Jxspyder
-
Posts
422 -
Joined
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Posts posted by Jxspyder
-
-
I took screenshots of prime time last (saturday) night, there was 1 Full server, 1 very heavy, 7 heavy servers and 18 light servers.
The rest were all Standard.
Conversely, right now there are only 10 light servers, 13 heavy servers, 2 very heavy, 1 full, and the rest standard. That would be a significant difference
Last night, if I remember correctly, there were 4 light servers. So while your single server may be a ghost town, it's not true for the game as a whole. We may see a couple of mergers, taking the handful of servers that have been consistantly light and merging them in with standard servers, but I doubt you'll see much more than that. Beyond the transfer ability we've already been told is being worked on.
-
Yes I can. Don't put words in my mouth, I am not saying its massive declining but i am saying with 100% certainty that the game isn't growing. Bioware would of announced the 2 million sub milestone, especially with a asian launch. These are facts, sorry if it's not comforting.
You're right. You can say that. What matters though, is the relevance to your statement. Currently, your statement has zero relevance, because it's backed by.....nothing.
You should look up the definition of "fact", since you're using it wrong at this moment.
There are more light servers then there are very heavy servers. Facts. Stop being a biodrone.Which has nothing to do with his statement that the majority of servers are standard or above. Facts. Stop digging yourself a deeper hole, and admit you were wrong. You're making yourself look stupid.
Another fact. There are more heavy servers than there are light at this moment.
Alright I'm done. Believe what you want but it does not change reality. Servers need to be merged so the game can get back on course. If you don't believe my notion of it then I don't know what to tell you. I'm done with the game till these things are fixed, I hope for your sakes that Bioware addressed these issues. This is suppose to be a win/win conversation but Biodrones defend to the bitter end that there are no serious problems ... just like AoC and WAR.The problem is that you haven't presented reality. Reality constitutes facts. You've presented made up assumptions based on your opinion, and the fact that Bioware isn't releasing press announcements weekly.
Funnily enough, none of the people who are calling out your bs have ever denied that there is a problem with some of the servers. Most of them have even pointed out where Bioware has announced that they're working on character transfers.
-
Nice try there. There are more lights servers then there are heavy+ servers. Stop lying, your hurting the game. Just realize there is a decent population but it's spread too thin and that is killing the community on a lot of servers. MMORPGs are suppose to be backed from 7 PST - 11 PST (which is 1am EST) on a weekend. This game is not. Fix the servers with mergers and everyone wins.
Wait...so you highlight fair and honest, then highlight "standard or above", and base your arguement on the point that there are more low pop servers than there are very heavy. And then attempt to claim he's the one who's lying and being disingenuous?
That's just...wow.
-
No one is crying doom on the game as a whole. What this thread is about is that some servers have population issues and it's ruining the game for some of us. This is a fact.
You clearly haven't been reading this thread very much if you think that. Quite a few people are crying doom and gloom on the game as a whole.
Yes, some servers have population issues. The problem is that it's an issue that takes time to resolve.
No we can make 2 keys inferences. #1 the game isn't growing at all. People playing less this soon after a release when the game is heavily reliant on people playing alts isn't a good thing. #2 Some servers are ghost towns, again this is shown through emperical evidence.No, you can't. You can't say the game isn't growing, just like you can't say subs are massively declining. Because we have no way of knowing. And when the "empirical evidence" you have provided is an observation at 2 in the morning, it's hardly evidence of anything. Yes, there are some light servers. This isn't new to the genre. Even with the "successful" games.
-
It's a truism that some servers are hitting really hard right now with no relief in site. Now we can have quixotic beliefs that we can't make correct inferences since we are missing the 'hard data', but that is far from the case. We have emperical evidence from many servers screenshots showing very little to non existant populations. The photo's are time stamped and anyone can go on those said servers to see if people are 'doctoring' them.
And again, it absolutely IS far from the case. The only inference we can make, once again, is that people aren't playing as much.....which is standard for MMO's between content patches. The other problem with our empirical evidence, is that it's generally a pic of 1 out of nearly 70 zones.
-
Subs dropping on lower active servers are the best measurement for Bioware to fix those servers and thus make the game grow and challenge WoW for premium sub retention in the NA/EU market. This is a win/win scenario for SWTOR's fans. The hypothesis is the game is amazing for a launch game if you are in a active server but terrible for a MMORPG if you got stuck in a ghost town cause Bioware released too many servers. Am I being too unreasonable?
Except we don't have a factual sub drop to make that measurement. All we factually know is that people are playing less in between content patches. We also factually know they are working on server transfers.
Oddly, you can find the same posts on WoW's forums.
So yeah, every NA server is standard with a ton of lights versus 2 that are Very Heavy. None full .... this isn't goodAs of 1:30 in the morning PST. And that surprises you how?
Advance forward 8 hours, and you'll find most of the servers on standard, with only 11 Light. At 10 PST. If you click over to EU, you will find 4 Light servers and the rest standard to heavy...with quite a few being heavy.
In what world do you expect a solid population at 1:30 in the morning?
If I was able to pay 20$ and transfer my character from my original character then I would do it. But the option isn't even given.
That's because the option is being worked on. It's a little harder and more intensive than copy/paste.
-
This pisses me off, I expect sales but literally this soon after launch?
Another who sadly doesn't understand the concept of "24 hour gold box sale."
-
Every milestone they've announced. Sorry, name one milestone this game has gotten that they haven't made very clear to the players. The game isn't making any milestones. Server populations are dropping left and right. I played WAR and other MMORPG's, I've heard many more say the sky isn't falling talk and frankly the sky did fall. Is SWTOR in better shape then those games, hell yes. Bioware needs to wake up and merge servers quickly. There is potential to hold at least 2-3m premium subs (WoW doesn't have all 10 million premium subs, i'll go into this if you ask) if they make the quality of life better or it's going to bleed subs faster then it can retain.
So, as was just mentioned.....in order for this game to not die, they need to break new milestones and announce them weekly? And if they fail to make these weekly/monthly groundbreaking milestone announcements, that tacitly implies the game is dying? Knowing, of course, that you've completely missed the point of the statement you just quoted.
Yes, server populations are dropping as you come off a major holiday, and hit a dull spot in between content patches. As a veteran of numerous other MMO's....you should clearly have seen this pattern before in other, similarly designed games, correct?
-
Not saying a massive drop but based on critical thinking we can assume the game is not growing. Bioware announces every accomplishment: IE fastest growing MMORPG and highest retention out the gate. All these things are great in an MMORPG where the focus was on leveling. Now that the majority of the playerbase is now max level, where are these claims? Nothing for over a month. Sorry every metric and rationale argument shows the game stalling at best, the only debatable fact is how many subs the game has lost.
Actually, we can't assume that. Well, we can, but we're making unwarrented assumptions with complete lack of information.....which brings us back to WAG.
Where did those claims come out? During launch, and during SEC reportings. Point is, major accomplishment announcements come during specific times. Did you expect a monthly announcement from Bio, and if so...why?
The problem is that you're not using metrics and rational arguements. You're making assumptions and guesses with no metrics or rational to support them.
How very insensitive, thank you for your post it helps a ton. Why is it when other people don't experience a problem that they treat others that are experiencing the problem like crap? People shouldn't have to reroll on another server and give up all the work they put into the game over the last couple months.Because he's right. You're complaining about something that was addressed at launch, and then addressed shortly after launch, and addressed a third time last month. Character transfers were being worked on. It's not a simple process. The AU/Oceanic transfer is a major test of the system. Assuming that it goes smoothly with no major problems, it will likely be rolled out soon for all servers shortly after.
If you don't want to reroll, Bioware is working on transfers. If you don't want to wait for them to impliment it, then there's really nothing anyone can do to help you.
-
Well logically speaking we can assume the game isn't growing since Bioware has said any numbers, it's a truism that Bioware is the first to shout about any game accomplishments no matter how inane they are.
The common agreement on the forums is people are reporting there servers are dropping in population, since people can't post on alts and most posts are from different people we can assume there is a massive activity drop.
Of course this could be open to error but I don't think it's unreasonable to think the game has shrunk to 1.3m subs
Logically speaking, you're making a WAG. Wild A** Guess. We've been told that there are 1.7 million subs active as of Feb. 1. Unless you prove that there is well over a million people posting on the forums complaining and informing everyone that they're leaving, you can't assume there is a massive drop. Especially when forum posters traditionally are a very small minority of any MMO's population.
And it's about as reasonable as guessing the population is a random number pulled out of a hat.
Look at the forums and the server stats all of them show that the game is losing subs left and right. No one is logging in anymore, the servers are getting smaller every week. Why I believe last night you didn't even have one heavy server.The game is dying at a fast rate, even AoC didn't have that bad of a die off that TOR is having.
The server stats show nothing of the sort. Because the server stats don't show subscriptions.
-
You must have tampered with the screencap, this game is in outstanding form and will never go down!!!
/sarcasm off
Yep, because every single person in the game is in that one zone, and that one server controls every player in the entire game........
/sarcasm off.
-
And most things are what paying players are looking for.
No, most things are what YOU are looking for. That's it.
Here's an example. I'm a paying player, most of that list is utter trash. See how that works?
-
According to the Electronic Arts Q3 FY12 Earnings Call, you have your facts wrong too.
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.
Last I checked, doubling your money was indeed something to be writing home about. Though again, at 500k, the game can sustain itself. I'm not seeing the problem here, when compared to the numbers they released.
-
Actually you have no idea what you are talking about. The profit margin on the apple products is huge compare to other products by other companies.
So when their products goes on sale they still make lots of money.
Claiming otherwise just shows you got no clue at all what you're babbling about.
Actually, to turn a phrase, apparently you're the one with no idea what you're talking about. You just made a tacit claim that Apple has never had a bad product that flopped when it came to sales. This is utterly untrue, even though they do indeed have solid profit margins with most of their recent product.
Perhaps next time be in less of a hurry to rush to the defense of a product.
-
Three Hundred Million...
And of course, you can back that up with facts, right? You can find websites claiming it's anywhere from 80 million to 500 million.
Six Hundred Billion, Kajillion, Septillion.....
See, I can do it too. And have it be just as factually relevant. Want some numbers that are factually correct and relevant? 500,000. The number of subs required for the game to be profitable. 1,700,000. The number of subs EA reported in a legally binding shareholders conference.
-
Well, then you are truly delusional. Not one server population that I've seen has been listed as "heavy" or "full" anymore. They're all 'light' or 'standard' now. You can't possibly believe that all those 1.7 "subscribers" are actually playing the game.
Take me for an example. I'm currently a "subscriber" because I bought 3 months of game time (regrettably), however, I hadn't logged in for over a month prior to about 2 days ago.
Actually, the problem isn't that he's delusional, it's that you're ignorant. There are several servers that list as heavy and full. Aside from that, server caps were increased. When you increase server caps, you change the numbers that constitute standard and heavy.
So you can cling to those numbers as much as you like, it doesn't change the fact there are 35 people on the fleet during prime time.Pot, meet kettle. It also doesn't change the point that the number of people on the fleet constitutes the server's population.
-
You mean to tell me a mini rail shooter is insufficient to hold players' attention/dollars? Pre-launch there were numerous posters who insisted that a lack of meaningful space combat was perfect for keeping the masses indefinitely. Where be they now?
You mean you bought TOR for a mini-game? Did you buy WoW for it's rousing fishing game as well?
I have this wonderful toy I can sell you. Its called a slinky.. You + Slinky + Stairs = Endless amounts of fun..Hundreds of hours of content doesnt make the content actually worth playing. And sorry but doing daily's and Huttball for the 5 millionth time doesnt count as exciting or fun.
You seem like someone that would be extremely easy to satisfy. Have all consumers forgotten what getting a good product actually is? This certainly isnt it..
You seem to have forgotten what an opinion is. This absolutely is one. It's not universal.
-
Are you trying to state that natural drop off in MMO's doesn't occur and isn't a fact?
Or do you believe that every single box sale always translates into mid-long term subscriptions once the first 30 days is up?
If you believe the latter, I have a bridge for sale in London if you want it.
Not at all. I'm also not trying to link that drop to any specific causitive action. Go ahead and keep your bridge.
Yet according to some on these forums there are 1.7 million people playing. Never have 1.7 million people been so elusive, come on guys where are you hiding.Because all 1.7 million are logged on and playing at exactly the same time.......
-
Actually supply and demand is contrary to what youre saying. The more popular the game is, the longer it should stay at full price. That is why every game in the world drops its price as it gets older, and less popular. That is economics.
Your statement has been disproven multiple times already. Point of fact, Amazon disproves it with nearly every major launch. 4th of July sales, President's Day sales, (Insert holiday here) sales, hell Black Friday...the single biggest retail day of the year...all disprove it as well.
For that matter, you should probably educate yourself on what exactly Amazon's Gold Box sale is, before you try to lecture people. You'll look much less ignorant.
-
None of this applies to the side discussion at hand (I say "side discussion", because I explicitly said in the preamble of my post that I have no interest in what this sale means in terms of the game):
The argument was that a well selling item should have its price lowered, ceteris paribus, as a general economically sound idea, not as part of a larger marketing strategy, or in order to increase subscription income. This is the idea that Meldwyn and I were arguing against.
I understand that it might be valuable to give the game away at a loss in order to make income from subscriptions, but if someone said "you should give property away at $0, learn economics people", I would argue against this as a general economic principle, which is what it was presented as.
Actually, all of it applies to the side discussion at hand, because the poster you're arguing against was making his statement in regards to Amazon's Gold Box specifically. Not worldwide economics as a whole.
The arguement was that a well selling item can have it's price lowered, on Amazon Gold Box for a 24 hour period, as a general economically sound idea. An arguement that Amazon has proven to be a solid practice for it's business. Nothing within his arguement applies outside of Amazon's business model. Which again, is proven successful.
No.Items that sell well and keep on selling keeps a high price you do not need to put it on sale as as lose leader to generate income. Why would any company lose $10 per item if it is still selling well and keep the $10 for itself.
Gaming wise if a game goes on sale on a major trader like Amazon, gamestop etc means its coming down in price and they are shipping as many as possible before it drops further by creating a discount which is higher than its price will be in 2 months.
Which is why every single day Amazon does the exact same thing with other items, and why no other major retailer had a similar 24 hour sale, but rather sold the same game at it's $59.99 mark?
Free Pancakes @ Ihop!Proof pancakes are failing, buy more waffles.
-
Feel free to save your quote of my post and refer to it in 2 months
Link to analysts forecasts please?
Links to server pop data please? (Actual player numbers, not banding for high/med/low which changes and is different per server)
This game will take a very long time to return anything significant back to it's investors.
Do the math, it's not difficult.
You're welcome
Typical dodge. "Next month it will fail." Why are you still here if that's the case?
Go through any of the population threads, and you'll find the links to EA's stockholder conference call, which presented us the only factual subscription numbers we've seen, as of Feb. 1.
This game needs a 500k sub base in order to return investment. After the first round of 30-day subscriptions, it had 1.7 million, with over 2 million boxes sold.
Did the math, still not failing. Sorry that bothers you so much.
-
They spent what, 5+ years and the GNP of a small 3rd world country to develop this turkey? You want fries with that? You insist on comparing this with WoW of 2004. Sweetie, this is 2012. The world has moved on, WoW has moved on, the only thing that hasn't moved on is the TOR-tannic...it's still stuck in a time warp back in 2004 with the fanboys screaming "LOOK AT VANILLA WoW!!!". Of course, when anyone actually does compare it to WoW, the same usual suspects will be screaming "YOU CAN'T COMPARE IT TO WoW!!!". Closely followed by "GO BACK TO WoW!!!". Not a problem...I did.
As far as content goes, this game has plenty of content. It's just pointless to do because they screwed the pooch on delivery. Space combat for example? C'mon...it's "Asteroids" circa 1984 with better graphics. And why do it? So I can buy some cloth armor none of my toons can use? NM? Why bother? Besides being bugged severely, what's in it that's worth the pain of assembling a group? Jeez, why bother...you're just going to tell us to roll yet another alt, and go through the same lame quests in a slightly different wrapper yet AGAIN, cuz that's what this game is all about.
And Blizz spent 13+ years and the GNP of 2 small 3rd world countries to develop it's turkey. You want a hot apple pie with that? Sweetie, I'm well aware of the year....though I'm mildly creeped out by the sweetie bit given odds are you're a random guy who's probably younger than me. Funnily enough, I never insisted that you compare this game to any other. Though I love how your entire arguement is based on hyperbole...but apparently I'm the "fanboi." I'm am happy you went back to WoW though, good for you. Why are you still posting if you hate the game so much you left?
Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, this game was never targeted towards you?
-
I don't want to sound terse but....Just go play WOW, and leave those of us who appreciate the storytelling of this game, to play in peace.
Go have the 'hard core' experience, somewhere else. >_>
I don't want to sound equally terse, but you should take his statement in context instead of focusing on how to respond.
-
Look, I have no interest in this sale, or what it might mean, or fanboys vs haters. I just needed to point out that you guys arguing with Meldwyn are being nonsensical.
The poster he was responding to was saying that items which are selling well can afford to go on sale, and thus are put on sale, and then said that we need to learn economics.
Now, consider this:
if an item sells poorly, you lower the price to drive up sales. Makes sense.
however, if we listen to TheOnlyKyrenS, if an item sells well, you lower the price.
Taking both together, no matter whether an item is selling well, or selling poorly, you lower the price. This makes no sense!
If you want to increase sales, lowering the price can be a good idea, but TheOnlyKyrenS suggests that an item selling well means that you should lower the price. Following his reasoning, the price would quickly go to selling at cost, since lower prices would increase sales, which would mean it's time to lower prices again.
If you notice, he backtracks (wisely) in a later post.
Nothing against him, we all have thinking errors sometimes, but let's not compound it by arguing for a nonsense position.
If you want to increase sales of a standard item, sure. Much like many other items, the initial "boxed" item isn't the primary source of income. Razors have been brought up, as have copiers. MMO's are another. Especially when the sale in question, has nothing to do with EA/Bioware, but rather by Amazon in a rather common sales tactic that Amazon partakes in....hourly.
Claiming that this single sale means anything to Bioware/EA/TOR...is kind of dumb, given the evidence.
What are the things that made you stop playing?
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Jxspyder