Why do people care so much about subscription numbers?

[Gamesux]

How many consumers do you have in your pocket?

 

I think you need reminding, yet again for the hundredth time, that you speak only for yourself. That 'we' that you use exists only in your head.

Actually she does speak for others. For me and for the 100k's of those that unsubscribed for this sinking game. I'm guessing the people who day hours every week defending trolling these boards for a multimillion $ gaming corp who can't even keep their own game afloat without nickel and diming also have more fun posting on the forums than playing the actual game as well. Pretty sad:o

Edited March 1, 2014 by Gamesux

[Arkerus]

Actually she does speak for others. For me and for the 100k's of those that unsubscribed for this sinking game. I'm guessing the people who day hours every week defending trolling these boards for a multimillion $ gaming corp who can't even keep their own game afloat without nickel and diming also have more fun posting on the forums than playing the actual game as well. Pretty sad:o

 

Muhahahahahaha!

 

You'll never escape us! EA is behind every door. GET EM boys!

Edited March 1, 2014 by Arkerus

[Infernixx]

Actually she does speak for others. For me and for the 100k's of those that unsubscribed for this sinking game.

 

Was there some sort of Troll Elections and I missed out on it?

[TravelersWay]

You underestimate the power we consumers have.

 

Stop "accepting it" and it will change, rapidly.

 

And once again, obviously, the consumers have spoken and thus the gaming industry has embraced the idea of cash shops in MMOs, embraced the idea of Digital Distribution, embraced the idea of DLC. Yes, clearly the consumers have spoken, which is why we have had the paradigm shifts to lead us where we are. Welcome to the future.

 

Perhaps, one day farther into the future, the pendulum will swing back. I don't see that happening though. Each of these changes that has occurred has shown an ultimate benefit to the greater majority of consumers (and thus benefits the gaming industry). Therefore they will only continue to grow more popular and strengthen the industry and the business, as the history of the numbers has shown over the last 5-10 years.

 

Ultimately, gamers need to face the facts. The gaming industry is Big Business. Even the indie scene, for all the innocent youth and high moral ideals just boils down to trying to make money with games. The gaming industry is still relatively young - only about 30-odd years old at this point, so it still has a lot to learn from industries that have been around for much longer - like the retail industry. Thus far, it has shown signs of growing and maturing, and thusly, the even younger MMO genre has as well.

 

The Age of the Catasser is over. The Era of the Poopsocker has ended. The days of the PKer are past. This is the 21st Century of gaming and the 21st Century of the MMO genre. There will always be a place for the niche - Eve bears that out. We have been witness to a paradigm shift in the business model of the MMO. Those that refuse to accept the change will be left behind to find a new hobby to enjoy. Those that embrace it will help the genre grow and mature further. The Subscription based model is not going away completely. Also with that, people either don't know, or conveniently forget that the Free to Play model has been around just as long (if not longer) than the sub-based model, and has proven to be at least equally profitable (and more so in some cases). There are games that launched F2P in the late 90's that are still going strong today.

 

It is only because of the efforts of companies like Sony, Blizzard, and Origin Systems that the gaming community became convinced that you needed a subscription in order to produce an enjoyable MMO. That has never been the case, and we are now seeing the majority of the gaming community realizing that fact. Credit has to go to ArenaNet with the original Guild Wars for bucking the trend, and opening the eyes of gamers to the thriving Free to Play market. As a community, we are still not there yet - as evidenced by opinions and threads similar to this across all gaming outlets, but as I said, the industry is maturing and we are learning along with it. The hybrid Freemium model is the future of the genre. It offers the best of both worlds when done correctly. Sure, there will be mis-steps along the way, but that is all part of the learning process. Again, gamers have a choice. Either embrace the maturity and the future of the industry and help it grow in the correct direction or allow it to pass them by, continue living in the past, and ultimately go the way of the Dodo.

Edited March 1, 2014 by TravelersWay

[CosmicKat]

Was there some sort of Troll Elections and I missed out on it?

 

/General chat called. It asked for its level of maturity back.

[CosmicKat]

And once again, obviously, the consumers have spoken and thus the gaming industry has embraced the idea of cash shops in MMOs, embraced the idea of Digital Distribution, embraced the idea of DLC. Yes, clearly the consumers have spoken, which is why we have had the paradigm shifts to lead us where we are. Welcome to the future.

 

You are equating things that have little to do with each other.

 

Digital Distribution began because large software companies tried to exclude smaller ones from retail space, by signing "exclusives" with large retailers. It's been pretty much the only way to buy any game not published by the Big 3-5 publishers for years now. It's a different way for the customer to get exactly the same thing, minus a box, for the same or less cost. Old games (6 months+) are far cheaper, and far easier to get on Steam than they ever have been in any store that I've seen.

 

DLC has been around for years as well. It has historically also just been a way for the customer to get exactly the same thing, minus a box, for the same or less cost.

 

Cash Shops are not the same thing. Cash Shops have split up into two separate things what a subscription used to pay for. They are a way of charging twice for the same thing. It's not possible to directly pay cash for all the benefits of a subscription in the Cash Shop.

 

1 and 2 are accepted because they offer the same thing at no extra, and often, less cost.

To call number 3 accepted is a stretch. It's like saying $12 popcorn at the theatre is embraced because they sell lots.

[Khevar]

And once again, obviously, the consumers have spoken and thus the gaming industry has embraced the idea of cash shops in MMOs, embraced the idea of Digital Distribution, embraced the idea of DLC. Yes, clearly the consumers have spoken, which is why we have had the paradigm shifts to lead us where we are. Welcome to the future.

 

Perhaps, one day farther into the future, the pendulum will swing back. I don't see that happening though. Each of these changes that has occurred has shown an ultimate benefit to the greater majority of consumers (and thus benefits the gaming industry). Therefore they will only continue to grow more popular and strengthen the industry and the business, as the history of the numbers has shown over the last 5-10 years.

I feel you're overlooking something. When a big game publisher has a "safe" way to make money, it tends stifle more creative ways to make money that could ALSO make a better game.

 

Such things involve risk, and while it is understandable to be risk-averse, it doesn't mean that it is a good thing for the medium.

 

By way of example, Chris Roberts came back to the game business a little over a year ago. He wanted to make a new space sim. He went to big publishers and they told him: "why don't you make an iphone/console game?" They told him "there is no market for space games". They were being "safe".

 

Instead he opens it up to crowd funding and gamers (not publishers) throw $40 million at him. Of course, this doesn't automatically mean that it will be successful. It is possible that his game will fail and all that money will be lost, and "play it safe" publishers were right.

 

But think about the fact that there were FOURTY-MILLION-DOLLARS worth of gamers that were tired of this type of thinking: "these changes that has occurred has shown an ultimate benefit to the greater majority of consumers".

 

These consumers were willing to potentially throw money away just for the possibility of getting a great game.

 

The microtransaction model of putting random loot in lottery packs is here to stay. Of this I have no doubt. It just makes too much money for EA. It could (as some people argue) have even saved the game from dying. I don't know if that's true. But perhaps.

 

But I do know that it is Safe and Easy way for EA to make money. They are a "risk-averse" company. They are unlikely to take the profits from the CM and use it to triple the content development resources. But just because they are operating the "safe" way doesn't automatically make it the best thing for the game.

[Infernixx]

/General chat called. It asked for its level of maturity back.

 

We are not amused.

[TravelersWay]

You are equating things that have little to do with each other.

 

<snip>

 

1 and 2 are accepted because they offer the same thing at no extra, and often, less cost.

To call number 3 accepted is a stretch. It's like saying $12 popcorn at the theatre is embraced because they sell lots.

 

They have more to do with each other than you would believe, especially for the things that you left out. Both 1 and 2 were not universally embraced by the gaming community, but there were also those in the community and the industry that saw the benefits of digital distribution and DLC. Brick and mortar exclusives actually had less to do with DD than did the fact that publishers realized that they could save more money by using DD and cutting out the middle men. Gamers realized that DD offered quicker and easier ways of getting the games they wanted on demand.

 

In the end, consumers are not to blame for the failure of a consumer product, but they are certainly the reason for the success of a consumer product. If the vast majority of consumers were so adverse to the cost of popcorn in a movie theater, they would not pay it. Popcorn is not necessary to viewing or enjoying the movie. They buy it because they want to regardless of the cost. Is that necessarily being a "smart" consumer? That is debatable, but in the end its their choice. Clearly more choose to buy than not. Again, the business is not to blame if people are willing to accept it. There have been more than enough examples in history where consumers rebelled and something was changed or reversed.

 

I feel you're overlooking something. When a big game publisher has a "safe" way to make money, it tends stifle more creative ways to make money that could ALSO make a better game.

 

<snip>

 

But I do know that it is Safe and Easy way for EA to make money. They are a "risk-averse" company. They are unlikely to take the profits from the CM and use it to triple the content development resources. But just because they are operating the "safe" way doesn't automatically make it the best thing for the game.

 

I'm not overlooking that at all - it's the nature of business regardless of the particular industry that business is in. But again, while in some circumstances some things may not be entirely beneficial to a particular industry, they may also not be particularly harmful, either. We should remember the old adage - "the bigger they are, the harder they fall." Taking risks is necessary for the advancement of an industry, however, it is much easier for the smaller or independent company/person to take the risk because the potential failure has fewer consequences to the greater whole. It's a whole other story when you are talking about a megacorporation though. Rarely, does the "little guy" ever escape the consequences when one of them fail. So yes, as much as taking risks is necessary, more so is playing it safe.

 

As I said, there is always room for niche. There will always be some demand for a particular type of game or playstyle. "Better" is a subjective term. Many, many suggestions on how to make games better actually only cater to a particular portion of the playerbase - and some would actually make a game worse for another segment. Can we get "better" in terms of game launches and bugs - almost certainly, but the kind of work necessary to make that happen also comes with a price. Chris Roberts got $40 million based on his reputation and past successes alone. That is no surprise, but again, that amount of money is paltry compared to the budgets needed to produce a AAA title nowadays. Not to mention the fact that gamers spend billions of dollars in MMO cash shops around the world. So yes, there is a segment of the gaming community that believes in what Chris Roberts is doing. There is also a vastly larger part of the community that apparently has no problem with paying $12 for a bucket of popcorn.

 

Gamers have been offered a choice for the last decade (of a sort, as I mentioned previously with Sony, Blizzard, and Origin). However, once gamers realized that they actually did have a choice and it really wasn't "One business model to rule them all," gamers have spoken with their wallets. A pure subscription based game is no longer the only choice, and has no bearing on the quality of that game. I could see the point if each and every game that has been released since WoW was an unmitigated PoS (some where, naturally), but the majority of these games have often found more popularity and more profitability after changing their business model. Clearly, gamers didn't think the games worth their $15/month, but equally clearly gamers think they are worth their time and thus for a portion of those players, much more than that. Gamers had a choice. That choice has lead the Cash Shop to being the most profitable business model for the MMO genre. Gamers, and no one else made that choice. There have been more than enough examples in history where consumers rebelled and something was changed or reversed. Clearly this is not one of those cases.

 

Once again, the gaming community ultimately benefits because that means more gamers have an opportunity to play more games (without breaking the bank) and thus have more opportunity to find and spend money on games that they truly enjoy and suit their needs. The gaming industry benefits because it gives them the opportunity to make more money to make more games, and see what the trends in the gaming community are.

Edited March 1, 2014 by TravelersWay

[Arkerus]

If you don't like it, don't pay for it.

 

The only people who you can blame are the consumers. They have embraced the freemium and cash shop models.

 

If gamers had one iota of self control, the industry never would have shifted.

 

But folks, here we are. In some ways a lot of good things came out of it. You really can try before you buy now. You have access to SO much more. It really is amazing a person can play swtor for "free". That was unheard of even 10 years ago.

 

But if you don't like it the only person you have to blame is yourself...if you ever helped pay for it. And even if you didn't here, I assume you paid for it somewhere else. Gamers gamers like to talk a good talk, but no one ever backs it up.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Arkerus

[Khevar]

I find it sad that TravelersWay and Arkerus speak not only as if the current state of things is a fait accompli and no discussion or attempt to improve it is worthwhile, but actually suggest that the current shift is the best thing for gaming as a whole.

[DarthMaulUK]

Sub matters probably to those looking to invest their time and money in to a game. WoW raised the bar and unfortunately (rightly or wrongly) every MMO since has been deemed a failure if it doesn't at least come close to WoWs 10million(now 7) subs by the playing community.

 

Of course, you can still have 1 million subs and be yielding a profit, lots of MMOs do. However, SWTOR was different. It was a car crash happening in slow motion when almost 1.7 million jumped ship so quickly. And from a standing start of 2 million, that wasn't good.

 

The fact EA don't talk about subs and even this little carrot of a 'free' speeder if you're a sub by March 18th shows that they are trying to booster numbers before the next investor call.

 

A Digital in game market does work but what doesn't is when you restrict areas of play. That benefits no one. Q times are longer, servers will feel empty because players have limits to how many Operations/Warzones/Flashpoints they can do and will only play at peak hours.

 

With TESO and Wildstar next up as subscription MMOs, it will be interesting to see how many last the 3 short months before players ditch it and the games switch to F2P.

 

The problem Bioware had, is that they didn't expect their game to crash so hard and so fast and left it in limbo for months until they came back with the Cartel market and now that's their only main focus.

 

When you have a free to play game like Guild Wars 2 that can churn out regular content every 2-3 weeks, it makes SWTOR look poor when its cycle is 6-9 weeks.

[Darth_Wicked]

(...) The fact EA don't talk about subs and even this little carrot of a 'free' speeder if you're a sub by March 18th shows that they are trying to booster numbers before the next investor call. (...)

 

I'm fairly sure that vehicle is meant as an appreciation to existing subs, NOT an attempt to draw in new ones.

 

If they wanted to go for the latter, they'd introduce something far more shinny, not a reskin from a pre-existing vehicle model most don't care about, I'm sure.

[Gamesux]

We are not amused.

The majority have spoken and in favor of CosmicKat's stance. Deal with it:cool:

[TravelersWay]

I find it sad that TravelersWay and Arkerus speak not only as if the current state of things is a fait accompli and no discussion or attempt to improve it is worthwhile, but actually suggest that the current shift is the best thing for gaming as a whole.

 

Discussion is always worthwhile, which is why I am here discussing it and not (like some people in this thread) throwing around personal insults and trollish comments (at least I hope I am not). But again, when we talk about making something better are we talking about making it objectively better or subjectively better?

 

What is objectively better? Ensuring the Gaming Industry can maximize profits and therefore gaming publishers and developers can continue to exist, employ people, and continue to produce games. When a publisher or developer closes its doors nobody wins. The art of being a good businessman: finding a need and then developing a process to supply that need. The gaming industry has done that with the cash shop. Why is the cash shop one of the most lucrative ways for a game to make money - because the consumer (the gamer) is willing to spend a crapton of money in a cash shop. That's how business works, end of story.

 

What else is objectively better? Ensuring that a launch of a game goes smoothly and the game itself is as bug free and playable as possible. Clearly we are not there yet, but discussing and raging about these things lets the industry know we are not happy. Yes, we should continually demand and feel entitled to both of these things, because in the end ensuring that is better for both us the consumer, and for the publisher/developer.

 

What is subjectively better? Player housing, sandbox elements and mini games, Hard Mode and Nightmare mode content, sitting in chairs, chat bubbles, crafting, PvP modes, etc. Each and every one of these types of things only cater to a certain playstyle. Therefore, their inclusion or lack thereof in any particular game will only make the game better or worse for a certain segment of the overall player community. In many instances, some of these elements are diametrically opposed to other playstyles, so while their inclusion makes a game better for one part of the population, it makes it worse for the other part of the population.

 

Subjectively speaking what would make SWTOR better for me?

Continuing the class storylines. That's it. I don't care about PvP (hell remove it completely from the game for all I care). I don't care about HM and NiM Operations, get rid of them too. I don't care about Pazaak. I don't care about Swoop Racing. I don't care about Crafting. I don't care about sitting in chairs, nor chat bubbles. None of it enhances my gameplay experience. None of it would make SWTOR a better game for me. But even that would not make SWTOR the #1 all time favorite and best game I have ever played in my life. You know what would? If SWTOR was made EXACTLY like Guild Wars 1, only with a Star Wars skin. Even then it would still just be tied for #1 with the original Guild Wars. Why is Guild Wars my #1 game? It's not because of some great execution of mechanics or inclusion of any unique and groundbreaking ideal. It's because I have completely subjective fun in the game and continue to do so to this day. That's also the same reason why I play the original Wizardry games in all their white-lined maze glory.

 

This is what happens when you get into discussions about Subjective Betterness. Are they still worth having? I think so, at the very least they can be entertaining when one cannot be enjoying the game itself. However, ultimately, they don't get as much accomplished as objective discussions. A game does not have to be a great work of art to be good. (As an aside, I once saw the Mona Lisa, this great work of art that everyone holds in high regards. My first thought when I first saw it up close and personal in front of me: "Is that all? Meh, whatever.")

 

Once again, let me repost what I said in my last post about the Freemium Business Model:

The gaming community ultimately benefits because that means more gamers have an opportunity to play more games (without breaking the bank) and thus have more opportunity to find and spend money on games that they truly enjoy and suit their needs. The gaming industry benefits because it gives them the opportunity to make more money to make more games, and see what the trends in the gaming community are.

 

Can any of that be denied? Can anyone come here and say that it is better to have fewer people playing fewer games? There are certain people who like to throw around terms indicating that other players are cheapskates and would rather pay nothing for games. In any situation, you will always have people like that. But in that same situation you will always have more people who are willing to pay an appropriate price, and another smaller number who are always willing to pay more. There are many examples of gamers paying for games that require no payment at all because those gamers felt the game was worth the money. Your example with Chris Roberts proves the point that gamers are willing to pay for things they think are worth their money. Cash Shops do the exact same thing. I reiterate, quality is in the eyes of the beholder. Can high fidelity graphics enhance a good gameplay experience? Absolutely. Can they enhance a bad gameplay experience? Absolutely Not. In the end, something as objective as graphics still cannot make a bad game better. So what makes the difference between a good game and a bad game? Like we said before, bugs are certainly an objective matter. However, when you start digging into it, you find that most gameplay experiences boil down to a whole bunch of subjective ideas and feelings. Improving one does not necessarily improve the overall game for everyone.

 

When you have a free to play game like Guild Wars 2 that can churn out regular content every 2-3 weeks, it makes SWTOR look poor when its cycle is 6-9 weeks.

 

Agreed, but then again, GW2 was built from the ground up around that concept and cadence update. Quite frankly, it seems EA/BW were looking more towards a WoW type of cadence, which is not necessarily a bad thing, and thus built their game around that. Absolutely they made mistakes in the use of an Alpha Hero Engine and underestimating the content locusts. But then again, not all the blame for that can rest on them. Knowing how business deals are done with things like that in the tech industry, the makers of the Hero Engine should also hold some blame, as do the content locusts and players who could not manage their own expectations do as well.

 

I'm fairly sure that vehicle is meant as an appreciation to existing subs, NOT an attempt to draw in new ones.

 

If they wanted to go for the latter, they'd introduce something far more shinny, not a reskin from a pre-existing vehicle model most don't care about, I'm sure.

 

Absolutely correct. If this really was a play to bring in more subs for this time of year, they would have given us the exclusive use of the Rancor mount and not a reskin of the Godawful Sleigh 1 Life Day mount.

 

The majority have spoken and in favor of CosmicKat's stance. Deal with it:cool:

 

Obviously not. The majority have spoken for the last several years, and thus we see the paradigm shift to the Freemium/F2P business model. If, indeed, the majority of the gaming community favored a pure sub based business model, WoW would not have made $213 million on its cash shop alone last year.

Edited March 1, 2014 by TravelersWay

[Infernixx]

The majority have spoken and in favor of CosmicKat's stance. Deal with it:cool:

 

One person is not a majority. lol

[Khevar]

...

 

Obviously not. The majority have spoken for the last several years, and thus we see the paradigm shift to the Freemium/F2P business model. If, indeed, the majority of the gaming community favored a pure sub based business model, WoW would not have made $213 million on its cash shop alone last year.

I am not criticizing the freemium model, nor am I lamenting the death of the sub.

 

Let me summarize the points I've tried to make earlier in this thread:

 

1. Creating a few pieces of cosmetic gear and adding them as rare drops to lottery packs is the least amount of effort required to generate revenue for EA.

2. According to the various earnings reports running around the net, it's also ridiculously effective.

3. There are two possible ways a business could react to this fact:

a. This is working. Let's keep doing this (the safe way)

b. Let's take all this revenue and re-invest in the game (the risky way)

 

Arkerus says that we shouldn't complain, after all, we're the idiots that bought all the Cartel Packs.

 

You suggest that this shift is actually good for gaming as a whole.

 

I would like to see the risky approach. It is unlikely to happen. But that doesn't mean I don't want to campaign for it.

[Gamesux]

Sub > Free2milk

[DarthDymond]

I am not criticizing the freemium model, nor am I lamenting the death of the sub.

 

Let me summarize the points I've tried to make earlier in this thread:

 

1. Creating a few pieces of cosmetic gear and adding them as rare drops to lottery packs is the least amount of effort required to generate revenue for EA.

2. According to the various earnings reports running around the net, it's also ridiculously effective.

3. There are two possible ways a business could react to this fact:

a. This is working. Let's keep doing this (the safe way)

b. Let's take all this revenue and re-invest in the game (the risky way)

 

Arkerus says that we shouldn't complain, after all, we're the idiots that bought all the Cartel Packs.

 

You suggest that this shift is actually good for gaming as a whole.

 

I would like to see the risky approach. It is unlikely to happen. But that doesn't mean I don't want to campaign for it.

Since the launch of F2P they have released:

2 major DLCs: one of which had a new leveling planet and the other which had an entirely new game mode;

and 10 content patches which have included:

• 3 new operations,
  
• 3 new flashpoints,
  
• 3 new reoccurring events,
  
• 3 new daily areas,
  
• a new 8v8 warzone and 4 new 4v4 arenas,
  
• and 2 new companion characters.
  

 

And they have two more DLCs planned for this year, plus more flashpoints, warzones, and GSF content already announced.

 

That looks to me like they are very much reinvesting the cartel market money into the game.

[Arkerus]

Since the launch of F2P they have released:

2 major DLCs: one of which had a new leveling planet and the other which had an entirely new game mode;

and 10 content patches which have included:

• 3 new operations,
  
• 3 new flashpoints,
  
• 3 new reoccurring events,
  
• 3 new daily areas,
  
• a new 8v8 warzone and 4 new 4v4 arenas,
  
• and 2 new companion characters.
  

 

And they have two more DLCs planned for this year, plus more flashpoints, warzones, and GSF content already announced.

 

That looks to me like they are very much reinvesting the cartel market money into the game.

 

People like to ignore the facts. None of that will count...because...just because.

[Arkerus]

I find it sad that TravelersWay and Arkerus speak not only as if the current state of things is a fait accompli and no discussion or attempt to improve it is worthwhile, but actually suggest that the current shift is the best thing for gaming as a whole.

 

Actions speak louder than words. If you are all such stalwart defenders of the old business models, then why are companies making money (a lot of it) from packs, DLC, freemium, etc?

 

If no one was buying it, or actually put some action behind their words, these models wouldn't work. The would have crashed and burned a long time ago.

But since gamers can't walk the walk, here we are. The way I see it we drove them in this direction. At least the freemium and f2p models allow you to try something before you sink money into it.

 

And the nice part about SWTOR, you can pay a sub and not spend a dime on the CM. They are selling to both crowds. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

If anyone points to the "whales" and says "they buy all the CM items", then I will point to you and say "why are you spending money with a company that promotes such practice?"

 

The power is in the consumer hands.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Arkerus

[Khevar]

Since the launch of F2P they have released:

2 major DLCs: one of which had a new leveling planet and the other which had an entirely new game mode;

and 10 content patches which have included:

• 3 new operations,
  
• 3 new flashpoints,
  
• 3 new reoccurring events,
  
• 3 new daily areas,
  
• a new 8v8 warzone and 4 new 4v4 arenas,
  
• and 2 new companion characters.
  

 

And they have two more DLCs planned for this year, plus more flashpoints, warzones, and GSF content already announced.

 

That looks to me like they are very much reinvesting the cartel market money into the game.

That is a rather generous viewpoint.

 

HK-51 was released at the same time as the CM. The Gree Event and Terror from Beyond were released immediately following it. Those were funded primary by the sub model.

 

Makeb was released 5 months after CM. I'm sure the the CM helped fund it's completion, but it is more likely that much of the work was paid for by the previous sub model.

 

The SSSP is most likely funded by CM, it's true. As well, I agree that the closing of 2013 saw quite a bit of content released. Things have since quieted down. The Dread War released in October 2013, and the next operation release date has yet to be announced. Since June 2014 is NP DP, it is possible we may go almost a full year before getting a new one.

 

But unless you've followed my other posts in this thread, you might assume that I'm whining, or saying the TOR is terrible, or equating me with the so-called "content locusts". If so, you're mistaken.

 

The point I'm trying to make, is that the pace of development TO ME, doesn't match what it could be, based on the reported earnings of CM. It appears that EA is taking the "safe" approach, and putting a minimum of resources into content development, as they can continue to make profit off of the existing CM "lottery pack" model.

People like to ignore the facts. None of that will count...because...just because.

Is it necessary to be snide?

Edited March 1, 2014 by Khevar

[DarthDymond]

[...snip]The Dread War released in October 2013, and the next operation release date has yet to be announced. Since June 2014 is NP DP, it is possible we may go almost a full year before getting a new one. [...snip...]

This isn't particularly targeted at your reply, but the talk about a long gap between Operations is something I see getting brought up in general again and again. It's honestly to the point I think BW would have been better served by just releasing DF and Oricon in 2.4 (a daily area with a one-time story content playthrough plus a full Operation would have been plenty to carry a patch) and then releasing DP in 2.5 or 2.6.

 

I feel like they really don't get enough credit for releasing two full Ops together in a non-"Expansion" patch.

 

It's obviously very subjective what counts as "fast enough" for content being released to keep people happy, but in my opinion they've kept up a really good cadence overall. Really though, what games are releasing content that much faster than SWTOR that people think what we've been getting counts as slow?

Edited March 1, 2014 by DarthDymond

[Khevar]

...

 

It's obviously very subjective what counts as "fast enough" for content being released to keep people happy, but in my opinion they've kept up a really good cadence overall. Really though, what games are releasing content that much faster than SWTOR that people think what we've been getting counts as slow?

This is fair. And of course "enough" will always be 100% subjective.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Khevar

[Elyx]

I don't' see Sub-numbers as a direct indicator of a game's health. It's more like cholesterol levels. higher Cholesterol floating in your blood doesn't indicate that you are unhealthy, but increases your chances of having unhealthy issues in your bloodstream (as it's a reaction to the body of having an unhealthy state). Higher cholesterol doesn't guarantee that you will have arteriosclerosis, but drastically increases your chances that it's "there". It's not causational, its only correlational.

 

Yet in spite of this correlational only environment, we tend to over-focus on "reducing our cholesterol", instead of just building a healthier lifestyle in our diets and activities. In a similar fashion. "X" subs don't indicate an unhealthy game...but dramatic changes in subs indicated deeper issues in the game that "could' lead someone to be concerned about the games health and the recent changes.

 

Given that Bio recently indicated that the bulk of their monthly income STILL comes from subs (vs. f2p cash) indicates that subs are still a very impacting metric on the company's income...thus it's often used as a barometer for game "health". but like cholesterol, it is simply a metric....not THE metric...just an important one. and like Cholesterol, It is easy to overemphasis focus on the metric rather then seeing it for what it is...just a metric.