Eurogamer re-reviews SWTOR

[tzagheru]

Who cares if the game has 50.000.000 accounts or 50.000, if you enjoy the game you'll play it!

 

you should care. 1st because its a MMO, 2nd because more subs=more money for your precious game's future.

[GrandMike]

Who cares if the game has 50.000.000 accounts or 50.000, if you enjoy the game you'll play it!

 

Those who paid 300m$ for the game.

 

Why cant people understand games cost money to make/advertise/run/update, that someone paid/is paying that money and expects that money back with a hefty profit over it.

 

Its such a simple concept.

Edited November 27, 2012 by GrandMike

[LordArtemis]

from the moment BW announced 'the free 2 play option' everyone started saying it's going free 2 play, which are 2 different things, and BW always refered to it as a f2p option. i didn't fail

 

They are not different at all. Most F2P games on the market are the "F2P option" model. It is the very definition of free to play.

 

Again, you are failing to grasp the very definition of the razor and blade market model with respect to what has been implemented. It is a F2P model that is very common, silly to suggest otherwise.

 

F2P does not mean game failure, which I suspect is the false assumption you are trying to avoid by splitting hairs. But you do not have to use weak semantics and misinformation to confuse and discourage truth, you only need to grasp the very real and proven fact that F2P, in most cases in the market leads to both increased profits AND higher subs.

 

It might be wise to stop spreading the falsehood that the game did not go free to play. It did. The facts are incontrovertible.

[Fornix]

It dipped well below 500k in september and onwards when 6 months subs ended (people that are subbed but dont play any more that you talk about).

 

You mean those hundreds of thousands 6 month subs people took on in March to run out in September?

[LordArtemis]

It seems people are throwing around numbers again, either to say the game is dying or it is fine, both of which are probably not accurate.

 

Lets deal with what is most likely, and leave the propaganda from both sides behind.

- Bioware probably expected more subs than they got in the long run.

- Subs have declined dramatically since launch. This was probably unexpected, but recognized months ago most likely.

- The game probably did not meet market expectations. The reasons it did not are probably not mysterious.

- Certain decisions made in design direction probably contributed in some way to losses.

- It was probably expected that most of the staff, or at least the main players would remain after launch. This was even mentioned in the past. The games performance in the market probably changed that.

- Every game suffers some level of attrition. This game is no different, but it is also likely at least some of that attrition was due to poor design decisions and/or poor game performance and promotion.

- Originally it was probably likely that Bioware resisted the idea that they should launch OR convert to a F2P model. That resistance met with poor game performance in the market and the decision was made to go F2P as a result.

- The game launched lacking features many consider common for modern MMOs. Defenders of the game compared the game to games launched 8 to 10 years ago which probably did not help the game's reputation.

 

All of this is VERY speculative but certainly more likely than some of the diatribe that is served from both sides of the fence in this forum.

 

One final likely contention is that current sub numbers are probably less relevant with the launch of F2P. What's now likely more important is revenue. F2P will likely prove a good move, as it has for numerous games in the past, including many that had retention problems.

 

The game is probably not one you could say is "dying" any longer, since subs are not as vital as they were in the past. What will be telling in the short term instead will be the popularity of the items in the market.

 

Only time will tell.

[banedarkeon]

Those who paid 300m$ for the game.

 

Why cant people understand games cost money to make/advertise/run/update, that someone paid/is paying that money and expects that money back with a hefty profit over it.

 

Its such a simple concept.

 

It is a simple concept and I understand it very well. The problem is that people always compare numbers instead of playing the games they like. Even if a game has 50.000 subscriptions, you can still enjoy it and as long as the game remains profitable for the company that made it you will not be affected.

 

People have the tendency to play the game that is the most popular. But the most popular game doesn't have to be the best game (for you). For example Eve Online has around 400.000 subs, and according to many people in this forum is a low number but it's doing very well. I know Eve it's a different kind of mmo but the ideea is the same. As long as the game makes profit it doesn't matter for YOU if 100000000000 billion players play it or 50.000.

 

As for reviews, I stopped reading them a long time ago ... only I make the decision if I like a game or not. Why would I let anyone else influence my decisions.(especially free to play games where you can test the prduct for free)

[Fornix]

Bioware probably expected more subs than they got in the long run.

 

We'll never truly know this, pre-launch expectations have been all over the place. Most announced expectations were relatively modest and didn't even come close to suggesting they expected this game to be a multi-million sub figure game. However, some non-EA related financial analysts predicted multiple millions, just as how for F2P the 50 million figure has been thrown about. And one EA representative mentioned the game had potential to beat WoW. Doom & gloom supporters love holding on to the latter predictions, even though prior to launch many already knew that was bogus.

 

Subs have declined dramatically since launch. This was probably unexpected, but recognized months ago most likely.

 

To be fair, this could not have been unexpected unless EA/BioWare was living under a rock. For years the initial climb / drop rates have been ever increasing. Due to more and more MMO players, without a game to stick to being about, of which for many their own hyped desires are currently at such points they'll never find an MMO to play anymore.

 

The game probably did not meet market expectations. The reasons it did not are probably not mysterious.

 

The reasons to this are questionable. Personally, I remain of the opinion that market expectations have risen beyond realism. People can keep on denying that, as they keep on hopping from MMO to MMO because they can't find what they're looking for. But ultimately they need to ask themselves the following question: "If after all these MMO's, still none meet my expectations, aren't my expectations simply too high?". Then there's the frequent blame to developers for rising those expectations, to which I only hope those who use that as an argument don't have access to Tell Sell and a credit card.

 

Certain decisions made in design direction probably contributed in some way to losses.

 

Of which listening to the pre-launch community was a major one in my opinion.

 

It was probably expected that most of the staff, or at least the main players would remain after launch. This was even mentioned in the past. The games performance in the market probably changed that.

 

If you have roughly 800 staff members listed in your credits, and you let 100 staff members go. Isn't the 87% you remain with, most of the staff?

 

And sure some key figures left, but to many of those I'm not completely surprised. Including the doctors. Their work was done. They've been working on BioWare for the past two decades, their most recent projects: Mass Effect, SWTOR and Dragon Age are practically concluded. Just a little bit of Dragon Age to go.

 

If then, after all you've worked for, your efforts are appreciated by people complaining not just about 1 title, but all 3 of those series, I'd not be bothered to devote another 5 - 10 years of my life to a similar ordeal again. People quickly forget however, there's much more at play there than just SWTOR.

 

Every game suffers some level of attrition. This game is no different, but it is also likely at least some of that attrition was due to poor design decisions and/or poor game performance and promotion.

 

Design decisions which resulted from pre-launch feedback and post-launch feedback differing like night and day. Prior to launch, the general concensus was PvP was of little importance, it'd be a bonus. Warzones would be needless. Operations and flashpoints should just be extra's. Story and replay through classlines to get all of the BioWare juice, that's what mattered.

 

What happened post launch? We want more warzones, we want bigger and tougher operations, PvP matters! Story we just spacebar through, and re-rolling? Is BioWare stupid, this is an MMO!

 

How could any company work like that, if basically all of your initial backers desert you, and you're suddenly developing for a completely different audience?

 

The game launched lacking features many consider common for modern MMOs. Defenders of the game compared the game to games launched 8 to 10 years ago which probably did not help the game's reputation.

 

Many features which the pre-launch community vouched for to never get, such as:

Group finders, raid finders, interface customization, bind-to-legacy gear, etc.

 

Other things which have also been on the objection list by the community prior to launch include things such as:

Reputation systems, achievement systems, non-Star Wars events, cross-server groups for FP's/WZ's/Ops, etc.

[Siorac]

I had to laugh at the article's claim that GW2's have surpassed "The Old Republic's stilted dialogue, basic cinematography and forgettable characters".

 

Guild Wars 2. Where the main hero of your personal story is some wimpy guy called Trahearne, where dialogue cutscenes involve two characters facing each other in front of a static background... yeah, right.

 

At that point it became obvious that this is written out of spite because of... something. Dunno what but don't take it seriously. Guild Wars 2 (and as far as I'm aware, TSW as well) is rapidly losing players, by the way, so the article's claim that new releases have left TOR in the dust seems a bit off.

 

There are just too many MMOs on the market these days and too many people spent years in WoW so they're reluctant to give it up. That's it. Individual quality of the games differ but they all suffer from this problem.

[LordArtemis]

You are obviously of an opinion Fornix that is more forgiving of Bioware with respect to the game's performance, and that is fine. I think it's a bit unrealistic however.

 

I tend to think it is more likely that the fact that MOST of the feedback prior to launch was ignored, not followed (in Bioware's defense perhaps they had no choice) likely contributed to the level of losses. Focusing on end game probably didn't help.

 

I think it's more "devil in the details" problems that probably didnt help retention in the long run.

 

I think that saying they didnt expect more subs than they have now, insinuating the sub losses are normal, employment losses were expected or that the games design was a result of direct feedback before launch is fantasy at best. Not all game defenders state this, but many do, and these contentions are just as ridiculous IMO as those that try to claim Bioware completely ignores feedback, that SWTOR is dying or dead, or that subs still matter as much as they did before F2P launch.

 

As I said earlier, plenty of silly contentions on both sides, one side is too harsh and combative, another too supportive and dismissive, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Edited November 27, 2012 by LordArtemis

[kinghtown]

Who cares what some mainstream magazine says about a game you enjoy playing- I mean I have to assume you people actually enjoy playing SWTOR since you are very active on the forum and keep a subscription. Why does a low score make you people happy? 4/10 feels really low and biased to me. The game isn't perfect but I have a blast playing it.

 

I kind of hate "gamer" culture; some of the most spoiled and easily disappointed people on the planet. If you *HATE* the game so much just quit and stop spreading negativity and all-out sh*tiness everywhere.

[Ifrica]

It dipped well below 500k in september and onwards when 6 months subs ended (people that are subbed but dont play any more that you talk about).

 

EA knew well that it would happen (well, we all knew). Thats why they went F2P. Its momentary spike that will not last because they hadnt fixed their game (instead they focused on F2P) and reasons people left in the first place.

 

Its still same game EA claims is not worth paying for...with a different method of paying for (that sucks badly)...isnt it ironic rofl

 

I'm kind of curious where you got those facts you are summing up, i can't find it, could you please give me links where i find this official news? I marked in yellow the facts that i want to see official release on.

[LordArtemis]

Who cares what some mainstream magazine says about a game you enjoy playing- I mean I have to assume you people actually enjoy playing SWTOR since you are very active on the forum and keep a subscription. Why does a low score make you people happy? 4/10 feels really low and biased to me. The game isn't perfect but I have a blast playing it.

 

I kind of hate "gamer" culture; some of the most spoiled and easily disappointed people on the planet. If you *HATE* the game so much just quit and stop spreading negativity and all-out sh*tiness everywhere.

 

I actually have trouble understanding this reaction. Your right, the review probably means next to nothing, but this is gamers, players in the forum talking about the game. Criticism and compliments go hand and hand. It is the way a forum works.

 

Silence one side or the other and in the end the game suffers the loss.

 

You may be right that some folks enjoy it when they receive what they see as vindication for their critical views. I dont think that everyone feels that way though, especially critics like myself.

 

For instance, I have one specific developer that I fault for the lion's share of what I consider the worst design decisions of the game, a single person that essentially stunted this game from the start in almost every way one could.

 

Not only have I never put a name to that person, when they left the company I did not celebrate his departure. I simply wished him the best of luck in all of his endeavors.

 

Criticism is absolutely vital to this game's health IMO. Most of the best recent changes are directly due to player feedback, some of it rather harsh, and the changes are really making a difference in my eyes.

 

Time will tell, but I think we need more harsh criticism, not less.

[kinghtown]

Criticism is vital, I agree, to keep the devs on their toes and try harder but there is a difference between awareness and civil discussion of flaws and weird, violent entitlement issues and a bad attitude that drags everyone down.

[Ifrica]

They are not different at all. Most F2P games on the market are the "F2P option" model. It is the very definition of free to play.

 

Again, you are failing to grasp the very definition of the razor and blade market model with respect to what has been implemented. It is a F2P model that is very common, silly to suggest otherwise.

 

F2P does not mean game failure, which I suspect is the false assumption you are trying to avoid by splitting hairs. But you do not have to use weak semantics and misinformation to confuse and discourage truth, you only need to grasp the very real and proven fact that F2P, in most cases in the market leads to both increased profits AND higher subs.

 

It might be wise to stop spreading the falsehood that the game did not go free to play. It did. The facts are incontrovertible.

 

You can read it for yourself in the articles posted by bioware concerning the free to play option posts and their dev posts, they literaly said they are adding a free to play option on top of their subscription model, as a sort of extended trial.

 

free to play = no cost at all, hence "free" to play

free to play option = subscription model with option of playing a part for free

 

could actually see is as freeware software and trial software

 

oh and i didn't say anything about failure did i? it seems i offended you, seeing you are using things against me that i didn't say or insinuate.

[Goretzu]

You mean those hundreds of thousands 6 month subs people took on in March to run out in September?

 

My first 6 month sub didn't run out till August or September-ish. With the free time and such.

 

Free month + 6 month sub and at least 1 month free game time = 8 months.

[Goretzu]

I'm kind of curious where you got those facts you are summing up, i can't find it, could you please give me links where i find this official news? I marked in yellow the facts that i want to see official release on.

 

It's impossible to say (unless you have access to EA figures), but there certainly was a serious drop in activity (which as has been repeatedly shown - dispite people arguing the opposite; if what a lot of people said at the time was true SWTOR would be on 2m+ subs still - results in a drop in subs).

 

So around 500,000 at that time is a pretty good guess, it may have been a bit higher if people were still subbed but not playing or a bit less if people were still playing a lot.

[Goretzu]

You can read it for yourself in the articles posted by bioware concerning the free to play option posts and their dev posts, they literaly said they are adding a free to play option on top of their subscription model, as a sort of extended trial.

 

free to play = no cost at all, hence "free" to play

free to play option = subscription model with option of playing a part for free

 

could actually see is as freeware software and trial software

 

oh and i didn't say anything about failure did i? it seems i offended you, seeing you are using things against me that i didn't say or insinuate.

 

 

 

It's called Freemium, or F2P+Cashshop.

 

There's no such thing as a proper MMORPG that is actually completely "free to play" (although there's a few pseudo-MMORPGs that manage with advertising revenue).

[Vlacke]

I had to laugh at the article's claim that GW2's have surpassed "The Old Republic's stilted dialogue, basic cinematography and forgettable characters".

 

Guild Wars 2. Where the main hero of your personal story is some wimpy guy called Trahearne, where dialogue cutscenes involve two characters facing each other in front of a static background... yeah, right.

 

Exactly, GW2 and its mediocre story and characters cannot even be compared to SWTOR, no MMO on the market can even come close to this game in that particular department.

[LordArtemis]

You can read it for yourself in the articles posted by bioware concerning the free to play option posts and their dev posts, they literaly said they are adding a free to play option on top of their subscription model, as a sort of extended trial.

 

Ok, but you must admit they can call it whatever they want, the market defines the model, not Bioware. Bioware is new to the F2P market, not the other way around.

 

free to play = no cost at all, hence "free" to play

free to play option = subscription model with option of playing a part for free

 

This is not an accurate definition. I already gave you the accurate definition. You can certainly be of the OPINION that this is different than the market models, but you cant make up your own definitions for things and then deride folks that label it properly. That is where you are mistaken.

 

could actually see is as freeware software and trial software

 

You could. But we are specifically talking about you deriding other players for calling this what it is based on the market's definition...F2P. The problem is not in your interpretation, it's using that interpretation to deride others.

 

oh and i didn't say anything about failure did i? it seems i offended you, seeing you are using things against me that i didn't say or insinuate.

 

F2P does not mean game failure, which I suspect is the false assumption you are trying to avoid by splitting hairs

 

I didn't indicate that you did of course as the above quote clearly indicates. I indicated that that may be your unspoken motivation in so many words. There was no accusation of direct insinuation or comment, only hidden motivation based on a false assumption like many others that make the same argument. Otherwise why deride others simply because you feel they are defining this F2P system differently than you are? There has to be SOME reason why you are doing it. Logically I felt it was likely to defend the title, like many seem to do.

 

Naturally I could be wrong. Perhaps you can provide your correct motivations in this respect.

 

...and I think you will find it's pretty difficult to offend me. My post history should demonstrate that.

Edited November 27, 2012 by LordArtemis

[Harsisus]

Was that supposed to be a review? It read more like a biased rant from an angry player who likes to troll.

 

No offense, but I agree with this^.

 

I got bored the moment it was clear the Reviewer was biased in favour of WoW, so /care.

 

I enjoy it because it's:

 

A) Star Wars

B) An MMORPG

C) Fun, with lots of content to enjoy

D) It's a freakin' hands-on Star Wars experience

 

End of story.

 

If you're only interested in picking apart the game then maybe it isn't the right one for you; while you go off and rant and ***** and moan, I'll be in my corner enjoying myself kthx!

Edited November 27, 2012 by Harsisus

[LordArtemis]

Well, I think at least some people are picking it apart because they want the game to succeed. I think there is something here for most to love, and certainly things here for many to dislike as well.

 

I say keep the complaints coming. Growth is painful, and growth will not come from sunshine focused on posteriors...it comes from harsh BUT CONSTRUCTIVE feedback.

 

Not rage, not hateful "the game must die" rhetoric, nor blind fanboism. Good strong critical feedback.

[Fornix]

My first 6 month sub didn't run out till August or September-ish. With the free time and such.

 

Free month + 6 month sub and at least 1 month free game time = 8 months.

 

In that case you started playing around February, and are definitely not part of the majority of players which picked up a 6-month subscription at launch, as those ran out around June-July.

 

 

 

You are obviously of an opinion Fornix that is more forgiving of Bioware with respect to the game's performance, and that is fine. I think it's a bit unrealistic however.

 

I don't think it's unrealistic tbf, as unlike a big portion of the nay-sayers in this community, I do not believe in BioWare being able to perform miracles to turn certain game elements around. Do I agree on everything BioWare has done thus far? Most definitely not, although that primarily stems out of the fact that prior to launch I pretty much had everybody disagreeing on just about any suggestion I made, seeking features such as:

 

- Group finder tools for bg's, dungeons and raids.

- Cross-server.

- Full fletched achievement system.

- Full fletched open world PvP a la DAoC and in some sense WAR.

- Less emphasis on story as it'd be a one-time thing which MMO players would simply skip by in the long haul anyway.

- World bosses and dynamic events.

- Balanced number of long + short raids, high complexity on HM and NMM.

- Multiplayer pod racing to beat downtime rather than the current space missions.

- Addon support.

 

Did BioWare give me all of this? No, definitely not. But to be fair, did I expect them to give me those things considering as to how many players opposed to those features? Not really.

 

Have they started changing post-launch as the community changed? Yes, yes they have. And as such, I'm seeing development put into the game. Do I expect it to be done by tomorrow? Definitely not, by late 2013 they'll probably still be busy fixing pre-launch things which wouldn't have been there if they wouldn't have listened to the community so much.

 

I tend to think it is more likely that the fact that MOST of the feedback prior to launch was ignored, not followed (in Bioware's defense perhaps they had no choice) likely contributed to the level of losses. Focusing on end game probably didn't help.

 

Thing is, they did listen to feedback. Which was mainly an overload of KOTOR fans seeking their storyline, and a refugee group from SWG essentially going through each suggestion to see if it included something which was prior done in WoW just to post a "WoW is that way." remark.

 

The few MMO fans who tried to point out that no matter what you do with storylines, in order to fill up a timespan as seen in MMO's it'll always boil down to the traditional "hunter, gatherer, escort" scenario, were repeatedly shot down with the argument that this is BioWare, this is going to be different, this is.... etc.

 

BioWare listened, to the majority, and as such they listened to the wrong crowd in my eyes.

 

I think it's more "devil in the details" problems that probably didnt help retention in the long run.

 

What in my opinion didn't help them in the long run is that many of those seeking the KOTOR 3 experience quickly left, partially due to subs, partially due to traditional MMO elements being more generic than what they were used to and finally most probably as they started to realize that stretching a 12 hour class story line over 120 hours with typical MMO quests perhaps wasn't all that good anyway, no matter how much they tried to claim before otherwise.

 

As for the portion of pre-launch SWG players, a lot were quickly turned down by this not being a sandbox game. Which honestly I still don't understand how that ever came as a surprise to some.

 

I think that saying they didnt expect more subs than they have now, insinuating the sub losses are normal, employment losses were expected or that the games design was a result of direct feedback before launch is fantasy at best.

 

As said, we do not know which expectations they had in terms of subs. All we know is that most of their expectations were modest. My bets are a 1.5 million figure would probably come close as to what most of them were aiming for. I highly doubt they truly set out with the idea, let's make a 10 million subs game.

 

Sub losses being normal is hardly what I'd call fantasy, but rather history repeating itself. There hasn't been a single MMO since 2008 which hasn't nose-dived in terms of subscriber figures during the first 6 months post launch, already starting at the first month as that's when the first subs start running out. Personally, I don't think the subscriber figures of the first 6 months are even of interest anymore, we're probably better of starting to judge future MMO's based on their performance after the first 6 months to see where it heads.

 

Employment losses is also just history repeating itself, EA has been doing this for years.

[Rogoo]

 

I say keep the complaints coming. Growth is painful, and growth will not come from sunshine focused on posteriors...it comes from harsh BUT CONSTRUCTIVE feedback.

 

Not rage, not hateful "the game must die" rhetoric, nor blind fanboism. Good strong critical feedback.

 

I have some constructive feedback:

 

How about they freaking fix AMD Crossfire support, which THEY broke more than 2 months ago, with their awesome "shadow optimization" patch, which was supposed to increase the performance, yet instead completely crippled it to the point that we are forced to play with 1 GPU only ?

 

Is TWO MONTHS not enough time for a fix ?

 

There. Constructive feedback.

 

4/10. Nuff said.

[Ifrica]

Naturally I could be wrong. Perhaps you can provide your correct motivations in this respect.

 

...and I think you will find it's pretty difficult to offend me. My post history should demonstrate that.

 

The reason I posted it, and for more then one time, been doing it since the f2p option was announced (which can be verified in my post history). The reason was because people started turning and twisting words from official announcements to shed a negative light on it. bw said : we implementing f2p option , world shouts : tortanic is now f2p.

 

the thing about the 'option' part, i can agree with your answer to a certain degree, but the problem is how other people see it. ignorant people see f2p, come in, and notice it isn't exactly 'free' to play and go berserk about how it al sux and fails. if they were given a proper explenation about the 'restricted f2p option' they might not have reacted in the same way, but it's because they were told it was free that the misinformation had already done it's damage.

(and i hope you understand what i'm saying here)

 

I for one saw it as positive, first of all for those players that wanted kotor 3 but didn't want an mmo, they can now play the story free and don't bother with the rest, secondly i could tell my sceptical friends to come have a look for free, they subbed after 2 days playing.

 

towards you personally Artemis, in no way i meant offending you, you might not be offended, but others might think that was my goal, believe me, i've been infracted for less already :/

[Elminster_cs]

he likes GW2 and Padaria... this say all about the writer...