Warframes Future?

[TormDK]

If a Free to Play game is charging money for their in game store, then it's as released as it can get.

 

This whole "It's beta!" is nothing more than legal cover. You can see "Neverwinter" and Firefly do the same crap.

[Gammaion]

I've paid cash for games, and I own lots of games, but Warframe is one of the best games I've ever played. Its future is bright, considering the hefty sum of cash DE made from the Founders Program.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Gammaion

[Archistopheles]

This whole "It's beta!" is nothing more than legal cover.

 

Right.

 

The damage system, melee system, navigation system and UI, boss fights, and PvP aspects of this game are already done, the "beta" part is just a hoax.

[TormDK]

Other games change their systems without being in beta as well.

 

As noted, if they wanted to test their store (As would benefit a beta) then the platinium sale wouldn't be there.

 

For the record I have no problems with their business plans, Schedule etc. In fact I've likely supported DE more than 90% of it's current player base from a cash spent perspective, but I do have a problem with putting a beta tag on a product that clearly isn't in beta.

[(PSN)MoRockaPDX]

  Many of the biggest publishers have jumped on the MMO and F2P bandwagon, because they are comparatively cheaper to make. The expectation for them are different than a tripleA game. Given that, DE's Warframe has many things in common with TripleA games. Namely, its visual design and quality.  

 

  The Beta status is a big deal too, because Warframe is still figuring out what its going to be. Some of the broad strokes are being figured out, but there is still a lot of room to explore what Warframe wants to be as a game. 

  

  Comparisons to Call of Duty aren't fair for a couple of reasons. Activision has at least two studios developing Call of Duty games to release on alternating years. And Activision has dropped half a billion dollars on Bungie's, Destiny. DE, funds Warframe primarily from users. 

[ndantony]

When the game is in continuous development, it is and has an ongoing future. It is very good for mmo game like warframe to be in development phase. DE is able to continuously build and develop the game to players experience and ideas. In fact, when you hear of "complete development" it means the beginning of the end. The game may have just a year or two left. In other words, the devs are done with the current game and are looking to cut loose...maybe complete taking it offline in a year or two; or struggling stay a few years more with little or no supports... basically, the end is reached either way.

 

Unfortunately, many mmo players lack the knowledge and often request and complain contradictory things... why do you praise and hope it has a future, but you are asking for the end of its future at the same time?... Unless you want to cut loose on the current, what's the point of creating second part when the current game is still in development?!

[Archistopheles]

Other games change their systems without being in beta as well.

 

What other "finished" game has bosses that are just different colored enemies? Did you ever see Vor before his update?

 

This game is raw and unfinished. If they tried to sell this game as complete, people would scoff and dismiss it as a piece of junk.

[RoninJed]

  Many of the biggest publishers have jumped on the MMO and F2P bandwagon, because they are comparatively cheaper to make. The expectation for them are different than a tripleA game. Given that, DE's Warframe has many things in common with TripleA games. Namely, its visual design and quality.  

 

  The Beta status is a big deal too, because Warframe is still figuring out what its going to be. Some of the broad strokes are being figured out, but there is still a lot of room to explore what Warframe wants to be as a game. 

  

  Comparisons to Call of Duty aren't fair for a couple of reasons. Activision has at least two studios developing Call of Duty games to release on alternating years. And Activision has dropped half a billion dollars on Bungie's, Destiny. DE, funds Warframe primarily from users. 

I agree that Activision is financially bigger than DE but they do have to compete against triple A games like Call of Duty. What I don't understand is why people hate on a f2p game like WF but have no problem paying 60 bucks a year (not counting DLC) for a game that barely improves and has some of the same problems that beta games have. Now we are seeing sequels overlap each other and I'm wondering if or when we will see two Call of Duty games in the same week! ;) I think cranking out sequels to soon can divide the community because some people have to play the latest and greatest games.

[zavienh5]

dont really think theres need for warframe 2, y not just stick with warframe rather than creating a whole new everything and just have new updates each month as usual. but if there really is gonna be warframe 2, they better let us carry over our progress

[TormDK]

I don't see Warframe listed as "Early Access" on Steam Archistopheles, and apart from the relatively low Metacritic score, there's nothing on that store page that indicates it wouldn't be released already.

 

So whatever DE may call it, the real world scenario is a bit different.

[XaxalShiba]

It's going to be a while before we see Warframe decrease. In fairness, Planetside (NOT 2) is still online and just recently went F2P.