Why do we do it? (Pay monthly and have to deal with downtime)

demendred

This game is in its infancy. Give it time to grow.

Selstad

mips_winnt wrote: »

Actually that's not the BEST way to do it, the best way to do it is to have redundant systems where you do a stateful failover to your backup systems while you implement changes on your primaries. That way your customers aren't suffering an outage while you're implementing changes and if your changes blow up your production systems you have an easy rollback, this is how most enterprises operate their infrastructures with respect to customer facing systems.

Thing is that those systems cost, and you have to make sure that the capacity of that system is the same as the normal park you have. A back-up system normally only have records of the data, it isn't however playable and doesn't have the server load capacity to handle the traffic, it's a pure back-up system, nothing more. As I said, they would have to different server parks with the same capacity on the fail-safe system as on their normal system to not have a server-down situation, and that simply isn't viable in terms of cost.

They have - as all enterprises have - a network setup with back-up systems to take care of the files. This server however is build for that purpose and wouldn't have the capacity to handle the traffic of the players wanting to play.

Another problem is that some changes need a complete server restart for them to work. This is because the error isn't server based but client based and would require the client to be patched in order for the error to fix itself.

So the best way for the technicians working on the servers are to take down the servers the time it takes to fix it. Other MMOs do that all the time, and most - if not all - games with an online feature takes their servers down for maintenance now and then. Most have the schedule to do so with the least interruption, but others might not have that luxury.

YourNameHere

I'm going to skip all other opinions and comments, and directly answer you post.

Posivatedb14_ESO wrote: »

I'm just curious on what other peoples opinions are on having a maintenance every week. We pay our monthly fee of 15$ and are not able to play 4-10 (Sometimes more or less) hours a week due to maintenance. I would think in 2014 we would be beyond having to bring a server down for hours at time, and at a time that conflicts with some peoples schedules every single week.

Okay, so. As an MMO, it is a game that is ever changing. An MMO is not a single player console or PC game, where you can just go at your own time to put in a patch that they have set up. Due to the construction of servers and locations, time spent on finding problems and fixing, coding and testing ... these are all variables on when and how long a patch will be.

There are normally 2 different patches. Hotfixes and Patches. They come is all different names, but these are the categories.

Hotfixes usually are done spur of the moment. An exploit is found and they got the fix, the company wants to roll it out right away. Little to no annoucements are made depending on the situation. Example, there was an exploit goldsellers were using in FF14:ARR, where they could access players retainers (banks) while that player was still in the game, taking their gold, or using it to buy items up at ridiculous prices on the Market Board to get gold. Square Enix made an announcement of the hot fix, BUT, took the servers down to implement it way earlier than stated so they could lull the people doing it unto thinking they'd be fine. The exploit was fixed, and though players were pissed, the reason for the hotfix was important.

Then you have patches. They can range from an hour or two, to 24+ depending on reasons. These are usually the bog foxes, ones where lots of time and work went into research and coding. So it does and will take time to rewrite and check the coding on the server they put it on. It is the nature of the beast.

As for timing, Google it. Many companies are asked this question, and the answer is pretty much the same. They have the numbers, and have done research into when the LEAST amount of players in a REGION are on. That is when they will do a maintenance.

It has nothing to do with YOU. There are no people out to get you, or anger you, or ruin your playtime. They have the data, that at 4am in your area of the world, there are less people playing than at 10am. It is as simple as that.

In the beginning of a MMOs cycle, patches are frequent. They just are. Once things smooth out, they pretty much settle on a specified day. Tuesday or Wednesday are pretty popular, with a few on Monday. In that regard, it is the PR rep on the forums who is tasked with making sure they are announced in a timely manner, and to keep us updated on things. But you have to understand, if THEY aren't given the info to give US, then they can't tell us!

I know this topic has come up much in other MMO forums, but I was hoping ESO would be different. I think of this like having a car that you pay for every month that requires you to not use it for a day every week of its existence. What are your thoughts on this? I am also well aware this won't change anything, I'm just interested to see what other's think.

Just because it is 2014 and other games and MMOs are now out, doesn't mean much. If the coders and planners and directors don't take the time to do research and testing, well ... doesn't matter how many MMOs succeeded before them, or how much learning and data is out there.

And really, it all boils down to the EULA. You pay 15$, you click Accept for the EULA/TOS ... and that binds you. So honestly, all of us agreed to the maintenances and shouldn't be complaining at all.

Kyotee0071

Downtime is expected.

Downtime should Ideally be done in the hours of non optimal playtime for the masses.

Example for a NA server - 4 AM EST. Now I know there are folks that 4AM EST would be their "prime time", but for the majority of the people (opinion not fact) on the NA server that would be a time they wouldn't notice the downtime as much.

I never understood why companies do their maintenance during Mid day / Evening hour time frame of the server.

Again, I'm not complaining - just giving my opinion.

Melian

I wouldn't pay for a subscription if there wasn't scheduled maintenance.

As for all the emergency maintenance, it's a new game. It will get more stable with time.

Sarenia

3 pages and not a single +1.

Take a hint.

Aett_Thorn

Kyotee0071 wrote: »

Downtime is expected.

Downtime should Ideally be done in the hours of non optimal playtime for the masses.

Example for a NA server - 4 AM EST. Now I know there are folks that 4AM EST would be their "prime time", but for the majority of the people (opinion not fact) on the NA server that would be a time they wouldn't notice the downtime as much.

I never understood why companies do their maintenance during Mid day / Evening hour time frame of the server.

Again, I'm not complaining - just giving my opinion.

However, you also want to do it at a time when your staff is already in the office, or at least near enough to that time. Doing it at 4 AM EST would mean that these people are either waking up VERY early (if they're east coast) or staying up VERY late (if they're west coast). Both bring problems with them, namely the fact that you have very tired staff trying to do technical things, and that increases the chance that things don't go smoothly. Also, who do you know that really WANTS to get up at 3 AM, drive to work, patch a game, and then do a full eight hours?

jwwoffordb14_ESO

The issue is not with scheduled maintenance, but the fact it is done during two WEEK DAYS during "business hours". They need to get with the program do that work late, late at night or early early in the am (like 4 am). I predict that new gamers are going to want an Amazon.com, or Gmail.com level of service for their $15 per month fee and I do not blame them.

Do the patching/reboot/maintenance in the middle of the night, on the weekends like the rest of IT! The techs can sleep in late after the work gets done.

dido9880ub17_ESO

Whenever they do maintenance it is necessary. Weekly maintenance is good because it shows that they are being diligent about fixing bugs and improving the game. Complaining that you are paying a monthly fee and therefore should not have the game taken down for fixes and patches is just silly and so is crying about it on the forums.

As far as when they schedule the downtime, I am sure they try to do it when it impacts the smallest number of their players, and when it works out best for their employees.

I am very happy to see they aggressively fixing bugs and doing these weekly maintenance updates as it shows their commitment to a quality game, and that is exactly why I am paying a monthly fee.

nerevarine1138

jwwoffordb14_ESO wrote: »

The issue is not with scheduled maintenance, but the fact it is done during two WEEK DAYS during "business hours". They need to get with the program do that work late, late at night or early early in the am (like 4 am). I predict that new gamers are going to want an Amazon.com, or Gmail.com level of service for their $15 per month fee and I do not blame them.

Do the patching/reboot/maintenance in the middle of the night, on the weekends like the rest of IT! The techs can sleep in late after the work gets done.

That sounds brilliant. They can do maintenance during weekends, when everyone isn't at work and wants to play the game! Then everyone will be thrilled.

Seriously, think about what you just said.

ClaudiaMay

There is no dislike button on posts. That's unfortunate.

Patching is fine. They do it when the "majority" of players are either (a) at school or (b) at work. This has been said 800 BILLION times already.

I pay my $15 a month, and I sure as heck expect them to take the time to fix the game if needed. It's about $1.20 worth of maintenance time. I'll take it.

mips_winnt

Selstad wrote: »

mips_winnt wrote: »

Actually that's not the BEST way to do it, the best way to do it is to have redundant systems where you do a stateful failover to your backup systems while you implement changes on your primaries. That way your customers aren't suffering an outage while you're implementing changes and if your changes blow up your production systems you have an easy rollback, this is how most enterprises operate their infrastructures with respect to customer facing systems.

Thing is that those systems cost, and you have to make sure that the capacity of that system is the same as the normal park you have. A back-up system normally only have records of the data, it isn't however playable and doesn't have the server load capacity to handle the traffic,

That is not accurate in a virtualized environment, hardware capacity does not present nearly the constraint that it once did and replicating a complete (and up to date) production environment is not a steep technical or CapEx challenge.

it's a pure back-up system, nothing more. As I said, they would have to different server parks with the same capacity on the fail-safe system as on their normal system to not have a server-down situation, and that simply isn't viable in terms of cost.

They have - as all enterprises have - a network setup with back-up systems to take care of the files. This server however is build for that purpose and wouldn't have the capacity to handle the traffic of the players wanting to play.

It's apparent you're not familiar with how infrastructure virtualization works, I'm not talking about "fail safe" systems wrapped around redundant hardware, I'm talking about infrastructure that can be replicated in software and that is scalable on demand (see VMware, Citrix, OpenStack, etc.., etc,,,). Most business that don't have the heads completely back in the last decade use such technologies not only to optimize their hardware CapEx but also to minimize planned and unplanned downtime on their customer facing systems.

Another problem is that some changes need a complete server restart for them to work. This is because the error isn't server based but client based and would require the client to be patched in order for the error to fix itself.

That's not a problem, you patch/fix/restart your primaries while your backups service your clients, once your done with validation you fail back to your primaries (in the case of an MMO you can't do a stateful failback if you're requiring client side patches but it still means minimal downtime to your customers) ...... .

So the best way for the technicians working on the servers are to take down the servers the time it takes to fix it.

Only if your "technicians" don't know what they're doing.....

Other MMOs do that all the time, and most - if not all - games with an online feature takes their servers down for maintenance now and then. Most have the schedule to do so with the least interruption, but others might not have that luxury.

MMO's only get away with it because the industry has managed to set customer expectations so low, in any other business the amount of downtime these jokers get away isn't tolerated (nor should it be), it isn't necessary with current off the shelf technology.

Dahlia_Bristow

Maintenance downtime is simply a necessary evil. For everything.

EramTheLiar

I'm willing to pay for downtime and patches if it means that bugs get fixed and servers become more stable. I understand mips_winnt's point, though I think it applies more to HA environments than virtual ones specifically, but if the patch is going against a database I'd feel better about shutting down the database, applying the patch, and rebooting, because on the fly database updates scare me.

Greydog

Because new or not, computers, servers, modems. routers ..etc ...all need to at least be rebooted occasionally. Doing it on a regular schedule ensures a better experience for the players and gives the devs a chance to regularly push out fixes.

When you start seeing regular "unscheduled" maintenance, then it's time to worry

Selstad

That is not accurate in a virtualized environment, hardware capacity does not present nearly the constraint that it once did and replicating a complete (and up to date) production environment is not a steep technical or CapEx challenge.

My point however is that having a fail safe system has its costs and in an MMO environment, keeping costs down is essential. It's fully realizable to make most anything in a server cluster, it is however costly.

It's apparent you're not familiar with how infrastructure virtualization works, I'm not talking about "fail safe" systems wrapped around redundant hardware, I'm talking about infrastructure that can be replicated in software and that is scalable on demand (see VMware, Citrix, OpenStack, etc.., etc,,,). Most business that don't have the heads completely back in the last decade use such technologies not only to optimize their hardware CapEx but also to minimize planned and unplanned downtime on their customer facing systems.

I'm fully aware what you're talking about, however, I doubt that with the structure they have now with the megaserver structure that it would be possible to run a virtualized environment and keep the capacity at the same without any additional hardware or clusters to support.

That's not a problem, you patch/fix/restart your primaries while your backups service your clients, once your done with validation you fail back to your primaries (in the case of an MMO you can't do a stateful failback if you're requiring client side patches but it still means minimal downtime to your customers) ...... .

Yes but at what cost? We're not only talking hardware limitations here, but also licenses. The whole point is that having a fully functional service that handles the workload of your primaries during downtimes simply isn't possible within the cost reach. Licenses are most of the time more expensive to have than the hardware itself, and for an MMO, costs are everything, especially a youngling like TESO is.

MMO's only get away with it because the industry has managed to set customer expectations so low, in any other business the amount of downtime these jokers get away isn't tolerated (nor should it be), it isn't necessary with current off the shelf technology.

Downtimes on an online service is unavoidable anyway, and what's to be spoken of is keeping it to a minimum. However I wouldn't say that MMOs gets away with it easily, there have been several cases where companies have had to make redeems to their costumers due to excessive downtime on their services. Some downtime however have to be expected on something like this, and especially in the start phase.

tallenn

mips_winnt wrote: »

Selstad wrote: »

mips_winnt wrote: »

Actually that's not the BEST way to do it, the best way to do it is to have redundant systems where you do a stateful failover to your backup systems while you implement changes on your primaries. That way your customers aren't suffering an outage while you're implementing changes and if your changes blow up your production systems you have an easy rollback, this is how most enterprises operate their infrastructures with respect to customer facing systems.

Thing is that those systems cost, and you have to make sure that the capacity of that system is the same as the normal park you have. A back-up system normally only have records of the data, it isn't however playable and doesn't have the server load capacity to handle the traffic,

That is not accurate in a virtualized environment, hardware capacity does not present nearly the constraint that it once did and replicating a complete (and up to date) production environment is not a steep technical or CapEx challenge.

it's a pure back-up system, nothing more. As I said, they would have to different server parks with the same capacity on the fail-safe system as on their normal system to not have a server-down situation, and that simply isn't viable in terms of cost.

They have - as all enterprises have - a network setup with back-up systems to take care of the files. This server however is build for that purpose and wouldn't have the capacity to handle the traffic of the players wanting to play.

It's apparent you're not familiar with how infrastructure virtualization works, I'm not talking about "fail safe" systems wrapped around redundant hardware, I'm talking about infrastructure that can be replicated in software and that is scalable on demand (see VMware, Citrix, OpenStack, etc.., etc,,,). Most business that don't have the heads completely back in the last decade use such technologies not only to optimize their hardware CapEx but also to minimize planned and unplanned downtime on their customer facing systems.

Another problem is that some changes need a complete server restart for them to work. This is because the error isn't server based but client based and would require the client to be patched in order for the error to fix itself.

That's not a problem, you patch/fix/restart your primaries while your backups service your clients, once your done with validation you fail back to your primaries (in the case of an MMO you can't do a stateful failback if you're requiring client side patches but it still means minimal downtime to your customers) ...... .

So the best way for the technicians working on the servers are to take down the servers the time it takes to fix it.

Only if your "technicians" don't know what they're doing.....

Other MMOs do that all the time, and most - if not all - games with an online feature takes their servers down for maintenance now and then. Most have the schedule to do so with the least interruption, but others might not have that luxury.

MMO's only get away with it because the industry has managed to set customer expectations so low, in any other business the amount of downtime these jokers get away isn't tolerated (nor should it be), it isn't necessary with current off the shelf technology.

Yeah see it's obvious that not a lot of people who browse this forum are familiar with these concepts. To be honest, I wouldn't have very much idea about the state of virtualization had I not been attending a development conference this week. It's been quite an eye-opener.

There are I think 2 main reasons why MMOs, including ESO, don't take advantage of these kinds of systems. First, MMO development is several years. ESO was begun in 2007, and most of the server infrastructure decisions were probably made fairly early on. Cloud virtualization simply didn't exist in anywhere near the state it does today back then. By the time these systems got to a state where an MMO could consider using them for their game servers, it was probably much too late in ESO's development to consider changing it. I fully expect to see MMOs in the next few years to embrace these technologies, however. They aren't more expensive than running your own server farms -in fact, in most cases, I believe businesses will find they actually SAVE money by using cloud virtualization, while gaining built-in redundancy, one-click swapping between staging and production systems (and one-click re-swapping in case of the need for roll-back), and other features that just aren't possible, or are extremely costly with a physical server farm.

The second reason is abundantly clear in the replies to this thread. Gamers expect almost NOTHING from the companies that build the games they love. They EXPECT to have to wait. They EXPECT to have several hours of down time per week. Gamers as a whole have virtually NO consumer pull with the companies that make and and publish the games they are addicted to. I say addicted, because if you think about it, the relationship between gamer and developer/publisher is very much like that between junkie and dealer- completely one-sided, as far as power goes. For whatever reason, gamers, seemingly unique among consumers, have absolutely no willpower when it comes to choosing not to buy something they have problems with. If there is anything we like about a game at all, we buy it, even if we hate just about everything else about it. Maybe it's a kind of addiction, or maybe it's something else, but I really don't know why. Notice I said "we", not "they". I am not innocent, in this.

Anyway, the end result is that developers and publisher have virtually NO incentive to do better, so of course, they don't. They'd be stupid to spend more money when their consumers will buy their product either way. Now, it doesn't ALWAYS happen that way. Sometimes a game does something so bad that gamers stay away from it, and it causes the developer to lose serious money, often even going out of business (unfortunately, the businesses most responsible for bad gaming policies, the publishers, almost never go out of business). The problem is that it just doesn't happen enough to make a difference in the market.

georgeisbusting

mips_winnt wrote: »

It's apparent you're not familiar with how infrastructure virtualization works, I'm not talking about "fail safe" systems wrapped around redundant hardware, I'm talking about infrastructure that can be replicated in software and that is scalable on demand (see VMware, Citrix, OpenStack, etc.., etc,,,). Most business that don't have the heads completely back in the last decade use such technologies not only to optimize their hardware CapEx but also to minimize planned and unplanned downtime on their customer facing systems.

That's not a problem, you patch/fix/restart your primaries while your backups service your clients, once your done with validation you fail back to your primaries (in the case of an MMO you can't do a stateful failback if you're requiring client side patches but it still means minimal downtime to your customers) ...... .

hmm, kind of a living-in-a-glass-house-while-throwing-stones logic you've got going on there. Not sure you're too familiar with backups. So you would continue to run a backup server with users while you apply patches, then...what? What about the progress the user's have made? Disregarding state, you'll have a bunch of angry users on your hands when all their progress from the last few hours is lost. You need to bring your systems down, patch/reconfigure/update hardware, reboot, test, then provide access. This isn't a DR exercise.

And you would not use Citrix to host an MMO and you know it. Do we need to provide a desktop experience to all players? Are we pushing out Excel? Don't paste snippets from whitepapers in here and think people aren't going to call bullsh$t. This isn't a boardroom where you can talk smack and fool a bunch of suits.

Makkir

OP- If you can't step away from a computer game for 4-10 hours to walk outside, then you probably should be venting to a psychiatrist instead of the gaming forums. All MMOs have maintenance downtime.

Sojan

Do you have cable or satellite? Ever had it go out for no apparent reason?

Do you make car payments? Ever had it break down and have to have it fixed?

Do you pay for electricity? Ever had it go out in a storm or because a car hit the pole?

Ever rent-to-own or lease equipment? Only have it fail and what for someone to come pick it up and replace it, or, a week after your last payment was made.

See where I'm going with this.....?

Mortelus

Why do people spend money on brand new cars only to drive it off the forecourt and lose thousands of pounds?

8.99 pounds isn't a lot to pay monthly for a game that develops over time. I would kick up a fuss if the game was brought down for several days during my paid month. But seriously a few hours here and there isn't a problem. Just gives me time to get other things done like lesson planning, washing up, cleaning the house etc...

BETAOPTICS

While it is great to see fixes in my opinion, the reason why they do those is wrong. We shouldn't suffer from maintenance times because of bugged quests when there should not have been any bugged quests to begin with.

I know I am asking too much there but that is the ideal what should have been and to be honest, this game is filled with bugs and glitched quests and whatnot, even for a MMORPG game. You can't argue on that.

But, like I said. It is better that they at least have the decency to fix the quests afterwards even if they should not have been problem in the first place.

GW 2 truly showed how it should be done though and I miss how good their practices were but I can not ask or expect companies to yet realize that there actually are way better ways to do things.

Lalai

BETAOPTICS wrote: »

GW 2 truly showed how it should be done though and I miss how good their practices were but I can not ask or expect companies to yet realize that there actually are way better ways to do things.

You mean.. the same GW2 that had launch issues which resulted in them halting all first party sales? Where the auction and mail systems didn't work right for a hefty chunk of the time? Where numerous players couldn't stay connected, or even log onto the game? The one where a google search of "GW2 story quest bugs" will bring up several threads where progression quests were bugged at launch? That GW2?

Bugs are part of software launches. It's inevitable. The only thing a company can do is patch the stuff as quickly as they can, which Zenimax seems to be doing as best they can. Hardly anyone ever remembers the launch issues months after the game has been out anyway.

Dovel

Posivatedb14_ESO wrote: »

I'm just curious on what other peoples opinions are on having a maintenance every week. We pay our monthly fee of 15$ and are not able to play 4-10 (Sometimes more or less) hours a week due to maintenance. I would think in 2014 we would be beyond having to bring a server down for hours at time, and at a time that conflicts with some peoples schedules every single week. I know this topic has come up much in other MMO forums, but I was hoping ESO would be different. I think of this like having a car that you pay for every month that requires you to not use it for a day every week of its existence. What are your thoughts on this? I am also well aware this won't change anything, I'm just interested to see what other's think.

Every MMO has downtime. You can't run a server and not bring it down, especially to add patches and updates.

And about your car.. I doubt you drive it 24hrs a day, 7 Days a week without stopping. I would imagine it spends most of its time parked and turned off.

Orizuru

Posivatedb14_ESO wrote: »

I'm just curious on what other peoples opinions are on having a maintenance every week. We pay our monthly fee of 15$ and are not able to play 4-10 (Sometimes more or less) hours a week due to maintenance. I would think in 2014 we would be beyond having to bring a server down for hours at time, and at a time that conflicts with some peoples schedules every single week. I know this topic has come up much in other MMO forums, but I was hoping ESO would be different. I think of this like having a car that you pay for every month that requires you to not use it for a day every week of its existence. What are your thoughts on this? I am also well aware this won't change anything, I'm just interested to see what other's think.

Without weekly maintenance the game would not be playable. Period. That is the alpha and the omega. There is no compromise. It is not humanly or technologically possible to stand up a server, let hundreds of thousands to millions of different people connect to it, and not have regular and frequent maintenance. To expect anything less is a pipe-dream.

jimredtalon

Posivatedb14_ESO wrote: »

I'm just curious on what other peoples opinions are on having a maintenance every week. We pay our monthly fee of 15$ and are not able to play 4-10 (Sometimes more or less) hours a week due to maintenance. I would think in 2014 we would be beyond having to bring a server down for hours at time, and at a time that conflicts with some peoples schedules every single week. I know this topic has come up much in other MMO forums, but I was hoping ESO would be different. I think of this like having a car that you pay for every month that requires you to not use it for a day every week of its existence. What are your thoughts on this? I am also well aware this won't change anything, I'm just interested to see what other's think.

Honestly, I think your being overly dramatic and taking some thing personal that has nothing to do with you personally. But I will entertain the discussion this one last time since your post was honest and polite. I am proud that Zenimax has gone with a subscription model. It is a massive showing of faith on their part.

Now before I go any further lets make some things clear. There is a difference between the developers and the publisher. The developers are focused on making a good game. While the publisher is focused on turning a profit while minimizing cost.

Next I think we can all agree that there are two accepted ways for a publisher to make money on a game of this type. One is the subscription model like the one used by WOW or TESO. The other is the "free to play" model like WOT or PS2.

We will start with the ups and downs from a publishers perspective.
SUB: The benefit of a Sub model is that it guarantees that there is a regular cash flow to pay for maintenance and employee pay. The down side is most of the money paid in Sub fees goes to the maintenance of the game and the pay of the employees.
FTP: Benefits include players have the option to spend far more than what a sub fee would cost. Players expect less thus will pay for less. There is no obligations to the players because they pay for digital content not services. the down side is it only turns a profit in the short term thus FTP games can not be sustained as long and have a higher likely hood of failure in the first year.

Now ups and downs from a player perspective.
Sub: You are paying a small monthly fee that does carry some all be it minor rights to service. It guarantees the game servers will be running so long as people are playing. All content is accessible via in game currency or methods. Down side, you don't pay you don't play.
FTP: Some or more content is only accessible via real currency. The publisher has no obligations after purchased content is delivered to the purchaser. If people play but don't pay then the servers can still be shut down due to lack of revenue. And the infamous Pay To Win... bum bum bum.

Lastly, all of the latest studies show that a much larger profit can be made by a fast developed and short lived free to play game with some content locked behind a "pay gate." While a subscription game turns a smaller but more reliable long term profit.

So by Zenimax choosing a Subscription model means that they have turned away from the model that offers the best return and offers the best possible fair and balanced experience for the players.

nhisso

Wow. This topic actually happened. In 2014. Seriously?

Shimond

nhisso wrote: »

Wow. This topic actually happened. In 2014. Seriously?

It's the F2P generation. They don't 'get' the subscription model or the idea that game developers don't work for free.

jimredtalon

nhisso wrote: »

Wow. This topic actually happened. In 2014. Seriously?

Don't worry I hear this whole 2014 thing is just a fad and wont last.

Knovah

15 a month for entertainment … just on a 30 day month that is 720 hours. If every week the maintenance goes 8 hours that leaves you with 688 hours on a 30 day month or 4 week month. Sit down and figure it up how many hours you play and cost. You can decide where you will get entertainment that cheap.

Not sure about where you are but here a movie, popcorn and drink for one night (2-3 hours max for a movie) is going to run you close to 30 bucks a person . I can't go out with my friends for dinner and drinks for less than 50 on the cheap end ….

Now I don't know any mmo that does not have down time…..even if it is just emergency downtime from time to time. This is just my opinion and I know others have had more problems than I, but this has been a pretty smooth release for me. I been in some really bad bad releases... aoc was the worst for me. Rift was ok, had some rough down times at first but smoothed out well.

When you start wondering if the fun is worth the price maybe you need to find different entertainment. Not everyone will see it the way I do or have the patience to stand with a new game at a release and understand the problems that can arise and no one is forced to play this game, we choose to. We can choose to stop when the cost outweighs the fun for us.

This is just how I see it and justify the value of the entertainment. Everyone can see it how ever they want.