Petition to make the ewok not buy able by cc

[branmakmuffin]

Study on MMO loyalty and who plays MMOs

 

Not super new study, but interesting read none the less.

And knowing you, you're not offering it up as proof-positive, just something to consider.

[Arkerus]

Welcome to the new age.

 

 

And why haven't they been made? Why are they not available except in a very limited sense, or holdovers from the "good ole days"? It's because of the changing trends in society, and in a smaller microcosm the changing trends in the gaming community. Certainly, an argument can be made that a business will discontinue a product to introduce and push something new, but the trend in the entertainment industry has always been to milk a product for all it is worth. If pure sandbox and "old school" MMOs were truly that profitable and were trending to be so in the future, they wouldn't have gone away.

 

 

Failed how, exactly? If you mean match WoW subscribers numbers, then yes. But WoW was a perfect storm that arrived at the perfect moment. Quite the contrary, however, your first point above proves that the solo/casual friendly MMO model has succeeded quite well, and ESO appears to be the latest installment of such.

 

 

Where exactly did you get these "facts" from? Anyone can make numbers fit their argument by including or excluding things arbitrarily. However, if you truly want to compare the number of MMO players back in the "good ole days" compared to today, by all rights you need to include all MMOs in your population count. But go ahead, exclude WoW for no other reason than it blows your point out of the water - the Eastern MMO market says hello and blows your point out of the water anyway. There are Eastern MMOs that top out WoWs numbers from what I understand. No matter how you look at it (as long as you actually look at it objectively), the number of MMO players has substantially increased from the time the genre was born back in the 90's. It's because of this that we have so many MMOs to choose from in today's age.

 

 

Again, do you have any unbiased statical analysis to back up this point? In my anecdotal and unstatistical experience, sandbox MMOs have tended to hold subs for longer than thempark MMOs. That is distinctly different than Hardcore/Casual, even though some see sandbox as hardcore. Again, if you don't ignore WoW, and you consider GW1 (even though it didn't use a sub based model), both games are casual and themepark based and have kept up their dedicated user base quite well for the better part of a decade. The same can be said of Eve - the premier sandbox example in the genre. Now, with the rise of F2P, we can make the argument that the sub based model is declining, but that is not solely due to hardcore vs. casual and subscriber retention - that is indeed a part of it, but there are also many other factors involved, not the least of which is the fact that the industry has finally learned that a cash shop based model is infinitely more profitable than a strict sub-based model.

 

 

Again, dismissing things arbitrarily to try to back up your argument. As a matter of fact, your very point here is one of the reason's many people do not like SWTOR's F2P implementation - it's the EA way of looking at their customer base. A good F2P implementation does not look at the freebies as non-customers, but as players of their games who have the potential to be customers and at the very least as a source of advertising if said freebies enjoy playing their game and continue to "recruit" friends and family to play. The point of fact remains that a pure F2P game does not need very many players to be "paying customers" - they only need the critical mass of whales to maintain profitability and that tends to be anywhere from 1%-5% of the total player base.

 

 

 

And hence why we see more QoL things like speed boosts and such in cash shops nowadays, then, isn't it. And thusly, if that is the case, then there should be no problem in having a companion like Treek available as a QoL cash shop purchase.

 

Responding to cosmickitty usually involves asking him/her to back up any of their generic statements which usually involves the ending the conversation.

 

Arbitrary statements do not make facts but so many forum posters think they do. My favorite is that every MMO after WoW has failed because they don't have 10 million subs and pretty much ignoring the fact that 10 million was a complete and utter anomaly that even Blizzard didnt expect.

 

When you have one giant fish in the pond success is measured by longetivy and profit. We have a long way to go with swtor but the signs have been very positive according to the investor statements.

[LordArtemis]

And knowing you, you're not offering it up as proof-positive, just something to consider.

 

Exactly.

 

I won't comment on it either as I would rather folks read it themselves and come to their own conclusions.

[Tiergan_Manasa]

Of all the problems in the world, getting an Ewok isn't one of them. I don't care how they make it available. I'll get it or not. The spin of the world will be completely and totally unaffected. This is non-issue.

[Lunafox]

Study on MMO loyalty and who plays MMOs

 

Not super new study, but interesting read none the less.

 

They didn't really tell us that much. From what we figure (my hubby and I) the time of 22 hours per week is on the low side. We both work, but the game comes on when we get home and we play sporadically, with breaks for supper and other things...but still the time over a week comes closer to 36-40 hours for us.

 

The other thing is that the study suggests that people play with others and socialize, neither of us do, we're a bit xenophobic lol. We are both solo players in our games, and avoid group work. The most interaction we have with others is through the GTN buying and selling goods lol. But I guess we're odd lol, but we still spend quite a lot of money on this...and I tend to play games longer than my hubby does. I'll play a game for years, he'll usually go a few months before he gets bored and moves on.

 

Edit: And to stay on topic, yeah I'm fine with them making the Ewok earnable thru legacy only...I mean if they're going to sell the ewok on the market, then why not the HK droid too? I'd like to get that quest done also. I have legacy 50, and as others who have it, know it's quite an achievement.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Lunafox

[Andryah]

They didn't really tell us that much. From what we figure (my hubby and I) the time of 22 hours per week is on the low side. We both work, but the game comes on when we get home and we play sporadically, with breaks for supper and other things...but still the time over a week comes closer to 36-40 hours for us.

 

Nicholas Yee is a much better research source on motivators in game play IMO. http://www.nickyee.com/pubs/2012%20CHI%20-%20Motivations%20Scale.pdf

 

Nicolas is paid handsomely by Ubisoft to research player motivators and behaviors under stimulus, and has been an academic researcher on games and players for more then a decade. http://www.nickyee.com/

Edited August 3, 2013 by Andryah

[Andryah]

Edit: And to stay on topic, yeah I'm fine with them making the Ewok earnable thru legacy only...I mean if they're going to sell the ewok on the market, then why not the HK droid too? I'd like to get that quest done also. I have legacy 50, and as others who have it, know it's quite an achievement.

 

They are following a particular model IMO. That model is one of giving players MORE choices in access to non-classic MMO content since they changed the business model last November. That said, do they continue to provide classic earned access content in MMOs for the classic elements of MMO (OPs, PvP).

 

Treek is not classic earned content. Treek is content of all.. and that makes sense given that companions are integral to character leveling in this MMO.

 

It's a blended access model now, which is consistent with the move to a flexible access model to the game.

 

TL;DR they are deliberately providing pathways to non classic content for both veteran subscribers, and more casual and less committed preferred/free players. They are serving the entire player base, and that's a good business model IMO.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Andryah

[Dawginole]

This is a toxic viewpoint IMO. Yes, I also lament the loss of challenge (note I do not use the word "effort" since the amount of effort required has NEVER been substantial to play an MMO) in modern MMOs...I remember the days of permadeath and player looting...that's how old I am.

 

But the market no longer supports traditional or hardcore MMO play like it once did. And the problem is, for better or worse, casual players dominate the market and have different priorities.

 

QoL (or convenience depending on your viewpoint), solo play and appearance are some of the top casual demands in the market.

 

Therefore, the more challenging an MMO is, the less appeal it has to the casual dominated market IMO.

 

That's all true. But does that mean that the game should be totally designed around the guy that logs in once a week for three hours? No.

 

Sure, make some casual friendly stuff. Group Finder and Appearance Editor should make those care bears super happy. The problem is EVERYTHING the devs are adding is vanilla. I honestly wouldn't care if 90% of this game was vanilla if the devs would give me an epic weapon quest chain that took a literal 6 months plus to complete amongst a bit hardcore content. The problem with the devs is that they don't even want to introduce 10% hardcore content because the rewards for that content will have to be off the chain, and then they will get hounded by the casual/F2P crowd that is sad panda because they can't get the items via instant CM purchase that the hardcore guy just spent 6 months working for.

[Blackardin]

No thanks

 

I want to see more earned items and less cm items

 

Something not as tedious as hk but takes me across the galaxy doing things, basically get me to leave fleet every once in a while

 

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can.

 

I do not care what you want. What I care about is you attempting to force others to play "your" game the way you want. I'm not sure what these control issues are derived from, but they are your problems.

 

Take yourself across the galaxy all you want. I'm good with buying what I want to play MY game the way I want.

 

We green on that? ;p

[Blackardin]

That's all true. But does that mean that the game should be totally designed around the guy that logs in once a week for three hours? No.

 

I dunno. Should it be designed around the obsessive compulsive type that lives the game at a cost of everything else in his life? I mean, if we are going to resort to logical falacy, reductio ad absurdum, we have to play that on both sides of the fence.

 

Again, to make it absolutely clear. MY game is not your business. My schedule is not your business. My displeasure with meaningless, time wasting "grinds" is not your business. If you want to grind your items, there is nothing stopping you. If you are somehow offended, or feel damaged because not everyone in the game is doing it your way there is nothing the rest of us can do to help you.

 

Either way, there is no way in hell they are going to change it so I'd stop wasting my time if I were you. ;p

[Lunafox]

They are following a particular model IMO. That model is one of giving players MORE choices in access to non-classic MMO content since they changed the business model last November. That said, do they continue to provide classic earned access content in MMOs for the classic elements of MMO (OPs, PvP).

 

Treek is not classic earned content. Treek is content of all.. and that makes sense given that companions are integral to character leveling in this MMO.

 

It's a blended access model now, which is consistent with the move to a flexible access model to the game.

 

TL;DR they are deliberately providing pathways to non classic content for both veteran subscribers, and more casual and less committed preferred/free players. They are serving the entire player base, and that's a good business model IMO.

 

I see no difference...there is a questline to get the robot...there is a questline to get the ewok. Both are content and companions for people to get. I simply think it's unfair to allow the ewok to be sold on the market and achievable with cash money, when the robot is not. It's inconsistent of them to do it this way. Neither achievement is worth less than the other, so why is one being diminished by making it cash shop, and the other not?

 

As I said, I see no difference, and I'd like to see the last 2 HK (group necessity) parts for sale on the CM too. It's only fair the way I see it.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Andryah. And ty for the link to the article, I'm going to give it a read.

[Callaron]

I see no difference...there is a questline to get the robot...there is a questline to get the ewok. Both are content and companions for people to get. I simply think it's unfair to allow the ewok to be sold on the market and achievable with cash money, when the robot is not. It's inconsistent of them to do it this way. Neither achievement is worth less than the other, so why is one being diminished by making it cash shop, and the other not?

 

As I said, I see no difference, and I'd like to see the last 2 HK (group necessity) parts for sale on the CM too. It's only fair the way I see it.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Andryah. And ty for the link to the article, I'm going to give it a read.

 

I think they are experimenting to find out which ways are acceptable (and profitable!) and which aren't.

We might still see a few more different companion implementations before they find a system that they feel works best.

[CosmicKat]

Welcome to the new age.

 

 

And why haven't they been made? Why are they not available except in a very limited sense, or holdovers from the "good ole days"? It's because of the changing trends in society, and in a smaller microcosm the changing trends in the gaming community. Certainly, an argument can be made that a business will discontinue a product to introduce and push something new, but the trend in the entertainment industry has always been to milk a product for all it is worth. If pure sandbox and "old school" MMOs were truly that profitable and were trending to be so in the future, they wouldn't have gone away.

 

Good question. I don't know the answer to it. One would think that if you keep releasing Product A, and it is never a boffo success, that maybe you might try Product B? The development cycle on MMO's is 5+ years. 5+ years ago, there was no record of WoW-clone bombs, now there are.

 

 

Failed how, exactly? If you mean match WoW subscribers numbers, then yes. But WoW was a perfect storm that arrived at the perfect moment. Quite the contrary, however, your first point above proves that the solo/casual friendly MMO model has succeeded quite well, and ESO appears to be the latest installment of such.

 

Failed in every sense of the word. If WoW-like success is their goal, which it is, then they have done a terrible job. You don't spend $100-$200 million making an MMO if "substantially less subscribers than EQ had" is your goal.

 

 

Where exactly did you get these "facts" from? Anyone can make numbers fit their argument by including or excluding things arbitrarily. However, if you truly want to compare the number of MMO players back in the "good ole days" compared to today, by all rights you need to include all MMOs in your population count. But go ahead, exclude WoW for no other reason than it blows your point out of the water - the Eastern MMO market says hello and blows your point out of the water anyway. There are Eastern MMOs that top out WoWs numbers from what I understand. No matter how you look at it (as long as you actually look at it objectively), the number of MMO players has substantially increased from the time the genre was born back in the 90's. It's because of this that we have so many MMOs to choose from in today's age.

 

Eastern MMO's have almost no audience in the Western world, and vice versa. Different tastes, different markets, with completely different profit per customer business models.

 

 

Again, do you have any unbiased statical analysis to back up this point? In my anecdotal and unstatistical experience, sandbox MMOs have tended to hold subs for longer than thempark MMOs. That is distinctly different than Hardcore/Casual, even though some see sandbox as hardcore. Again, if you don't ignore WoW, and you consider GW1 (even though it didn't use a sub based model), both games are casual and themepark based and have kept up their dedicated user base quite well for the better part of a decade. The same can be said of Eve - the premier sandbox example in the genre. Now, with the rise of F2P, we can make the argument that the sub based model is declining, but that is not solely due to hardcore vs. casual and subscriber retention - that is indeed a part of it, but there are also many other factors involved, not the least of which is the fact that the industry has finally learned that a cash shop based model is infinitely more profitable than a strict sub-based model.

 

WoW and Everquest would beg to differ as they both made huge amounts of money on a purely sub-based model. GW1 wasn't even marketed as an MMO, but as a mass shooter alternative to the MMO, back in the day. The MMO has changed so much that now GW actually is considered an MMO.

 

People have short memories. Fact is that owning a "gaming PC" and having unlimited, highspeed internet was hardly commonplace 10 or 15 years ago. The potential pool of households meeting the technical requirements to even play MMO's 15 years ago was a small fraction of what it is today. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that the potential customer base now is much larger than it was in 1999. A PC to run UO or EQ was a $2000 machine and DSL was cutting edge technology that most of the world had literally no access to, even if they wanted it.

 

Again, dismissing things arbitrarily to try to back up your argument. As a matter of fact, your very point here is one of the reason's many people do not like SWTOR's F2P implementation - it's the EA way of looking at their customer base. A good F2P implementation does not look at the freebies as non-customers, but as players of their games who have the potential to be customers and at the very least as a source of advertising if said freebies enjoy playing their game and continue to "recruit" friends and family to play. The point of fact remains that a pure F2P game does not need very many players to be "paying customers" - they only need the critical mass of whales to maintain profitability and that tends to be anywhere from 1%-5% of the total player base.

 

Your argument makes no sense at all unless you feel the only value of your subscription to EA is for the marketing data your account provides them. There is no external advertising in TOR for eyeballs to be worth anything as purely advertising revenue sponges.

 

All subscriber and revenue data for all MMO's has to be taken with a giant grain of salt.

 

Actual Fact: Everquest seems to have topped out at somewhere around 500k subscribers. This was not only a license to print money, but it almost single-handedly was responsible for creating the MMO industry as a viable business model. There would literally be no WoW, or TOR without its success. At 500k subscribers, SOE was developing expansions all the time, and even developing very similar products to compete with themselves.

 

Now we are told that the same amount of subscribers, paying 50% higher sub rates as well by the way, is "break even point". Either the numbers of subscribers were grossly under-reported back then, the number of subscribers is grossly over-reported now, or the costs to doing business are astronomically higher today than 15 years ago.

 

And hence why we see more QoL things like speed boosts and such in cash shops nowadays, then, isn't it. And thusly, if that is the case, then there should be no problem in having a companion like Treek available as a QoL cash shop purchase.

 

 

Rebuttals in yellow.

[CosmicKat]

Responding to cosmickitty usually involves asking him/her to back up any of their generic statements which usually involves the ending the conversation.

 

Arbitrary statements do not make facts but so many forum posters think they do. My favorite is that every MMO after WoW has failed because they don't have 10 million subs and pretty much ignoring the fact that 10 million was a complete and utter anomaly that even Blizzard didnt expect.

 

When you have one giant fish in the pond success is measured by longetivy and profit. We have a long way to go with swtor but the signs have been very positive according to the investor statements.

 

There are two giant fish in the pond.

 

They've "failed" because they've failed. Some literally failed and closed. Some went in maintenance mode. Some went F2P, but almost all failed to meet their expectations. In business, this is failing. If you are given a target of making $1,000,000 profit per month, and you end up making $200,000 profit per month, you don't get a "Thanks for making us $200,000!" promotion, you get fired.

[Master_Hitsugaya]

I see no difference...there is a questline to get the robot...there is a questline to get the ewok. Both are content and companions for people to get. I simply think it's unfair to allow the ewok to be sold on the market and achievable with cash money, when the robot is not. It's inconsistent of them to do it this way. Neither achievement is worth less than the other, so why is one being diminished by making it cash shop, and the other not?

 

As I said, I see no difference, and I'd like to see the last 2 HK (group necessity) parts for sale on the CM too. It's only fair the way I see it.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Andryah. And ty for the link to the article, I'm going to give it a read.

 

1 they never said that all companions will be done the same way as HK so that is dumb.

 

2 *** wont you do group finder!!!! I mean with group finder its not hard at all it literally takes you an hour there in logical reason to not do it to get HK and you are asking them to put the 2 easiest parts of the set on CM(1 costs 125k to get the other 4 not only require a 25k item but for you to have alts on both sides and to spend the time search for them on 4 different planets) the 2 you are asking for all you have to his click group finder and do the 2 flashpoints and you are will get them. well allow me to make fun of you for being a idiot(you probs have all other parts but those 2) you will never get hk cause you REFUSE to do a flashpoint so in the words of borat you never get this lalalalalalalalalalalalaal.

[LordArtemis]

That's all true. But does that mean that the game should be totally designed around the guy that logs in once a week for three hours? No.

 

Sure, make some casual friendly stuff. Group Finder and Appearance Editor should make those care bears super happy. The problem is EVERYTHING the devs are adding is vanilla. I honestly wouldn't care if 90% of this game was vanilla if the devs would give me an epic weapon quest chain that took a literal 6 months plus to complete amongst a bit hardcore content. The problem with the devs is that they don't even want to introduce 10% hardcore content because the rewards for that content will have to be off the chain, and then they will get hounded by the casual/F2P crowd that is sad panda because they can't get the items via instant CM purchase that the hardcore guy just spent 6 months working for.

 

Care bears lol. Those care bears as you put it keep the lights on.

 

Note, care bear quote aside, I do not disagree with the general point of your post....the game needs to have a WIDE appeal, and that means appeal to hardcore players as well....and lately they have come up a bit light on the hardcore side of things.

 

In all fairness the game launched with little to appeal to either group. I think they just need to learn what the right balance would be for the release of hardcore/casual content to keep the masses generally satisfied. Right now it's kind of leaning toward casual players a bit too much probably.

[CosmicKat]

Care bears lol. Those care bears as you put it keep the lights on.

 

Note, care bear quote aside, I do not disagree with the general point of your post....the game needs to have a WIDE appeal, and that means appeal to hardcore players as well....and lately they have come up a bit light on the hardcore side of things.

 

In all fairness the game launched with little to appeal to either group. I think they just need to learn what the right balance would be for the release of hardcore/casual content to keep the masses generally satisfied. Right now it's kind of leaning toward casual players a bit too much probably.

 

I am curious. The game today is nearly identical, content-wise, to launch day. The PvE, non-endgame part of the game is literally identical to launch day, not counting bug fixes and the like. What about TOR today is so different from launch day?

 

The game is still a light, easy, accessible game aimed squarely at the WoW demographic and virtually nothing has been done to broaden its appeal. I'm not saying that any of that is bad as an option in gameplay, but when it remains the only option, I don't see what has changed.

 

If 10 million or even 2 or 3 million were paying subscriptions for this model, then... more power to them. But they aren't, and EA/Bioware still have done next to nothing to broaden the game's appeal. All they have really done is add more endgame repetition and a cash shop to what didn't work from the start.

[branmakmuffin]

If 10 million or even 2 or 3 million were paying subscriptions for this model, then... more power to them. But they aren't, and EA/Bioware still have done next to nothing to broaden the game's appeal. All they have really done is add more endgame repetition and a cash shop to what didn't work from the start.

What exactly would you suggest to "broaden" TOR's appeal? Sandbox? That's a niche market and EVE has a lock on sci fi sandbox.

[Master_Hitsugaya]

I am curious. The game today is nearly identical, content-wise, to launch day. The PvE, non-endgame part of the game is literally identical to launch day, not counting bug fixes and the like. What about TOR today is so different from launch day?

 

The game is still a light, easy, accessible game aimed squarely at the WoW demographic and virtually nothing has been done to broaden its appeal. I'm not saying that any of that is bad as an option in gameplay, but when it remains the only option, I don't see what has changed.

 

If 10 million or even 2 or 3 million were paying subscriptions for this model, then... more power to them. But they aren't, and EA/Bioware still have done next to nothing to broaden the game's appeal. All they have really done is add more endgame repetition and a cash shop to what didn't work from the start.

 

I know that it has released a new planet a few new flashpoints, and operations and has also released hard mode if I am not mistaken. I am curious is how much do they have to release for you to say there is something that was not their at launch? I mean I see a difference from rotc and before maybe not huge but still a difference.

[CosmicKat]

I know that it has released a new planet a few new flashpoints, and operations and has also released hard mode if I am not mistaken. I am curious is how much do they have to release for you to say there is something that was not their at launch? I mean I see a difference from rotc and before maybe not huge but still a difference.

 

It's not so much about new content, but re-working existing content.

 

I've played a lot of MMO's, some hugely popular and some major flops. All of them have made significant changes to what they launched with when the flaws and weaknesses in the design become obvious. Come to think of it, any non-MMO I've played in recent memory does the same thing through patches.

[CosmicKat]

What exactly would you suggest to "broaden" TOR's appeal? Sandbox? That's a niche market and EVE has a lock on sci fi sandbox.

 

New planets that are heavily group focused and that offer an alternative leveling path to the linear story game.

 

I suggested this long ago, when most servers were ghost towns...

 

Make duplicates of Coruscant and Kaas. Make mobs way harder, with a more traditional spawn rate (ie. way slower), and convert some larger instance maps to dungeons. Forget about story and clickie quests. Do those worlds as a test and see what existing players prefer, and see if it attracts new players. If it works, they win, if it didn't, they had already lost anyway.

 

Sandbox features are something they are adding, and they are a good addition. Just wish they weren't all gated via CM.

 

All MMO's are niche market. No MMO, except WoW, can afford to throw all their efforts into appealing to only one type of player. There are maybe 20 million people of the 1 billion in the West who have, or will have, any interest in any MMO. Ignoring any segment of that 20 million is a foolish strategy.

 

TOR and Star Wars have virtually nothing in common with EVE. Star Wars is 90% medieval fantasy and the 10% that isn't is space combat that we only wish we had.

[Andryah]

New planets that are heavily group focused and that offer an alternative leveling path to the linear story game.

 

Nonsense. This is a sure way to go out of business in todays MMO player base. You have yourself admitted that this is not what sells MMOs these days.

 

It would satisfy about 100K players max.. and only until they finished the content.. then they would bail.

[Callaron]

Nonsense. This is a sure way to go out of business in todays MMO player base. You have yourself admitted that this is not what sells MMOs these days.

 

It would satisfy about 100K players max.. and only until they finished the content.. then they would bail.

 

I'd be one of the people bowing out if they suddenly started to force me into groups for everything - I absolutely hated it back when DDO was still subscription based.

When I did manage to find a group it was almost always of the "rush, rush!" variety where at least one idiot would run ahead and quickly click away all story conversations before I ever had a chance to read any of them, just so they could get their reward ASAP.

 

Then there was Vanguard, which had a bunch of group quests and some pretty cool dungeons... which no one ever did, except for the ones that were easily farmed - the rest I never got to see because no one could ever be bothered to do those.

 

I love the occasional Flashpoint, Operation and even a group quest now and then - but if I'm going to be dependant on other players for the majority of my online time, adios muchachos.

It's also one of the many reasons why WoW became the success that is today for, they made sure the game was enjoyable solo right up to the endgame - and for those that didn't want to solo there were plenty of dungeons to do.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Callaron

[LordArtemis]

I am curious. The game today is nearly identical, content-wise, to launch day. The PvE, non-endgame part of the game is literally identical to launch day, not counting bug fixes and the like. What about TOR today is so different from launch day?

 

F2P, the market, QoL changes and additions, the addition of post creation appearance change, cross class armor (the removal of visual progression restrictions based on class), sprint changes, speeder changes, universal comms, addition of new armor designs, etc.

 

The game is still a light, easy, accessible game aimed squarely at the WoW demographic and virtually nothing has been done to broaden its appeal. I'm not saying that any of that is bad as an option in gameplay, but when it remains the only option, I don't see what has changed.

 

Fair enough. I understand your point, it is just from my perspective after all. For me it has changed substantially since launch.

 

If 10 million or even 2 or 3 million were paying subscriptions for this model, then... more power to them. But they aren't, and EA/Bioware still have done next to nothing to broaden the game's appeal. All they have really done is add more endgame repetition and a cash shop to what didn't work from the start.

 

Again, fair enough. I believe what they have added has increased overall appeal, but that does not mean they don't have quite a ways to go.

 

This by no means is an attempt to deride your opinion. Only to explain mine.

[TravelersWay]

Good question. I don't know the answer to it. One would think that if you keep releasing Product A, and it is never a boffo success, that maybe you might try Product B? The development cycle on MMO's is 5+ years. 5+ years ago, there was no record of WoW-clone bombs, now there are.

 

I'm not sure about that. I am sure if someone did a little leg work, we would find quite a few "casual" bombs prior to 2008, as well as "hardcore" bombs (Vanguard, anyone?). It's just that in the last 5-8 years or so, more media attention has been focused on the MMO, as companies like EA attempt to make their "WoW-killers" and ultimately fail. However, part of that is due to the hype and unmanaged expectations of the gaming media and the gaming community.

 

Regardless, back to the original point of why the market no longer supports the "traditional" or "hardcore" gameplay that the MMO genre started in. Again, that simply gets back to the shift in priorities of the MMO players and the industries' desire to try and capture as large of a player base as possible in a market flooded with choices. In the end, it just comes down to the fact that "hardcore" will not attract the numbers that "casual" will and thus Product A will always be a niche product that is not as popular as the casual Product B. Therefore, more of Product B will be produced because more people prefer that product and will use it over the others.

 

Failed in every sense of the word. If WoW-like success is their goal, which it is, then they have done a terrible job. You don't spend $100-$200 million making an MMO if "substantially less subscribers than EQ had" is your goal.

Well here you are talking about SWTOR specifically, when the comment I responded to just stated "The majority of solo and/or casual friendly MMO's". That is simply not the case, as the proliferation of casual/solo friendly MMOs continues to increase. Have any of those MMOs lived up to the hype (most of which is media and gaming community generated, and not actually generated by the developer themselves)? No, of course not. In the specific case of EA's comments early in SWTOR's development, I certainly admired their drive and goals, but laughed at the pipe dream for what it was. To expand on what Arkerus points out a couple of posts below my reply to you, there is a difference between failing to meet expectations and hype and failing as a product (complete failure) and thus going away.

 

Tabula Rasa and Auto Assault - two examples of complete failure.

*Insert MMO of choice released in the last 5-6 years that is still on-line* - examples of failing to live up to the hype and expectations of garnering WoW like numbers. Although, to be fair, not every MMO was billed by the community or media to be a WoW-killer and was not marketed as such by the devs of said games.

 

Ultimately, longevity and profitability is the key. In business, you go in expecting a certain level of failure. What separates the men from the boys is the ability to manage that expectation and when the moment comes, be able to reverse course and make the necessary changes to regain profitability and success. Most of *Insert MMO of choice released in the last 5-6 years that is still on-line* have been able to do that, including SWTOR.

 

Eastern MMO's have almost no audience in the Western world, and vice versa. Different tastes, different markets, with completely different profit per customer business models.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with one simple fact that there are more MMO players today then there were during the "hardcore" era of the early years (the original point being made). This is thanks in part not only to the point you mention later (the improvements in technology), but to the paradigm shift in philosophy of appealing to a wider potential player base, which is the "casual" player.

 

WoW and Everquest would beg to differ as they both made huge amounts of money on a purely sub-based model. GW1 wasn't even marketed as an MMO, but as a mass shooter alternative to the MMO, back in the day. The MMO has changed so much that now GW actually is considered an MMO.

I didn't say they didn't. The subscription based model will never go away - there will always be an audience for it, but it is and will continue to become a "niche" product just like the "hardcore" or "sandbox" MMO has become. Actually, GW was marketed as a Co-operative MMO RPG game (CO-MMORPG). It has always been debated on whether the game is a "true" MMO thanks to the instanced explorable areas, but anecdotally speaking, my experience has been that most people (gamers and developers) have always considered GW to be an MMO. However, as you point out, it seems like anything can be an MMO nowadays (keeping dreaming EA and Maxis ).

 

People have short memories. Fact is that owning a "gaming PC" and having unlimited, highspeed internet was hardly commonplace 10 or 15 years ago. The potential pool of households meeting the technical requirements to even play MMO's 15 years ago was a small fraction of what it is today. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that the potential customer base now is much larger than it was in 1999. A PC to run UO or EQ was a $2000 machine and DSL was cutting edge technology that most of the world had literally no access to, even if they wanted it.

 

And thus the point proven that there are more MMO players today than there were in the 90's. It can be an interesting debate on the hypothetical of what the numbers would be like had full and easy access to on-line gameplay been available back then like it is now, but there again, market trends dictate what products will be released and be successful. As the technology got better, there was ample opportunity for the hardcore MMO to gain in popularity. It did not however, so some analyst somewhere can probably make the educated supposition that everything else being equal, the "hardcore" era still would have fewer MMO players than the "casual" era. In my anecdotal supposition, what we saw was that as more people obtained easier access to on-line gaming, they saw what was out there and didn't like it. Therefore, the industry began to give them what they did like - a more easy-going gaming experience until the time of the Perfect Storm where WoW saw the trend and capitalized upon it at the most opportune time.

 

Your argument makes no sense at all unless you feel the only value of your subscription to EA is for the marketing data your account provides them. There is no external advertising in TOR for eyeballs to be worth anything as purely advertising revenue sponges.

I'm just speaking on what I have heard both from gamers and from developers. The most "successful" F2P games are the ones that value you as a customer, regardless of the amount of money you spend. The same holds true in any business environment. I have been on both ends of the spectrum and have found that by treating all the people who walk into my business equally, my business was more profitable than when I drew a distinction between the "premier" customer and the "freeloader". I'm the same way when I patronize a business. I am more likely to revisit and become a customer in a business when the people there treat me the same way as the guy who just dropped $2000 on their Credit Card, even though I just came in for the free giveaway that day.

 

A year ago, prior to the server merges being implemented, what was the primary complaint/concern of the player base? Lack of people to play with on their servers. In an MMO one of the most important aspects of the gameplay is seeing other people on your screen as you travel the virtual world. Devs want people in their game regardless of whether they are paying a subscription or not. It's sort of like a self-fulfilling prophecy - the more players you have, the more that will come. The less players you have, the more that will leave until there is no one playing.

 

If there is one altruism that anyone in business should never forget - never underestimate the power of "Word of Mouth", be it negative or positive.

 

All subscriber and revenue data for all MMO's has to be taken with a giant grain of salt.

Indeed

 

Actual Fact: Everquest seems to have topped out at somewhere around 500k subscribers. This was not only a license to print money, but it almost single-handedly was responsible for creating the MMO industry as a viable business model. There would literally be no WoW, or TOR without its success. At 500k subscribers, SOE was developing expansions all the time, and even developing very similar products to compete with themselves.

All true. But let's remember, back during this time, there were very few options for someone looking to play an MMO, certainly not the selection of games we have today. Also let's remember, if it weren't for Blizzard's "dumbing down the genre" the MMO landscape would be vastly different today as well, and most likely this would still be a very niche genre with a small number of players. EQ and UO created the genre, but WoW gave it life.

 

Now we are told that the same amount of subscribers, paying 50% higher sub rates as well by the way, is "break even point". Either the numbers of subscribers were grossly under-reported back then, the number of subscribers is grossly over-reported now, or the costs to doing business are astronomically higher today than 15 years ago.

I bolded the part of your statement that holds true. The CPP (Cost Per Player) for an MMO being developed today is vastly higher than it was when EQ, UO, Eve, WoW and all the other granddaddy's got their start. That is one of the reasons those games can continue to live on today - even with upgrades and such, their overhead margins are still much more manageable and do not require the number of players to maintain profitability that any "modern" MMO requires. This is one of the reasons we continually see developers and publishers taking the "safe road" and not really trying to redefine the genre. It's just too risky for the amount of money and the number of players needed to recoup their investment. Hence why it makes business sense to try to appeal to the largest possible audience (the "casual" player) when making a AAA title. Just like inflation, the changes to CCP and overhead make the 500,000 subscribers of 15 years ago equal to the 2 million subscribers today.

Edited August 5, 2013 by TravelersWay