population failure from the game just plain bombing, there's not really a reason this couldn't be done. It allows the players to get the best bang for their buck without charging subscription fees, having microtransaction cash shops in an allegedly-free-to-play game, or subjecting the player to intrusive advertisements they have to sit through in order to play at all.


It could work, but they're gonna want a profit so they'll need for us to pay. Honestly, the way PSU is ran, it's amazing we even pay a monthly fee because they rarely ever update the game very much. Blizzard charges a montly fee for WoW, but they've gotten PLENTY of game-changing updates to the game itself. Phantasy Star Universe has only gotten one. And the only significant change was Just Attack and Counter Attack...which could have been significantly improved if they thought about it and actually put work into it.

Yeah, it was likely due to their inclusion of PS2 and Xbox to the platforms. But IMO, when PSP and PSP2 came out, ALL of those changes should have been instantly ported over to the main Console version. Even now, with this new update they're promising, they're including the new weapons, PAs and clothing but NONE of the engine changes, like dodging or guarding, or chain system, or anything. It's like the people who play PSU are paying for an inferior version of the PSP games. It really makes no sense, and im surprised they had the nerve to even do that shit.

I'm also mad they have the nerve to charge subscription for the game, and then charge for other features you should be able to obtain fairly through regular ass drops. Changing the Element % or getting safe grindings should have been a part of the game from the fucking start.


If the game uses Sega's servers, its going to be P2P, but i'd pay $13 a month before i'd watch this game go F2P-Cash Shop. It's just going to ruin shit. We'll have to watch all the decent content and missions be cash shop, and it'll just keep growing the longer the game is out. And if they include cash shop into the advancement systems, eventually this game will look no different than fucking Perfect World or some dumb shit like that.

And as their money is based off random popular sell-out content (outfits that should be included in the game, joke weapons that should be dropped regularly), it'll pretty much kill their incentive to give any real updates. Of course, they COULD be different this time around...but all F2P games work this way so im not going to hold my breath.

SilverFoxR
Apr 23, 2011, 11:12 AM
I'd honestly prefer the micro-transaction system (a la games like Maple Story) in where you can buy exclusive items that do certain things (but nothing necissary to gameplay) is far better than a monthly fee system like WoW.

If they go down the monthly fee path, however, I'd at least like to see them provide support for offline play and the ability to connect locally with players in a network (IE: LAN)... that way, you can at least still PLAY the game even though you can't PAY for it.

That's what I hate about P2P MMOs like WoW - if you can't pay, you can't play. My friend has WoW, but lost his job a while back. Eventually, he was forced to stop playing, because he couldn't afford it. Yet, he bought the game with his own money.

To me, that's just wrong. If I buy a game, I should be able to play it. I shouldn't be making more payments on something I OWN.

That, at least is why I like the micro-transaction system if done well - I don't have to pay for anything (other than the game, naturally) unless I WANT to.

There is one other way SEGA could make the money, though... as annoying as it could be. They could use the whole "account code" system they've been adopting for newer games like Mortal Kombat 9 in where if you buy a game used or whatever, you need to purchase an online code in order to play. This would essentially mean that every single person who plays the game online had to essentially buy their ticket to go online. This would guarentee money coming in, but only a one-time fee instead of a monthly pay system.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Apr 23, 2011, 11:51 AM
You have a really bizarre way of looking at things.
Just because I bought a modem doesn't mean that I should get Internet service for free.



Long story short, do not expect any offline mode worth playing. LAN support is a pipe dream. No chance of it happening.

Kent
Apr 23, 2011, 11:29 PM
That's what I hate about P2P MMOs like WoW - if you can't pay, you can't play. My friend has WoW, but lost his job a while back. Eventually, he was forced to stop playing, because he couldn't afford it. Yet, he bought the game with his own money.
It's worth noting that one doesn't actually "buy" games. You buy a license to play the game, and said license is subject to the terms set up by the issuer of said license (e.g. Blizzard Entertainment).

World of Warcraft, by design, necessitates a monthly fee. Therefore, the license agreement for the game (as well as, you know, the box) explains quite directly that a monthly fee is required to play the game.

It makes sense if you sit down and try to understand it, really.

As for a game like PSO, it does not necessitate, by design, that there be user-paid servers for it. Even games that are similarly-designed don't require monthly fees for them, such as Diablo II, and games similar to PSU also don't require monthly fees and are still majorly profitable for the developer behind them (such as fellow non-MMO Guild Wars, which has almost the exact same setup as PSU - all gameplay areas are instanced, with visual chat channel "town" lobbies in-between).

MMO games generally mandate monthly fees because of operation costs - if they didn't have said monthly fees, they'd simply go out of business very quickly, or continue to hemorrage money at an alarming rate. Of course, for games that aren't so server-intensive, monthly fees could be justified by either being substantially smaller, or directly and provably going toward funding additional, regularly-released game content that doesn't have to be purchased separately (most MMOs do this on top of server upkeep costs).

Randomness
Apr 23, 2011, 11:38 PM
It's worth noting that one doesn't actually "buy" games. You buy a license to play the game, and said license is subject to the terms set up by the issuer of said license (e.g. Blizzard Entertainment).

World of Warcraft, by design, necessitates a monthly fee. Therefore, the license agreement for the game (as well as, you know, the box) explains quite directly that a monthly fee is required to play the game.

It makes sense if you sit down and try to understand it, really.

As for a game like PSO, it does not necessitate, by design, that there be user-paid servers for it. Even games that are similarly-designed don't require monthly fees for them, such as Diablo II, and games similar to PSU also don't require monthly fees and are still majorly profitable for the developer behind them (such as fellow non-MMO Guild Wars, which has almost the exact same setup as PSU - all gameplay areas are instanced, with visual chat channel "town" lobbies in-between).

MMO games generally mandate monthly fees because of operation costs - if they didn't have said monthly fees, they'd simply go out of business very quickly, or continue to hemorrage money at an alarming rate. Of course, for games that aren't so server-intensive, monthly fees could be justified by either being substantially smaller, or directly and provably going toward funding additional, regularly-released game content that doesn't have to be purchased separately (most MMOs do this on top of server upkeep costs).

Even PSO V1 had servers and the associated costs.

RemiusTA
Apr 24, 2011, 12:00 AM
considering pso v1 was the first of its kind, im not too surprised.


Let's just hope they go with the P2P model. If the game is good enough, hopefully they wont have to warrant the unlocking shit method.

Kent
Apr 24, 2011, 04:33 AM
Even PSO V1 had servers and the associated costs.
You might also notice that I never said they didn't. The game may have been free to play online in the US, but it was pay-to-play in Japan.

But there are obvious, unintrusive ways to pay for server upkeep costs other than charging monthly fees to the users.

GHNeko
Apr 24, 2011, 11:23 AM
P2P is the best way to go.

One of the main reasons is so that the game it's can be offered as a free download, but Sega still sees profit from it.

One of the things I fear is if they sell the game as a retail disc, the pirating would kill. If it's at least P2P, then they see something.

F2P games in USA are typical F2P because the publisher didn't make the game, they just bought the rights to it in America, and simply port over updates, which is how they make most of their profit.

That wouldn't be the case here, and F2P would really just not be favorable for Sega.

WinterSnowblind
Apr 24, 2011, 12:00 PM
Obviously this will be a retail game, you'll pay for the disc and them be able to play online like any other multiplayer game.

PSO and PSU had subscription charges but I honestly can't believe that anyone would be willing to buy into that method of playing a game these days. For something like World of Warcraft.. Fair enough. It's a completely seamless and persistent world and you can clearly see what your subscription is paying for: almost constant updates and new content. With PSO, we're talking about a bog standard multiplayer game, it's no different from something like Guild Wars or even Diablo, there should be no costs attached to playing online. It's simply a multiplayer game with lobbies. The new Guild Wars even has a persistent world with hundreds of players at once and they still aren't charging a monthly fee OR resorting to something as money gauging as a cash shop.

There are a lot of Japanese players and a few members of the rather dedicated Phantasy Star fanbase who may defend a subscription for the game.. But if they honestly expect us to pay monthly, I'll gladly skip the game and watch is crash and burn in a matter of months. I really hope SEGA aren't stupid enough to do this, but judging by their other business choices over the past few years, I wouldn't be surprised.

cireza
Apr 24, 2011, 12:08 PM
Has any word been given concerning a possible Offline Mode, just like we had in the other Phantasy Star Online games ?

Because in PSU, the offline mode was very disappointing. The Extra mode was a joke, you could not find nice weapons, levels were gained way too fast etc...

So I really hope that a good offline mode, with all the content made accessible, will be available.

If anything has been said about it, I would be pleased to know it :)

Ffuzzy-Logik
Apr 24, 2011, 12:59 PM
I would not expect anything even close to what PSO had in terms of offline content, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

Offline is completely pointless in a game like this.

cireza
Apr 24, 2011, 01:06 PM
Well it seems that it is not as pointless as you think since offline was present in almost all games of the series so far.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Apr 24, 2011, 01:12 PM
It had a point in the console versions of PSO, where you could play multiplayer with friends.

It had no point in PSU, other than serving as an extended tutorial for online mode. Oh and I guess the shitty story mode, but who gives a shit about that.


I can guarantee you that this won't have offline multiplayer. Hell, there might not be any offline mode at all. You know what this reminds me of? PSOBB. No offline mode there.

cireza
Apr 24, 2011, 01:26 PM
That's because we are talking about PC version here. But you can be sure that there will be console ports. Everyone is not ready to pay a game full price and then to add a monthly fee to it.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Apr 24, 2011, 01:34 PM
No, I can't be sure of that. PC only is looking more and more likely as a final result.

NoiseHERO
Apr 24, 2011, 01:39 PM
Oh man, this is gonna be entertaining.

A stampede of players just now finding out this game is going to exist, I can smell the dejavue from here.

cireza
Apr 24, 2011, 01:59 PM
No, I can't be sure of that. PC only is looking more and more likely as a final result.
I don't think so.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Apr 24, 2011, 02:03 PM
Ok. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Ketchup345
Apr 24, 2011, 03:51 PM
A Guild wars system would be nice- pay for the activation code per initial game/campaign/expansion (the download is free, the disk is nothng more than a copy of the download pre-current patches), then free to play until servers are shut down for good, assuming no offline mode. You have the option to use real money to get some things in game.
These aren't game breaking things: extra character slots (you're given a limited amount, get more with each additional campaign), more storage space (given some, plus one per campaign), costumes that only change appearance, and a few other things that don't apply if this follows the same skills idea as PSO1. This system works for Guild Wars: the company is making a second one as mentioned above, and they are still adding content to the original (though slowly, more of a focus on GW2).

The above would be ideal for me. I'm expecting a monthly fee though.

WinterSnowblind
Apr 24, 2011, 04:01 PM
Oh man, this is gonna be entertaining.

A stampede of players just now finding out this game is going to exist, I can smell the dejavue from here.

I've been into the series since the first Phantasy Star Online. Just because I don't post here doesn't mean I'm a new user or that I didn't know the game existed before. The PS fanbase doesn't revolve around these boards. ;-)

RemiusTA
Apr 24, 2011, 04:42 PM
It had a point in the console versions of PSO, where you could play multiplayer with friends.

It had no point in PSU, other than serving as an extended tutorial for online mode. Oh and I guess the shitty story mode, but who gives a shit about that.


I can guarantee you that this won't have offline multiplayer. Hell, there might not be any offline mode at all. You know what this reminds me of? PSOBB. No offline mode there.


An offline mode akin to Ep1 & 2 would be wonderful. There's no denying that.

Yeah, the chance for offline multiplayer is pretty abysmal, but i cant find any rational reason as to why you're so damn against it.

Ffuzzy-Logik
Apr 24, 2011, 04:46 PM
Saying I'm against offline multiplayer in PSO2 would be like saying I'm against turning lead into gold.

I'm not opposed to it in any way, I just know that it will not be happening.

cireza
Apr 24, 2011, 07:10 PM
How many versions of PSO and PSU were released, and on how many different systems ? It is obvious that the odds are against a PC exclusive. And it's not like Sega isn't trying to make as much money as possible.


Ok. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
LOLOLOLOL.

NoiseHERO
Apr 24, 2011, 07:18 PM
I've been into the series since the first Phantasy Star Online. Just because I don't post here doesn't mean I'm a new user or that I didn't know the game existed before. The PS fanbase doesn't revolve around these boards. ;-)

I know, I mean new to these boards in general, of course theres nothing to be proud of or talk big about. I'm just expecting a few slower people to bring up old arguments that have already been talked over in 8 other threads for 50 pages. @[email protected]

Tetsaru
Apr 24, 2011, 07:47 PM
Saying I'm against offline multiplayer in PSO2 would be like saying I'm against turning lead into gold.

I'm not opposed to it in any way, I just know that it will not be happening.

I kinda agree with Ffuzzy-Logik on this one - I'd love to see an offline mode, but if it was PC only, I wouldn't see it receiving a lot of attention, and then it'd probably end up like how PSU was... either that, or we might end up comparing how slow our updates are (or "unlocking" content) to the stuff that was there from the start in offline. Personally, I'd hate to see that happen again, because it could potentially start up the whole "Japan still has more stuff than we do" and "why don't we have ____ yet when it's already offline" debacles that still plague PSU to this day.

On the other hand, having an offline mode reminds me of something a friend of mine mentioned: he argued that it was stupid to buy a disc for an online game when you technically don't own the rights to your own character data - only the right to play on the company's servers for as long as they stay online. Once those servers go down permanently, you're stuck with a disc that's only good for a coaster or a frisbee; even though you paid for it, you no longer own an actual functioning game to play. In this case, an offline mode, albeit probably not as replayable or enjoyable as an online mode, would be nice to have, especially if the gaming company allowed for a way to download all of your character data to use for that offline mode upon the game's online closure. At least this way, players could still enjoy using the characters they spent months of time on, and share them with their friends at home if offline multiplayer was supported. Still though, I feel that it would much easier to accomplish this on consoles rather than on PC, but I wouldn't want to sacrifice having faster updates and more content overall, which would be easier if they just stuck to PC's. Utilizing the PS3's and 360's hard drives for content would be nice, but I just don't see it happening on an even keel, unless some sort of miraculous agreement occurred, and there were tons of developers on hand to support each console.

JC10001
Apr 24, 2011, 08:02 PM
I would love it if the game were free to play w/ a guardians cash component...especially after what happened with PSU stateside (getting little no updates for the longest time). At least then you wouldn't be paying and receiving nothing in return.

Not only that, but with the subscription model you will be paying 10-15 bucks a month anyway. I would much rather use that money to get the items I want and play the game for fun rather than be forced to grind the same levels endlessly and get nothing for it like I did with PSU. Games should be about fun and not about work.

If they did that I would be happy. They just need to make sure the game has tons of leveling like PSU so that weapons don't matter too much. That's the only kind of work that I am cool with because at the end of the day everyone puts in the same amount of effort and gets the same amount of rewards at the end. It isn't all based on luck and random numbers and whatever.

therealAERO
Apr 24, 2011, 08:47 PM
I don't want there to be an offline mode persay but I want there to be a single player focus that lets you go through the entire plot like in PSO. The reason an offline mode would be bad is because the potential for hacking has always been greater when not connected to the net. Just hack/crack/etc a character offline and bring them online.