Huh, that's funny, I hadn't even heard of this, even though I love Obsidian's RPGs. Well, I probably won't play this, but I hope they're successful and manage to gain some additional financial stability with this game.
I'm predicting a great and awesome story with a shitload of bugs, because it just wouldn't be an Obsidian game otherwise.
Assuming they manage the impossible and avoid pay to win or pay to not grind unreasonably mechanics then I might give it a try. Especially if I can drive a Leopard 2 A6 with a Canadian flag etched on the turret.
My friend confirms it is a lot of fun but I can't play it. I don't trust myself to stay productive playing this, WoT, WoWS and lord knows what else. <.<
Well, that's the thing: Armored Warfare has a plot, but one players can follow or ignore at their choosing.
Exactly the same as pretty much every other game then, especially multiplayer ones.
Speaking of which, can we please stop referring to all multiplayer games as MMOs? MMO has a specific meaning - the "massively" part means there are lots of players - hundreds or more - playing in the same game at the same time, in contrast to regular multiplayer games that usually only have a few tens at most. Having a lobby or matchmaking system does not make regular multiplayer games MMOs. 15 people per side in a match is not massively multiplayer. 5 player co-op is not massively multiplayer. Armoured Warfare and World of Tanks are not massively multiplayer. There's nothing embarrassing about multiplayer games; many of them are quite fun, so why not just call them what they actually are instead of pretending they're something completely different?