| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (24)

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 3:15PM Drybones5 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They better deliver :(

I got the game on a low amount of cash. $60 is a lot for me.

And then a month and a half later it's gone. what a waste. Realtime Worlds screwed me over.

Not sure if Steam will eventually allow me to return it. IDK if I want to return to APB :/

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 3:58PM RyogaVee said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Drybones5 ask for a credit from steam. They might work with you. Just be nice and give them options. Either your money back or a better game like, L4D or Borderlands.
Reply

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 3:15PM mandarin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
South America has a huge gaming population.

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 3:18PM Virus one said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'll try it.

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 3:18PM Virus one said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I'll try it.

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 7:45PM Marco le Polo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Virus one

Yes, we know.
Reply

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 3:27PM rahnyc4 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i hope they fix that nasty slide slippery car handling this game suffer from.

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 3:33PM Drakkenfyre said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The game sucked so bad that within the first two weeks, the developer promised a patch to make it "more fun", and to change the driving mechanics.

Take that as you will. From what I heard the character creator is great, and it's all downhill from there.

Beta testers said they were ignored in their reports of how things just weren't fun, or didn't work right.

Unless this company makes some major changes, they won't do any better than Realtime Worlds.

And to think, they are going from pay-to-play to free-to-play-but-you-buy-everything-else model.

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 4:46PM AutomaticClutch said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Drakkenfyre Are you kidding me? Every time a beta tester cryed because they were getting owned they nerfed something.
Reply

Posted: Nov 19th 2010 8:16PM sleeper24 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@AutomaticClutch Can you recall when these changes came? I was testing it months before it came out... and they still didnt want to fix things post release
Reply

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 3:59PM Prboi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This game is basically Grand Theft Auto online. I don't see why they wouldn't want to bring it to consoles since the controls would be a snap to assign. & being that it's free to play, there's no way it couldn't be on consoles

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 4:14PM urgan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Prboi Controls, yes. UI (user interface), no. People often forget that a game designed with the PC in mind has a different kind of UI from a console game.
Reply

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 4:26PM mrmojoz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Prboi

Porting a MMO to consoles would be massive outlay of money. You want to take that kinda chance on a game thats already failed once?
Reply

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 6:27PM Prboi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@mrmojoz

It was originally planned for a 360 only launch then developement moved to the PC. Being that GTA has always been a console franchise & APB being the the offpring of the original GTA creators, it would make sense to bring it to consoles. Look at Phantasy Star online. That alone has millions of Xbox Live users playing even to this day. With Red Dead Redemption being as close to what an MMO would look like on a console, I think it's pretty safe to release it on consoles. Granted it should have a storyline of some sort & compelling mission objectives to keep the player engaged & not just let people lose in a city & give them the same objectives over & over again. I'm not saying that the team should just port it, just maybe a small team use what was already put in place by Realtime & transfer that into a console friendly interface. I mean it plays mostly like Gears Of War anyway
Reply

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 7:07PM AutomaticClutch said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Prboi Actually it was planned for PC with the possibility of porting to 360. Not the other way around.
Reply

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 3:59PM TachiFoxy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"[...] we'll release the native patch, which was never released by Realtime, then modify that patch to at least promote a few basic monetization things, like a premium account access mode and a gun leasing mode. [...]" - Basically add WarRock junk which destroyed the fun for me with WarRock into APB - which was fun for me, actually... Why did I know K2 would make this game even more bad?

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 4:08PM Rollins said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think they have the right idea. We'll see how it goes. I'll definitely give it a try once it's free and I'm not opposed to paying for cash shop things/premium subscriptions as long as they're reasonable (i.e. most Korean MMOs = bad, Turbine model = acceptable).

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 4:47PM AutomaticClutch said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Drakkenfyre Are you kidding me? Every time a beta tester cryed because they were getting owned they nerfed something.

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 5:27PM Crayola Q Pants ESQ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They picked up an MMO which supposedly cost around $100 million to develop for a paltry $2 million. I think that answers any question of "why?"

The game did poorly, but it could be traced back to obvious things like the subscription model and wonky gameplay; not like it was a good game which failed in spite of itself.

However, the potential is all there, and know they know exactly what doesn't work, and it only cost them 2 mill. Not bad for developing an MMO

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 5:29PM Crayola Q Pants ESQ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Crayola Q Pants ESQ
Not to mention even if they scrapped the IP completely, they probably have over 2 mill of art assets and reusable code to use wherever else they want to.
Reply

Posted: Nov 16th 2010 11:15PM ANeM said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Its "full potential" being both the fastest subscription mmo to fail AND the fastest F2P mmo to fail

Posted: Nov 17th 2010 7:08AM kamikazebubble said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"As for gameplay itself, all Action Districts will now be openly accessible."

When APB went live, all the Action Districts were available. Sure, there was only 2, the Waterfront and Financial district. but everyone who played the game could access them. Unless they are planning on adding the chaos and pure ruleset districts, i don't understand what they mean by the quoted comment. As for "paying for access", APB provided 2 server types - Action and Social. The social server was simply a glorified lobby, you did you customization and your shopping there and nothing else. The Action districts is where you did all your shooting. The game time you had paid for only started counting down when you were in the Action districts. This meant that unlike other pay-to-play MMOs like WoW that make you play for all your game time, only the actual game time spent playing against other players counted against you. This did not necessarily affect the "hardcore" gamer that can play a MMO 8 to 12 hours a day. People like myself with jobs and social lives really liked this since i paid 7$ for 20 hours that lasted me a month.

Posted: Nov 17th 2010 5:26PM BludyBloop said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I felt lack of advertising and P2P were APB's most damning problems. Many buyers thought they were buying WoW with guns. Most people I talked to about APB did not know it existed. RTW did a horrible job providing information on APB, but that's not surprising since it turns out they were in massive debt at release. Combine that with a confusing payment model, and you get disaster before anyone's even had a chance to play.Releasing a shooter at retail and with a monthly fee was a horrible idea. APB's competition was either F2P or only had a one-time retail cost.

I'm sure GamersFirst will advertise plenty, as ads for F2P games seem to be absolutely everywhere. The F2P model worries me because APB's customization (its one obviously good feature) could be nickled, dimed, and destroyed by microtransactions. Not only that, but I refuse to play a "F2P" twitch game that offers advantages in skill-based combat to people who pay. The game is extremely fun and could work well as F2P if gameplay balance is maintained and every clothing unlock does not require a $1.00 purchase.

As for "why?" RTW spent over $100M developing the game and it was bought for like $2M. Say what you want about APB's original release, but $2M for a nearly complete game with quite a bit of potential seems like an extremely good buy to me.

Posted: Nov 19th 2010 8:19PM sleeper24 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So this article makes me cry because they GamersFirst basicly said they arnt going to try to revive the game or make it anybetter.... instead they are going to release it for 12 months suck it dry and then let it go just so they can increase there fan base in brazil..


Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW