Star Wars: Attack Squadrons

[Lavi]

Another Star Wars game announced. It's pretty much the successor to the Rogue Squadron series (nooooooo!) as a free-to-play 8 vs. 8 space combat game set in the Civil War era. Sign-ups for beta are available, but my or their javascript isn't working to pull up that page. From the post-announcement logos, it seems like Area 52 is the developer, but their website gives no information about who they are or what previous projects they were involved in.

[youtube]fN0D8TU_TVE[/youtube]

 

[Blaxican]

Star Wars Mech-Warrior Online?

I'm down.

 

[Genkaku]

Reminds me of xwing vs tie fighter somewhat

 

[Jacano]

8 vs 8? Maybe they're looking to The Old Repuvlic to provide those large scale space battles.

 

[Lavi]

I'm hoping that Attack Squadrons takes a completely different approach to the Old Republic's Starfighter, namely a more tactical experience. I think the smaller battles gives that a good viability. I saw some videos of Starfighter and it is basically a run-of-the-mill arcade flight game, like Ace Combat: Assault Horizon, but with persistent MMO conventions tossed in. Attack Squadrons isn't going to fly if it goes the same path, in my opinion.

 

[Galavant]

Sounds more like it'll be closer to BSG Online.

 

[Genkaku]

I dunno why we can't get a game where just build the fleet battles (large and small) and have players start out in a squad and should they die they can hop to other active friendly fighter class ships or join the next wave of reinforcing ships. Have objectives like the old xwing or tie fighters for each mission and done. Would be fun as hell not sure why it's been so hard to get such a game.

 

[Jacano]

I might try the beta but I'll probably end up playing Battlefront II instead.

 

[OhNoesBunnies]

Free-to-Play immediately made it terrible.

 

[Lavi]

Free-to-Play immediately made it terrible.

Reason being?

 

[Genkaku]

Free to play is a common model now, hating it just because it is an F2P is silly, if anything F2P means you can try it out before you invest any money. If you like it then invest money.

Now if it is Pay To Win then yes that is a problem if there are OP ships and weapons purely from cash shop. But if they keep just cosmetic things to cash shop or allow you to pay cash to unlock stuff quicker that you can unlock in reasonable timeframes, that'll be fine.

League of Legends has sorta built their house on such and has done amazingly for example.

 

[Wing]

Another Star Wars game announced. It's pretty much the successor to the Rogue Squadron series (nooooooo!) as a free-to-play 8 vs. 8 space combat game set in the Civil War era. Sign-ups for beta are available, but my or their javascript isn't working to pull up that page. From the post-announcement logos, it seems like Area 52 is the developer, but their website gives no information about who they are or what previous projects they were involved in.

[youtube]fN0D8TU_TVE[/youtube]

FTP. 8 vs. 8. Lost me.

Also, I am predicting microtransactions.

Anyway, looks stupid. Hope it does not come to.

 

[Green Ranger]

TIEs with giant Imperial logos emblazoned on their wings look silly. >.>

Still, it could have promise. If it harks back to the old X-Wing series games...oh man.

Kind of awkward timing with Galactic Starfighter though.

 

[Genkaku]

Not sure why people throw their hands up about F2P. 8v8 seems like it could be a decent space fighter setup and all with proper mission design (if all dogfighting eh).

I'll agree the looks need sorta I dunno cleaned up, giant imply logos are silly. Go with the classic looks an players will still come, although depends on release? Star Citizen might eat a chunk of the space sim/pilot player base

 

[Arisalin]

Not sure what to think of this.

 

[OhNoesBunnies]

Free to play is a common model now, hating it just because it is an F2P is silly, if anything F2P means you can try it out before you invest any money. If you like it then invest money.

Now if it is Pay To Win then yes that is a problem if there are OP ships and weapons purely from cash shop. But if they keep just cosmetic things to cash shop or allow you to pay cash to unlock stuff quicker that you can unlock in reasonable timeframes, that'll be fine.

League of Legends has sorta built their house on such and has done amazingly for example.

Free-to-Play is common. Yet so is murder. Silly comparison I know! However, Free-to-Play has done little good for the industry as a whole. Kind of like Call of Duty.

Free-To-Play is only thriving because of a select few games that are doing well on the market. The rest are designed around being cashcows, like Blacklight Retribution and quite a few MMOs. Not to mention this is DISNEY we're talking about behind the reins (Publishers in many instances do have plenty of control, and before anyone argues with me, I have associates/experience in Game Design and families in the same Business), who've gotten most of their 'digital funds' from games such as Disney Infinity. Which, by the way, is a gigantic cash-grabbing game.

Ares52 itself is a former Indie-Development company that failed to turn out anything 'fun' on IndieDB (a major website where a lot of modders and indie-development groups flock to). They're not veteran game designers and the CGI itself was less than promising. This is not going to be a top-notch ace game in the same vein as Starfighter. It's going to be a micro-transaction-plagued Pay-to-Win arcade game. Mark my words.

Maybe, with some impossible set of circumstances this will prove to be something else entirely and I'll look the fool (which I openly welcome), but Free-to-Play generally means the game is focused on those with wallets.

Yes, League of Legends is a rarity. I play it, it's fun, etc, but that's because of the commitment of the design team and the focus it has on E-Sports, Lore (though poorly written and orchestrated in some cases), and donations it's received from advertising during events.

A lot of free-to-play games are usually just a focused grind for a specific audience that has nothing better to do, and I hate to play the location/race/nationality card here, but that's generally those in Asian countries. Especially Korea. It's all about demographics.

Again, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised since it's not being announced as an MMO, rather it's being fashioned as an 8v8 dogfighting game. Something quick and just to enjoy on the side, perhaps, with a cosmetic shop.

But it's all wishful hoping. They're already about to announce a frickin' beta.

I have no hopes for this.

 

[Johnnysaurus Rex]

Free-to-Play is common. Yet so is murder. Silly comparison I know! However, Free-to-Play has done little good for the industry as a whole. Kind of like Call of Duty.

What an awful way to preface your argument. Ignoring the bits about Call of Duty and clearly ignoring the early titles and getting on the bandwagon of hating it.

Free-To-Play is only thriving because of a select few games that are doing well on the market. The rest are designed around being cashcows, like Blacklight Retribution and quite a few MMOs. Not to mention this is DISNEY we're talking about behind the reins (Publishers in many instances do have plenty of control, and before anyone argues with me, I have associates/experience in Game Design and families in the same Business), who've gotten most of their 'digital funds' from games such as Disney Infinity. Which, by the way, is a gigantic cash-grabbing game.

While crappy F2P models most definitely outweigh the good ones I offer that so do traditional paid titles in terms of quality. But the ones that are crappy and overly exploitative normally do go as the market decides and die out. If people didn't like it they wouldn't do it. If people didn't do it then the games wouldn't continue

Ares52 itself is a former Indie-Development company that failed to turn out anything 'fun' on IndieDB (a major website where a lot of modders and indie-development groups flock to). They're not veteran game designers and the CGI itself was less than promising. This is not going to be a top-notch ace game in the same vein as Starfighter. It's going to be a micro-transaction-plagued Pay-to-Win arcade game. Mark my words.

I can't argue on their company merits because I can't seem to find any other games they have worked on.

CGI less than promising? It looked fine. It's not some killer-app next gen title. It's going to be from what we know right now 8v8 multiplayer game you don't have to pay for.

Maybe, with some impossible set of circumstances this will prove to be something else entirely and I'll look the fool (which I openly welcome), but Free-to-Play generally means the game is focused on those with wallets.

Which to me isn't an awful thing. It's a completely different type of game compared to the normal market. Instead of paying upfront and dishing out extra for DLC you are picking specific things you want and even looking at it on a regular basis depending how much you put into the game over a given time I see it akin to a subscription to an MMO or other online gaming service like Live or PSN.

Genkakku made the perfect point in a good F2P it can act as a demo or function at two levels either casually or for those who spend a lot of time vs. paying money.

Yes, League of Legends is a rarity. I play it, it's fun, etc, but that's because of the commitment of the design team and the focus it has on E-Sports, Lore (though poorly written and orchestrated in some cases), and donations it's received from advertising during events.

League is definitely a good game, but the problem with it to someone who doesn't want to spend the time playing it to unlock the champions with in-game currency is about the same. Certain runes and characters (at times given the rotation) are only attainable given quite a bit of grinding and when a game lasts well into an hour sometimes with good competition sometimes a payed option is nicer.

I have been tempted many times to buy a hero I wanted (ooooooooooh Ahri and Hecarim), but I abstain and work with the few I have from my very casual play.

A lot of free-to-play games are usually just a focused grind for a specific audience that has nothing better to do, and I hate to play the location/race/nationality card here, but that's generally those in Asian countries. Especially Korea. It's all about demographics.

And clearly you aren't in their demographic. So you know what you do? You don't play that game. You don't give them money.

Again, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised since it's not being announced as an MMO, rather it's being fashioned as an 8v8 dogfighting game. Something quick and just to enjoy on the side, perhaps, with a cosmetic shop.

But it's all wishful hoping. They're already about to announce a frickin' beta.

I have no hopes for this.

A good example of that type of game is War Thunder. While it boasts a few more options that's because it had plenty of time to grow. Hope they take a lot from their book.

Anyway, looks stupid. Hope it does not come to.

Way to make a lot of assumptions on a fifty second trailer.

 

[Shiuzu]

-snip-

Oh snap.

 

[Lavi]

Area 52 doesn't appear on IndieDB's list of indie companies. I'm having difficulty believing that this development team is some kind of failure, though of course it's a very unknown team we're talking about here.

I also cringe at the idea that free-to-play is some sort of trash bin where online games go to in their death throes. That may have been the case in the earlier years of free-to-play but, as Wargaming.Net CEO Victor Kislyi points out (although I hate to mention him since he's an awful speaker), the free-to-play model is a fairly new trend that companies are still experimenting with. Wargaming's World of Tanks and Riot Games' League of Legends managed to hit the right notes, since both are among the most popular F2P titles today, but people still complain (vocal minority, perhaps?) about how stuff are overpriced in both games. Not to mention, free-to-play has even rescued games from the brink of death, such as Dungeons & Dragons Online.

People are willing to pay up on free-to-play games if they consider it worth their time investment: is it worth $15/month for full access or worth having unlimited access with the option to pay $15 for one or two goodies every now and then?

P.S. Call of Duty changed the FPS industry. Whether people like it or not.

And more edits: because they announced that they are accepting sign-ups for a beta does not necessarily mean that they are ready to announce when the beta is going to be released. For selecting beta participants in something as arbitrary as Attack Squadrons (no previous member base, etc.), they can take all the time they want to transition from alpha. The sign-ups only mean that the project is guaranteed to see release at the current rate. However, there are games that died after its beta run, such as Huxley: The Dystopia.

 

[OhNoesBunnies]

Area 52 doesn't appear on IndieDB's list of indie companies. I'm having difficulty believing that this development team is some kind of failure, though of course it's a very unknown team we're talking about here.

I also cringe at the idea that free-to-play is some sort of trash bin where online games go to in their death throes. That may have been the case in the earlier years of free-to-play but, as Wargaming.Net CEO Victor Kislyi points out (although I hate to mention him since he's an awful speaker), the free-to-play model is a fairly new trend that companies are still experimenting with. Wargaming's World of Tanks and Riot Games' League of Legends managed to hit the right notes, since both are among the most popular F2P titles today, but people still complain (vocal minority, perhaps?) about how stuff are overpriced in both games. Not to mention, free-to-play has even rescued games from the brink of death, such as Dungeons & Dragons Online.

People are willing to pay up on free-to-play games if they consider it worth their time investment: is it worth $15/month for full access or worth having unlimited access with the option to pay $15 for one or two goodies every now and then?

P.S. Call of Duty changed the FPS industry. Whether people like it or not.

And more edits: because they announced that they are accepting sign-ups for a beta does not necessarily mean that they are ready to announce when the beta is going to be released. For selecting beta participants in something as arbitrary as Attack Squadrons (no previous member base, etc.), they can take all the time they want to transition from alpha. The sign-ups only mean that the project is guaranteed to see release at the current rate. However, there are games that died after its beta run, such as Huxley: The Dystopia.

Indie-Db's list of developers changes frequently with the amount of traffic. More often than not, developers will show up, do something, then leave as their pages are archived and suspended. As for Call of Duty, it had an amazing run well past 2, but now it's doing nothing for the gaming industry except feeding an experiment that has garnered Activision billions in revenue without actually updating the game any. The last great 'innovation' for the industry from Call of Duty was CoD4, which was actually pretty good on its own.

-Snip-.

Thankfully, having knowledge of something over someone else doesn't require that I live or exist in the same demographic that they do. Thank (a possibly non-existent) god for education. :D