a financial "oops" to abandon et?

(Digm) #1

This just popped in my head the other day while on the toilet (yeah, the toilet).

Do you think iD/Activision is kicking themselves in the teeth for abandoning the ET project and releasing it as a free game?

I read an article the other week that ET is now the second most popular online FPS in existence (behind only Half Life). Granted, a portion of it’s popularity is probably because it’s free, but I still wonder… if they had continued spending the money to get the expansion to where it was originally meant to go, they would have had a hugely popular (and profitable) game on their hands…

(Ranstaton) #2

I think it was a horrible idea for them to release it as a free game. Not that I enjoy paying for games, but finally when a game worth paying for comes around, it is free. The problem I have with that is they are not obligated to release new content like maps (yes I know there are custom maps, but I would prefer a lot more official ones…) or patches any time soon.

(ziege) #3

They could always do ET2… same gameplay, 10 times as many maps…

Oops I drooled on my keyboard again

(Xerxes) #4

I think if the proper multiplayer Maps and I mean proper by “top of the line, suitable to the ET environment that is popular within the ET Community” that can be “slightly modified and credited for” and have them release it as an official map pack or patch.

It would be no more than a few days work for them and the creators of such maps can actually organize it themselves.

Speaking of new Maps, I heard something along the lines that there was already an official map that was already done a while back during the beta and was given to gamesdomain or something along those lines. Mind you, I’m 100% sure about it.

(puubert) #5

I don’t think the game would be as popular if people had to fork out $50 for it. It’d be interesting to know how many people found the game on a PC magazine disc somewhere and decided to try it, or how many people handed out copies to friends.

I think it’s a great move on id/Activisions part to have the balls to release such a great game for free. Sure they could have boxed it and wrapped a price tag on it, but that’s not being different. id started the shareware revolution, and they were the first (as far as I know) to release a free multiplayer game. I’m not saying it’s going to become the trend, but it’s something that other game companies wouldn’t consider doing.

I’m sure I’m not the only one who has given id a fair hunk of my cash, so I see ET as a present.

(bani) #6

imho activision should have canned trinity early and carried out ET to the end.

of course, they have CoD under their belt now…

(Machine for to kill) #7

ET would have never been as popular as it is if it was retail. If it had been released as planned it would’ve just been another expansion like the many expansions out there and would’ve have been quickly forgoten. This would have been especially true for ET since 1.) people are getting tired of WWII shooters 2.) at the time Half-Life 2 (and other big titles) was due in september, 3.) The last good WWII shooter was CoD and there was no point in spending any more money in ET. Of course nobody knows for sure why things happened the way they did, but I can assure that i would no be playing ET if it had been retail.

Releasing it for free though had its own advantages. Enemy Territory is now a very popular title, and Splash Damage has gained considerable reputation from it. If splash were to release another title (probably an expansion for D3, since they’re a little small to make a full game) it would carry with it some of the popularity of ET and so in the end the money spent on ET would not have been wasted.

(Cyber-Knight) #8

I think this was great to give Wolfenstein some publicity.

I dunno, I always felt that RtCW was somewhat swept under the rug by the gaming community. I truly believe RtCW had a superior multiplayer FPS environment than any other game on the market, for both competitive and pubbing.

but games like Medal of Honour, BF1942, CS, always seemed to pull ahead of RtCW for some reason and I"m sure most ppl can say MoH had an inferior multiplayer.

I think ET is good to give Wolfenstein a second wind and a time to shine.

(fattakin) #9

I think ET is good to give Wolfenstein a second wind and a time to shine.

Nicely Put… There is no chance ET would be doing as well as it is if people had to pay for it.

In the RTCW scene people eaither wont play it or have already migrated, plus ‘some’ new players, id imagine ET would have had 1/4 of the installed base that RTCW has. (which is small anyway)

Giving it away free was a masterstroke and now the ET scene is healthy as fcuk!

(ildon) #10

I think the original poster has the cause-effect scenario reversed. ET has so many players, BECAUSE it is free. If it had been released as a commercial game, it would probably have peaked slightly lower than the original RTCW MP did. That’s still a lot of players, but not as high as ET’s current count.

(schmeisser) #11

I think it will prove to be a brilliant move for Splash Damage in the long run. They have a huge community of home mappers cranking out new work to keep the game alive. My least favorite part of RTCW was all the supernatural bullshit. I just slogged through the zombie stuff as quick as possible to get to killing nazis. I don’t know if I’ll buy into Doom 3 for that reason alone, not to mention needing a new computer to run the thing. Until the AI gets undistinguishable from what we experience in multiplayer, the SP maps are probably a dead end.

(Watchers Eye) #12

If I had had to pay for this back in June, I probably never would’ve been playing it. But if I knew then, what I know now, I would’ve been willing to pay.

(Machine for to kill) #13

I love ET because it introduced me to objective based multiplay. I played RTCW but I never bothered with its multiplayer, though I did like the SP very much. Anyhow up until ET I only played deathmatches and capture the flag and that was it. But now that I’ve had a taste of completing objectives i don’t think i can ever go back. I think other people feel the same, judging by what they posted on that CoD thread. Should be a lesson to future games: make objective based maps. Popping helmets off krauts is fun, but working as a team trying to build that god damn bridge, that’s something truly rewarding.

(Dawg) #14

As already noted, ET’s success is partially based on the fact that it is free. Without a solid SP portion, the publishers did not want to release it. If you look at it from their perspective, it would have been insulting to their customers to charge $50 for a game that was only half done. The publishers elected to finish the product as a MP-only game and then release it for free online and via demo disks to reduce promotional costs.

I voiced an opinion on why they did it some months ago when the discussion of id/Activision’s motivation came up. It is my opinion that they are attempting to keep the Wolfenstein name in the public eye with an eye to the future. That is, a sequel built on the Doom3 engine. I have no factual basis for this opinion but I believe that it is both feasible and a good idea on their part. In the short term they take a relatively small financial hit, but I think it will pay off in the long run.

As to the opinion that WWII FPS games are on the wane all I can say is that the last time I checked the popularity listing on Gamespy, 4 of the top 5 games were WWII FPS games (ET, BF, CoD and MoHAA). I don’t think the genre has lost ground - if anything, it is gaining.

Dawg

(puubert) #15

That’s not a bad idea, a RTCW sequel on in the DooM3 engine. Though I have no idea where they would take it, unless they use stories from later episodes of the original and expand them like they did RTCW. Though, half the staff as id were against DooM3, so there maybe similar resistance to starting a game they had updated only a few years before. Unless they go along the lines of the James Bond series, and use the Castle Wolftenstein name to start a series. An entirely new storyline from the RTCW world. Maybe what BJ can now go to Berlin to battle Hitler again?

(fattakin) #16

Can i preorder it? here activision, heres my £30 :banana:

(Wraith2k3) #17

lol, and mine writes a cheque

To be honest, don’t give a damn about the single player, I just want more multi. :slight_smile:

(Abraxas) #18

Only reason I play this game is because its free, I would have never started playing if it wasnt free. What can I say, Im a cheap bastard. I was suprirsed to see its free and thats probably why its so popular, its a REAL online fps, not like most other online games like Runescape where sure, its free (some of it anyway), but you can TELL its free with its crappy 2D graphics and shit. So! It’s a good thing it is free, cause if not you wouldnt be graced with my presence and ever soothing words, bitches.

-Abraxas

(DieHard) #19

RTCW sequel based on the doom3 engine would seriously kick ass. :banana: :notworthy: :rocker: :rocker2: :rofl:

(G0-Gerbil) #20

Erm OK, it’s pooooooossible. But given multiplayer Doom3 is what, 8 (or is it 4) players maximum, there’s a hell of a distance between that and even a normal 6 vs 6 clan match - let alone the 64 player servers that are out there.

The Doom 3 engine will need some serious dumbing down to handle more players in-game at once, and without more players, it just wouldn’t be an online game in the way we know it.