I'm not personally sure that Titan will be all people think it will be. I don't think even Blizzard are so arrogant to assume that Titan will be as much of a success as WoW was. After all, MMO history proves that it doesn't matter what your past history has been in the industry, you can always mess up your next project. As Brad "Everquest->Vanguard" McQuaid, and Richard "UO->Tabula Rasa" Garriot both proved.

So, are you trying to say that just because TOR won awards and had a successful launch, you think that it's long term success is guaranteed? Lol. Seriously? I've heard this kind of "this game will withstand all competition" prophetic crap before. It's always amusing to see people try to cite reasons why. Since when does a successful launch guarantee anything? Box sales do not guarantee long term subscription retention. Sub levels from the first few months after launch aren't accurate indicators either. Have you seen the MMO industry? It's littered with MMO's that won awards, and some launched quite well. And some where even based on VERY popular IP's like Star Trek. And yet, the majority flopped after 6 months. This ain't hand wringing. It's history. Of course, one can choose to bury ones head in the proverbial sand, and pretend that SWTOR is guaranteed to be an overwhelming success. But that would be very naive. And could ultimately end in dissappointment. I am not saying that TOR is guaranteed to ultimately flop. My point is that TOR stands just as much as chance at flopping as it does at succeeding. But the longer time goes on, the more accurate the indicators will be on the end result.

Irony and contradiction, thy name is Bioware.

Lol. Sorry, but cannot with any degree of legitimacy try to play the "victim" card, when they're receiving a backlash from posting such a deliberately inflammatory remark as "For all the Waaaambulance patients out there...".

Funnily enough, no. Their next one, which incidentally is being published through EA, is due out in June.

Very true indeed. The longer you don't address something, the worse it can get. Of course, no one is expecting the devs to be constantly on the forums, but that's what the Community team is supposed to be for. they are the ones who should be one of the conduits between the devs and the players. Unfortunately, it seems that some of the community management team / devs lack a bit of diplomacy when dealing with issues. Bluntness and sarcasm for the sake of being humourous can often quite literally fan the flames unless steps are taken to address the issue in a more respectful manner.

Well, I have some friends who are thoroughly enjoying the game, and I have friends who aren't and have stopped playing it much. Bioware said prior to launch that they are not just targetting one particular demographic. Which is a good thing.

I am, and I have. There is little in the game that I wanted to experience, that I haven't done already. And therein lies the problem. Even Bioware has admitted that the number of level 50's has caught them by surprise. Which shows that they have under estimated their intended audience. Funny thing is, there are many threads containing constructive feedback, but certain "closed minds", cannot seem to differentiate between the different levels of quality in feedback. Those minds perhaps cannot fathom how anyone can have an issue with the game. Those minds are the ones who label ALL feedback as nothing more than illiterate "QQ'ing" babble.

I agree. Communication should always be two way and be as concise as possible. However, I will give Bioware credit, they've just started asking for "focused feedback" on subjects. Beginning first with PVP. Thus in this case, Bioware are driving the feedback discussion. And I think that is a good thing to do. Well done James. Of course, it shouldn't end there, Bioware should then reciprocate. However, I look forward to seeing such "bioware focused" feedback discussions in the future. I agree. I believe that variety and options in content are keys to success. The game needs to be "fleshed out". The question is, how long will that take?

What makes you think that some of the forum posters are the only people who are unhappy? What about all those who never post? Or those who never visit Forums full stop? It would be naive to just assume that they are all satisfied. A lot of customers leave MMO's without ever posting on the forums. They are the "silent" players. And they are the ones MMO devs watch out for. And history has shown that threads on forums can often be just the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to the level of satisfation / dissatisfaction that exists with the product. However, I agree, there are ALSO a lot of people currently enjoying the game. So anyone who reads the forums should try to look upon the situation as being one sided.

Very true indeed.

Bioware's "target" audience isn't just people who like story. They actually made a point of remarked how they also trying to target other demographics. To paraphrase Daniel Erickson in an interview: "those who wish to progress their end game character, which we call the 'traditional MMO mindset', are a huge part of our target audience". Which is why the "well perhaps this game isn't for you" line is never a good one to use, because it can actually backfire. Causing negative ramifications, affecting the experience of those who are left playing the game. That's why you'll hardly ever hear MMO devs use it. Now, whilst 3 months is not very long in the grand scheme of the world, it is not those 3 months that's the problem, it's how long AFTER those 3 months will people have to wait to see the features and changes that they feel are important. And when the devs like to employ the "mushroom method" of communication, it is futile to expect people to just carry on subscribing indefinately. When a person is being expected to pay for a subscription, time is money.

Alternatively, people can use the [.spoiler] [./spoiler] tags (without the . in there of course). Like this:

Translation: "I like the game and everyone who has a problem with it, is wrong so I will call them names."

You are ignoring the fact that in many cases its the focus on a particular feature that can have a profound impact on the development of all other features prior to launch. With AOC, it was the melee combat. With Rift, it was the Rift's system. With SWTOR, it was the "story". Now, whilst it is understandable to try to "design in" a feature that sets the product aside from the rest, sometimes too much focus is paid to that feature at the expense of creating a more "well rounded" product that can adequately compete in the current market. Resulting in the polished "feature" being overshadowed by other elements that are seen to be of lower quality and/or quantity because of that focus. it's like a car company focusing so much on the interior, that they end up under-developing the engine.

? No. Rebel Assault? Yes. Notice how, just like SWTOR's space combat, Rebel Assault allows for only a small deviation from an already set course. The ship cannot veer off from that main course. Now, Rogue Squadron differs to the above, the player controls the direction in which the ship flies. Therefore, SWTOR's space combat has very little similarity to Rogue Squadron in terms of control. Comparing the two differences in gameplay is like comparing the differences between the "House of the Dead" control system with that of "Call Of Duty". The latter granting "full control" over what the avatar does, when it does it, and how it does it. The former only allows for partial control. Removing the possibility of radically changing tactics "on the fly". And it's that lack of allowing for "dynamic elements" that is one of the biggest criticisms of SWTOR. That one design decision alters the entire situation. Unfortunately the devs refuse to discuss such possibilities. Immature comments aside. You are most definately wrong here.

The only way is what I refer to as "space jousting". Which in my opinion is an awful concept for an MMO. Unfortunatley, some people cannot see the proverbial wood for the trees.

You mean like how EVERY OTHER MMO dev company also has to? Sorry, but Bioware is in the same situation as all the rest. No excuses. It's obvious that Bioware focused "story" at the expense of developing other elements. And now they are playing "catch up". Possibly at the expense of losing some customers. Just like Funcom did with AOC. Those who do not pay attention to the past, are doomed to repeat it.

Who's raging? I'm not. I'm just pointing out the obvious bias and gross errors in your previous post.

No, it didn't take blizzard 7+ years to development some of the features that came after its launch. Each feature was under development for a lot less time than that. Nevertheless, other MMO's have launched since WITH features that WoW didn't have at the start. This is why it's futile to cite WoWs launch state as a benchmark to work with.

I suspect that Bioware did do their homework, but their obsession with "Story" took up too much development time to do much else.

What you posted isn't an "insight" at all. Any validity you may have had in your post is grossly overshadowed by your obvious bias, and rampant desire to rip into anyone you see as "QQ'ing". You conveniently forget to mention how the devs rely on the "mushroom method" of communication in the hope that players won't get pissed off waiting for the devs to play "catch up" with the competition which has either already refined it's product, or brought out new ones. The reality of the situation is quite simple: if you launch a product or service that doesn't suit a customers needs, then don't expect them to continue indefinately to give you money for the service out of some form of misplaced loyalty. Especially when the level of the competition is constantly rising both in quantity and quality. You snooze, you lose.

Past studies done by universities in America showed that the average gamer plays an MMO for about 23 hours per week (just over 3 hours per day). SWTOR's devs have actually remarked how players are currently playing beyond that mark. Now, we apparently have an estimated 200 hours of content per class. And that a sizeable portion of players are more interested in progression their "end game" characters. Also, there's so many companies jostling each other in the MMO market, that players are inclined to "jump ship" now more than ever. Gone are the days of undying loyalty due to a lack of competition or a belief that things will get better. Sure some will stick around an MMO. But a lot leave within the first year or so. So I very much doubt that 14 months mark is anywhere close to being correct. Even James Ohlen admits that the quantity of people hitting max level only a few months after launch has surprised Bioware. Which indicates that they sorely under-estimated their intended audience.

Some have already experienced that "world of stuff". And it's not a world, more like a small village of stuff in the Lakes. And rolling alts isn't the answer in all cases.

Right now, yes, things make look rosey. But quite a few MMO's looked to have a rosey future, but ultimately ended up losing the majority of subs when those "locusts" you refer to left the game. There's an old saying: don't count your chickens before they hatch. An MMO can have masses of "potential", but potential is only of worth when it is brought into reality.