Gamasutra: The Burning of Star Wars - The Old Republic

[Urael]

No, but we don't why he left or if he was let go. The fact is he should of passed on writing this. Even if he is trying not to be bias people will wonder because he is a former worker bee for EA.

 

Falty logic. Perhaps if he had been directly connected with SWTOR and removed for cause. But, as you said we don't know the relation of the author to EA other than he self reports that he used to work for them. If people wonder this, then they are not capable of actually reading what is presented and are guilty of READING INTO what was written. A common faux pas of many on these forums.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Urael

[Sindorin]

Are you suggesting that the switch from P2P to F2P hasn't "fundamentally" changed the game?! I would argue that the cash shop has most certainly "fundamentally" changed the game. Crafting is a distant second to cash shop items. Looting new things is 3rd. What could have been rewarded for in-game accomplishments is instead being sold in a store. Subscribers aren't rewarded for subscribing, they're simply not punished as much. I don't feel like "new content" can be limited to a random loot draw for real money.

 

I am talking about the gameplay mechanics. The market is a financial mechanic added to the game that should be reviewed in it's own right. However what my original post was discussing, was how all these gaming outlets were re-reviewing the game's core mechanics (Warzones, Flashpoints, Combat, Story, etc;) and saying it's crap, when those mechanics have arguably gotten better or at least remained static. It's not logical.

[Fornix]

Obviously F2P didn't happen over night, I'm simply of the opinion that they've gimped the crafting game from the moment they realized they were going F2P. Crafting in an MMO is in direct competition to any cash shop.

 

Crafting never really had a peak for that matter, so by that logic of them intentionally gimping crafting, F2P was already known from as early as prior to launch.

 

Personally I don't think it's related, rather just a terrible crafting design instead of intention.

[XProdigyX]

To people wondering why the score changed since release, it is because most peoples perspective of something, even games, changes over time as they experience it. While it might have been cool to do 2 or 3 class stories, after that you really start to notice some things that bug you (or maybe not ).

 

I pretty much agree with the article. Would have if it was published at release (minus the F2P obviously). Came back for one month and nothing that has been added has impressed me. Heck, pvp actually has LESS stuff to do than it did when I quite lol.

[Urael]

Repost it a hundred times for all I care. I hate to say it this way but Bioware needs to get it in their thick skulls. If you think everything's fine, stop for a moment and think of what will happen to this game if the amount of new players coming in declines and the game goes back to bleeding subscribers (which is the reason this game is now F2P). That's EXACTLY what will happen.The current F2P system has ZERO long-term prospects (that is 3 months+).

 

I hope they listen. I suspect the people that actually work on the game (Bioware Austin) want the game to succeed for a long time. I fear that EA is just trying to squeeze as much as it can out of SWTOR and then toss it away. At least this is how it looks to me. I hope I am wrong.

[TUXs]

Crafting never really had a peak for that matter, so by that logic of them intentionally gimping crafting, F2P was already known from as early as prior to launch.

 

Personally I don't think it's related, rather just a terrible crafting design instead of intention.

 

I agree. Crafting was horrible from the start...prior to the game going F2P, I held hope of their pre-launch hype and promise of a "robust" crafting game, where people that wanted to specialize in crafting would stand out vs. casuals. But now with the cash shop, we'll never see crafting improved.

[uziforyou]

It is unfortunate that you let something so small as a typo keep you from reading the entire article. The author feels exactly as I do and have been saying on these forums all along. In the end like me, TUXs and others, the author want's SWTOR to succeed. He is just unimpressed with how EAware is going about it.

 

So, you want SWTOR to succeed but feel EA is going about it wrong?

 

Then I really only have a couple of questions. First, do you feel that EA for all of their gaming history is going to change how they do business to suddenly make SWTOR the game you hoped it would be? I'm personally doubting that. Second, do you believe EA will sell their stake in the game to somebody who will make SWTOR the game you hoped it would be? I'm doubting that is going to happen either.

 

In the end then, what is your ideal outcome by posting this because I don't see any point where you or anyone else with your outlook on the status of the game is going to be satisfied?

[MishaCantu]

TOR makes a very good first impression, even to seasoned MMO vets. The problem is it stays the same game throughout. It never gets harder and it never evolves into something different from the first 10 levels.

 

This is easily observed by following general chat. Newbie zones are filled with people saying how much they love the game. By the time you get to Taris/Balmorra you rarely hear those things anymore and you'll often hear profanity laced rants about how terrible those planets are. Those planets aren't terrible, they just play exactly like the two previous planets and by then the shine has worn off and people have clued into the fact that what you've been doing for 20 levels is exactly what you will be doing for the next 30.

 

This exactly. How is killing 10 rats in another game any different than slicing 10 droids in this one? It is part of the MMO genre. Filler to level up in between the Character story and each planet has new droids to slice and new cores to get. Yawn.

 

What I would like to see is an email from another toon in my legacy. A random email from my 'husband/wife' once in a while. Maybe implement further quests for a companion other than the main one. It doesn't have to be a full blown expansion. They don't have to make new planets. Rehash the old ones with a new story involved. I want Felix or Corso to send me a puppy/pet just out of nowhere. There are so many little things that can add to the game. I am sure there are much better ideas than mine, but little things can help a lot in off setting the boredom and wouldn't take months of coding.

[Urael]

So, you want SWTOR to succeed but feel EA is going about it wrong?

 

Yes.

 

Then I really only have a couple of questions. First, do you feel that EA for all of their gaming history is going to change how they do business to suddenly make SWTOR the game you hoped it would be? I'm personally doubting that.

 

If they actually want a successful MMORPG then, yes, they will have to change. EA may have aquired a few MMORPG studios over the last few years but, none of those MMORPGs are "top shelf". SWTOR was hyped by EA to be their "top shelf" MMORPG. If they wish that dream to be fully realized, then changes must take place.

 

Second, do you believe EA will sell their stake in the game to somebody who will make SWTOR the game you hoped it would be? I'm doubting that is going to happen either.

 

If they feel the game won't turn around and it nets them some revenue in the short term then yes, EA is all about the $$. They stake their "rep" on things other than SWTOR. Peter Moore doesn't even rate SWTOR as one if EA's top 10 concerns.

 

In the end then, what is your ideal outcome by posting this because I don't see any point where you or anyone else with your outlook on the status of the game is going to be satisfied?

 

Hope springs eternal. SWTOR may be on life support but, it is still alive. I wish for the patient to fully recover.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Urael

[Devlonir]

Anyone notice that most of the discussion on the Gamasutra article are about how angry and biased the article writer seems to be and how it is detriment to his entire point, regardless of if his points are right or wrong.

 

That is exactly how I feel about this forum sometimes. I love how that is brought up as a main point on gamasutra

[JefferyClark]

Basically this article said everything we've been saying on the forums since F2P was announced.

 

EDIT: O LOOKY! When I posted this it was on page 10. Now it is on page 9. Way to go deleting critical posts again forum mods.

Edited December 17, 2012 by JefferyClark

[Urael]

Anyone notice that most of the discussion on the Gamasutra article are about how angry and biased the article writer seems to be and how it is detriment to his entire point, regardless of if his points are right or wrong.

 

That is exactly how I feel about this forum sometimes. I love how that is brought up as a main point on gamasutra

 

The author's response:

 

The last thing I was expecting after writing this article was having to defend its tone. Sarcasm and satire are powerful tools in a writer's repertoire, and I have found sarcastic humour to be an excellent mode for public web writing. The articles I write for Gamasutra are intended for a very broad audience and are created with the hope of both educating and entertaining. The use of sarcasm is not a disrespectful one, but one meant to stimulate and maintain the interest of the reader.

 

The reception to this piece has forced me to re-think my style of delivery. I am particularly fond of the satirical styles of Rick Mercer, Brent Butt, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert, though I am clearly ill suited to emulate them.

 

This article is a comparative analysis of the factors that led to diminishing subscription revenues versus the revenue-generating tactics of the current Free 2 Play implementation. It is overlaid with a tone satirizing common F2P practices as a means of citation-free reference to a plethora of recent articles on the topic and to evoke a certain degree of frustration and exasperation with their continual misuse. The objective of the article is to suggest that the current F2P implementation is not the one that ought to have been chosen in order to maximize revenues for SWTOR and, by examining reasons I identified in my analysis of the game and its community, tries to determine which, if any, implementation could turn SWTOR around to profitability.

 

I am hopeful that if you re-read the article with a critical eye, you will find it as compelling to read as I found it to write.

 

[Urael]

TL;DR F2P is bad and shouldnt be used as a tool to get subscribers...

 

Then *** is the point of F2P?! Now I agree that BioWare is taking bad steps but F2P and its restrictions arent one of them. What better way than to convince people to pay than say "Look heres a lite version of the game, pay up and you get the better version."

 

I bet some of these people are using programs with trials past its expire date without ever paying to get the full version and if it ever goes down they'll say "Huh.. wonder what happened."

 

This line of argument is not apt. What is more apt is looking at the reason EA went F2P with SWTOR. All along, John Riccitiello and Peter Moore have been maintaining that noone wanted to pay $15 a month in subscription fees to play "a MMORPG". This is false. Many didn't want to pay $15 a month to play SWTOR because they recogonised it wasn't ready for prime time. What is ironic is that although the game is now F2P it penalizes a player until he either quits or subscribes. Now remember the game went F2P in the first place because noone wanted to subscribe!! Right Mr.'s Ricccitiello and Moore? Right? Circular logic! Irony!

Edited December 17, 2012 by Urael

[JefferyClark]

This line of argument is not apt. What is more apt is looking at the reason EA went F2P with SWTOR. All along, John Riccitellio and Peter Moore have been maintaining that noone wanted to pay $15 a month in subscription fees to play "a MMORPG". This is false. Many didn't want to pay $15 a month to play SWTOR because they recogonised it wasn't ready for prime time. What is ironic is that although the game is now F2P it penalizes a player until he either quits or subscribes. Now remember the game went F2P in the first place because noone wanted to subscribe!! Right Mr.'s Ricccitellio and Moore? Right? Circular logic! Irony!

 

Exactly correct. The $15 wasn't the issue, it was paying the $15 to SWTOR over another game. This game STILL isn't ready for primetime and will continue to hemorrhage subs, especially since now F2P'ers are locked behind a paywall in order to play with subs on ops and other 'endgame' things.

[AsheraII]

I just found it typical that the writer of the article not only wrote a lot of factual lies about TOR, as if he'd been playing for maybe 10 hours and never got a single toon beyond a capitol planet, if even that far, while getting all of is information from a friend whos nephew has a girlfriend whos neighbour read the forums during beta.

He's writing his anti-TOR articles just because he's a hater and nothing else. He even admits doing so, first saying he won't play till the game goes F2P, then saying going F2P is going to ruin TOR, and now with an article going "TOR went F2P, but bwaaaaahhhh, the features I want are locked out from me".

 

Haters gonna hate, and that guy maded a job out of it.

But thanks for reminding me why I rarely bother with those "gaming sites". They're all immature garbage.

[tolaf]

I just found it typical that the writer of the article not only wrote a lot of factual lies about TOR, as if he'd been playing for maybe 10 hours and never got a single toon beyond a capitol planet, if even that far, while getting all of is information from a friend whos nephew has a girlfriend whos neighbour read the forums during beta.

He's writing his anti-TOR articles just because he's a hater and nothing else. He even admits doing so, first saying he won't play till the game goes F2P, then saying going F2P is going to ruin TOR, and now with an article going "TOR went F2P, but bwaaaaahhhh, the features I want are locked out from me".

 

Haters gonna hate, and that guy maded a job out of it.

But thanks for reminding me why I rarely bother with those "gaming sites". They're all immature garbage.

 

This man disagrees with me, he must be a hater!

[Felioats]

The existing queue times for Flashpoints (group dungeons) and Warzones (PvP battlegrounds) were tediously long, and it was exceptionally difficult to find people to do world boss raids or create new Ops (raid dungeons) groups. More people would mean all this multiplayer stuff would become better.

 

Unfortunately, that's exactly where BioWare aimed its shotgun when blasting holes in SWTOR's available content.

 

Locking players down to a handful of Flashpoints and Warzones a week and out of Ops entirely was a big part of the plan (and the source of that $56-a-month fee). Which means the F2P solution they came up with does nothing to help address the concerns subscribers had when they were cancelling their subscriptions in droves.

 

Bingo.

[Guancyto]

EDIT: O LOOKY! When I posted this it was on page 10. Now it is on page 9. Way to go deleting critical posts again forum mods.

 

I'm okay with it so long as it means they aren't erasing the whole thread, like they did with the last discussion on this. (Also, 'old news' guy was just irritating.)

 

Anyway, there's some places where the author is misinformed, but the bits he's gotten wrong are largely cosmetic. He's bang-on about the F2P model being a "subscribe to get punished less" deal.

 

I personally think that happened because, after deciding that they were giving away the entire story for free (y'know, the part that even the people who quit and hated the rest of the game still liked), they realized they didn't have a whole lot to offer subscribers.

 

I'm cautiously optimistic about them relaxing F2P punishment once they start making things to benefit subscribers. If they make things to benefit subscribers, something I am also cautiously optimistic about. Problem is that the F2P model as it was released is not good at all (and they did a pretty bad job of laying out the perks and restrictions effectively; the Internet has so much misinformation about this it's sad), and right at its release was the time when it got the most publicity. Their implementation of their F2P at release has hurt them, and it's hard to say just how avoidable it all was.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Guancyto

[LarenDahe]

Isn't that pretty much the definition of a hater though? Some people in this world are built to be unhappy no matter what. Most of these same people would be whining 2 years from now when everything they whine about now isn't around. They'll go to another game and whine in the same fashion. It's what they do, it's their thing, it's the nature of the MMO community and largely the gamer community as a whole. I don't like it, so it's terrible goes the general though process.

 

They'll whine when Blizzard put's out a new MMO, if it's different they'll complain it's too different. If it's quite a bit like WoW they'll whine it's not different enough. They'll whine that it's dark and cold then they'll cry that it's too bright and hot.

 

The internet makes a career out of whining, I'm doing it right now! You did it! They do it! So, in the traditional spirit of the internet I say: You're all wrong, I'm right, and if you don't like it I won't read you reply!

[Guancyto]

Isn't that pretty much the definition of a hater though? Some people in this world are built to be unhappy no matter what. Most of these same people would be whining 2 years from now when everything they whine about now isn't around.

 

I think people who hate on very specific things and then shut up when they're changed get excluded from that group.

 

It's easy to blame complaints on 'haters' and the seeming MPD of a never-satisfied market, but it's absolutely important (if you really want to get into it instead of self-indulgently dismissing people) to pay attention to the names. Sometimes those change, so the styles of diction.

 

Different people want different things, and if 75% of a population thinks a new feature is great and 25% thinks it's awful, there will be complaints whether or not it's implemented. Like, people complained for ages about the lack of a group finder. Then, when a group finder was put in, people complained about that too! You can't please anyone, right?

 

Well, if you'd pay attention, it's entirely different people complaining before and after the fact.

 

And if not, well, you've found your real haters. They're pretty rare though.

[AsheraII]

This man disagrees with me, he must be a hater!

Well, that specific writer: definitely. He goes as far as changing his opinion on a matter (just read his previous articles and compare) just to point out how bad TOR supposedly is. I see plenty of things in TOR I don't like. But I also see plenty things that I DO like. Some things I don't like I can still justify, for other things I don't see any logical reason to be the way they are.

This writer on the other hand, first goes "I don't like apples, gimme oranges!" and when given an orange, makes a 180 degree turn and goes "I don't want an orange, gimme an apple!".

 

And yes, that does sound like a spoiled single child who missed out on a couple of good spankings and lockups in a cellar. Age didn't bring him any wisdom, at best he got a little more deceitful at it.

[Karkais]

I agree with the article, although reading the comments was very informative as well.

[Urael]

Well, that specific writer: definitely. He goes as far as changing his opinion on a matter (just read his previous articles and compare) just to point out how bad TOR supposedly is. I see plenty of things in TOR I don't like. But I also see plenty things that I DO like. Some things I don't like I can still justify, for other things I don't see any logical reason to be the way they are.

This writer on the other hand, first goes "I don't like apples, gimme oranges!" and when given an orange, makes a 180 degree turn and goes "I don't want an orange, gimme an apple!".

 

And yes, that does sound like a spoiled single child who missed out on a couple of good spankings and lockups in a cellar. Age didn't bring him any wisdom, at best he got a little more deceitful at it.

 

I posted IN THIS THREAD the writers response to the comments in the Gamasutra's com box. I will leave it to you to reread this thread ( it seems that you haven't ) and find and comment on the author's comments.

[Korrlen]

I read through the article when it was released, and through the comments once those picked up later.

I have to say, I'm disappointed with Gamasutra for approving this article. While there are great points contained within, it's hidden within hyperbole, ranting, and tacky internet memes. Keep in mind Gamasutra is a website for professional game developers and designers.

 

He could have taken an unbiased analysis of the game, but instead opted to post a long negative diatribe. The fact that he posts much more eloquently within the comment section supports the idea of the article simply being click bait.

[Urael]

I think people who hate on very specific things and then shut up when they're changed get excluded from that group.

 

It's easy to blame complaints on 'haters' and the seeming MPD of a never-satisfied market, but it's absolutely important (if you really want to get into it instead of self-indulgently dismissing people) to pay attention to the names. Sometimes those change, so the styles of diction.

 

Different people want different things, and if 75% of a population thinks a new feature is great and 25% thinks it's awful, there will be complaints whether or not it's implemented. Like, people complained for ages about the lack of a group finder. Then, when a group finder was put in, people complained about that too! You can't please anyone, right?

 

Well, if you'd pay attention, it's entirely different people complaining before and after the fact.

 

And if not, well, you've found your real haters. They're pretty rare though.

 

See that's the thing, depending on who you talk to on these forums I am a "fanboi" or a "h4ter". I am more of a Jolee Bindo.

 

I agree with you that the "hate" could be about "specific" features and not the entire game. But, the "White Knights" are blind to that.

 

The true haters here won't read anything possitive about SWTOR and just type their diatribe without context. The "White Knights" do the same, they just go passive agressive in their word choice "sounding" more polite in tone but equally as irrational and full of hate to anyone that would point out that the emperor was not wearing clothes and that their beloved SWTOR could have anything wrong with it. The author of the article explained his tone in the com boxes at Gamasutra. I posted those comments in this thread.