Single player games, hell yes, do so here and there. Board games, for sure, do so quite regularly.
I believe in Crowd Funding if its not MMO's.
#Camelot unchained forum download
I won't even download the game if it gets released. It'll be interesting to see which way TESO jumps on this - TESO has DAoC's lead designer in charge of it - Matt Frior - who was responsible for much of DAoC's good stuff and who quit when EA took over, and also has an RvR tri-realm-style model, so is perhaps the next hope for really good RvR-type PvP.A joke should either make you laugh or terrified. I'd rather pay more for the core game and cosmetic/utility features, because subbing is so obnoxious (even Blizzard manage to make it into a chore - the hoops I had to jump through to reactivate my wife's WoW account last year were insane, despite having a CC I use online everywhere, paypal and so on), and prevents you "checking out" new features that you might like, instead forcing you to essentially "bet" on them. It'll be less than current subs, which I am guessing means $5 or $10/month, but still, I don't really want to sub.
However subscription, I agree, is an issue, and the reason I didn't insta-back it. Tablets are a non-concern because they're uncertain and stretch-goal-related. Mark Jacobs was able to get $25 million together for DAoC, back in the day, so I would tend to think that wasn't a very "real" objection, unless he is strictly claiming they won't seek any other funding or anything (which would be bizarre). The art they have bodes well for the style, I note.Ĭlick to expand.I doubt 4 million is the end of things, being realistic about it. well, a lot higher than I thought they'd get (then again, so is the target!), and I would love to see a new Arthurian/Celtic atmosphere-type game (it's quite a neglected genre these days), and do love RvR, so probably will do. I've not got in on this KS yet, but they're over 700k on day two which is. Of course my happiest times in DAoC were in levelling up via PvP in lower-level battle areas, or doing 8-man stuff, so maybe it's a non-issue. It makes sense from a development budget perspective, but the PvE in DAoC was not only very fun by the standards of it's day, but also provided a good way to relax if RvR got too stressful, or something to do if RvR was either empty or being dominated by one side.
That said, I'm not sure about the decision to cut PvE entirely from Camelot Unchained. The gear-capping is part of why DAoC's legend continued, because so many other games point-blank refused to do that, and instead forced an entire extra gear treadmill into PvP Outside of RvR DAoC was particularly notable in the time in that it eschewed a number of the things that EverQuest did, like the eternal gear treadmill, ever-increasing level cap, crafted gear generally not being great or customize-able, and so on (before ToA rather ruined this). WvWvW in GW2 is soli, good even, but rather feels like the "casual" version of RvR, and I don't mean that in a bad way, just that it's more limited and straightforward, at least right now. Other RvR-like structures, including that of Warhammer Online, have proven inferior. I kept playing it long after WoW's release (at least two years) because of both the RvR and the general atmosphere and style of the game, which are as yet unmatched. Re: Dark Age of Camelot 2!? (Camelot Unchained)ĭAoC is a gold standard for a reason, it's not just nostalgia.