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

[Kurkina]

No, this isn't a conspiracy. It's simply human nature. If the bosses expect to see something the underlings will make sure they see it. Starting with preconceived notions immediately flaws the data especially in a bureaucratic hierarchy.

 

And how anybody can argue for the "purity" of the data that BW has collected is beyond me. You (Menace and all) are completely detached from the reality of the methods used by corporations whose purpose is to make money and lure investors (EA).

 

And regardless if the numbers are by character or by account, the simple fact remains that story is what the majority of players have done because it has to be done.

 

First of all, I'm wondering Menace if you could respond directly to this statement and comment on how you think this may or may not contribute to the data the BW has collected.

 

Secondly, to further my outrageous and unimaginable conspiracy theory, here is the order of events that I thingk BW undertook in this process:

 

 

1. EA pressures BW to increase revenue for Q4 of 2015, to coincide with the release of Episode VII.
   
2. BW decides the best way to go about this is to streamline the game into the single-players concept that is KotFE. It is at the same time a cost-cutting measure and the instant lvl 60 is a lure for NEW subscribers.
   
3. a given set of metrics are chosen and analyzed in order to back up this decision, but the decision came first. The metrics are but a platform that justifies this decision to those who might be interested in the numbers of these kinds of thing. As stated many times in many ways in this thread, those numbers can show anything that those collecting them want them to show.
   

 

 

If the "conspiracy" is that I cannot know this for sure because BW or EA has not confirmed this, then so be it. But is this sequence of events possible? I say that not only is it possible, but likely, given the structure of EA/BW and their need to keep this game financially viable. Or backwards: is my hypothesis impossible?

 

Whatever answers all of you believe to those questions, here is my point. To think that BW "honestly" analyzed the "most relevant" data and came up with the concept of KotFE based on that analysis is absolutely crazy. Completely insane.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Kurkina

[DalrisThane]

Well, if people continue to argue against the metrics Bioware used in their decision, there's actually no point in discussing.

 

To paraphrase (and clean up) a quote from Zero Punctuation :

 

"Yeah. Right. If Bioware's metrics had shown that 98% people play the most: FP / OP / PVP, and only 2% was story, you'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

 

But because the data says something you disagree with, Bioware is obviously wrong."

 

Yeah, I know, I cleaned it up. See NSFW link

 

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zero_Punctuation#Gears_of_War_3

 

the Gears of War 3 quote in case the direct link doesn't work...

 

So, I guess I'll just happily be wrong, and enjoy the fruits of flawed metrics then...

Edited August 25, 2015 by DalrisThane

[Kurkina]

Well, if people continue to argue against the metrics Bioware used in their decision, there's actually no point in discussing.

 

The point is that BW did NOT use metrics to MAKE their decision. Data was analyzed in a certain way after decisions were made to demonstrate that their decision was grounded in some sort of statistically verifiable premise.

 

"Yeah. Right. If Bioware's metrics had shown that 98% people play the most: FP / OP / PVP, and only 2% was story, you'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

 

The metrics cannot possibly ever show that, because of the way the game is set up. You MUST engage in story activity to get to max level and the endgame. It is for this reason that I find that it is misleading to represent what people DO with what people WANT. People who WANT to engage in group content DO play the story, but do not necessarily want more story.

 

BW (especially in their patronizing reveal announcement at E3) has represented it this way to hide the fact that the change of focus in KotFE is NOT in response to people's desires but as a decision designed to bring in new customers and begin the subscription-base cycle anew. The single-player focus will of course align with the wishes of many existing players, perhaps even the majority. That is not however the motivation behind the change, and that is where BW is dishonestly mis-representating its actions.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Kurkina

[DalrisThane]

The point is that BW did NOT use metrics to MAKE their decision. Data was analyzed in a certain way after decisions were made to demonstrate that their decision was grounded in some sort of statistically verifiable premise.

 

If that's the case, fine. Then I revise my opinion to this =

 

I then consider it a more polite way to say "metrics" then say (what possibly happened behind the scenes):

 

"Hi. I'm the CEO / President / Majority Shareholder / Grand Poobah of EA/BW and this Story focus is happening because it's MY money, and I own EA/BW."

 

I've worked for people like that...

 

Either way, I can't imagine that devs trump suits when it comes to decision making, and this "sounds like" a suit decision, if that makes sense.

Edited August 25, 2015 by DalrisThane

[Draqsko]

And how anybody can argue for the "purity" of the data that BW has collected is beyond me. You (Menace and all) are completely detached from the reality of the methods used by corporations whose purpose is to make money and lure investors (EA).

 

 

 

First of all, I'm wondering Menace if you could respond directly to this statement and comment on how you think this may or may not contribute to the data the BW has collected.

 

Secondly, to further my outrageous and unimaginable conspiracy theory, here is the order of events that I thingk BW undertook in this process:

 

 

1. EA pressures BW to increase revenue for Q4 of 2015, to coincide with the release of Episode VII.
   
2. BW decides the best way to go about this is to streamline the game into the single-players concept that is KotFE. It is at the same time a cost-cutting measure and the instant lvl 60 is a lure for NEW subscribers.
   
3. a given set of metrics are chosen and analyzed in order to back up this decision, but the decision came first. The metrics are but a platform that justifies this decision to those who might be interested in the numbers of these kinds of thing. As stated many times in many ways in this thread, those numbers can show anything that those collecting them want them to show.
   

 

 

If the "conspiracy" is that I cannot know this for sure because BW or EA has not confirmed this, then so be it. But is this sequence of events possible? I say that not only is it possible, but likely, given the structure of EA/BW and their need to keep this game financially viable. Or backwards: is my hypothesis impossible?

 

Whatever answers all of you believe to those questions, here is my point. To think that BW "honestly" analyzed the "most relevant" data and came up with the concept of KotFE based on that analysis is absolutely crazy. Completely insane.

 

I know everyone likes to "win" an argument, but it's obvious they won't be convinced and really what would it gain anyways? It's too late for anything to be done now except to hope the expansion does well and Bioware is smart enough to quickly shift gears afterward and produce enough new MMO content to actually keep those people here. Because that has always been this game's problem, retention. It's got enough shiny to get people to come, they have to fix why people leave.

[Kurkina]

It's too late for anything to be done now except to hope the expansion does well and Bioware is smart enough to quickly shift gears afterward and produce enough new MMO content to actually keep those people here.

 

I echo that sentiment, 100% agreement. However, I am not convinced that if the game "does well" in its single-player-focused iteration, that EA will have any incentive to pump more money into the game at the start, because they need to "bank" their return on the initial investment that was doled out for KotFE. But for new endgame/group content to come out "on time", i.e. to prevent loss of interest down the road, they have to be working on it right now. Too late to start designing FPs and Ops when subscribers start dropping. Who would those Ops then be for?

[Yorioko]

SWTOR IS a SOLO/STORY game, it has additional features for various "Group" play.

 

Now With that being said........

 

What I have seen playing here as a subscriber for well over 2 years is that the People that has the biggest issues With story/single player mode are the ones that for some reason MUST play open PVP on a PVE server/game.

Outlaws Den is a prime example of this broken thing.

In order to unflag Your self it is NOT ENOUGH to wait 5 minutes, you have to wait 5 minutes in a safe zone, these are never Close by. If unlucky it tkes alot longer to get the HK item from the guy in he Den.

And why?

Becuse some PVPers feel that if someone is able to unflagg it is unfair.

However these pvp players play on anything BUT the pvp server.

 

Now I am not a pvp hater, in fact I have a toon on a pvp server, naturally allways flagged. I just don't need that sillyness in PVE.

 

That some missions are 2+ and 4 ( 8 and 16) is sort of cool, it does introduce a little bit of a social aspect, if you likea certain players "style" you chat etc.......so for that part I like the mulitifeatures.

 

However I would welcome an option to have all FPs at least doable solo, it would be awesome.

And for those that find the FACT that a PVE ( focused) game is just that..........the there are tons of other games out there

[Draqsko]

I echo that sentiment, 100% agreement. However, I am not convinced that if the game "does well" in its single-player-focused iteration, that EA will have any incentive to pump more money into the game at the start, because they need to "bank" their return on the initial investment that was doled out for KotFE. But for new endgame/group content to come out "on time", i.e. to prevent loss of interest down the road, they have to be working on it right now. Too late to start designing FPs and Ops when subscribers start dropping. Who would those Ops then be for?

 

SWTOR has been "banking" since it launched, this game has always made money. EA doesn't "re-invest" earnings into particular games, they are given a budget and ROI expectations. If they vastly exceed expectations, they don't get that money the following year, EA increases their budget a little bit and waits for the results.

[Kurkina]

Yorioko you need to read the whole thread, you are completely off-topic.

______________________________________

 

 

OK Draqsko, I see the distinction you are making with regards to budget, ROI and no direct "re-investment".

 

But that said, I think my point is still valid: If KotFE performs well financially in Q4 2015, EA will still have no incentive to raise BW's budget for 2016 to "add" group content, as the game will (hypothetically) be performing to expectation without it.

 

The only reason they would raise the budget and allow for the development of group content would be that they understand the life-cycle they are beginning and realize that the new subscribers they attract will eventually wear the story down, try all the scaled-up ops and then demand new group content ... but I'm not sure I trust EA to have this kind of forsight. I think if the game performs well with the reduced costs associated with streamlining development to single-player only, they will try to ride that wave as far as it goes.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Kurkina

[TUXs]

I know everyone likes to "win" an argument, but it's obvious they won't be convinced and really what would it gain anyways? It's too late for anything to be done now except to hope the expansion does well and Bioware is smart enough to quickly shift gears afterward and produce enough new MMO content to actually keep those people here. Because that has always been this game's problem, retention. It's got enough shiny to get people to come, they have to fix why people leave.

 

Perfectly stated. I'm especially fond of that last line, but the whole statement is spot on.

[Ghisallo]

Yorioko you need to read the whole thread, you are completely off-topic.

______________________________________

 

 

OK Draqsko, I see the distinction you are making with regards to budget, ROI and no direct "re-investment".

 

But that said, I think my point is still valid: If KotFE performs well financially in Q4 2015, EA will still have no incentive to raise BW's budget for 2016 to "add" group content, as the game will (hypothetically) be performing to expectation without it.

 

The only reason they would raise the budget and allow for the development of group content would be that they understand the life-cycle they are beginning and realize that the new subscribers they attract will eventually wear the story down, try all the scaled-up ops and then demand new group content ... but I'm not sure I trust EA to have this kind of forsight. I think if the game performs well with the reduced costs associated with streamlining development to single-player only, they will try to ride that wave as far as it goes.

 

Thats only if you look at only ONE statement they have made about the story.

 

You have to take ALL of BW's statements and the CFO in mind. Then understand the hurdles to attracting new bodies in an MMO after it has been around for a bit like this one has.

 

This expac is NOT about "more people love story so we are changing how we make the game." I won't go into the minute details I have earlier in this thread and make another wall of text, please just go back and check em out. That said, this expac is about "how do we attract new players and retain them."

 

Let me just illustrate the mind set of the new player. He is going to join and see a decent story that stretches out for a could of months with his "free for subscribers", bought on the Cartel for f2p, lvl 60 toon. He is also going to see how many end game OPs and FPs? For the new player, or the returning player who left shortly after launch, this game is going to seem positively HUGE. That is what this is about... those players, not us. They just hope the story is engaging enough and that they can move fast enough to get new elder game content out before too many current players leave.

[Ghisallo]

I know everyone likes to "win" an argument, but it's obvious they won't be convinced and really what would it gain anyways? It's too late for anything to be done now except to hope the expansion does well and Bioware is smart enough to quickly shift gears afterward and produce enough new MMO content to actually keep those people here. Because that has always been this game's problem, retention. It's got enough shiny to get people to come, they have to fix why people leave.

 

What I find frustrating is this tbh. Of course some people won't be convinced however, usually, they at least make an effort to confront various facts with facts to the contrary. When you can't do that you either retreat from the argument to hide from the facts or you actually, maybe, just maybe, acknowledge that you had an error or two in your initial logic.

 

What makes it even funnier is that certain parties have been challenged to actually confront the facts that contradict their premise. Once that started happening they just completely ignored those specific people and responded to the "preaching to the converted" crowd OR they just took pot shots at the people opposed to their stance BUt who could not make a cogent argument.

 

Typical for an MMO forum? Yes. This however doesn't make it any less disappointing or frustrating.

[Ghisallo]

SWTOR IS a SOLO/STORY game, it has additional features for various "Group" play.

 

Now With that being said........

 

and wrong. Why wrong? Until SoR you could do everything with a group. Now yes your "class" quests were limited to being done by people of the same class but it was still groupable. When you look at it the only difference, aside from the class quest, and say EQ2 is the fully voiced cut scenes. That's it.

 

If they meant this to be a Solo/story game with only some elements of class play then they would not have spent how much time and money adding an Group finder, adding Operations, adding strong holds, all the features that make an MMO different from the solo/story game. Additionally they would not have their f2p financial model tilted so strongly to making money off of stuff that is very "group" centric (gear equip limits, content passes, exp boosts etc).

 

Now with SoR they went to the story being more individual but tbh you know why that happened? Money, Money Money. In a MMO time = money for profit and in terms of a development budget they were obviously only given so much money to work with.

 

They went to a single story. Look at how fast we finished it. Now imagine being able to do that with a group? The content would not have been run through, not even flown through, it would have been downright hyperspaced through. Then what do they do? How do they keep the players playing? The answer? Even if some friends help you you then have to help them to do it, 1 by 1. The time gets stretched out. People play longer and thus pay longer.

[Ghisallo]

SWTOR has been "banking" since it launched, this game has always made money. EA doesn't "re-invest" earnings into particular games, they are given a budget and ROI expectations. If they vastly exceed expectations, they don't get that money the following year, EA increases their budget a little bit and waits for the results.

 

Yeah. Back in the day, when game developers were a little more niche, "re-investing" works. Look at WoW and the EQ franchise. These were the main profit makers for their respective companies/departments and so money was reinvested into the game. However when you look at a company like EA with a diversified portfolio it's about the parent giving the labels budgets and the labels giving the parent the profits.

 

I will use an extreme example of how this works.

 

Trion Worlds. Trion Worlds has Rift. It was a successful game and was making a fair amount of money. HOWEVER Lars Buttler (former CEO) moved to expand too fast. He wanted a varied portfolio of games. He had what was supposed to be an RTS MMO hybrid in "End of nations", had Defiance going with SyFy channel and then opened what was called 'Red Door', a portal for other companies to come to Trion for purely publishing purposes.

 

Well the company doing the development for EoN, Petroglyph, was having MAJOR issues and backed out of the deal. Buttler took EoN in house and tried to make it work. Well while doing that Defiance was launched bugged all to heck (they had a contract to launch with the TV show) and flopped and fixing it cost even more money. EoN was a money pit and getting Red Door off the ground and doing localization for other games was a money pit. They had ONE game making money trying to feed all of these other projects and as a privately held company, with all these issues, equity investment dried up. Rift development became choppier because they had to feed the lion share of the money to all of these other projects which meant less money for Rift. The answer they hoped was a transition to f2p, but their model is not making them much money (last I checked that title had an issue making more that 35 million per annum which, while not bad, is only about a 1/3 of what SWTOR makes.)

 

 

tl;dr. These games are about making money for the COMPANY, not the game itself. The profits from these games go to the development of new projects. The more diversified your portfolio the more money you have to spread around in R&D on new projects because, especially in the digital world, new and shiny rules the day. Eventually even the most shiny game of today will tarnish in only a handful of years.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

First of all, I'm wondering Menace if you could respond directly to this statement and comment on how you think this may or may not contribute to the data the BW has collected.

 

Sure thing.

If we assume that every account has done the story as given then what metrics determine the popularity of PVE?

A VERY simple logic ( and no doubt Bioware have far more complex ways of looking at things and data they can pull up ) would be to say of all the accounts that have achieved a level 50/55/60 character ( as you can't only look at 60 for metrics, people may have stopped playing back at 50 or 55 or started new toons ) how much time was then spent on elder game PVE?

Was their an initial surge of PVE activity at some stage during the games timeline and then a decline at another point and if so why did this occur?

Of the accounts that have under X game time in PVE did they then leave the game or create other toons to do more story?

 

The point is why would you be looking at story based metrics initially vs how many accounts actually do, did or even attempted operations etc.? The data is there, it can easily be collected by BW and we can only but assume they ( multi million dollar company ) have a far better concept of how to look at THEIR data than any participating in this thread ( unless you sneakily work for Bioware and your role is to actually analyse data and metrics to form conclusions to base decisions around - I doubt this greatly ).

 

 

 

Secondly, to further my outrageous and unimaginable conspiracy theory, here is the order of events that I thingk BW undertook in this process:

 

Finally! An admission of it's "just my opinion and not actually fact". Thank you, half my issue with your statement is you've been try to convery them as fact as opposed to opinion.

 

It is at the same time a cost-cutting measure

 

How though is there cost cutting occurring? Have they announced lay offs to base that idea on? You could say because there is no new operations but so far all we know is that teams priorities are redirected in the decision to revamp operations/flashpoints - not blatantly removing any of them.

 

Also cost may very well have increased, we won't know until we see the quality of the final product and, most important telling factor to me on costs, how the voice acting is compared to SoR. If we see FAR more voiced scenes from companions ( and we should, it seems a very companion focused expansion after all ) we can concluse costs would go up, not down. I only say this because some people had big issues with the removal of a lot of VA in SoR as seemingly cost cutting measures.

 

If we see only subtitles ... well you are right, definitely cost cutting.

 

a given set of metrics are chosen and analyzed in order to back up this decision, but the decision came first. The metrics are but a platform that justifies this decision to those who might be interested in the numbers of these kinds of thing. As stated many times in many ways in this thread, those numbers can show anything that those collecting them want them to show.

 

I agree numbers can show you anything but my whole problem with your argument there ( and it borders on a contradiction on your behalf ) is if the metrics didn't clearly show what they are saying they showed ( that story will be popular and generate more revenue as opposed to how they've done things in the past or could have done things differently within their budget ) and they proceed anyway they are basically setting themselves up to fail your first point of EA putting pressure on them to increase revenue and basically lining themselves up for dole queue.

 

Why would they do this? Why would they have metrics, data, analysts etc. and make a decision without first looking at the data? It makes no sense and comes across as nothing more as a huge assumption on your behalf and I can't even see the logic behind you making such an assumption.

 

I doubt they want to be unemployed but I could be wrong.

 

I say that not only is it possible, but likely, given the structure of EA/BW and their need to keep this game financially viable. Or backwards: is my hypothesis impossible?

 

Whatever answers all of you believe to those questions, here is my point. To think that BW "honestly" analyzed the "most relevant" data and came up with the concept of KotFE based on that analysis is absolutely crazy. Completely insane.

 

Nothing is impossible I just don't see how your logic makes sense. They ignore ( or change them to suit their decision ) metrics to keep the game financially viable? Either story is the correct direction and will increase revenue which means the metrics must have shown this also or it won't in which case they did as you said and used metrics to suit themselves and did what they felt like anyway but then where does the idea of remaining financially viable come from?

 

Considering the model they have gone for here also, you only need be subbed for the first month of release to try the first 9 chapters - if it's crap and not what people wanted there is no way that initial buy in of a months sub is going to recoup the costs the spent on it.

 

Thus one of the only logical explanations, as I see its is they actually want it to succeed BEYOND that initial buy in. They ARE producing a product that their data tells them people want. They know from their metrics that operations and flashpoints are in a sorry state and saw their height at a time when there were more operations available at the maximum level ( hence the rejig ) and they know they need to sacrifice new ops for now to get this game back to that point before introducing new ones again ( so if new ones fall flat for a bit at least people will still have something level relevant to do ).

 

Now how you find any of that "completely insane" is beyond me and would have me querying my own sanity if I were thinking that way.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

What makes it even funnier is that certain parties have been challenged to actually confront the facts that contradict their premise. Once that started happening they just completely ignored those specific people and responded to the "preaching to the converted" crowd OR they just took pot shots at the people opposed to their stance BUt who could not make a cogent argument.

 

Typical for an MMO forum? Yes. This however doesn't make it any less disappointing or frustrating.

 

Pot calling the kettle black much? I've challenged you numerous times to revisit your own arguments in previous threads on similar topics where you did EXACTLY that and you have failed to do so on each occasion so don't go around trying to paint other "nameless" players with your brush.

[Grayseven]

I find it funny people think that anyone posting on these forums that isn't a Dev is posting "facts".

 

Everything said here by players is opinion and conjecture. That is a given and to assume otherwise is ridiculous.

 

No one has to say "this is my opinion" every time they post, it is inferred easily due to the simple fact that they are players of the game and not Developers.

[Max_Killjoy]

On the topic of metrics...

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/

 

...it takes more than "We have numbers!" to make something factual, accurate, or "truth".

[MeNaCe-NZ]

I find it funny people think that anyone posting on these forums that isn't a Dev is posting "facts".

 

Everything said here by players is opinion and conjecture. That is a given and to assume otherwise is ridiculous.

 

No one has to say "this is my opinion" every time they post, it is inferred easily due to the simple fact that they are players of the game and not Developers.

 

That is your opinion and you're entitled to it.

[Bobs_YourUncle]

I find it funny people think that anyone posting on these forums that isn't a Dev is posting "facts".

 

Everything said here by players is opinion and conjecture. That is a given and to assume otherwise is ridiculous.

 

No one has to say "this is my opinion" every time they post, it is inferred easily due to the simple fact that they are players of the game and not Developers.

 

Well, facts can be relayed by members, but we have very little facts, I'll grant you that.

[Kurkina]

Was their an initial surge of PVE activity at some stage during the games timeline and then a decline at another point and if so why did this occur?

 

If BW did actually engage in this kind of analysis, I will readily admit that this seems relevant and good.

 

How though is there cost cutting occurring?

 

I am assuming it would cost more to develop group content concurrently along with the main story than not to.

 

 

if the metrics didn't clearly show what they are saying they showed ( that story will be popular and generate more revenue as opposed to how they've done things in the past or could have done things differently within their budget ) and they proceed anyway they are basically setting themselves up to fail your first point of EA putting pressure on them to increase revenue and basically lining themselves up for dole queue.

 

Their current direction has the potential of generating more revenue by drawing in new players. If they had released an expansion similar to those in the past, with story and group content in some kind of balance, it would not be as attractive to new players as this quasi-reset with a free level 60 to subscribers. The expansion is aimed at them, not at existing players.

 

they actually want it to succeed BEYOND that initial buy in. They ARE producing a product that their data tells them people want.

 

Attracting new subscribers is what will make the game succeed beyond the initial buy in, because for them, there is a whole lot of content, and BW can then afford to slow down the release of further content and updates to suit the needs of those playing the game for the first time. Great for new subscribers, not so great for long-time players who have done it all and seen it all, save for a few hours of new story in KotFE. I think what their metrics may have shown is that existing subscribers are at the end of their useful life-span, and that it is time to move on to a new group. Something like for each old subscriber lost, 3 new ones are projected ... good deal for BW. I just wish they would be more upfront about it.

 

Now how you find any of that "completely insane" is beyond me and would have me querying my own sanity if I were thinking that way.

 

Hey Manace in all honesty, good answers this time around. I can agree with a lot of what you said, but I am still hoping we can work towards the following common ground:

 

My argument is based around the proverbial question of what came first, the chicken or the egg. I say the decision and strategy came first, and then data and numbers were analyzed with the intention of showing what they have been reported as showing. The idea that BW's change of direction with KotFE comes from an analysis of raw data that preceeded this change of direction is what seems insane to me.

 

In short:

 

• Task: raise revenue by attracting and keeping subscribers
  
• Solution step 1: story-focused iteration of SWTOR with a free jump to 60
  
• Solution step 2: scale all old ops to level for new subscribers, so they have plenty of content
  
• Afterthought: release an analysis of metrics that support this path
  

 

What I am saying is that the 2-step solution does not necessitate any analysis of metrics in order to be implemented. It simply requires good business sense and an understanding of who you are marketing a product to and what they might want. And you know what?

 

There are no metrics for the potential subscribers they are trying to attract.

 

And that's who KotFE is for.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Kurkina

[Grayseven]

Yeah, good call on that one.

 

When I started playing WoW it was approximately 6 months before the release of WotLK. I had all of Vanilla and BC which was a lot of content for one player.

 

Brand new players to this game at this point have a lot of content available to them. FE will not only add to that but allow new players to jump right into that content with an instant level 60 toon.

 

The new SW movie, and the additional SW movies incoming, will push newer and younger players into the game.

 

Hence all of the changes we are seeing.

 

The question becomes: Will SWTOR be able to retain this new generation of players and will the "sub for content" model provide for a stronger bottom line than the current model it is replacing?

 

SWTOR is a business product. Its sole function is to earn money for EA and friends. If EA believes that changing the model and possibly alienating a small but loyal customer base will, in the long run, earn them more money for their product then they will say goodbye to traditional MMO players without much ado. Loyalty to customers is always subservient to loyalty to shareholders and the bottom line.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

If BW did actually engage in this kind of analysis, I will readily admit that this seems relevant and good.

 

Why wouldn't they? If I can think of it on such a basic level I'm sure they can on a more technical level and being that you know ... it someone's actual job to do so.

 

 

I am assuming it would cost more to develop group content concurrently along with the main story than not to.

 

Well if you read the operation/flashpoint blog George's title is senior designer in charge of operations and flashpoints. I presume this to mean he has a team and that team instead of working on creating new flashpoints is in the process of doing what he stated they are doing.

 

My HOPE is the time is spent fixing existing bugs/glitches and doing what they can to make this rehash and bug/glitch free as possible ( and as well balanced ).

I mean people do complain about the lack of testing etc. things get in this game and how bugs never get fixed so with this huge delay between content there would really be no excuse for this not all to get fixed up and for this rehash not to be released relatively bug free.

 

Their current direction has the potential of generating more revenue by drawing in new players. If they had released an expansion similar to those in the past, with story and group content in some kind of balance, it would not be as attractive to new players as this quasi-reset with a free level 60 to subscribers. The expansion is aimed at them, not at existing players.

 

Yes so if metrics show that people enjoy story more then having more story draws in more people ... kind ofm akes perfect logical sense. You please the people playing, the people who used to play and also draw in a new audience.

There is never any argument about drawing in new people, just that there is no reason Bioware would lie about metrics or change them to suit to make a product they know is going to fail a few months down the track.

 

Attracting new subscribers is what will make the game succeed beyond the initial buy in, because for them, there is a whole lot of content, and BW can then afford to slow down the release of further content and updates to suit the needs of those playing the game for the first time. Great for new subscribers, not so great for long-time players who have done it all and seen it all, save for a few hours of new story in KotFE. I think what their metrics may have shown is that existing subscribers are at the end of their useful life-span, and that it is time to move on to a new group. Something like for each old subscriber lost, 3 new ones are projected ... good deal for BW. I just wish they would be more upfront about it.

 

But for existing players it's a lot of content also. How many people do you honestly think have completed all operations in this game?

I mean what is your hunch in terms of people themselves who play this game for whatever reason - how many do you think have completed all the operations?

Going off previous topics on this subject and articles people linked ( I'm not digging them up again as they weren't my articles I linked to begin with, just ones I read at the time ) to with other metrics my guess is around 10-15% probably a lot higher who have at least attempted operations but not bothered again for whatever reason.

 

I see this goal about not only being getting new players in doing new content as well as old but also getting old players able to do old content like operations.

 

As I've stated before, from my in game observations the pug community has never been in as much of a story state as it is now in the time I've played ( around when Makeb came out ). It may very well have been worse at launch but there was far less end game content then.

 

I think back to when we had DP/DF launching as a bit of a highlight, 4 relevant operations basically at top level to now where again we only have 2 and these 2 aren't exactly inviting in the new players.

 

Now we'll go to 9 - hopefully that reinvigorates the pug community back to how I know it was once before if not better and if it does everything wins. People realise operations aren't so scary so join and try their hand at progression etc. etc. and if those numbers grow from 10-15% to 15-20% that's MASSIVE gain and will easily justify what BW have done and investment in more future PVE operation content.

 

PVP to me will always lose out as long as they persevere with this silly concept of gear crawling for what is effectively casual play. There should be no gear for non ranked - it should just be bolstered so everyone is on the same statistical level regardless of if they are playing their first day or 3rd year.

Go to ranked to use your gear bonuses. My opinion on PVP anyway since it does need inclusion.

 

My argument is based around the proverbial question of what came first, the chicken or the egg. I say the decision and strategy came first, and then data and numbers were analyzed with the intention of showing what they have been reported as showing.

 

The idea that BW's change of direction with KotFE comes from an analysis of raw data that preceeded this change of direction is what seems insane to me.

 

In short:

 

• Task: raise revenue by attracting and keeping subscribers
  
• Solution step 1: story-focused iteration of SWTOR with a free jump to 60
  
• Solution step 2: scale all old ops to level for new subscribers, so they have plenty of content
  
• Afterthought: release an analysis of metrics that support this path
  

 

What I am saying is that the 2-step solution does not necessitate any analysis of metrics in order to be implemented. It simply requires good business sense and an understanding of who you are marketing a product to and what they might want. And you know what?

 

There are no metrics for the potential subscribers they are trying to attract.

 

And that's who KotFE is for.

 

My problem with all of that is making a decision without first looking at the supporting data isn't just bad business, it's almost unheard of. Sure people can misinterpret data but without even looking at the data/metrics etc.? That's business suicide and I don't think this is Bioware - agree to disagree if you like but I really can't even semi support that point of view.

 

Also I agree completely they are wanting to attract a new audience in to SWToR and market it in light of the new movie HOWEVER I don't think that is the core demographic. The core demographic to me is bringing back the players you had before who aren't paying you now.

Use your data and metrics to get an understanding of why they have left, the answer in this case is deemed to be a lack of story and at the same time CHANGE the way elder game PVE works to make it FAR more accessible and RELEVANT to keep them playing for as long as possible when they do return.

 

Of course attract new players as well but you don't have to work as hard to retain them because of how much story there is.

 

I believe I am right in my assumption based on the rehaul that operations are getting. If it was all about new players they could have ignored it completely like PVP gets pretty much ignored. The changes reflect a change to try keep players upto that point of the game playing, not new players who are going to take a very long time getting to that point in the first place playing.

[Kurkina]

Also I agree completely they are wanting to attract a new audience in to SWToR and market it in light of the new movie HOWEVER I don't think that is the core demographic. The core demographic to me is bringing back the players you had before who aren't paying you now.

 

Then I suppose that THAT is the key difference of perspective that supports both of our arguments. Within the context you are talking about (bringing back old players), your arguments about metrics make sense. What I am saying is that their focus is primarily on attracting new players and starting up the game's life cycle anew, and for that purpose, existing metrics are not relevant.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Then I suppose that THAT is the key difference of perspective that supports both of our arguments. Within the context you are talking about (bringing back old players), your arguments about metrics make sense. What I am saying is that their focus is primarily on attracting new players and starting up the game's life cycle anew, and for that purpose, existing metrics are not relevant.

 

Well they are still valid because you have to see what trends over the games life span gained the most new accounts and possibly also why/when said new accounts stopped playing.

 

It could be quite skewed because the highest point in that metric is always going to be around launch so you would almost need discard that and see where there were peaks and troughs in new sign ups after that point really.

 

Further still you can look at the F2P model.

How successful was it in terms of attracting players to the game ( not necessarily subbing because the goal here is purely attracting new players and hopefully having them sub, if they never play at all they obviously can never pay )?

You could see how many F2P accounts actually went through and finished story content as far as they could and then went and did more story content. If that metric is quite high this could tell you that people are happy to play for free because Bioware is giving them what they like, story content, for free. Thus Bioware goes back to story content and this time puts a payment gateway there to try increase the sub rate on what is deemed the most popular content.

 

There mistake in earning money in this game with F2P from a business perspective ( imo of course ) was there is SOOO much story content for free. This meant casual story players had a pretty kick *** game to play for free that would take up untold hours of their spare time.

 

Now we have to ignore our own opinions on F2P of course because the key here would be what the metrics told BW per what I said above. It doesn't matter what we think of F2P, what matters is how the metrics dictate F2P working as a whole which we have NO IDEA about because we can't even get much feedback on the forums with it being sub only.