Dev Diary - "Cooperate and Conquer" on GameSpot

[Zann]

Hey Everyone,

GameSpot just posted the latest dev diary for End of Nations - Cooperate and Conquer.

Be sure to check it out, and let us know what you think!

[KiwiWarrior]

epic epic what more do i have to say oo yea bloody EPIC


lol you can't do it by your self oo those poor little loners out there xD

[Exterior]

great video, thank you

[Goryus]

That was a great video, and the production values were through the roof! Definitely way above what I was expecting.

Most companies just throw a couple of paragraphs up on the website.

[PatoMatador]

Dood the video is awesome... can't whait to play. ^^

I am just sad about the people that posted coments on the gamespot area, looks like they have never see an MMO in life:

Like this one:
""Unique" game my ***...World in Conflict did all of this already and is still king."

Or this guys that don't understand the necesity to receive month fees to keep a good content:
"Looks pretty crap to be honest. World in Conflict looks as though it would be far more fun to play, and I'm not at all happy about the idea of paying a monthly fee!"

"They will have a difficult time to rake in their money if they will go for monthly fees. I can only recommend to monetize via additional content, to avoid being send to the annals of computer game history immediately post launch."

Looks like people need to make more search befor posting shi***!

[Cranks]

The video is freaking awesome! It seems like the game is coming along really well. With all the gameplay etc being shown off recently the game must be close to a beta stage?

[Kelathin]

Dood the video is awesome... can't whait to play. ^^

I am just sad about the people that posted coments on the gamespot area, looks like they have never see an MMO in life:

Like this one:
""Unique" game my ***...World in Conflict did all of this already and is still king."

Or this guys that don't understand the necesity to receive month fees to keep a good content:
"Looks pretty crap to be honest. World in Conflict looks as though it would be far more fun to play, and I'm not at all happy about the idea of paying a monthly fee!"

"They will have a difficult time to rake in their money if they will go for monthly fees. I can only recommend to monetize via additional content, to avoid being send to the annals of computer game history immediately post launch."

Looks like people need to make more search befor posting shi***!

1.)It is NOT necessary to have have monthly fees to keep good content flowing.
2.) RTS games do NOT need useless content which is less anti-MM)
3.) RTS players are against Pay to Play. See the history of Games for Windows Live and RTS.

It's not that they have never seen an MMO in their life, it's that RTS players are very against Pay to Play and Pay to Win concepts that exist within MMOs. When the features are primarily MMO terminology, this immediately wins over MMO players and not RTS players, when RTS players feel slighted, of course the majority are going to post things like this. These comments aren't stupidity nor made without searching. This is typical RTS player mentality, Trion and Petroglyph should review their marketing plan and accommodate the need of their target market, RTS players.

[Exterior]

1.)It is NOT necessary to have have monthly fees to keep good content flowing.
2.) RTS games do NOT need useless content which is less anti-MM)
3.) RTS players are against Pay to Play. See the history of Games for Windows Live and RTS.

It's not that they have never seen an MMO in their life, it's that RTS players are very against Pay to Play and Pay to Win concepts that exist within MMOs. When the features are primarily MMO terminology, this immediately wins over MMO players and not RTS players, when RTS players feel slighted, of course the majority are going to post things like this. These comments aren't stupidity nor made without searching. This is typical RTS player mentality, Trion and Petroglyph should review their marketing plan and accommodate the need of their target market, RTS players.

1) It is necessary to have a monthly fee to keep "QUALITY" content flowing. Why would they do this and make content out of their own pocket (and do not tell me..Well they have enough money anyway because thats BULLSH*T)
2) Useless? if you think fixing bugs...stoping hackers..and just adding new features is useless i can't argue your opinion.
3) Not all RTS gamers are agaisnt Pay to Play. I am an RTS player not an MMO and i am for the P2P because i want quality updates and content, not crappy small ones once in a while.

[KiwiWarrior]

It's not that they have never seen an MMO in their life, it's that RTS players are very against Pay to Play and Pay to Win concepts that exist within MMOs. When the features are primarily MMO terminology, this immediately wins over MMO players and not RTS players, when RTS players feel slighted, of course the majority are going to post things like this. These comments aren't stupidity nor made without searching. This is typical RTS player mentality, Trion and Petroglyph should review their marketing plan and accommodate the need of their target market, RTS players.

see i'm with you, here this game will be full of MMORPG players around, and very few RTS players because of this monthly free

[Kelathin]

1) It is necessary to have a monthly fee to keep "QUALITY" content flowing. Why would they do this and make content out of their own pocket (and do not tell me..Well they have enough money anyway because thats BULLSH*T)
2) Useless? if you think fixing bugs...stoping hackers..and just adding new features is useless i can't argue your opinion.
3) Not all RTS gamers are agaisnt Pay to Play. I am an RTS player not an MMO and i am for the P2P because i want quality updates and content, not crappy small ones once in a while.

1.) Because Community matters to them? Let's look at say Diablo II, a standalone RPG. Patch 1.10 essentially doubled the amount of game time with many changes and new items aka content. Why, kept people playing the game, and that certainly was done without any major payments as most people were already playing Diablo II at the time of the patch. RPGS tend to benefit from content updates, RTS not so much. It’s incredibly difficult to balance an RTS with a fix number of units and upgrades for units. Now keep adding “content”, all hope for balance seems off, or more worrying, that 95% of possible combinations will not be used simply because competitively only a few combinations are actually viable.
2.) Hacking, and cheating, are less of issue in an MMORTS enviroment with client server setting than a standard peer to peer RTS. It’s just the nature of client server that makes things like hacking and cheating easier to spot. What happened to coding it right at the start, rather than paying for half development? Bugs, sure that is important to resolve, I agree, but other products seem to handle bug fixing without monthly subscriptions.
3.) I never said all, nor most, and certainly not some quantifiable adjective. However, we can look on boards such as gamereplays.org, or gamespot in this case, and a very strong mentality against pay to play/win. I’ll bring up Petroglyph’s prior product, Universe at War: Earth Assault, Windows Live charged money for gold accounts, and guess what, it killed launch and the product. RTS players were in general very vehemently, against pay to play.

Personally, I don’t have an issue with pay to play, but I do understand the common sentiment of pay to play sucks which is very visible amongst RTS players.

I am worried about market penetration amongst RTS players to be fair. Petroglyph worked on a product called Mytheon. It's a nice little free MMO, however during the Beta, a lot of negative feedback came back in regards to the Camera, lack of WSAD, and a few other features that wouldn't of been present if the community was properly mixed. See, Mytheon was intended more as of a Action/RPG with MMO, and Strategy elements, however it was advertised more MMORPG. Guess what, the community developed were almost all MMORPG fans, thus when time came for beta, there were large amount of complaint about fundamental systems in the game. If the community was based on Action/RPG guys, the complaints would of been far fewer needless to say.

It's about words they use in interviews, and developer diaries, things like PvP, PvE, and countless other examples of everything but RTS terminology. Think SEO (Search Engine Optimization), when advertising, interviews, developer diaries, players are listening subconsciously or even consciously for things that interest them. When RTS players are hearing all this MMO terminology nature turns RTS players away from accepting this product.

Only time will tell, but I think TRION is making the same mistake Truegames made with Mytheon.