Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-02-2008 @ 4:29PM
Perderedeus said...
Funcom was banking on that initial appeal with AoC. Unfortunately, they didn't design a game to keep their customers beyond 30-60 days. The coding in the game is terrible... it glitches and leaks memory and has overly-demanding system requirements. Levels 1-20 were polished, everything else was lacking. End-game content voids, buggy PVP sieges, buggy quests (particularly profession quests)... and every patch released fixed one problem while introducing two new bugs.
Reply
8-02-2008 @ 5:09PM
Eternalpayn said...
Did Wow even ship with MC though?
8-02-2008 @ 5:49PM
Perderedeus said...
At this point, I've lost track of WoW launch content. I know it was slim. If a lack of endgame content were AoC's only problem, most players would probably stick it out... it's all the other issues that are causing people to unsub.
Heck, AoC's focus all along has been massive PVP and they couldn't even get that polished for launch.
8-02-2008 @ 7:58PM
haust said...
Banking on initial appeal is a Bad Thing (tm) for a MMO after WoW went live. WoW raised the minimal quality level that people will demand.
Just hoping that people will come to your game because you a have some good licence is an error. The game have to be well polished and must feel finished out of the box now.
If AoC and Warhammer online can provide that level of quality I guess that Blizzard would/will have some concerns.