bobamech
-
Posts
67 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Posts posted by bobamech
-
-
The only complaint I have with TORs endgame group content is that it's not difficult enough, thus people are finishing them too fast, especially the Content Locusts.
You can't really blame them. It's not their fault that BW is using similar PvE mechanics from all other MMORPGs such that there is no innovation in the encounters. This is why MMORPG companies need to either push PvE end game content like crazy or focus on creating dynamic PvP encounters, both which Bioware has done an abysmal job at considering the number of years they spent on this game.
-
if they manage to stabilise the population around or over a million subscribers.
this comment made me laugh. I logged on for the first time in 2 weeks today, and fleet is now down to 15 people @ 11 PM PST. It used to be at 75 a little over a month ago at the same exact time. I wouldnt be surprised if they end up losing another 30% subscriber base considering many have already unsubbed during their free month.
-
I think TOR had the potential to be one of the best MMOs, but the fact that it's frequently dubbed "WoW with lightsabers" will prevent that from happening unless the devs can think of a way to make this a niche'd game.
I've been playing MMOs since Everquest 1998 all the way till now, and this game doesn't have much in innovation that made me really care for it. Please don't mention the single player VOs because it's static content that doesn't really affect the MMO experience that much.
One of my favorite multiplayer games of all time was Xwing vs Tie Fighter. If they can somehow take the space part of this, revamp the system, make it a MMO, that could be pretty interesting. Just imagine having space sim battles as well as ground battles against each other. That's what MMO in Star Wars should really be imo. Unfortunately either the technology or the lack of experience will prevent that from ever happening.
-
It takes tremendous work and time to create. It takes nothing to sit back and experience. The devs cannot generate content as fast as the hardcore players gobble it down.
You make it sound like paying customers owe Bioware gratitude for not making the game fun for them.
Bioware can have all the time they want to improve their game when I'm not paying for the subscription
-
He was the head community guy he was a big deal. He was at every SWTOR event. He wasnt just some CSR they let go. Also with 1.3 being delayed with no eta in sight you think its normal to go in and layoff half the QA testers? Then the same day put out an ad saying you are hiring QA testers? You think thats normal? What world are you living in?
We don't know what was the quality of work he was doing in the office. As a head community guy, it's his responsibility to show up at every SWTOR event. Does that necessarily mean he was doing a good job? You might think so just because he showed up, but we don't know what he communicated behind closed doors at the office.
Also regarding QA work for a game, it's not difficult to replace them. I highly doubt the people that got laid off were SDET (Software Development Engineer in Test) engineers. They'd probably be your normal game tester (which get paid very little) e.g. play the game, run through test cases, document, and report back. So in that regard, I think it's normal. I'm more concerned about the other people that got laid off, specifically people who spearheaded design and direction of this game. The CM and QA team are not responsible for that.
-
You dont normally lay off QA people on salary (not contract) and you def do not lay off your head CM.
Had to reply to this because it's funny to read. You don't need many professional skill sets to be a CM. The CM is just the liason between the customer and the owner. Just because you're active on a message board or Twitter doesn't necessarily mean you're a good CM.
-
Most of your responses shows why you're still in school in your major. If you believed that much in investor materials, maybe you should have also invested into Facebook.
I'm pretty much done. Keep at your major. You're doing an excellent job
-
I was citing not only stock price, but stock trends over the course of the last year for multiple companies in the same industry. The fact that they seem to follow a similar pattern with the post Nov '11 dip would seem to indicate that there are market-wide factors influencing EA's current stock price more strongly than other potential factors that have been cited here (such as some less-than-positive SWtOR news, which came out rather recently and don't seem to correlate with any significant drop in the stock price). However, that was in a discussion with another person. I don't recall citing stock prices anywhere in my discussion with you. Only the shareholders' reports.
I was referring to your other comments to the other posters. If you are an investor of EA, why would you be comparing your company to other companies? You should be focusing on EA *only* especially when the gaming industry itself is extremely volatile.
Could you be specific which "terminologies" and the "real meanings" you're referring to? Could you also explain ... implies that SWtOR is in any way suffering as an MMO?
"Let me provide you with an update on Star Wars. Through the end of the quarter approximately 2.4 million units have sold through. In our last call we indicated that we had 1.7 million active subscribers, and as of the end of April, we now have 1.3 million, with a substantial portion of the decrease due to casual and trial players cycling out of the subscriber "
1.7M -> 1.3M at the end of April. This only considers active accounts, not active players. Again this is a shareholder event so no point in mentioning active population. People care about how much revenue a game is making them, not how many people are playing. Active accounts encompass trial players, subscribed accounts, inactive subscriptions. He also never defined the word "casual." I defined my thoughts on the word casual in an earlier post.
"driving up people who are all percentage of paying subscribers. We have already launched a number of initiatives designed to growth subscriptions. Initial responses have been positive and we are encouraged by the gaming community's reaction. "
A number of initiatives in layman's terms could include hot patches, the rak ghoul event, communication on public forums following 1.2, offering free trial events, etc. "Initial responses have been positive" just means that initially people think it's cool. It makes no reference to actual forecasting or current trends following that. There's no reason for them to panic their investors by mentioning it.
If you deduced all that, you will realize it's suffering as a MMO. The fact that server populations, not active subscribers, at prime time is a clear indication of declining trends.
By the way, could you specify what training/experience you have that would give you greater insight into these "real business terminologies" you refer to?Lastly, you don't need training to deduce this. You will figure this out after you start working for corporations and listen to your SVP/CTOs give spiels about your last quarterly results from your projects. No one is going to tell you, "we're doing bad guys."
The glass is always half full.
-
Would you mind linking to the conference call, by any chance? I like to double-check sources. (No offense intended.)
http://investor.ea.com/events.cfm?list=Past
Look at the latest EA transcription for the fiscal year
That's part of my problem with that. First off, this is apparently secondhand, so the terms are being used a bit out of context. Without that context, I have a hard time determining just what the words are being used for. They could be using the words "casual" & "hardcore" in a sense of general gaming habits or their habits with this game, i.e. a "casual gamer" versus a "casual SWtOR player", a "hardcore gamer" vs a "hardcore SWtOR player". Even then, it's not AS informative as I'd like. I prefer being able to look at real numbers.The fact that you say you're majoring in the field tells me you have a lot to learn about politically correct business terminologies as well as as the real work place. Citing stock price isn't helping your argument. You're slowly turning into another "JeramieCrowe"(sp?). When you start working for major corporations in the industry and have to sit through the all hands meetings, you will need to decipher the business terminologies to translate the meaning. Only the guinea pig would take those words for face value.
-
You do realize that the shareholders can take EA to court for fraud if they misrepresent things to the shareholders, right?
Like I said (about fifty times, apparently), the 1.3 million is primarily made up of people with ACTIVE PAYING SUBSCRIPTIONS. If you've got something other than a gut feeling that this isn't true, I'm all ears. Until then, I'll go with the actual numbers and the shareholders' info.
And just what are you trying to say? "Technically true but realistically 'seemed to be untrue'"? Could you elaborate on this & provide examples?
By the way, I didn't see any discussion of "casual" versus "hardcore" players in the shareholders' materials. Where are you quoting from in the shareholders' reports/press releases?
My apologies that was the conference call transcription.
I mentioned this on another thread. With 550k subscriptions, Swtor would be "profitable." That number was pulled somewhere off the webs of what analysts and EA were speculating. Obviously they want more than that. If they currently have 1.3M subscribers, then they can legally say they are "very profitable" at the time of statement. When they said that their data showed they loss a lot of "casual" players, that's very subjective. If they were using play time as a metric, it is likely to be fallible, but still legally and technically correct in their statement.
Why can't you "I've just unsubbed, so I came here to the forums to post all about it" people get a new hobby? Or buy some other PC game and play it? Do you really have to come here to "flaunt" your unsubscription?I'm not flaunting about it. i care about this game which is why I still post. I'm just showing you that their statement with 1.3M is skewed. I'm counted in the 1.3M subscribers despite having unsubscribed. I suppose if you take it as flaunting, then I hope it makes you angry and annoyed.
-
Considering that the large majority of the 1.3 million is actively paying subscribers, it would affect the number very little.
Just FYI, I've already unsubbed, but my account doesn't end till late June. End of April to late June is basically a freebie for most, if not all, subscribers that left their subscription active after 1.2 patch.
As for the shareholder documents, take what they said about Swtor as a grain of salt. They were spinning things around that were technically true, but realistically seem to be untrue. For example, the fact that they lost mostly the casual players? On my server, it seems most of the hardcore players left. The casuals to me would be the ones that enjoy playing the various story arcs on each of their characters.
-
Dude ,useless thread. You should know by now people spend 60 bucks on games, get to the ending and then return them to gamestop.eople do not try to complete the games they buy 100% anymore.
This is a MMO. For some people, completing the game may be to finish all 8 class story lines. For others, it's about the PvE end game. And for others, it may be about the PvP end game. To each their own what they want to accomplish.
I have a main level 50 (bounty hunter), and I have several alts. I find PvE grinding very boring especially with the same side quests over and over. If you find the story arcs good, then great for you. For me, the story arcs are very formulaic. I rather be grinding war hero gear than to level another 50 and grind war hero gear again.
-
I actually bought the stock in 1990, not the late 90's but thought that bragging about money was incredibly rude so I changed the post.
FYI Durasturan,
Using http://www.davemanuel.com/inflation-calculator.php, your $10 / share should be equivalent to $17.54 / share now. So you are in fact losing money from inflation.
-
heheh I saw that as well and just laughed!
In all my years Ive never seen a grown adult go on a gaming site and brag about their stock porfolio for that product.
Anyways, ignore these guys argueing back and forth I have a question
On page one some guy claims that TOR is set to make its money back by end of fiscal year (yeah yeah I know the math doesnt add up when you estimate employee costs and licence costs and every thing else, just hear me out here) and that makes it successful.
So my question is, since when did breaking even become the definition of successful for a stock holder or company?????
Things that make you go "bangs head off computer desk over and over and over" huh?
Tell me about it! It's as if people think the $14.99 fee you pay EA/Bioware is 100% profit. haha
-
Actually, John Riccitiello said that TOR is "very profitable". He wouldn't say that in a fiscal report to Wall Street unless it was, indeed, "very profitable". To say otherwise if it wasn't "very profitable" is a federal crime.
Technically, he is right in his usage of "profitable" and "very profitable."
According to Bioware, they only need 550k subscribers to be "profitable." Right now they are "very profitable" in that they have double the subscription at the time the report was released. However, that report was very vague in that it only took into account people who were actively subscribed at the time. If you were on a rolling 3 month plan, you were subscribed. If you had just bought the game for a free month, you were subscribed. If you were patiently waiting for 1.2, you were most likely subscribed. I am curious to see June's call.
I am pretty sure it will show either a small gain or perhaps no loss. Reason: resubscription rate post 1.2 patch to "try out." Also free months were given out to active paying subscribers at the time. My free month ends at the end of June, and I've already unsubscribed so I don't forget.
If you use common sense, you will ignore these "profitable" remarks and stop putting their words in quotes. Play the game and *think* about it. If sparse server population does not indicate a worsening trend, then there's nothing more to say.
-
Dismantling? Strong words. I disagree however, I believe they dismantled the launch staff finally. They are not launching anything anymore so they are not needed. When we open a new development we expand our marketing, and sales teams(residential construction), but when we've got commitments for sales at about 30% we lay off all those extra marketing and sales people as they are no longer needed.
If they start firing developers left and right, than I will worry
I'm not sure what industry you work in, but I work as a software developer at a digital entertainment company. If some of our top guys are let go, that means upper management is not happy with the direction and results of the projects our project managers are spearheading. Restructuring usually happens when an organization is not efficient and profitable at what they do.
In Bioware's case, a 25% drop in active subscription may have been an indication. If they did let go some key design people, it tells me they want SWTOR to go in another direction (possibly for the better?). To earlier posters, salaried developers will usually be the last to go unless they truly are terrible at what they do.
-
I hate to say it, but I called this a month ago when Bioware went silent. EA has begun the dismantling, into maintenance modem the game goes. All they needed was a cross server LFG tool and server mergers two months ago. That's it. And the game would have been a success.
Quit lying to yourself about that. Cross server LFG is a temporary solution.
-
Don't see a problem for us having to pay for transfers, because of a mistake of theirs?
I feel that even after they introduce server transfers, that's just a temporary solution. The game and lack of content is the problem. If they make you pay for character transfer, that's going to be a complete disaster for this game.
-
it was at 6 million and about 20 servers when I played it and now 2.4 million and 4 servers
That's a 60% drop. That can't be dying because it still has 2.4M subscribers. In the end, the only thing matters is going to be the number of people that play the game. If SWTOR has 1.2M servers with 1 person on each, the game is still successful!
-
I have to believe you are just trolling at this point.
He does for the most point like to bring up random points that dont help his clause. I would just stop responding to his posts because it's far from being constructive and frankly a waste of time.
-
Annnnd you're not reading my posts again. I clearly stated that EA has, indeed, specifically targeted WoW. And also that the Doctors have had to come behind EA to clean up, stating specifically that they are NOT targeting WoW. BioWare is the one that has remained realistic about this. Definitely not EA.
I can even dig up quotes if you want.
You're actually making my point for me. All MMOs have borrowed from all other MMOs the features that work. All of them have. EQ2 came out with a kung-fu panda over a year ago. Guess who's copying that now? Hmm? Should we now start calling WoW an EQ2 clone? Because it would be quite accurate.
But we don't, because it's ridiculous.
We also don't compare future MMORPGs with not as popular MMORPGs because it would be ridiculous. Who wants to be mediocre?
Also, I would love to see you dig up quotes supporting your claim. If they weren't targeting WoW, I'd love to hear about why they added PvP and what they were going to do to differentiate this game from all the other MMORPGs out on the market. If they really were not targeting WoW to begin with, they should consider the current 1.3M subscription base to be a blessing.
-
You think all MMOers are in WoW? Last I checked, WoW had 10.2 million subs, about half of those in China. The MMO genre has around 25 million subs. WoW does not have the market as cornered as you think it does.
It was a forgone conclusion that many subs would come from WoW, but was BioWare targeting WoW specifically like EA tried to make it sound? Not even remotely.
If that's the case, why did Swtor mimic much of WoW's game mechanics? Based on the stats you provided, WoW has 40% of the market. If that's not cornered, then I don't know what is.
-
Actually, it wasn't. I kind of feel for BioWare in this regard. Clearly, EA kept touting it as a WoW-killer, and BioWare kept having to come behind EA and say, "Uhhh...no, it's not, and we're not trying to compete with WoW". Both Docs kept saying that.
Don't be so naive. How often do people pay for more than 1 MMO?
Of course this game was intended to compete with WoW. How else do you expect them to get people from WoW?
-
Bioware should have investigated into clustering population nodes together such that it doesn't really matter what server you were on. So for example, if Fatman had less people and Krayt Dragon had a lot of people, the server would load balance such that Krayt Dragon would be merged with Fatman without the end user ever knowing it happened. This could also work later in the evening such that you could potentially cluster light pop servers together so that it feels less barren. The concept of server names could be abstracted out or is more like a "group" you join such that you can always seem them visible.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of companies are comfortable with the set architecture of working MMOs such that they don't want to innovate.
Massive E3 Announcement on Monday
in General Discussion
Posted
Let's be honest here. They can add 20 new warzones, but it's still going to be the same thing. The PVP is fun but it's not a revolutionary or evolutionary PVP system. Winning or losing does absolutely nothing for your faction. All you're doing is grinding for gear, or in the ranked wz case, you are grinding for different colored war hero gear.
Based on this announcement, it's blatantly obvious what type of "MMO" player they are targeting here. It's definitely not the WoW crowd.