For those who criticize Bioware for focusing on story/solo play......

[ThorgrimLutgen]

I disagree, IWD2 had a pretty good story for what is essentially a dungeon crawler. The IWD series was never an RPG nor was it touted as such. They did a really good job given the parameters of its genre.

 

Oh I am sure I would call it an RPG, those games back then where a revelation, Baldurs Gate etc, it was like my pen and paper coming to life before my very eyes.

 

Which, is the main problem with modern MMOs.

 

They are designed to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, understandably given the need to turn a profit etc. People who play MMOs are as happy playing FIFA 15 these days, that was not the case when I was a nipper, we played football in the street to be fair.

 

I hope somewhere down the line we do see a hardcore MMORPG again, marketed to the same type of niche market those games back then were for.

[Draqsko]

Oh I am sure I would call it an RPG, those games back then where a revelation, Baldurs Gate etc, it was like my pen and paper coming to life before my very eyes.

 

IWD was straight up dungeon crawler, and yes those existed in pen and paper usually by first time GMs since they were easier to manage.

 

Dungeon crawlers are very light on story, it's mostly a linear plot with little side stories. It's mostly encounters and combat which is what IWD and especially IWD2 were. I loved IWD2 just for the outrageous difficulty of some of those encounters.

 

Then there's Planescape: Torment on the opposite side of the spectrum that is almost pure roleplay. I think you can complete the game with only have to fight a handful of times, or you could kill everything. On top of that your alignment shifted by your actions and NPCs treated you different based on alignment AND your previous actions.

 

Baldur's Gate fell in the middle and would be what most people call the classic CRPG.

 

They are all technically rpg, but they have their own subgenre too.

[Leklor]

I hope somewhere down the line we do see a hardcore MMORPG again, marketed to the same type of niche market those games back then were for.

 

I think you outline the very problem with what you desire: It's a niche market.

The cost of game production has gone through the roof in recent years and targeting a niche market with a product that costs up to several millions dollars to make isn't considered a viable strategy right now.

When it becomes once again doable for a game to survive of a niche audience, I'm sure the kind of MMOs "of the old days" will re-emerge but it's not going to happen right now. Give it a few years I'd say.

[ivanhedgehog]

Noted, I'm not subscribing according to your logic.

After all, I skip most group content, so I'm a "Single player" by your logic.

All I'm saying is that Bioware/Kotor fans are not, by default, allergic to MMOs and subscription. Some are welcoming new experiences and some, like me, play a ton of alts and as a preferred I can't do that.

And FYI, I'm not "wasteful", I just struggled to find a copy of Kotor that ran correctly on a recent system and I'm not used to pirating games I love. And it's not like I bought it at 60 bucks every single time.

Your problem is that you have classified players in arbitrary group and it seems they can't behave differently from your previsions. Well, news flash, you're wrong! People ARE different and players who came because of Kotor can very well have been subscribed since launch, so why would they drop subbing now when they're about to be personnal story every months?

 

the point is, once you have that story DLC unlocked, why would you continue to subscribe? you can run it as many times as you wish for no additional cost on as many characters as you have leveled up. 6 or 8 months later...do it again for $15 and you can do it on that content for no additional cost. why subscribe? we will have to see if bw can make this work. They are taking a huge gamble with this. if it works, they are set, if not, they have cratered their playerbase.

[Yungscion]

I hope somewhere down the line we do see a hardcore MMORPG again, marketed to the same type of niche market those games back then were for.

 

If I am not mistaken someone did try this with Wildstar, and it failed. They found not only is that niche market not big enough, but people only thought they wanted hardcore MMORPG's (or everyone has alway been lying to themselves about how hardcore they are)

 

Sure Wildstar failed for many reasons, but one of the ones that has been specifically stated by pretty much everyone (players, media, and devs) was that they completely overestimated both the demand for hardcore MMORPG's and exactly how no one wants to put up with hardcore difficulty in MMORPGs anymore.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Yungscion

[Yungscion]

So the content I generally ran was the planetary storylines, and class stories as I leveled up numerous characters.

 

So, I'm really certain I am in the 'Statistics' as being someone who supports their swerve.

 

I want them to understand in the most unambiguous terms possible.

 

BULLSH*T.

 

I am not a supporter of the swerve they are taking and never would have supported this if I had been _polled_.

But from a metrics/marketing standpoint you are. Sure you may prefer to be doing flashpoints, ops or pvp, but you are subscribed and you are doing the character story, there is no ambiguity in your actions. The metrics tell them that you are subscribing to play the character story.

 

Make no mistake, everyone can get on them for 'interpretation' of metrics and how that is or isn't reliable or we assume they don't know how to read them, but metric are metrics. The are observable and quantifiable data which can be analyzed. Polls would help to go along with the metrics, but polls also suffer from report bias, which causes a huge problem in epidemiology, because in this case you aren't even working from correct data.

 

What I am sure they are doing is using their metrics, to decide the direction for this expansion, and if it doesn't pan out they can always change (assuming they don't go under). But I am also sure that they will have some new flashpoints, ops, and warzones at some point. Hell all they have to do to know how dangerous having none of that is, they need look no further than WoW.

[Kurkina]

If I offer 3000 7 years olds a piece of cheese *or* a chocolate bar can I really say 90% of the 7 year olds in the world hate cheese? ... I think according to bio-ware that answer is yes.

 

A very good point. The metrics are not a measure of what people like or want, what motivates them or discourages them. They are a measure of what people are doing in a given system/context that forces their actions down a certain path.

 

 

worse piece of BW work since Icewind Dale 2.

 

I liked that game. That said, Ziost is in my opinion alibistic crap, demonstrating that the devs were fully aware that they had no idea where they were going with that entire story to begin with. But no worries, KotFE is around the corner and will bail us out right? Epicbiowarestorytellingwhereeverychoicematters ftw?

 

If I am not mistaken someone did try this with Wildstar, and it failed < ... snip ... > Sure Wildstar failed for many reasons,

 

I think another problem with Wildstar is that their Art Design or the "look-and-feel" of the game was a barrier right off the bat for a lot of people, that was certainly the consensus in my (SWTOR) guild. None of us even tried it for exactly that reason.

 

_______________________________________________________

 

Claiming the expansion is going to be a rip off is a tad bit outlandish...I'm not sure I follow you with that last sentence. Can you go into a bit more detail. I'd like to kind of understand your position a little more before I respond.

 

There is NO SUCH THING in all of online gaming as a subscription based MMO where the only development for the forseeable future is a few hours of single-player story. They are asking their existing subscribers to pay full price indefinitely for what will amount to a weekend of questing.

 

They think they can do this because they have a captive and addicted audience who perhaps are not aware of other online games' payment models. So I urge people to look around at how other companies treat their customers with respect to delivering fair content for a fair price. SWTOR falls way short in that regard with KotFE.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Kurkina

[Leklor]

A very good point. The metrics are not a measure of what people like or want, what motivates them or discourages them. They are a measure of what people are doing in a given system/context that forces their actions down a certain path.

 

Yes but it is also worth noting that since Bioware doesn't seem to be able to offer a good enough piece of cheese, general opinion seem to have defaulted to chocolate for to long that at this point, Bioware doesn't think it worth the effort or the money to make a piece of cheese good enough to rival the chocolate.

(Never start me with analogies, I'll never drop them.)

Point being: Up until now, it seems the opinion about their PvE and PvP content has been mixed to slightly positive at best, probably due to lack of effort or talent but I don't care about the reason. So why should Bioware invest in a area it's not reputed to be good at when they can focus all their money on what seem to be their strength?

[TUXs]

(Never start me with analogies, I'll never drop them.)

 

Point being: Up until now, it seems the opinion about their PvE and PvP content has been mixed to slightly positive at best, probably due to lack of effort or talent but I don't care about the reason. So why should Bioware invest in a area it's not reputed to be good at when they can focus all their money on what seem to be their strength?

Because suggesting that story is their strength, is like saying humility is Trump's best quality (not a political ref). Ziost wasn't good.

[Leklor]

Because suggesting that story is their strength, is like saying humility is Trump's best quality (not a political ref). Ziost wasn't good.

 

It wasn't catastrophic either but it was clearly rushed and felt incomplete. The story itself hinted at promising ideas that sadly weren't exploited (The Sixth Line was a brilliant idea but kinda wasted). And the VA's performances were very good.

I understand not liking Ziost but I felt it was a fitting epilogue to SoR (And in general, I just liked it better than Makeb which was horribly bland on both sides).

[TUXs]

It wasn't catastrophic either but it was clearly rushed and felt incomplete. The story itself hinted at promising ideas that sadly weren't exploited (The Sixth Line was a brilliant idea but kinda wasted). And the VA's performances were very good.

I understand not liking Ziost but I felt it was a fitting epilogue to SoR (And in general, I just liked it better than Makeb which was horribly bland on both sides).

Could you restate this one more time, but this time using more analogies? I wasn't really trying to argue with you, but I had to say something that would encourage you to post more analogies

[Leklor]

Could you restate this one more time, but this time using more analogies? I wasn't really trying to argue with you, but I had to say something that would encourage you to post more analogies

 

Sorry, it was specifically about the "Chocolate vs. Cheese", I just couldn't drop it after reading it.

And yeah, sorry for being defensive but I just feel Ziost was rushed and shouldn't be taken as a "taste" of what KOTFE will be. I somehow think FA/SoR/RotE is the last massive story arc written before the Legends split of the EU and KOTFE was written after that decision and Bioware just went insane with their story prospect. Ziost, I think, is litteraly a repurposed story they tried desperatly to adapt to their coming plot and that's why it isn't very good.

 

Edit: I think I get what you mean, "Analogy" doesn't mean the same thing in english and in french (Specifically, it's sometimes used in a different context in french), so technically, what I said makes no sense. "Comparison" would be better.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Leklor

[Yungscion]

A very good point. The metrics are not a measure of what people like or want, what motivates them or discourages them. They are a measure of what people are doing in a given system/context that forces their actions down a certain path.

 

Forces is a loaded term and implies that the player has no choice.

 

Assume this was only a story driven game (so no group content at all), yes you are technically forced to only play story driven content if you play the game, but you still have choice in not playing. In the case of TOR if I were looking at content I would probably only pay attention to what people play while subscribed. This way I know, what people who are actively paying to play are playing, there by giving me an idea of why they pay to play. If someone does not feel that there is anything to do other than story and so they are a false metric, then the real issue is that their paying to play content they don't particularly want to play, which you cannot fault the analyst from being able to determine as it is contrary to logic.

 

To cover your analogy, if you offer someone cheese or chocolate then you can determine which they prefer. So if 90% take the chocolate then you could extrapolate that 9/10 7 year olds would prefer to eat chocolate over cheese. So then you could plan to always have more chocolate on hand than cheese to a much greater degree in the event that you want to offer a choice to a group of 7 year olds. This is basically how it is working here, SWTOR offers character driven storys, flashpoints, ops, and warzones. If 90% of the people who pay to play this game play the character stories, it is not a huge leap in logic to determine that the activity they are paying to play is story driven missions. If that is the case then one has to assume they are doing that because they like the story driven missions so much they are willing to pay for all the other conveniences.

 

This is a Freemium game, that can be completely played for free. In fact if someone only ever wants to play the storys, they could do so without every dropping a dime (though this would get very difficult at some points). You can also run Flashpoints and Ops and Warzones without paying (though this would be extremely difficult), so if you analyze what people are playing while paying, you can get a pretty good idea of what people will pay to play, which at the end of the day is all they care about.

[Kurkina]

SWTOR offers character driven storys, flashpoints, ops, and warzones. If 90% of the people who pay to play this game play the character stories, it is not a huge leap in logic to determine that the activity they are paying to play is story driven missions. If that is the case then one has to assume they are doing that because they like the story driven missions so much they are willing to pay for all the other conveniences.

 

Again, I think this misrepresents the argument and is probably in-line with the way BW chose to interpret its metrics.

 

First of all, a given group of subscribers pay and stay subscribed for the MMO group elements, and play the story because they have to, they enjoy it too, and also that's just how the game works. Secondly, it's not 90% of players playing the story, it's 100%. Everybody plays the story and everybody plays the story a lot, because that is how the game is set up. Group elements also have various built in caps and limits on daily and weekly commendation rewards, lockouts from ops, and relevance as well (not fun running old FPs and Ops).

 

On a side note, I wonder if standing around on the fleet or in your stronghold counts as "time engaged in single-player activity". On a day where I play a lot, I easily spend at least an hour in my stronghold on the GTN or decorating or whatever. Does that count as towards the single-player bias as well?

Edited August 20, 2015 by Kurkina

[Derat]

People act like Bioware and EA wants SWTOR to be the #1 MMO of all time. Yes, I believe that prior to launch, EA and Bioware was betting hard on the idea that SWTOR could leapfrog WoW and become the world's most popular MMO with months and months of millions of subscribers and all the like. However, around early 2012, a BIG drop off of subscribers occurred and Bioware/EA was humbled.

**snip**

now they are just looking for a niche that they can exploit and be profitable. That niche is casual/cross-over MMO/Single Player RPG gamers... In a way, SWTOR really isn't a true MMO but rather a hybrid of the single player RPG genre and that of the MMO genre.

That truly seems to be what they are doing, screw the people that have supported them for 3 years as a MMO and create a game with micro transaction and story that just keeps coming… it might be very successful… but it will likely lose the MMO crowd in favor of a new crowd. That makes me sad as I am a MMO player.

People are just irked about story so that they will throw out anything or dismiss anything that contradicts their belief that story/solo play is not what people want in SWTOR. I bet you that if KotFE was Ops/PvP based expansion and James Ohlen came out and said, "We decided to focus on Ops and PvP for this new expansion because based off of our metrics, most people tend to play/focus on Ops and PvP related content" If this was the case I wonder how many people would be claiming that Bioware only sees what they want to see when it comes to metrics? I wonder how many people would dismiss Bioware's use/reliance on metrics then? I would predict that most people here wouldn't because the metrics align with their beliefs which is that most people don't care about story and only want to do group related content. Thats all it boils down to. Oh, the metrics do not justify my opinion so therefore the metrics must be wrong! Yeah....okay....

I think this is an over simplification of what people are saying/feeling and just as dismissive as you are accusing the naysayers of being.

Bioware nor EA never said that story/solo play will be the main focus for SWTOR going forward. Go find me a quote where they said that! No, they only said that with KotFE and the next 10-12 months or so would be an endeavor of good ole Bioware cinematic storytelling with choice. They never said that there will never ever be new OPSs or Warzones, just that they aren't the focus right now. Who knows, after satisfying the solo player crowd, 2017 could be the year of the PvP or year of the Raiders. Who knows, 2017 could be the year where they try to focus more on the MMO bits of SWTOR and put the solo play in the backseat for a while.

Why does it always have to be one or the other? That's the core issue here isn't it - Always feast or famine. I keep seeing “They are giving us story – so shut up, you wanted this last year!” – Ya sure, I did/do want story but not in the absence of all other things! So the real questions is why is this happening – easy answer imho:

 

They choose to split their focus 6 ways! (More?)

1 – Story, solo FP’s etc… single player game

2 – Ground PVP

3 – Space PVP

4 – Decorations/Strongholds/Guild ships/Costumes and the cartel market

5 – Ops

6 – Flashpoints

 

They said they would never let ops languish for over a year again and are now doing exactly that but worse… they have over extended themselves with 6 unique branches of focus without 6 different teams cranking our content. They can’t possible ever release enough content for any of it to make all of us happy this way. It is and was a stupid mistake, if this is how they think to "fix" SWTOR and gain focus – then they are going to have a very different audience than they do today very soon… hopefully it does not kill the game for those that stay. I just changed my sub to 30 day re-occuring instead of 180 days, I get renewed Oct 18th – So good timing I guess. I hope their “metrics” capture that.

They're treating the symptoms, not the disease.

^ This is how I feel about it.

 

I also see lots of responses – “People that grind ops over and over for a piece of gear are stupid and/or the same as people that do story over and over” – I do not do OP’s/Group content for the piece of gear, it helps us progress the harder content sure, but it is not why I log on. I do them to hang out with 7-8 friends on a voice chat. We talk about our days and lives and we interact. Because its actual people I depend on them and they depend on me to do things in game and if any of us screw up we have to adjust on the fly or if I am PVP’ing against someone what the other guy does is dynamic… it’s never the same… perhaps predictable at times but not like Story is predictable – that is *real* monotony after the first time. If someone betrays you in story … it’s not a question if they will do it again the next time you play that story… they will. In the same place, saying the same thing.

 

There is a very distinct difference between group content grinds and story grinds. People that don’t get that should leave their basements once in a while and meet people. Maybe a bit harsh but I really don’t get how one can’t see a clear difference.

 

This quote is great:

as a wise man said, "there are 3 kinds of lies..Lies, damn lies and statistics" metrics say what you want them to say. if you are honest with your search criteria, you will get honest results, if you are looking for self-justification, that’s what you will get.

 

Lastly if was not for getting together with friends 2-5 times a week (not just ops, but couple/three of us in Teamspeak chatting) I would not login at all these days. Getting rid of content that supports us in the sense of getting on Teamspeak and chatting and adding only content that – due to story and conversations people want to hear, actually discourages people from getting on Teamsspeak and being social is not a win… it is a really really big loss for this game.

 

I recently leveled a toon with a friend, Sorc and a Warrior – we helped each other and watched each other’s stories. It was fun until we hit Makeb/Rishi/Yavin and everything needed to be done solo once or twice in order to count for both of us. Not fun. Discouraged us from grouping past 50/vanilla story ever again. , What was the point? Had to do it alone and listen to my own story anyway or do it twice *gag*.

 

Finally finally – this thread, all the worry and negative back and forth is a direct result of Bio-Wares lack of communication. Something they seem to take pride in regardless of the repeated promises to be more transparent.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Derat

[AlrikFassbauer]

First of all, a given group of subscribers pay and stay subscribed for the MMO group elements, and play the story because they have to,

 

Not me. I prefer story over everything else.

 

But then, I also believe of myself being the pure Freak here, because of that.

[Ghisallo]

Forces is a loaded term and implies that the player has no choice.

 

Assume this was only a story driven game (so no group content at all), yes you are technically forced to only play story driven content if you play the game, but you still have choice in not playing. In the case of TOR if I were looking at content I would probably only pay attention to what people play while subscribed. This way I know, what people who are actively paying to play are playing, there by giving me an idea of why they pay to play. If someone does not feel that there is anything to do other than story and so they are a false metric, then the real issue is that their paying to play content they don't particularly want to play, which you cannot fault the analyst from being able to determine as it is contrary to logic.

 

To cover your analogy, if you offer someone cheese or chocolate then you can determine which they prefer. So if 90% take the chocolate then you could extrapolate that 9/10 7 year olds would prefer to eat chocolate over cheese. So then you could plan to always have more chocolate on hand than cheese to a much greater degree in the event that you want to offer a choice to a group of 7 year olds. This is basically how it is working here, SWTOR offers character driven storys, flashpoints, ops, and warzones. If 90% of the people who pay to play this game play the character stories, it is not a huge leap in logic to determine that the activity they are paying to play is story driven missions. If that is the case then one has to assume they are doing that because they like the story driven missions so much they are willing to pay for all the other conveniences.

 

This is a Freemium game, that can be completely played for free. In fact if someone only ever wants to play the storys, they could do so without every dropping a dime (though this would get very difficult at some points). You can also run Flashpoints and Ops and Warzones without paying (though this would be extremely difficult), so if you analyze what people are playing while paying, you can get a pretty good idea of what people will pay to play, which at the end of the day is all they care about.

 

This is assuming that the numbers are that simple in a game like this and they are not. When they spoke about metrics they spoke about the time spent, not raw number of players. This is an important consideration when you look at the dynamic of their "reward" system for running elder game content and lock out timers both conspire to FORCE even the most diehard elder content player to do the solo stuff. It also does not speak to whether or not the time includes the 100% free player, who tbh should not be counted in such a calculation because they do not contribute directly to the financial viability of the game.

 

The above is why you have to look at a statement about the use of metrics and then place that statement in the context of the details of the financial model and other statements made about the game. The determine if the statement about metrics is actually a "fact" based statement or a "marketing" based statement because the same metric, in a game like this, can be interpreted in many different ways depending on that context., fact v marketing. Companies do this all the time. They get numbers and then use the numbers in a way they desire in order to promote a specific impression. Example. Lets say I have 2 investment advisors, one is big into real estate the other the stock market. Here are the ways they can use the same numbers BUT encourage someone to invest in their pet project.

 

Mr. Real Estate

Real Estate Prices Are Up In July 2012.” Can we back that up?

 

Sure we can! The average price was $476,947 in 2012, and only $458,046 in 2011. Prices are up 4.1%.

 

Clearly, prices are UP! Hop on that train, the market is recovering!!!!!

 

Mr. Stock Market

 

Well, how about these numbers:

 

The average price was $476,947 in July of 2012, and $508,622 in June of 2012. Prices are down 6.2%.

 

So prices are down in July…..right? Get out of real estate, I have an IPO for ya!!!!

 

Well, prices are up from July-to-July (year to year), but prices are down from June-to-July (month to month). You can make the same set of numbers say different things, its all in how you chose to sell those numbers. A Gaming company is not different than any other business, they will sell the numbers as they see fit to suit their purposes.

 

If the metrics proved that story is so important that they MUST focus on it then why....

 

1. waste the resources on scaling up all FPS and OPs.

2. Why after the rather large outcry over this decision did they come out and say they would start elder game development as soon as KotFE dropped? They are a minority right? I mean the metrics say so right?

3. If the metric is true why is their financial model still so obviously slanted towards getting money out of the person that enjoys elder game at least as much as story?

4. If it was true, clearly all the story only players are happy so why incentivize the subscriptions? I mean again that is a lot of work for this minority of people because the story people don't need it right?

5. Why phase in the final chapters of the story once a month? I mean its not like the story only people care that there is no elder game ops or fps at the end of the story right?

6. If it just about the story why do we need free level 60s? Isnt that a feature for elder game and not a single player story?

7. Why go to all the head ache of having the new story wipe out our old companions and turn a great many of them, including some of the favorites (their words) into NPCs so they are no longer companions? This last risks the ire of the story people who they claim to be doing this expac for correct?

 

 

The answer is pretty simple actually. The metric was being used in a marketing context rather than a very nuanced and fact based one. They are under a order from EA, in a public statement by the CFO no less, to add more players than SoR did because of the movie

 

Star Wars: The Old Republic also contributed to the segment, with the expansion, Shadow

of Revan, attracting many more people into the game with its epic new storyline. Star Wars

fans remain deeply engaged with The Old Republic universe, and we’re excited to see how

that will build as we get closer to the launch of the new Star Wars movie this December.

 

Now a few things. We have to acknowledge that the game grew with NOT just more story but with new OPs and FPs. We also have to know, from understanding "corporate speak" that the last line is for public consumption. Behind closed doors that says

"with the new movie coming out you better grow MORE than you did with SoR."

 

Well how do you do that?

 

 

The perennial problem of an MMO starting a few years in is that it is HARD to attract new players and keep em. WoW did it by expanding into new markets. When they ran out of new markets they started with the free level 80... free level 90 stuff.

 

Well EA isn't spending the money on expanding into new markets BUT SWTOR the companion system. How in the world then do you let people have a free level 60 to get them at elder game as fast as possible? You do a soft reset on the gamer by doing a HARD reset on the companions. To do this reset you need a new story. BUT remember its not a class story, it is a single story with a little class flavor thrown in. No class specific companions, no individual wowser that has people saying "Agent story > all" etc.

 

When you look at ALL of the things going on and not just one statement it is clear to anyone with critical thinking skills that the metric comment was a marketing comment. This expac is NOT about the fact that story is the clear winner in this game. This expac is about not pissing off CEO Andrew Wilson and CFO Blake Jorgensen and delivering on the Q3 2015 demand above, bring in new players, its not about any of us. If they don't they have proven that they will fire people, slash budgets and even cancel already published games when they fail to meet an expected ROI. Thing is how would the players take it if BW gave voice to this obvious reality?

 

 

The problem is that too many gamers always have and always will think they are somehow a special little snow flake, they are the "real" reason the game is a success, not the player who enjoys the content they have NO interest in. So they cling to isolated statements that give validation to their particular view point. I WISH this was about those of us playing now. If it was I would not be as nervous due to the gamble BW is clearly taking, but it is what it is.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Khryn]

I'm late to this party, but that first page is pure comedy gold.

 

Paraphrased:

 

"Bioware doesn't know how to read their own metrics. I know better, because I don't have access to these metrics, but my sample size of myself, plus a guildie, and 3 people from general chat agreed with me when I whined about X, so it must mean that EVERYONE else has the same opinion and likes/dislikes as me, so therefore Bioware must be reading their metrics wrong."

Edited August 20, 2015 by Khryn

[Joesixxpack]

I'm late to this party, but that first page is pure comedy gold.

 

Paraphrased:

 

"Bioware doesn't know how to read their own metrics. I know better, because I don't have access to these metrics, but my sample size of myself, plus a guildie, and 3 people from general chat agreed with me when I whined about X, so it must mean that EVERYONE else has the same opinion and likes/dislikes as me, so therefore Bioware must be reading their metrics wrong."

 

Read some more, maybe you'll see what the intelligent posts are saying instead of what you want them to say.

[TUXs]

I'm late to this party, but that first page is pure comedy gold.

 

Paraphrased:

 

"Bioware doesn't know how to read their own metrics. I know better, because I don't have access to these metrics, but my sample size of myself, plus a guildie, and 3 people from general chat agreed with me when I whined about X, so it must mean that EVERYONE else has the same opinion and likes/dislikes as me, so therefore Bioware must be reading their metrics wrong."

Unlike Metrics, I play the game. Numbers only tell part of the story.

[Yungscion]

On a side note, I wonder if standing around on the fleet or in your stronghold counts as "time engaged in single-player activity". On a day where I play a lot, I easily spend at least an hour in my stronghold on the GTN or decorating or whatever. Does that count as towards the single-player bias as well?[/color]

 

Probably not. As someone who works in data aggregation and analytics, I would do this by tracking quest completion, and I would specifically be tracking consecutive quest completion. This would tell me are they actively playing and they are moving through the story. Now I cannot speak for BW, but if they want real value metrics this is what they would be tracking. If the bulk of my subscribers are spending the bulk of their time in game doing this then the logical conclusion is because that is the part of the game they enjoy.

 

Whether or not they would prefer something else is not quantifiable, since if they aren't doing it, it can't be tracked, and even if I take a poll I have to worry about report bias. So my question would be, how would I get metrics surrounding what people want to do, without relying on self reporting via polls which are rife with potential bias?

 

Another thing to consider is why would Bioware care which direction they take the game in? They will always follow the money, that always has and will be the way of business. So if you really don't like the focus on story driven content the only way to let them know that so they can quantify it is to not play it. Play the flashpoints and OPS and warzones, and if you can't because you can never get a team together or don't like the results of you Dungeon Finder groups, then you have to stop paying them. If you don't play the story content and/or don't subscribe then they can get the true metrics. But regardless of your reasons, if you pay and spend the bulk of your actual game time doing story missions, you are telling them to make more of that. They can't quantify unknown or

unreliable data.

[Yungscion]

Unlike Metrics, I play the game. Numbers only tell part of the story.

 

As someone who works in analytics this saying annoys the hell out of me. Number tell no story, they simply are, a person tells a story and can use any selective data set to confirm the story they are telling.

 

This isn't really meant for you, just a popular saying that annoys me.

[TUXs]

As someone who works in analytics this saying annoys the hell out of me. Number tell no story, they simply are, a person tells a story and can use any selective data set to confirm the story they are telling.

 

This isn't really meant for you, just a popular saying that annoys me.

I can understand that...but I don't think anyone literally means they are telling a "story"...that simply means you can't get the full picture of what's going on from just numbers...there are tons of additional factors that aren't quantifiable with metrics.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Oh I am sure I would call it an RPG, those games back then where a revelation, Baldurs Gate etc, it was like my pen and paper coming to life before my very eyes.

 

Which, is the main problem with modern MMOs.

 

They are designed to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, understandably given the need to turn a profit etc. People who play MMOs are as happy playing FIFA 15 these days, that was not the case when I was a nipper, we played football in the street to be fair.

 

I hope somewhere down the line we do see a hardcore MMORPG again, marketed to the same type of niche market those games back then were for.

 

Pillars of Eternity ( barely started but finishing Witcher 3 first before I continue with it but it very much has the old school hardcore feel ) and Torment: Tides of Numenera.

 

First one is out already, 2nd one is in development.

 

Edit: N/M I missed the MMO bit of MMORPG - out of curiosity then exactly what is a hardcore MMORPG from the past? Because none of the games references to the point of your post were either MMO's or if they were weren't what I would call hardcore?

Edited August 20, 2015 by MeNaCe-NZ

[MeNaCe-NZ]

A very good point. The metrics are not a measure of what people like or want, what motivates them or discourages them. They are a measure of what people are doing in a given system/context that forces their actions down a certain path.

 

What is this "THE METRICS" you speak of? I again ask, where do you get yours from that you base such statements on? How is it you know what Bioware are looking at and basing their decision off?

 

Here is an example of how they might look at and this is in opposition to what people seem to be thinking of "this many toons did story, lol Bioware have no idea how to read metrics".

 

If they had a metric that said 3% of ACCOUNTS had a character that had completed 1 operation they could make a pretty safe assumption from that data that operations weren't overly popular or there was something seriously wrong that was driving people away from them.

Likewise they could generate how many level 60 characters each account had and then proportion that out to see how many of those characters were being power leveled to do PVP or Operations. They can see how long they all took to do the story and combined with knowing the amount that DON'T do operations they can get a fair metric of how popular story is.

 

That is just from my own limited logic, Bioware employ people whose sole role it is is to analyse data and develop data collection tools etc. and provide said data to those that need it.

In summary - people need to stop talking about metics as if they have ANY clue as to how Bioware bases it decisions around the metrics and data it uses because you don't know what data and metrics they use!

 

There is NO SUCH THING in all of online gaming as a subscription based MMO where the only development for the forseeable future is a few hours of single-player story. They are asking their existing subscribers to pay full price indefinitely for what will amount to a weekend of questing.

 

Define "a few". Also where does it say the only development for the foreseeable future is single-player story? They've blatantly stated they will be working on operations in the future ( thus foreseeable ) as well as all toher types of MMO content. They've not once stated they won't be developing any more MMO content so stop talking trash that has no basis in reality.

 

 

They think they can do this because they have a captive and addicted audience who perhaps are not aware of other online games' payment models. So I urge people to look around at how other companies treat their customers with respect to delivering fair content for a fair price. SWTOR falls way short in that regard with KotFE.

 

I get it YOU aren't happy, so just quit already. Otherwise maybe realise that other people are happy with what is coming, they are happy to pay for what they are getting ( else they wouldn't pay and they would rage like you and others seem to be trying to do ). Stop trying to pretend like everyone else is somehow soo intellectually inferior they have no idea what they are paying for and the wool is completely pulled over their eyes.

 

The only people I feel that might fit into the above description are those who are soo unhappy with the direction this game is taking yet still keep paying for it for what? To have a whinge on the forums about it. Nice one.