Why do people care so much about subscription numbers?

[Infernixx]

Huh...how long was Soa bugged after launch? That was literally close to a year. I don't believe "quality" is as important as you think it is to these guys. I'm not suggesting they don't try, just that I don't think it holds them back much.

 

Are we still at launch? Why harp on past mistakes? Live in the here and now, dude.

[TUXs]

It's amazing how people take what 'they' personally see and simply assume that's what defines the entirety.

 

In other words, you speak for yourself and only yourself. Unless you have a few hundred thousand players huddled around you and your computer, telling you what to type.

 

Also, I'm glad that they focus on quality. But then I'm not an instant-gratification sort, either.

 

I'm also amazed at how secluded and isolated from the reality of the server some players are. And I'll speak of what I see all I like Infernixx...it's my observations, not my opinions. My observation is that the lack of new content is hurting this game in a big way. My personal feeling is that GSF is freaking awesome and I LOVE it! "I" personally always have stuff to do.

[TUXs]

Are we still at launch? Why harp on past mistakes? Live in the here and now, dude.

LOL! Read the quote of yours...context means everything.

[TUXs]

To be honest, I am not defending EA (or even Bioware). If they choose to make decisions that impact their bottom line (+ or -) that is their decision to make. People often accuse me of being a glorious defender or fan boy but I have some of hte same complaints others do. I just understand how many of those decisions came to be (practically speaking) and I know what is realistic to ask for and what is not.

 

What I try to steer people away from are blanket, sweeping statements about development and decisions that don't make any sense and don't reflect the way the real world works.

Understood I think you're generally a very fair commentator...usually siding with the business, not the consumer, on issues, but I enjoy your commentary and respect your opinions.

[Arkerus]

Understood I think you're generally a very fair commentator...usually siding with the business, not the consumer, on issues, but I enjoy your commentary and respect your opinions.

 

To be fair, I am very pro business because I think consumers win when businesses compete. (Unfortunately comcast just bought out TWC and quite honestly I hope the DOJ strikes it down.)

[TUXs]

To be fair, I am very pro business because I think consumers win when businesses compete. (Unfortunately comcast just bought out TWC and quite honestly I hope the DOJ strikes it down.)

 

100% agree with both sentiments!

 

edit: And ya know what, maybe we (consumers) will "win" when the next big updates are released. With the new MMOs coming, perhaps there is a trick or two that Bioware has planned.

Edited February 27, 2014 by TUXs

[Andryah]

To be honest, I am not defending EA (or even Bioware). If they choose to make decisions that impact their bottom line (+ or -) that is their decision to make. People often accuse me of being a glorious defender or fan boy but I have some of hte same complaints others do. I just understand how many of those decisions came to be (practically speaking) and I know what is realistic to ask for and what is not.

 

What I try to steer people away from are blanket, sweeping statements about development and decisions that don't make any sense and don't reflect the way the real world works.

 

/Agree.

 

Some players behave as though an MMO must be perfect and perfect for them. Never going to happen, and if that is the way a player thinks... then it is no surprise to see them complain about the game. This would of course be true for all MMOs as well, and is easily observed by reading game specific forums.

 

Playing an MMO is playing for what it is and what it offers, NOT what you wish it to be. All MMOs have issues, they all suck at some things and excel at others, and will never live up to the full expectations of it's player base (most especially in the area of pace of new content). And at the end of the day, it's a business...run for profit.. NOT a charity support team for players personal desires and tastes. So.. some players simply will never see changes or additions to a game that they personally desire....even if others desire it as well.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Andryah

[TUXs]

/Agree.

 

Some players behave as though an MMO must be perfect and perfect for them. Never going to happen, and if that is the way a player thinks... then it is no surprise to see them complain about the game. This would of course be true for all MMOs as well, and is easily observed by reading game specific forums.

 

Playing an MMO is playing for what it is and what it offers, NOT what you wish it to be. All MMOs have issues, they all suck at some things and excel at others, and will never live up to the full expectations of it's player base (most especially in the area of pace of new content). And at the end of the day, it's a business...run for profit.. NOT a charity support team for players personal desires and tastes. So.. some players simply will never see changes or additions to a game that they personally desire....even if others desire it as well.

 

WHO? Who are you speaking of when you say some think an MMO must be perfect? WHO here is suggesting that ANY game be or is or could be perfect? Or is that just your typical hyperbole to begin your diatribe against the players?

 

And you're wrong...it's entertainment. People can enjoy it for what it is, that's fine, but as an MMO, it's always evolving to continue to try to entertain. That's why we get updates and expansions and balance changes and QoL updates...the "comments" from players that you so despise, are simply customers letting Bioware know what entertains them and what they would like...and obviously it's all personal desire...that's what opinions are.

[TravelersWay]

WHO? Who are you speaking of when you say some think an MMO must be perfect? WHO here is suggesting that ANY game be or is or could be perfect? Or is that just your typical hyperbole to begin your diatribe against the players?

 

And you're wrong...it's entertainment. People can enjoy it for what it is, that's fine, but as an MMO, it's always evolving to continue to try to entertain. That's why we get updates and expansions and balance changes and QoL updates...the "comments" from players that you so despise, are simply customers letting Bioware know what entertains them and what they would like...and obviously it's all personal desire...that's what opinions are.

 

TBH though - isn't all that suggestion stuff that's based on personal desires meant to do exactly that - make an MMO perfect for that particular player? Isn't that why we continually have people wanting more and more sandbox features in this game - so the game is "more perfect" for them, despite the fact that the game was not designed in such a manner?

 

Not for nothing, and regardless of what one may think of Andryah or her comments, the gaming community as a whole is rather a fickle, overly demanding, and generally entitled bunch. Hence going back to my previous comments about the community complaining about WoW clones, then when something different does come along, complaining that it needs to be more like WoW to be any good. The gaming community continually complains about how companies like EA **** on the gaming community, yet go right back and allow themselves to be **** on on a regular basis. Really says a lot about the intelligence of the gaming community as a whole, methinks.

Edited February 27, 2014 by TravelersWay

[NoFishing]

People make risky decisions every day because the benefit has a calculated value of being greater than the risk. When you walk down the street or drive a car, its a calculated decision you just made.

 

I'm sorry, but all that benefit analysis, and especially in software products, boils down to assumptions and guesses about the future. Sure you can do research, studies, talk to potential customers about what they *think* they want and what they *might* be willing to pay, etc. But at the end of the day, all you've done is make a slightly more educated guess.

 

This is the problem with people a lot of people with masters degrees in business (not all of them, but a lot). They think all those numbers they put into their pretty little spreadsheets actually mean anything. They are based on assumptions and predictions of the future that are always clouded by what the company wants the CBA to say.

 

I'll give you a nice public example: Boeing's 787 program. When started, their bean counters had done all the math to show they could design, build, and deliver it in about 5 years. Why so quickly? Because the demand was high with rising fuel prices and airlines trying to cut costs in the travel downturn after 2001. They wanted the purchase commitments from the airlines before they all bought Airbus A320s or A330s. Boeing ignored their 30-years worth of experience in designing and delivering new airplanes, experience that should have told them it takes 8-10 years to design and build a new airplane. And they felt safe doing that because they had contracts with suppliers that said systems and parts would be designed and built on a given schedule for x amount of money. But their suppliers had to compete for the contracts, so of course they were going to commit to Boeing's aggressive schedule, and figure out how to meet it later!

 

The result was entirely predictable, and yet somehow Boeing didn't see it coming. Cost overruns, redesigns, supply chain delays, disputes with suppliers about redesign costs, etc. Those delays meant it was 7 years before flight testing started, and nearly 9 years before first delivery occurred.

 

They made a decision to invest in the airplane exactly as you expect they would. They carefully analyzed the costs, risks, and benefits. And yet somehow, with all of those very smart people doing analysis, they didn't start with the correct assumption about the future: it takes 8-10 years to design and deliver a new commercial airplane.

 

How does stuff like this happen? A bit closer to my own experience, we once estimated the cost of moving a production line overseas. The cost we estimated was something like $5mil. We were told essentially that was too expensive, do it again, and come up with a cheaper number. So we said $3mil. The actual budget for the move: $1 mil. The final cost was around $4mil as I recall, but the persons responsible for the CBA tweaked the numbers to get a green light on the project because the company executives HAD ALREADY DECIDED to offshore the production, and put pressure on them to "make the numbers work". Why would they do this? Because everyone else was offshoring, so they could "cut" costs and see their stock price go up. All the stock market cared about was if a company appeared to be cutting costs. So since everyone else was offshoring, we needed to do it too.

 

Of course the one-time charges relating to the project were larger than expected, but nobody really payed attention to that.

Edited February 27, 2014 by NoFishing

[Elfa]

OMG, you mean subscription numbers decrease over the life of an MMO?!

 

Someone get chicken little on the line please, I believe the sky is falling...

[Arkerus]

I'm sorry, but all that benefit analysis, and especially software products, boils down to assumptions and guesses about the future. Sure you can do research, studies, talk to potential customers about what they *think* they want and what they *might* be willing to pay, etc. But at the end of the day, all you've done is make a slightly more educated guess.

 

This is the problem with people a lot of people with masters degrees in business (not all of them, but a lot). They think all those numbers they put into their pretty little spreadsheets actually mean anything. They are based on assumptions and predictions of the future that are always clouded by what the company wants the CBA to say.

 

I'll give you a nice public example: Boeing's 787 program. When started, their bean counters had done all the math to show they could design, build, and deliver it in about 5 years. Why so quickly? Because the demand was high with rising fuel prices and airlines trying to cut costs in the travel downturn after 2001. They wanted the purchase commitments from the airlines before they all bought Airbus A320s or A330s. Boeing ignored their 30-years worth of experience in designing and delivering new airplanes, experience that should have told them it takes 8-10 years to design and build a new airplane. And they felt safe doing that because they had contracts with suppliers that said systems and parts would be designed and built on a given schedule for x amount of money. But their suppliers had to compete for the contracts, so of course they were going to commit to Boeing's aggressive schedule, and figure out how to meet it later!

 

The result was entirely predictable, and yet somehow Boeing didn't see it coming. Cost overruns, redesigns, supply chain delays, disputes with suppliers about redesign costs, etc. Those delays meant it was 7 years before flight testing started, and nearly 9 years before first delivery occurred.

 

They made a decision to invest in the airplane exactly as you expect they would. They carefully analyzed the costs, risks, and benefits. And yet somehow, with all of those very smart people doing analysis, they didn't start with the correct assumption about the future: it takes 8-10 years to design and deliver a new commercial airplane.

 

How does stuff like this happen? A bit closer to my own experience, we once estimated the cost of moving a production line overseas. The cost we estimated was something like $5mil. We were told essentially that was too expensive, do it again, and come up with a cheaper number. So we said $3mil. The actual budget for the move: $1 mil. The final cost was around $4mil as I recall, but the persons responsible for the CBA tweaked the numbers to get a green light on the project because the company executives HAD ALREADY DECIDED to offshore the production, and put pressure on them to "make the numbers work". Why would they do this? Because everyone else was offshoring, so they could "cut" costs and see their stock price go up. All the stock market cared about was if a company appeared to be cutting costs. So since everyone else was offshoring, we needed to do it too.

 

Of course the one-time charges relating to the project were larger than expected, but nobody really payed attention to that.

 

I don't know why you think I disagree with your general statements. At no point in time did I say the decision making process creates 100% correct decisions. Its a PROCESS. Its a PROCESS I was trying to explain to many of the folks in this thread. Seriously. That's it.

 

Most "bad" decisions are made from 1 of 3 causes:

 

1. The input data was wrong, thus the decision output was incorrect (hindsight incorrect, same decision at same point in time would have been made)

 

2. The model/decision variables were "wrong". (i.e. the model didn't emphasize cost or time or whatever.)

 

3. The decision makers were irrational.

 

 

That's how it works. You can chalk any "wrong" or "bad" decision up to those three subject areas. I think you are trying to make a point and you got so carried away in that point that you failed to realize that I don't disagree with you. So instead of trying to strike down my comments, take a look at what I was really trying to explain. I think a few others in this thread have caught up to that. Hopefully you will see it as well.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Arkerus

[NoFishing]

That's how it works. You can chalk any "wrong" or "bad" decision up to those three subject areas. I think you are trying to make a point and you got so carried away in that point that you failed to realize that I don't disagree with you.

 

I get what you are trying to say. And I don't mean to attack you directly. But your stance in this thread seems to be that, for all of the things that people have suggested about content/features/etc, that Bioware has done an analysis of what it would cost to do that thing vs how much additional revenue, and the ROI doesn't work out, so they don't do it.

 

Now if I am misinterpreting you, then I apologize. If not, my argument is that applying such rigid decision making processes isn't a guarantee of results. At best, you can accurately predict what something will cost. But the benefit side is guesswork.

 

Now if we are talking about something like replacing the engine, I'd bet that even the most optimistic CBA can't justify it. The costs would be huge, and IMO unlikely to draw enough new or returning players to justify it, because this is already an existing title. It would be easier to justify creating a brand new StarWars-themed MMO from scratch.

 

But adding in "small" things like pod racing, pazaak, sitting in chairs, cross-server ranked, legacy perks, guild enhancements, etc, the benefit side can't be quantified in any reliable way. Bioware simply has to make the decisions to do them or not based on cost AND whether they want to improve the game beyond where it is today. These are things that have to be decided based on whether you believe "if you build it, they will come". Or at least, "if you build it, they will stay."

 

So while I don't disagree that they need to analyze and control costs (an important thing in every business), I think an argument can and is being made that Bioware is still focusing too much on that, and not enough on just producing a great product to be proud of. Especially if the CM is really producing as much revenue as some people here claim.

[Arkerus]

I get what you are trying to say. And I don't mean to attack you directly. But your stance in this thread seems to be that, for all of the things that people have suggested about content/features/etc, that Bioware has done an analysis of what it would cost to do that thing vs how much additional revenue, and the ROI doesn't work out, so they don't do it.

 

Now if I am misinterpreting you, then I apologize. If not, my argument is that applying such rigid decision making processes isn't a guarantee of results. At best, you can accurately predict what something will cost. But the benefit side is guesswork.

 

Now if we are talking about something like replacing the engine, I'd bet that even the most optimistic CBA can't justify it. The costs would be huge, and IMO unlikely to draw enough new or returning players to justify it, because this is already an existing title. It would be easier to justify creating a brand new StarWars-themed MMO from scratch.

 

But adding in "small" things like pod racing, pazaak, sitting in chairs, cross-server ranked, legacy perks, guild enhancements, etc, the benefit side can't be quantified in any reliable way. Bioware simply has to make the decisions to do them or not based on cost AND whether they want to improve the game beyond where it is today. These are things that have to be decided based on whether you believe "if you build it, they will come". Or at least, "if you build it, they will stay."

 

So while I don't disagree that they need to analyze and control costs (an important thing in every business), I think an argument can and is being made that Bioware is still focusing too much on that, and not enough on just producing a great product to be proud of. Especially if the CM is really producing as much revenue as some people here claim.

 

Your subjective stance is exactly that. Its a a bit more on the subjective level of "i bet these items would add value." And as I stated above, I have the same gripes and complaints that others do. I just understand, as a rational human being, why certain decisions haven't been made (or we don't get a response).

 

I assume that they looked at pazaak and swoop racing (for example) and cannot justify the work to do so. Even "small" projects like that would take a serious chunk of time/energy to do. Maybe they simply can't produce the reason for those projects beyond "good will."

[CosmicKat]

TBH though - isn't all that suggestion stuff that's based on personal desires meant to do exactly that - make an MMO perfect for that particular player? Isn't that why we continually have people wanting more and more sandbox features in this game - so the game is "more perfect" for them, despite the fact that the game was not designed in such a manner?

.....

.

 

Almost every feature that is commonly asked for or every feature that TOR is criticized for not having are pre-existing features of other games.

 

People don't request these things because they think they make a game perfect, they request these things because they were evolutionary changes to MMO's that often made drastic improvements on early MMO's failings. Ignoring these lessons learned makes no sense in a game like TOR. TOR is a carbon copy of another game. It does not have the out of being original or unique. An original or unique game can get away with missing features because they are trying to be different, TOR is not trying to be different. TOR is trying to be a near-exact copy of another game already. Ignoring the lessons learned by every non-WoW MMO is bad for the players and bad for the game's bottom line.

[TravelersWay]

But adding in "small" things like pod racing, pazaak, sitting in chairs, cross-server ranked, legacy perks, guild enhancements, etc, the benefit side can't be quantified in any reliable way.

Indeed and as such ...

Bioware simply has to make the decisions to do them or not based on cost AND whether they want to improve the game beyond where it is today. These are things that have to be decided based on whether you believe "if you build it, they will come". Or at least, "if you build it, they will stay."

 

... there is no quantifiable way to know if those things will improve the game, or for how many players those things will improve the experience for. Everything you mention will not improve my gameplay experience one iota. As such those things would be wasted development time to me that can be better spent on things that would improve the experience for me.

 

Adding more Ops more frequently will not bring back or sustain the people who are playing for the leveling and story experience (the biggest draw and feature of the game), or playing for PvP. Adding more PvP more frequently will not bring back or sustain the people who are playing for the story or for Ops. Adding to the leveling and story experience will not satisfy the Ops and PvP players. Each of those things takes time and resources to create with any amount of quality. Time and resources are limited for any MMO developer, so choices need to be made. BW has, and as shown, will continue to focus on Ops and PvP elements of the game. Yet they will not talk about the metrics that show what portion of the game the majority of the playerbase are participating in. Why is that? Is it because these two items are the easiest of the three to create with the resources they have, even though it is only a minority of the playerbase participating in them?

 

One can ***** and moan all they want about the cadence of content updates for endgame, PvP, and sandbox stuff. But in the end, none of those things may actually be what the game really needs. So, perhaps people should think twice before making a post saying that the current direction of the game is hurting the potential number of subs. Perhaps they are indeed correct, but perhaps it is also not for the reason (or feature) that they want.

[CosmicKat]

OMG, you mean subscription numbers decrease over the life of an MMO?!

 

Someone get chicken little on the line please, I believe the sky is falling...

 

They do now.

 

They used to grow for a few years after launch. Everquest, WoW, Ultima Online all added servers after launch due to growth. It's the games, not the players.

[TravelersWay]

Almost every feature that is commonly asked for or every feature that TOR is criticized for not having are pre-existing features of other games.

 

Some other games. Again, what is the "MMO standard" then? Player housing? If I had to guess, I would say I have actually played more MMOs that did not have housing than did.

 

Is it mod and macro support? I doubt we would need even one full hand to count the number of MMOs that support a fully featured modding system. Macros? I would be willing to venture that the vast majority of today's MMO community has no idea what a macro is, let alone what one does in an MMO.

 

X-server grouping, customizable UI, sandbox features, content update cadence and size, etc. - again, just as many that do not have them, and/or did not have them at launch and for years afterwards; and again may not necessarily improve the experience of many players anyway.

 

Players may critizice for what SWTOR may or may not lack, but none of it is standard and whether any of it benefits the vast majority of MMO players (or is even desired by the vast majority) is indeed a debatable subject.

 

They do now.

 

They used to grow for a few years after launch. Everquest, WoW, Ultima Online all added servers after launch due to growth. It's the games, not the players.

Sorry, it's not just the games, but it is also the environmental conditions under which those games existed during that time. AFAIK, Eve is the only MMO to have consistently grown its playerbase over its lifetime (of course not including many eastern market F2P games) - all others, including those you mention have decreased its playerbase since their peak.

Edited February 27, 2014 by TravelersWay

[chuuuuucky]

The only thing i fear is that the forums die. German forum is already a ghost town. You can count the regular posters on 2 hands.

They should finally reconsider the lockout of f2p players. They are now the majority in this game or at least i hope this is the case for the health of ingame population. So gathering the opinion of you core group should be number one priority.

[DarthTHC]

The only thing i fear is that the forums die. German forum is already a ghost town. You can count the regular posters on 2 hands.

They should finally reconsider the lockout of f2p players. They are now the majority in this game or at least i hope this is the case for the health of ingame population. So gathering the opinion of you core group should be number one priority.

 

No way. There are more than enough trolls floating around here from just the referral exploit. If they could create freely a fresh account to troll on every time they got infracted, THAT would kill the forums.

[DarthTHC]

They do now.

 

They used to grow for a few years after launch. Everquest, WoW, Ultima Online all added servers after launch due to growth. It's the games, not the players.

 

If that were true, if it were really the game, wouldn't those games still be gaining subscribers? Or at least not losing them?

[TravelersWay]

No way. There are more than enough trolls floating around here from just the referral exploit. If they could create freely a fresh account to troll on every time they got infracted, THAT would kill the forums.

 

Not to mention the vast increase of garbage spam that we would see an influx of as a result.

 

I can see the point of wanting to get the opinions of a large portion of you playerbase, but in the case of SWTOR, the business model is to encourage players to be subscribers. I see nothing wrong with that, and as such, I see nothing wrong with limiting the forums to those people who pay the price and get posting privileges as a benefit.

Edited February 27, 2014 by TravelersWay

[hadoken]

If that were true, if it were really the game, wouldn't those games still be gaining subscribers? Or at least not losing them?

 

Well, they just got old. These new ones don't have the chance to before bleeding out.

[Arkerus]

CK and the like operate under the common misconception that there is some "MMO standard" that all games need to adhere to.

 

As soon as someone can show the published industry definition of the MMO standard, I will buy into it.

 

But...that doesn't, and will never, exist.

[Khevar]

...

 

One can ***** and moan all they want about the cadence of content updates for endgame, PvP, and sandbox stuff. But in the end, none of those things may actually be what the game really needs. So, perhaps people should think twice before making a post saying that the current direction of the game is hurting the potential number of subs. Perhaps they are indeed correct, but perhaps it is also not for the reason (or feature) that they want.

The current cadence of content updates may or may not be hurting the game.

 

But, would you argue that increasing the cadence of content updates (for any part of the game, be it leveling, PvP, operations, planets, etc) would do anything other than help the game?