Topic: Dragon Quest X Is an Online RPG

[Ceric]

Looking at the video.  Its still turned based gameplay.  That can get old fast compared to something more dynamic like Monster Hunter or even WoW (which I would argue is very close to be strinkly turn based itself.)  I doubt it will have the lasting power here in the state.  There will be folks this will put in a vice grip but, that population will be small.

[NintendoFanboy]

I went in hard with DQIX and put 300 hours in before someone stole my cart, bought it again, and
i'm about 160hurs in, lots and lots of level grinding,but its cool,
so if i can play offline, i'll buy it, but only my handheld will get 300 hours.
i can count on one hand the hours i put into my Wii or 360 last month.
DSiXL and 3DS is off the charts. more then 100 hours.
so i want a 3ds version, but if i dont have to pay a fee, then i'll buy it for offline
play maybe.

[Chocobo_Rider]

The game looks great, I just wish that it wasn't so far off.

truth

[Ian Sane]

Why does Square Enix insist on these online RPGs being part of the main series?  They did that with FFXI and FFXIV and now they're doing that here.  Maybe I'm out to lunch here but I would assume that fans of a traditionally single player series specifically want to play a single player game.  Making it multiplayer focused seems illogical.  Why not make a spin-off series for these games?  I'm thinking SE figures that making these part of the main series will boost sales but I think it just damages the brand.  FFXIV for example is largely regarded as a flop.  A bad FF spinoff is no big deal but a bad "real" FF game just looks bad.

Nintendo has made a multiplayer focused Zelda but it was a spinoff.  They have not released a main series Zelda game with multiplayer focus.  I would be turned off if they did.  The single player adventure element of Zelda is why I like the series in the first place.  I want to go on an adventure alone.  That is the whole damn point.  So if they made it some online game and tried to pass it off like "here's your Zelda game" I would be pissed off.  I imagine there are FF or DQ fans that feel that way.

[Caliban]

I was just reading on kotaku that according to the FAQ for DQX you will only be able to play offline for a few hours, and then you can only play online...

http://kotaku.com/5837472/dragon-quest-x-needs-the-internet-and-extra-money-too

Well that sucks. Hopefully it's just a Japan thing.

[Chocobo_Rider]

I was just reading on kotaku that according to the FAQ for DQX you will only be able to play offline for a few hours, and then you can only play online...

http://kotaku.com/5837472/dragon-quest-x-needs-the-internet-and-extra-money-too

Well that sucks. Hopefully it's just a Japan thing.

Only problem with that is: Kotaku doesn't think Nintendo-related stories need be bogged down with facts.  I know I was at the mercy of a translation, but I'd take the quotes from the press conference more seriously when they said the online was a (very attractive) option.

Also, you'll notice sites like Kotaku have no economic problem with microtransactions and paid DLC for any number of HD 1st/3rd-person shooters.  However, the Wii(U) gets one of those "triple A" games they're always whining for and it's "whoaAAAaa!! what's with the highway robbery, Squeenix?!"

... we deserve better from our news media ...

Here are two great quotes from the comments of the article you linked:

I'm looking forward to the article slamming TOR for not being KOTOR 3, and for requiring a subscription fee, Kotaku.  I'm sure we'll be seeing it any minute now.                        

That, there, is sarcasm.  I used to post stuff like that on Kotaku all the time when they applied double-standards to Nintendo platforms.  Then I got banned for asking why a picture of a girl wearing wiimote sleeves as shoes was "newsworthy."

Kotaku wouldnt dare lose that ad revenue for journalistic integrity, at least not when it comes to the heavy hitter AAA titles.

truth!

[Stogi]

I want to go on an adventure alone.  That is the whole damn point.

Spshh....that's a lie and you know it. You have a brother. How many times have you played Zelda with your brother watching on the couch next to you? How much more fun was that experience?

No one's thought about Zelda and said "I want to be adventure alone." They thought "I want to have an adventure." Big difference.

If Nintendo could make a multiplayer Zelda that somehow retained everything we loved, but added bigger more challenging puzzles and bosses that REQUIRED a friend to play in order to overcome them, we'd probably hate it, call for the end of the series, forever swear off Nintendo until we realized its genius.

So yeah, point is, I don't buy the requisite of being alone as a pillar of Zelda's formula.

[KDR_11k]

Heh, Square-Enix's stock bombed after this announcement, I guess everybody knows that turning a series that appeals because it's old-school into an MMORPG is a surefire recipe for alienating the fanbase.

[TJ Spyke]

Except it's not a MMORPG and you don't need to be online to play it. Square Enix's stock did drop a little, though I wouldn't take that as a sign of everything. Sometimes a company can announce good news (like earning more profit that they were predicted to) and their stock will still drop.

[BlackNMild2k1]

It dropped 11%

That is definitely something to take notice of.
I'm sure it will rebound quickly, but definitely worth a mention.

OTOH, seems like a good time to buy some SE stock.

[TJ Spyke]

True, it went down 11%. But when looking at the stock price, it went from $22.69 a share to $20.15 a share. I wouldn't be worried, stocks sometimes drop after a company makes a big announcement because people want to make a profit. Look at Apple as an example, their stock tends to drop after their annual events.

[broodwars]

I've been looking into the whole MMO thing, and from what I can tell you won't be able to see "everything" in the game if you play offline.  However, you can play the game offline.  Now, what "everything" entails could be rather damaging depending on the quality of the content, but it's not like the game suddenly throws up a wall after a few hours and says "sorry, but you can't play any more unless you pay a subscription fee."  That said, Dragon Quest already had one strike against it with me for being a series that steadfastly refused to evolve past the 1980s, and making such a large part of the game more or less an MMO with a subscription fee (which has yet to be determined) pretty much killed any remaining interest I might have had in the game.  There are plenty of good singleplayer-focused RPGs out there without having to waste time on a game that will try (and likely fail) to straddle the lines between single and multiplayer content.

I'm actually struggling to think of a game (outside DQ IX and Monster Hunter Tri...I guess...I never played those and never want to) where trying to merge single and multiplayer actually turned out to be a good thing.  Square-Enix already spectacularly failed at that this year with Mindjack, as did another company with Brink.  Why can't singleplayer games be strong singleplayer experiences, and multiplayer games be strong multiplayer experiences?  Oh right...because Square-Enix lost a fortune on Final Fantasy 14, and now they're scrounging for any way to extort cash from their customers to make up for that.

[BlackNMild2k1]

The subscription fee was confirmed I thought... At least for Japan.

[broodwars]

The subscription fee was confirmed I thought... At least for Japan.

Just from reading the RPGamer version of that article, there will be a subscription fee but right now it seems like that fee's just for the online portion of the game.  Supposedly, there is actual offline singleplayer content you won't need a subscription fee for.  That's what I've gleamed from the announcements, anyway.

[Monteblanco]

This read to me as shower of cold water. I have little interest in any kind of MMO, although it is not clear to me that this is the case. If it plays like DQIX, I wouldn't have much problem with. Still, it is not clear how the online portion would be handled and I will have to wait till I can have a final opinion. That said, the online fee is another big issue. I am pretty sure this will stick with the Japanese market but it might be a big barrier in the anywhere else. I have no intention of playing a game with such fee, no matter how cheap it is. I guess there is a good chance they will not charge it in the West but we will have to wait to see.


I thought this would be one of the high points of the Wii. How disappointing it is unveiling to be.

[Chocobo_Rider]

Monteblanco-

I really, truly believe this will be like DQ9 but instead of "visiting" just on of your friend's worlds, it is as if dozens of people (including you) are visiting someone else's world (the persistent one).

I also really, truly believe that there will not be a fee outside Japan.  Honestly, looking over the facts, I don't know how anyone could logically arrive at that conclusion.

If I'm wrong about these things, so be it.  But I'm psyched for this game (see avatar) and I certainly don't plan to pay no stinkin' sub fee!

[famicomplicated]

Something I will try and look out for in next month's Famitsu - their most anticipated games list.
DQX has been in the top 3 for the past 2 years, I wonder if this announcement will change it.


(it will)

[Tybo68]

This is a bummer for me because I love IX and I want a good single player wii RPG. Online means nothing to me I want a story that I can immerse myself in on my own.

[TJ Spyke]

Which you CAN. As the original post says, you do not have to play with others if you don't want to.

[Killer_Man_Jaro]

Why can't singleplayer games be strong singleplayer experiences, and multiplayer games be strong multiplayer experiences?

The quick answer to this is that pre-owned sales of games are a very legitimate problem for the big developers and publishers, so many of them nowadays will put forward concerted efforts in their design to make sure players stick with their game even after they've seemingly finished it. One of the common ways this is done is to incorporate those addictive multiplayer hooks into a single-player experience. And yes, some do this well (Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit has impressive integration from what I've observed) and some do not, like the examples you gave. But if you're wondering why the line between single-player and multiplayer is blurring, that's why.

[ejamer]

Not sure if I'm excited about this or not. A monthly subscription would almost certainly turn me away from the game. Still interested to find out more details though.

[KDR_11k]

It'll bomb unless they make the combat turn based. Which just doesn't work online.

[Ymeegod]

Actually the demo showed it is 100% turnbased.  The other player controls thier actions meaning you'll have to communicate somehow to get combos attacks.

And the game still sounds like PSO which isn't an MMO really.  Sure hundreds of players where playing but that's just in the lobby but in gameplay it was down to a 4-party team.  DQX looked to increase the party to 8ish players/monsters--from the demo it looks like you can capture/recuit monsters to boost your party).  So it's still no a true MMO.

As for the FEE, PSO didn't have one stateside even though there was a Japanese one.  There really isn't much of an JRPG fanbase stateside anymore to justified an fee.  Of course that doesn't get them from charging for DLC content but what publisher doesn't nowadays.

As for the single player, it's still possible to get/see 100% of everything but you just have to recuit NPC which is again similar to PSO.  Hopefully, Square add's personalities to them because I really don't want to play with brainless bots, also hope they add scripts like recent games.

Right now it's hard to judge the game since only the smallest amount of news has been leaked, hopefully more info will be released at TGS later this month.

[Chocobo_Rider]

If DQX has a sub fee outside Japan I will eat a wiimote sleeve live on webcam*

















*disclaimer: in this instance, "wiimote sleeve" means "slice of pizza."

[Tybo68]

Is voice chat something feasible for this game? Bundled headsets would make sense going with Nintendo's peripheral releasing tendencies, but this would actually be useful going forward to the wii u