Rift did not add new gameplay modes in that expansion. TOR added 2. But yeah, just comparing one specific part to something someone else does and then calling the other brand bad is what objective people do. It's like saying Kia is the better car in general, because they have 6 year warranty.

You realise Blizzard themselves actually are on record saying they regret adding Arenas to PVP as it added another level of complexity to PVP balancing? So, don't every expect another MMO dev to add them except if PVP is their entire focus.

You think this QA test didnt happen? I can assure you it probably did. Chances are bigger that they didn't have the people to actually fix the issue, than that they did not see this. Also, I believe a Dev said something that was basicly: we did a few last minute changes and those solved some PTS issues but added a few others. So yeah, they were working on it.

For $10,- I have spent a couple of nights (sorry, working man with responsibilities, cant rush 16 hours of content in 2 days, and as a roleplayer also do other things than just level) playing and still don't have my main on 55 (though very close) or through the Makeb story. And that doesn't count the Imperial side i haven't touched yet, or the macrobinoculars, the droid seeker quest and the new Operation / Hard Modes. Also, all classes feel a bit more fresh because of changed trees and new powers, as well as PVP feels fresh again because people need to find out and get used to the new status quo. Totally worth 10 bucks to me. It's keeping me busy longer than any non-raid/operation content patch has without repeating content. Sure, it's not the same amount of time as a full priced expansion levelling wise.. but in all other aspects it feels new and expansion worthy. And that for 1/4th the price!

And you do that, through gear. And you really miss my point: at 55 there IS a gear advantage. It is smaller, but it still exists. That is why I called your friends fools and impatient for unsubbing over, what is basicly, a temporary situation. And gear resets and having to regrind is as much MMO as what you say.

Oh my god.. Someone pinch me.. someone pinch me. I mean.. as long as I have played MMO's, the most common complaint is "The PVP is unbalanced." Heck... it is even in my sig! But now.. I go to the PVP forums and I see complaints that basicly boil down to: "The PVP is balanced! Please unbalance it again!" This has to be a dream.. it is so silly it can't be real life. Someone pinch me!

Then your 7 guildies are fools and tools. And very impatient for people that want to gain advantage through gear. You see, Bolster was made to equalize all gear in the below 55 brackets. But once you hit 55, all Bolster does is increase stats to that of level 55 entry level PVP gear. So any gear you get above that, you will get a gear advantage again just as you had before. The advantage will be smaller, because gap between entry and max gear is smaller, but it is still there. So there is still something to strive for. Gear will be less important, but not entirely unimportant.

The funny thing is? They did just this. Or did you think all bug fixes, microbinocular quests, droid seeker quests, and even the new Operation were all part of the plan for Makeb? Because seriously.. all those things were never announced to be a part of Makeb. Developers even stated that "Free 2 Play gave them the chance to add more to Rise of the Hutt Cartel than originally planned". The only thing I also really missed that you noted is them not making the launch more exciting ingame. I also really missed an ingame launch event. Which kind of takes away a big feeling of it being an expansion. But still, as pointed out by others. The only thing that was ever said about Makeb was that it would be the "biggest piece of non expansion content". Never was said it would be for free, it was at best suggested because it was said to be non-expansion, and at the time (with F2P not openly considered yet), they wanted to commit to being able to give subscribers more content than any other MMO out there. A mission that, of course, changed when Free 2 Play happened because they wouldnt't have the budgets anymore. But that was also Makeb. RotHC is more than Makeb. It is Makeb + new powers + 5 levels + new operation + Hard Mode versions of FPs that didnt have them before + Two new end game activities (binocs and droids). The only thing Ohlen was quoted on was Makeb, not these other things. And looking at just Makeb. It sure is a lot more than any non-expansion content I've seen in any MMO. So he didn't lie in that it is just that Furthermore, you assault me on using WoW as examples while it wasn't WoW you played? Well, I only used WoW when you claimed that "no MMO expansion was without" claims. And seeing most people know WoW, using WoW examples are easy examples to fact check, and most posters even remember what WoW added and when. Not to mention it is still the market leader, so if MMO's even have anything close to a standard in these practices (which they don't) it is logical to compare to the market leader.

You didn't claim it an opinion. You stated specific facts (less than 1/10th of any other expansion, only expansion done in under a day, etc..) and later claimed your initial rant was constructive criticism. Those are the only things I challenged. Not your actual opinion, but the way you present it. The fact you assault that personally back to me, only works against your stance. I had hoped to be able to teach you a bit on how to really state feedback in a constructive and truthful manner, shamefully you did not take that from my comments. Let me put it this way: When I say: "You are self entitled crybaby." I am not stating an opinion, I am trying to claim that the state of you (being an idiot) is a fact. When I say: "I think you are a self entitled crybaby" I am stating an opinion, which I can then try and support by stating some facts I have seen. The thing with those supporting facts are that, I am responsible for making sure they are factual. If I would, for example, claim; "you only whine and state nothing truthful or constructive in all your posts" the fact that you actually do have other input than only whining, and that you do point out some hard truths and ideas for improvement completely debunk my entire opinion. Therefore, I would never want to claim such a thing as fact. In your initial post, and this is the problem I tried to present, you wanted to support your view or opinion in a hostile manner while not presenting the basis of your views in a factual manner. And this is why you are getting so much resistance. Not because the people that challenge your views are 'fanboys'.

Having gone through this thread, I noticed this little quote from the OP: And I wondered why he thought his first post was feedback and not a rant. Or why he felt it was constructive. As many posters here clearly did not see much constructive on his comments. I am not interested in finding out exactly if this claim was true or not. Because it seems to be the basis of the OP's position of being allowed to describe his desire for these things in the way he does. And through that analysis, I hope to educate this entire thread on what is actual constructive feedback in a forum environment. To be sure to be factual and make an honest assessment, I will first determine what constructive feedback is. As a source to define this, I want to refer to the 'for Dummies' website from the famous 'for dummies' series of books. The website defines constructive feedback the following: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/giving-constructive-feedback.html Please browse that as it is the basis of this analysis. Important is the basic description of constructive feedback: Constructive feedback is information-specific, issue-focused, and based on observations. Then also, the good basis of constructive feedback starts with determining the content of the feedback in the first sentence. Looking at the OP, we have this: That first sentence does not make specific what the actual problem is. As it does not begin setting up the content of the feedback. Feedback is, in it's essence, a personal thing. So the OP should have focused it by saying: "I feel" or "I have seen" or something else. This line has more of a rallying cry feel. Even challenging. The way the question is presented does nothing to actually present a personal view. By using the words "who really considers ..." it challenges those with the opinion that do consider it without giving any actual input on what the OP considers, and why. He may come back on this later. But first impressions are everything, especially in feedback as the receiver may close down if the form of feedback is too critical, and this first impression is not one of constructive feedback. Let us go on to the next part: Well, one thing the OP does well in this bit is express concern when compared to other MMO's. Which is a good and acceptable thing to do when presenting more negative constructive feedback. The concers are clearly that the expansion is small and has very little new content, and he used a number of examples to show just that. It also makes it clear that new content is apparently what the OP desires most from an expansion. Though the problem here comes that by using blanket statements that can be proven to not be entirely true, the OP edges toward not stating clear observations with provable facts, but comes closer to making interpretations on it. This part of his post has a clear goal to deepen on the view of the OP's feedback, which is a good thing. But it misses the goal by statements like: "compared to others that took multiple days at least" -- which is false for a certain subset of players for every MMO out there. Each WoW expansion had people being max level within 24 hours, for example. The vagueness of defining what a day is is one problem here (is it actual time, so taking into account average playtime sessions for most people, or is ingame time?) Many pre-launch players have still not hit max level today, 2 days after pre-launch. Simply because they had shorter play sessions. "(1/10th the size, if that, of any other MMO's expansion content release" It is clearly larger than 1/10th the size of any WoW expansion except Cataclysm, and that is more because it revamped the old world. Though without actual square footage of all these ingame worlds as statistics to use, it is impossible to prove one claim or the other. The problem here was trying to be specific by saying 1/10th without having any specific data to back it up. "oh and "new" level appropriate FP's" Sarcasm is the enemy of constructive feedback. So saying "new" immediately makes feedback more hostile. This is a major issue in this line. And then comes the real problem with the feedback.. the next list of claims of things missed to call it an expansion. There are many wrong facts in here which reduce the value of this feedback and, I believe, completely destroy the argument to go beyond the level of 'entitled whine' so many posters here say. Let me go through them. WoW had 1 expansion without new races.. namely: Wrath of the Lich King. Which launched with no new race, only 1 new class. Most other Western MMO's do not give new races as well. SWG did not have new races in each, LOTRO didn't, DDO didn'tm and many MMO's exist where race does not matter at all because all you can play is human. So a clear, false, claim. False to claim this game did not have it. The classes have been expanded with new abilities as well as 5 new levels. The new abilities change how the classes are played almost as much as the revamped talent trees have.. another thing added that expands the classes. Also, again, many MMO's bring out expansions without new classes. WoW has had 4 expansions, and only 2 had new classes. TOR already said not to expect new classes because it would also mean new class stories, which is a lot of work. This claims that the only good expansion WoW ever brought out was Cataclysm because it revamped the old world and older quest areas. Outlands has not been touched since it was launched and is very old. It shows very well in that game that this area is lower quality now. Expansions of all games have been about new content, not old. And WoW actually got a lot of criticism from players that the actual new content of Cataclysm was very lacking because so much focus was put on revamping 1-60. So this claim is, clearly, false. True, many expansions launch with them. On the other hand, little other games add two new warzones as regular updates in their first year after launch. Take from that what you will. This statement is too vague. Especially considering there are new areas of gameplay with the Micrbinoculars and Seeker Droid quests as well as the new Hardmodes and new Operation. This is new gameplay content, so I really do not see where this expansion did not expand 'areas of game play'. Going by what OP says, it is basicly again going down on feeling there isn't enough new ingame real estate. Those are not areas of game play, but only ingame areas. Admitted, I missed this too. Especially considering the cool events they already had in the past. This was a sorely missed thing. Maybe have a tie-in event for the next expansion? And after this, we come to the conclusion. Which is also still claimed to be constructive feedback. Though I will counter that simple claim by only quoting the first line: This is not constructive feedback at all, but only criticism. The linked article defines it such: "Praise and criticism are both personal judgments about a performance effort or outcome, with praise being a favorable judgment and criticism, an unfavorable judgment. Information given is general and vague, focused on the person, and based on opinions or feelings." I believe my analysis has made it clear enough that this defines the OP's post. And that it is, therefore, not constructive feedback. OP, I hope the website I linked and my analysis will help you. I truly believe you have an honest wish to give constructive feedback. You are, as so many others, merely educated wrong by the internet discussions we all grew up in. I wish you luck in using these lessons in the past and ensuring that when your intent is constructive feedback, you are able to avoid the pitfalls of criticism. All the best.

Good one.. I paid full price for Halo 4 for 10 hours of content, for example. 10 dollars for 15 hours is a steal!

New endgame to do, PVP, the usual. As with any other MMO out there. What else did you expect?

It's not about respeccing, it's about learning a new power from his trainer that cost him more money than he had. Nothing more.

It seems you won the thread! As the biggest QQ right now is the "Bolster is broken!!" complaint and everyone jumping on that. To me.. it just sounds a lot like the first line of my sig. And therefore, another normal day in any MMO. (though i must admit, the naked Bolster bug is quite a problem.. the fact that a level 30 has better stats than a 50 isnt that bad for balancing, as a 50 has more powers and more talents to use)

Is this true? Must see!!!

Nice to see one of the 3 cons is not about Makeb, but more about the rest of the game not being that level. And the UI thing is an issue indeed, though it is also, partially, a taste issue. But I don't understand why the achievements window wasn't made as a simple UI thing like the Legacy one. Can't wait to be able to play it when I get home from work and gym tonight.

I just facepalm at this exploit.. The levelling experience of this game has been critically acclaimed to be the single best levelling experience in any MMO out there. So, a new chance to level comes and what do some fools do? Use an exploit to skip it! Fools I say, let them have their 'lol i was smartz' moment. I'll just do things in my own pace. Also, people getting upset over this; why? In what way are they removing your own enjoyment of the new content? Heck, be happy these people exist. At least they arent killing your quest mobs!

I think George Lucas and the millions he made on merchandise and action figures disagree. Star Wars has ALWAYS been marketed to kids and young adults. The whole original trilogy was about a young boy becoming the hero of the universe, and all the rabid fans of the first age fit that demographic back then. When the prequel trilogy happened, it also got marketed to kids as well as the old fans. And with the Clone Wars series, Star Wars is dragging in a new generation of kids as well. As they will with the new movies too. Star Wars has always been for kids, and can be watched by adults too. Not the other way around. Merchandise made Lucas 10 times more rich than anything else he made off Star Wars. So as long as we spend cash on merchandise, we are still supporting the brand. Disney has been in that same business for years as well. Heck, Disneyland itself is one huge merchandise ride! So Disney and Lucas fit each other perfectly in how to make money. All Disney did, was make sure Lucasfilm and Lucasart went back to their core: making movies and ensuring a steady stream of merchandise while pulling in new generations of kids over the decades.

You are right, this is off topic. So On Topic: SWG is dead, get over it. Back to your claims. None of those sources paint as negative a picture about TOR as you claim, not recently at least. The only clear risk, and that has investors holding back now, is Disney taking over the license. If they indeed focus solely on the movies era, that would mean bad things for SWTOR's license when it comes up. This uncertainty, above anything else, keeps investors nervous. Nothing about the actual state of the product itself has recently caused concerns. So your claim of a consensus of that it was financially failed: That is completely off. The only consensus there is is that it disappointed. Completely different claims though, but you offhandedly made them both. The fact you claim me a fanboy you are discussing this with just makes it clear to me how you stand in it. When I see facts, I present both sides. And if someone presents only one side, I'll present the other. You, however, make grand and general statements. Claiming to come from a position of authority as a self-proclaimed shareholder, while clearly presenting only one side of the possibilities. You even claimed that EA stock is a clear indication that this game was not succesful, a very silly claim considering all other aspects that determine that stock value, and never backed down on that claim or admitted it was a bit overstating what you feel. And yet you call me a fanboy? While you chose to ignore claims that were rebuked earlier for the sake of staying on your own point? That is, what I call, one sided 'debating', also known as 'ignoring the facts that don't fit my view'. And you know who do that? fanboys and haters. I am not ignoring a single fact, you are. The facts are very clear. Is investing in EA a risky business at this time? Yes. Is there anything clear in the long term for this game? No. Are there great risks for a long term investor because Disney took over? Yes. Are there clear indications of improvement and growth despite all these things? Yes. And no amount of stock figures will change that last fact. And that last fact, matters a lot more to us players than all the other ones before that. Those only matter for shareholders, and determine the worth of the EA share. While that last fact will in no way, ever, increase the worth of shares in EA directly. Only clear financial success will do that. And EA did not state clear financial success yet because it was 'too soon to say'. So in that way, all your so called 'experts' who also call it the same, are merely parroting what EA themselves already said.

And SWTOR is to blame for that? As you claim to be a shareholder, you must also know that the real decline in EA stock has more to do with general decline in the entire gaming sector when it comes to sales numbers. With EA being the 'big man' on the gaming entertainment sector in the stock market, the stock shows as much actual company value as it does general sector value. Taking it even further, almost all digital markets have seen a slow decline these last years as well. And some companies felt it a lot harder than others. See, for example, the current state of Apple. Stock value depends on a LOT more than one MMO. So it will also not rise because one MMO does a better job than what was expected from it. The quarterly report with the good news about SWTOR also had bad news in other departments. Also, any positive news from the actual game is also overshadowed by the uncertainty concerning what Disney will do with the license. The point I am trying to make is that the financial success of SWTOR can, in no way, be measured by the response the stockmarkets have on EA's current status. It is just one of many things determining the share's market value. Now, if Bioware was a publicly traded company, you'd have a better story. But it's not, we only have EA. And EA is a lot bigger than one MMO. It is, in no way, wishful thinking. The markings on the wall are very clear. The markets favour freemium models that give the possibility for 'Whales" to spend a lot of cash on a game, while other play it for less money or entirely for free. It is the same way many other markets work, from movies with merchandise in my earlier example, to Las Vegas and it's casino's. Eventually, what it comes down to is creating more ways for people to part with their money in your favour. The time when you bought a box for 60 bucks and never spent another dime on a game anymore are over. The markets have seen game fans are willing to spend more on games they love, so why not give them a chance to do this? Freemium, the model SWTOR and other F2P MMO's use, is a perfect model for this. Another is the B2P + cash shop model like Guild Wars 2 and The Secret World uses. But is also very common in other multiplayer or even singleplayer games already, see the Mass Effect DLC's and multiplayer boxes, or Battlefield 3's Premium model. What all these models have in common though, is incentive for people with money to burn, to spend it on your game. Almost all financial analysts agree on that. Only those who come from gaming and have wishful thinking that this is not the way the market is moving see it differently. Way to twist numbers and timelines. In February 2012 the announcement was made there were 1.7 million subscribers. Around F2P announcement, which was August 2012, the number was "between 500k and 1 million", claiming it to be 'about 500k' from that really twists their words (which were admittedly vague). Taking all possibilities into account, if you take 'between 500k and 1 million' and call that 'around 500k' you are deliberately giving your statement a 100% margin of error. Not a smart thing to do for a self-proclaimed shareholder. That's like saying: "I expect Shell to have a sales number of between $ 0,- and $ 10 billion. Nobody takes that kind of statement seriously. All serious analysts took that number and said to themselves: "Around 750k, most probably below that, because otherwise they would have said 'between 750k and 1 million' " Also, they did not have to say how long they needed 500k to break even. If you have the exact latest statement (from Februari 2012): Q: You've previously said you need about a half million subscribers to be profitable, is that still the case? A: At 500,000 subscribers, we'd break even. At a million, we'd be making a profit but nothing worth writing home about. As it scales up from there, we're talking about a nice profit. At this point with the successful launch, we can take the worst case scenarios off the table. So, especially the last line, means the succesful initial sales probably covered (most of) the production costs. Why else take the worst case scenarios off the table? They were under a million after 9 months though, so not making a profit. In that light, the change to F2P was more than logical, it was the right business decision to make. It was so logical that shortly after the 500k - 1 million sub number they announced F2P. That was clearly one scenario, and clearly not a worst case one, as those were already off the table, and the game never went below 500k. Considering that last bit, official statements since August concerning Sub numbers were all vague but were: August: 500k - 1 million Shortly before F2P launch: Subscription drop has evened out (suggesting it has not gone under 500k, which torstatus.net numbers showed as well, where activity on servers was stable or even slightly rising because of F2P announcement) Post F2P: More subscribers, and 2 million new accounts made. But sure, financial failure is your story still. Next time when you naysay, at least get your facts right.

And there you went wrong. In the last earnings call it was mentioned that SWTOR, together with EA's HUGE sports titles, as leading the charge for EA's digital sales. How can it not be financially succesful if that's the case? They also admitted it was too close to call it a succes, but all signs were up for SWTOR since F2P. And if you look at everything that is true and honest, so ignoring the unbased naysayers, you see that both critical acclaim as well as actual server populations have also been up since F2P launch. The game is, for the first time in launch, in an upward trend again in population, activity, financial state and gameplay. But sure, the financial world sees SWTOR as a failure. Go live on that little bubble of 6 month old truth a little longer. Anyone with any real financial sense doesn't look to 6 months ago, but everything between now and 6 months ago. And in that timeframe, almost every bit of news concerning SWTOR has been positive. When we hear F2P as gamers, many think "the game has failed because it cant live on subs alone". Which is a huge lopgical phallacy by itself, as even the biggest sub game in the world hasn't lived on subs alone for over 4 years now, thanks to paid character transfers, race changes and mount/pet shop. And that doesn't even mention physical merchandise like the Trading Card Game, which also had ingame consequences thanks to the loot cards. When the 'financial world' hears F2P they see a possibility for increased revenue from the already existing customer base. A new avenue to make money off the fans. Like how Star Wars films not only make money on Star Wars flms, but also on merchandise. In many ways, F2P, or more exactly Freemium, is the same. A game that doesn't only make money on subscribers, but also on digital merchandise that allows fans to spend even more cash. So no, you are wrong. The financial world sees a nearly dead subscriber game get a huge financial boom thanks to the Freemium model and probably sees: "This is the future of MMO's." They see anything but a failure.

ahem sorry... seems i misunderstood you for other people in threads we were both in. Where people kept claiming the game only updates the Cartel Market anymore and there are no other updates coming anymore for subscribers. A fact that is, provably, wrong by simply listing the amount of new Cartel Stuff vs non Cartel Stuff since F2P launch, and therefore, a silly claim to make. I apologize.

Ah, there you are again claiming all actual updates are in the Cartel Store. Want me to post the list again of how that is simply not true by looking at the actual Cartel Store and non Cartel Store updates? Or will you just run again now that you dropped your troll comment with no actual basis in any reality except your own head? back to OP: Yeah, I guess the "I pre-ordered after Jan 7th but still should have early access!" whines will top the list for the next week. While I am personally glad they did it this way. They reward the people who simply trusted they would still be playing the game in the Spring and were willing to invest 10 dollars in that in December already. That is a true loyal customer reward program. Every other pre-order still gets the ingame goodies anyway, all the early ones get extra is early access.

Nope, it was always 'supposed' to be staggered of 'up to' 5 days. Bioware was VERY up front about the fact that it was a maximum and that many would get less. The fact that despite that, people still complained about it, is as good enough a reason as any not to take that approach again. Even if it fulfilled the main need for doing it this way; observing the Live servers so you can make sure they could keep coping with the growing amount of players.

Not just after a new expansion.. For more info on this phenomenon.. see my signature.