Why do people care so much about subscription numbers?

[DarthTHC]

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

 

Did they? How does a game get old if it's constantly getting new content? I mean, that's all I hear from WoW fanatics that inexplicably are here posting in this forum instead of that one. WoW apparently produces more content, more quickly, than anyone can possibly do. Why can't SWTOR do the same?

 

Facetious comment aside, I don't buy that they got old. Nope. Because they do update - more levels, more features, more content.

 

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?

 

Theoretically, if you do it too fast, especially with operations, you will encounter a time at which only a very tiny fraction of your player base can even get into the content, and right after that a time when nobody can. So you wind up developing content for nobody.

 

In reality, nobody can develop content that quickly. The cadence is a formula based on project staff, desired features, and schedule, and it's always a balancing act between the three.

Edited February 27, 2014 by DarthTHC

[Arkerus]

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?

 

Fair question, but as I have already pointed out, its a loaded question and its not the proper question to be asking.

No one is arguing against that subs MIGHT go up if content came out faster. Not a single person says that, that isn't a possibility. What I and many others have said is: Whatever the team needed to do so obviously isn't on board because the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost to the company.

 

Not only that, but anyone who runs projects, large or small knows this very important fact:

 

MORE BODIES DOES NOT correlate directly to more work being done. This is especially true when the skill or learning gap is very large. (And I suspect with this game, on this engine, it is VERY large.)

Edited February 27, 2014 by Arkerus

[TravelersWay]

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?

 

Not necessarily. Increasing the cadence and quality of Ops content will, of course, please endgame players and has the potential to bring some of those players back. However, you then risk losing players from your story and PvP part of the playerbase. So at best, it may be a wash, at worse, you actually lose more players than you bring in.

 

Now, if you increase the cadence and quality of each and release content so that you get something for each of those three factions with each update, then yes, that could be beneficial. But then we get back to the whole issue of time and resources. No doubt, if the BW team was as extensive as it was at launch, then we could foresee this possibility happening. As it is, I think it's quite obvious that the time and resources of the current development team is too limited for that to happen. And that takes me back to the points I made in the previous post.

[hadoken]

Facetious comment aside, I don't buy that they got old. Nope. Because they do update - more levels, more features, more content.

 

The engines get old, the mechanics get old, the graphics get old. These are the things seldom updated. These are the things that the newer games have over the old games - but you need more than JUST that. And hell, SWTOR didn't even have better mechanics or a better engine (far from it).

[CosmicKat]

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.

 

 

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 - all others, including those you mention have decreased its playerbase since their peak.

 

Examples:

- Level disparity keeping players from grouping with their friends. A major Everquest problem. Fixed by City of Heroes with their sidekick/mentor system.

- Character customization. Another major EQ problem, more of a technical issue back then. "Solved" by many games in many different ways. TOR launched with the least customizing I've seen in an MMO since EQ.

- Immersive worlds. Massive size, day/night cycles, weather, water, mobs with AI, all technically feasible 15+ years ago. Absolutely no excuse for their absence today.

- Solo/group play options. Another EQ problem was highly limited solo options. TOR has the opposite problem, barely any viable group content prior to endgame. Also fixed by many other games with either actual diverse solo/group zones and content, or with difficulty sliders on random mission generation.

- Many, many other minor "bells and whistles" options... player housing, chat bubbles, RP areas, chair-sitting, dual speccing, and so on. Excluding these things makes no sense. The market is not big enough to exclude potential customers by omitting "features" that many come to expect from any new game.

 

No two people will ever have the exact same "must haves". Again, not a big enough market to ignore anything proven popular by the game(s) you are emulating.

 

And yes, every game inevitably declines in popularity. The handful of truly successful ones only do so because technology catches them and renders them "too old". The recent MMO industry track record can't use that excuse. Any game that loses the majority of its base in a few months does so because the game isn't particularly good. There are stand alone solo games that remain popular longer than most MMO's today. That is not a sign of health of the MMO industry.

[chuuuuucky]

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.

 

Well then they are failing with their business model if the goal is to make more subscribers. But they are doing fine with a large playerbase staying f2p and a declining subscriber base. So f2p players get more and more important and therefore they should at least consider opening the most important forums for feedback to the f2p players. (suggestion box, customer support, new player help and community)

Edited February 27, 2014 by chuuuuucky

[CosmicKat]

Did they? How does a game get old if it's constantly getting new content? I mean, that's all I hear from WoW fanatics that inexplicably are here posting in this forum instead of that one. WoW apparently produces more content, more quickly, than anyone can possibly do. Why can't SWTOR do the same?

 

Facetious comment aside, I don't buy that they got old. Nope. Because they do update - more levels, more features, more content.

 

 

 

Theoretically, if you do it too fast, especially with operations, you will encounter a time at which only a very tiny fraction of your player base can even get into the content, and right after that a time when nobody can. So you wind up developing content for nobody.

 

In reality, nobody can develop content that quickly. The cadence is a formula based on project staff, desired features, and schedule, and it's always a balancing act between the three.

 

Any 15 year old game that has any fans left is a remarkable achievement. If Everquest were re-released tomorrow with TOR-quality graphics, it would easily jump to #2 on the most popular list and might even challenge WoW as top dog.

 

Great graphics don't make a great game, but badly dated graphics will kill a game, regardless of how good it is.

[TravelersWay]

None of which you list below is an MMO "standard" however - simply features or ideas that came about to solve a particular problem. The original Guild Wars had a lot of that, yet nothing Anet did is any more a "standard" than anything else.

Examples:

- Level disparity keeping players from grouping with their friends. A major Everquest problem. Fixed by City of Heroes with their sidekick/mentor system.

Yes some games have this - many do not. It is a nice feature to have when implemented correctly, but by no means is lack of one gamebreaking.

 

- Character customization. Another major EQ problem, more of a technical issue back then. "Solved" by many games in many different ways. TOR launched with the least customizing I've seen in an MMO since EQ.

And I have played other games that have launched since then with worse ones. Customization is a standard of the RPG genre, but the depth and complexity of the system certainly is not a standard in the MMO genre, and again lack of a fully customization option is not gamebreaking.

 

- Immersive worlds. Massive size, day/night cycles, weather, water, mobs with AI, all technically feasible 15+ years ago. Absolutely no excuse for their absence today.

Like I keep saying - I have played just as many games without many of these things as had them. There is no excuse to have them if the resources to build them in the game are better spent on other features that are more befitting the game. Personally speaking (and I have talked to many others who agree), day/night cycles, weather, swimming, et al. negatively affect my gameplay experience more than they enhance them.

 

- Solo/group play options. Another EQ problem was highly limited solo options. TOR has the opposite problem, barely any viable group content prior to endgame. Also fixed by many other games with either actual diverse solo/group zones and content, or with difficulty sliders on random mission generation.

Now I can see having solo friendly MMOs becoming a standard (but it's not there yet), for which I am grateful. But regardless, I personally have not encountered any issues here playing solo nor finding a group with which to play content - and not just end game content. But again, the various systems for making grouping or soloing easier in MMOs is still not a standard and the ease/difficulty of each still varies greatly game to game.

 

- Many, many other minor "bells and whistles" options... player housing, chat bubbles, RP areas, chair-sitting, dual speccing, and so on. Excluding these things makes no sense. The market is not big enough to exclude potential customers by omitting "features" that many come to expect from any new game.

Like I said before, nothing here is standard, and how many people each and any of these features may actually appeal to is debatable, as is whether the vast majority of today's MMO community even cares about them to begin with.

 

No two people will ever have the exact same "must haves". Again, not a big enough market to ignore anything proven popular by the game(s) you are emulating.

Nor are they necessary to add if, ultimately, they do not befit the type of game you are making, nor if the resources used to make them can actually be better spent making content that the majority of your playerbase will benefit from and enjoy.

 

And yes, every game inevitably declines in popularity. The handful of truly successful ones only do so because technology catches them and renders them "too old". The recent MMO industry track record can't use that excuse. Any game that loses the majority of its base in a few months does so because the game isn't particularly good. There are stand alone solo games that remain popular longer than most MMO's today. That is not a sign of health of the MMO industry.

And yet, with all those so-called "failures", all it took for all but the rare few to not only gain popularity after their low point was a change in business model. So if it were true that these games really weren't all that good, then regardless of business model, people would not be playing them and they would die. However, that appears not to be the case, therefore it seems to be more a reflection of the changing views of the traditional MMO business model (which, when you think about it, isn't even standard even though Blizzard and the Sony of old would have players believe), than the games themselves.

[Arkerus]

Any 15 year old game that has any fans left is a remarkable achievement. If Everquest were re-released tomorrow with TOR-quality graphics, it would easily jump to #2 on the most popular list and might even challenge WoW as top dog.

 

Great graphics don't make a great game, but badly dated graphics will kill a game, regardless of how good it is.

 

 

Welcome back everyone!

In today's class, we will learn about "Assumption Presented as Fact":

 

On 2/272014, forum user CK made the statement:

If Everquest were re-released tomorrow with TOR-quality graphics, it would easily jump to #2 on the most popular list and might even challenge WoW as top dog.

 

This is a common example of an opinion, or assumption, presented as fact. Let's break it down shall we?

 

1. If Everquest were re-released tomorrow with TOR-quality graphics

-- We start with a completely hypothetical situation. The premise of the argument being a game that ISN'T slated to be re-released being suddenly set upon the market with the same form and function it has NOW with different graphics.

-- Conclusion: Terrible way to start an argument. You cannot base an argument purely on a hypothetical situation that has little to no chance of even occurring.

 

2. it would easily jump to #2 on the most popular list

-- This statement comes at us without qualification or foundation for the assumption. What is the definition of #2? Subs? Accounts? Play Time? Servers? Profit? Perception? How does one even determine what number two even look like?

-- There is zero evidence provided that says the population of current games would leave to play a game that uses mechanics from the late 1990s. If anything, market trends point to gamers going to ACCESSIBILITY and EASE OF USE.

-- This statement assume all market forces would have zero affect on the product. It would instantly jump to a supposed #2 position on some list.

-- Conclusion: Getting by the first statement is (EQ being released again is hard enough) and then another implausble hypothetical is presented. This is another awful way to make an argument.

 

3. and might even challenge WoW as top dog

-- All points from 1 & 2 apply.

-- The market has long since proved that WoW will decline on its own.

-- Conclusion: opinion stated as fact again, with no evidence provided.

 

 

So there you have it class. A classic, textbook example of "assumption presented as fact". Any assumption, presented as fact renders the entire argument void. You cannot have a logical discussion around an unproven and unreliable premise which then builds upon itself to make additional arguments.

 

Tune in next time when we cover HYPERBOLE: HOW TO MAKE A STATEMENT WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING AT ALL.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Arkerus

[TravelersWay]

Well then they are failing with their business model if the goal is to make more subscribers. But they are doing fine with a large playerbase staying f2p and a declining subscriber base. So f2p players get more and more important and therefore they should at least consider opening the most important forums for feedback to the f2p players. (suggestion box, customer support, new player help and community)

 

Except that you are no longer a F2P player if you make a purchase in the CM. You then become preferred, which actually opens up more support options (though still not the forum access). So I still have to disagree in that the forums should be opened up to anyone other than subscribers. In the end, Preferred and F2P players still have the e-mail option open to them in order to submit suggestions and feeling on the game. That's enough for me.

 

I would also add that getting a certain level of support and features (or lack thereof) depending upon what one pays (or does not pay) is standard practice in the tech industry - look at just about any free software program that also has paid for versions. You can most certainly bet that what you can do with said software and the support you get is limited when using the free version as opposed to the paid version. Again, nothing wrong with that. In the end you get exactly what you pay for. If you choose to pay little to nothing, then you should expect to have certain limitations come along with that.

 

Welcome back everyone!

In today's class, we will learn about "Assumption Presented as Fact":<snip>

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. The fact that WoW exploded when it did proves that the "good ole fashioned" MMO mechanics are no longer desired by today's MMO community. Should any of the old games be released today, with the only change being the graphics, they would be bigger disasters of infinite proportions larger than that which was FFXIV 1.0.

Edited February 27, 2014 by TravelersWay

[NoFishing]

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."

 

I don't think anybody would claim that changes that seem simple can't be surprisingly difficult and expensive when you know all the facts, except for those few that say absurd things like they should replace the engine or convert all of the existing planets to sandboxes. But "it's too difficult and expensive" just CAN'T be the answer for everything.

 

Let's take chat bubbles as an example. They were tried in beta, found to cause unacceptable performance, and they were removed prior to launch. And it is still likely that they cause unacceptable performance issues. But this is where you need someone at a producer level or higher with a strong vision for the game to step up and say "I'm going to hire an engineer or two to work on this issue, and this issue only, for the next year". You know exactly what the cost will be, what the benefit is (although you probably can't quantify that in terms of revenue), and you know the risk.

 

And here's the thing about software development: Investing in one area can pay dividends in another. It is entirely possible that fixing the chat bubble performance problem, you also fix some underlying issues that made open world PvP such a lag fest, and that would open up new potential content for you. Or working to add cross-server ranked queues could fix infrastructure issues that allow you to remove the active quest limit, handle more than 500 characters in a guild, or enable great legacy features.

 

Now obviously I don't know if any of that is true or would happen. It is possible that they have fully investigated all of these things, and for every one determined that, with the current code base, they are effectively impossible to implement. In which case count me among those saying it's time to replace the engine and convert the entire game to a sandbox. :-)

[Arkerus]

I don't think anybody would claim that changes that seem simple can't be surprisingly difficult and expensive when you know all the facts, except for those few that say absurd things like they should replace the engine or convert all of the existing planets to sandboxes. But "it's too difficult and expensive" just CAN'T be the answer for everything.

 

Let's take chat bubbles as an example. They were tried in beta, found to cause unacceptable performance, and they were removed prior to launch. And it is still likely that they cause unacceptable performance issues. But this is where you need someone at a producer level or higher with a strong vision for the game to step up and say "I'm going to hire an engineer or two to work on this issue, and this issue only, for the next year". You know exactly what the cost will be, what the benefit is (although you probably can't quantify that in terms of revenue), and you know the risk.

 

And here's the thing about software development: Investing in one area can pay dividends in another. It is entirely possible that fixing the chat bubble performance problem, you also fix some underlying issues that made open world PvP such a lag fest, and that would open up new potential content for you. Or working to add cross-server ranked queues could fix infrastructure issues that allow you to remove the active quest limit, handle more than 500 characters in a guild, or enable great legacy features.

 

Now obviously I don't know if any of that is true or would happen. It is possible that they have fully investigated all of these things, and for every one determined that, with the current code base, they are effectively impossible to implement. In which case count me among those saying it's time to replace the engine and convert the entire game to a sandbox. :-)

 

Like I said, I don't DISAGREE with the same setiments of many forum users. I fully support cross server and many of the more common items mentioned. I can only assume they aren't happening for "logical" reasons.

I have to be confident that they have a staff smart enough to see pay offs when they are apparent.

 

In which case count me among those saying it's time to replace the engine and convert the entire game to a sandbox. :-)

I see what you did there.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Arkerus

[CosmicKat]

....

 

 

And yet, with all those so-called "failures", all it took for all but the rare few to not only gain popularity after their low point was a change in business model. So if it were true that these games really weren't all that good, then regardless of business model, people would not be playing them and they would die. However, that appears not to be the case, therefore it seems to be more a reflection of the changing views of the traditional MMO business model (which, when you think about it, isn't even standard even though Blizzard and the Sony of old would have players believe), than the games themselves.

 

I never said there was any "Standard" to emulate. Few games are ever going to launch with every feature that every other MMO has found a better way to do. TOR though was missing many of these evolutionary improvements, and their reaction to the complaints/criticism/suggestions to add those things sure seemed to catch them totally off guard, as though they only ever looked at one game to emulate.

 

The increased popularity of the F2P model is partly true, and partly smoke and mirrors. Paid accounts are an absolute, free accounts are not. Creating multiple accounts is common. Accounts made just to try the game and then never logged on again. Subscribers with F2P accounts just because.... all of these things, and more, inflate the totals. At any rate, a good number of them will never pay a cent to the company, and as such, are completely meaningless.

[CosmicKat]

Welcome back everyone!

In today's class, we will learn about "Assumption Presented as Fact":

 

....

So there you have it class. A classic, textbook example of "assumption presented as fact". Any assumption, presented as fact renders the entire argument void. You cannot have a logical discussion around an unproven and unreliable premise which then builds upon itself to make additional arguments.

 

Tune in next time when we cover HYPERBOLE: HOW TO MAKE A STATEMENT WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING AT ALL.

 

No. I think you are mistaking "opinion taken as a statement of fact" with "assumption presented as fact".

 

But if it makes you feel better to belittle and ridicule than to debate, go nuts.

Edited February 27, 2014 by CosmicKat

[Arkerus]

I never said there was any "Standard" to emulate. Few games are ever going to launch with every feature that every other MMO has found a better way to do. TOR though was missing many of these evolutionary improvements, and their reaction to the complaints/criticism/suggestions to add those things sure seemed to catch them totally off guard, as though they only ever looked at one game to emulate.

 

The increased popularity of the F2P model is partly true, and partly smoke and mirrors. Paid accounts are an absolute, free accounts are not. Creating multiple accounts is common. Accounts made just to try the game and then never logged on again. Subscribers with F2P accounts just because.... all of these things, and more, inflate the totals. At any rate, a good number of them will never pay a cent to the company, and as such, are completely meaningless.

 

all of these things, and more, inflate the totals. At any rate, a good number of them will never pay a cent to the company, and as such, are completely meaningless

 

Wrong.

 

An account that pays nothing to the company has an undetermined, but theoretical value. For the game itself, they add bodies, life, action, people moving about, talking, walking, swinging, people.

 

The most literal sense is that FREE accounts, paying nothing to the company, are CONTENT for other people to interact with. Its content that the company generates, quite literally, by allowing a person to play for free.

 

I'm not making this up. This is an accepted industry norm. This "opinion" is backed by the very same industry consultants who do the "extra credits" series.

 

And let's not forget POTENTIAL value. Every customer playing your game, for free, has the potential to spend money. Its like potential energy versus kinetic energy. Its basic attachment rate math. The bigger denominator you have, given a ratio, the bigger the numerator.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Arkerus

[Arkerus]

No. I think you are mistaking "opinion taken as a statement of fact" with "assumption presented as fact".

 

But if it makes you feel better to belittle and ridicule than to debate, go nuts.

 

Keep moving the goalposts.

Any 15 year old game that has any fans left is a remarkable achievement. If Everquest were re-released tomorrow with TOR-quality graphics, it would easily jump to #2 on the most popular list and might even challenge WoW as top dog.

 

That's your original quote in case you try to change it. There is no "opinion" there. You presented an argument based on a completely illogical premise and I busted your for it.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Arkerus

[jstankaroslo]

wow, you guys are hard to keep up. Between work, family and playing SWTOR, I hardly have the time to be current on the discussion

 

On the decision making: I agree with the reasons given why there exist bad decisions in a corporate world. And I think that bad assumptions are currently on board in BW or EA -especially as what they think is enough to keep people playing. I know they'll eventually change their strategy, but I also know it will not happen while I still play the game. I'm not happy about it.

 

On the player wants: you can't satisfy everybody. I believe that they should have the guts to stand up to EA and advocate for more class story content. That is why I play this game. That is IMO the only (apart from Star Wars theme) thing in this game that is, and will continue to be significantly better then in their competitors. Other games may have better graphics, engines, character creation etc, but none so far has had better story. I know it is expensive, and doesn't look good in annual revenue raports, but I believe it is doable (with extra CM profit) and profitable in the long run.

So no, I'm not in the pack with people needing faster content developement. I want new/old direction -story content.

 

Also -getting reputation of very well put and bug free MMO can be an advantage -it is very irritating that they don't care about quality and fixing some bugs takes forever.

Adding small, simple things like pazaak would also improve the game poor reputation among MMO players.

So yes, they should expand their dev team, fight for resources from the EA and improve the game. My impression is: someone wants to make a corporate career on SWTOR -getting the reputation of running cost effective projects, thus getting praise (and raise) from EA executives. I may be wrong, but thats what it looks like to me. All the things they do/propose are disigned so that someone can report back to EA: see, minimum cost, maximum profit.

 

On bussiness prowess of Arkerus: you remind me of myself ten years ago. Your enthusiasm for perfect corporate decisions will wane with experience, but that will come with time. Keep it cool

Edited February 27, 2014 by jstankaroslo

[Arkerus]

wow, you guys are hard to keep up. Between work, family and playing SWTOR, I hardly have the time to be current on the discussion

 

On the decision making: I agree with the reasons given why there exist bad decisions in a corporate world. And I think that bad assumptions are currently on the board in BW or EA -especially as what they think is enough to keep people playing. I know they'll eventually change their strategy, but I also know it will not happen while I still play the game. I'm not happy about it.

 

On the player wants: you can't satisfy everybody. I believe that they should have the guts to stand up to EA and advocate for more class story content. That is why I play this game. That is IMO the only (apart from Star Wars theme) thing in this game that is, and will continue to be significantly better then in their competitors. Other games may have better graphics, engines, character creatins etc, but none so far has had better story. I know it is expensive, and doesn't look good in annual revenue raports, but I believe it is doable (with extra CM profit) and profitable in the long run.

So no, I'm not in the pack with people needing faster content developement. I want new/old direction -story content.

 

Also -getting reputation of very well put and bug free MMO can be an advantage -it is very irritating that they don't care about quality and fixing some bugs takes forever.

Adding small, simple things like pazaak would also improve the game poor reputation among MMO players.

So yes, they should expand their dev team, fight for resources from the EA and improve the game. My impression is: someone wants to make a corporate career on SWTOR -getting the reputation of running cost effective projects, thus getting praise (and raise) from EA executives. I may be wrong, but thats what it looks like to me. All the things they do/propose are disigned so that someone can report back to EA: see, minimum cost, maximum profit.

 

On bussiness prowess of Arkerus: you remind me of myself ten years ago. Your enthusiasm for perfect corporate decisions will wane with experience, but that will come with time. Keep it cool

 

On bussiness prowess of Arkerus: you remind me of myself ten years ago. Your enthusiasm for perfect corporate decisions will wane with experience, but that will come with time. Keep it cool

 

I've been doing this for years. I'm not some 2X year old, fresh outta college junkie. This is my livelyhood. FYI. And I work with plenty of "old-timers" myself. I get it. I am more of a middle-timer myself. lol. Is that such a thing?

 

Perhaps you missed the multitude of posts where i explained this is not about "perfect corporate decisions". Even TUX and I finally got on the same page about what I was explaining. There is no such thing as a perfect decision. (Well actually there IS, but let's not get into semantics. You need PERFECT information for perfect decisions, and that doesn't exist.)

Edited February 27, 2014 by Arkerus

[CosmicKat]

Keep moving the goalposts.

Any 15 year old game that has any fans left is a remarkable achievement. If Everquest were re-released tomorrow with TOR-quality graphics, it would easily jump to #2 on the most popular list and might even challenge WoW as top dog.

 

That's your original quote in case you try to change it. There is no "opinion" there. You presented an argument based on a completely illogical premise and I busted your for it.

 

No. This isn't a Science Journal. It's an opinion forum. Everything here is opinion. Including your opinion that my opinion was presented as fact, which you stated as fact.

[Arkerus]

No. This isn't a Science Journal. It's an opinion forum. Everything here is opinion. Including your opinion that my opinion was presented as fact, which you stated as fact.

 

Suit yourself, but what you stated, and HOW you stated it makes your case clear. I copied your statement above in case you need to check it.

 

If you thought that what you were stating was an opinion, it would have been stated as such because what you said is a very bold statement with ZERO qualifiers as to it being a proposal, or opinion.

 

Somehow I get the feeling you realize how ridiculous your premise was and are now backing away from it.

 

Here it is again, in case you missed it:

Any 15 year old game that has any fans left is a remarkable achievement. If Everquest were re-released tomorrow with TOR-quality graphics, it would easily jump to #2 on the most popular list and might even challenge WoW as top dog.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Arkerus

[hadoken]

Keep moving the goalposts.

Any 15 year old game that has any fans left is a remarkable achievement. If Everquest were re-released tomorrow with TOR-quality graphics, it would easily jump to #2 on the most popular list and might even challenge WoW as top dog.

 

That's your original quote in case you try to change it. There is no "opinion" there. You presented an argument based on a completely illogical premise and I busted your for it.

 

I don't see how anyone could think this was presented as a fact. But this entire thread you've been trying to derail it in very odd directions (really, who gives a **** about the specifics of how you make decisions in your business? how is that relevant to this game?).

[CosmicKat]

Suit yourself, but what you stated, and HOW you stated it makes your case clear. I copied your statement above in case you need to check it.

 

If you thought that what you were stating was an opinion, it would have been stated as such because what you said is a very bold statement with ZERO qualifiers as to it being a proposal, or opinion.

 

Somehow I get the feeling you realize how ridiculous your premise was and are now backing away from it.

 

No. It's my opinion. I don't need to qualify it because it can't be qualified.

 

And no, I don't need or want to back away from my opinion. It was a clearly hypothetical scenario that is never going to happen, ever. I don't particularly care if you or anyone else thinks it's likely, plausible, or impossible.

[Khevar]

...

 

Perhaps you missed the multitude of posts where i explained this is not about "perfect corporate decisions". Even TUX and I finally got on the same page about what I was explaining. There is no such thing as a perfect decision. (Well actually there IS, but let's not get into semantics. You need PERFECT information for perfect decisions, and that doesn't exist.)

Bearing in mind, that this is (of course) only my opinion:

 

Decision making in the entertainment industry has a worse track record than decision making than in many (if not most) other fields.

 

I say this as an ex-insider in the movie-making business. Oh. My. Freaking. Zog. The things I saw happen on a day-today basis truly boggled the mind. I've spent a much happier and much more productive life in the technology industry since I ran away screaming from Hollywood in a desperate attempt to save my sanity.

 

From reading Tales from the Trenches, it seems that the games industry is plagued by similar troubles.

 

If I've been overly challenging against assertions about EA's corporate decision-making abilities, it is because I have seen so many poor decisions made first hand.

[NoFishing]

Your enthusiasm for perfect corporate decisions will wane with experience, but that will come with time. Keep it cool

 

Lol. Going a bit off-topic (as if this thread is still on topic to begin with ), this reminds me of a conversation I had one of my co-workers that was near retirement. Somehow we were talking about potential future advances in medicine, and pondering whether medical science would ever advance far enough to make humans immortal. His response shocked me: "Oh I really hope not. The older I get, the more cynical I become. I wouldn't want to meet myself at 150!"

[Arkerus]

Lol. Going a bit off-topic (as if this thread is still on topic to begin with ), this reminds me of a conversation I had one of my co-workers that was near retirement. Somehow we were talking about potential future advances in medicine, and pondering whether medical science would ever advance far enough to make humans immortal. His response shocked me: "Oh I really hope not. The older I get, the more cynical I become. I wouldn't want to meet myself at 150!"

 

Maybe that's why I am cynical already. Future me came back and visited but I just don't remember.