The "mm" part of mmo, or how Kotfe is a puzzling business model

[Pagy]

His point is that there's more to 'multiplayer' than just grouping. Obviously not in your world, but if your only definition of multiplayer is "must group to kill things" then that's a pretty narrow definition.

except i never said that.

You're missing his point here, as well. Single player games don't have other people running around in them. Multiplayer ones do. You can argue that if you don't group with them, then that makes it pointless, but there's nothing in the definition that says you HAVE to group with the other people. They simply have to be there, in order for it to be multiplayer.

and they are THERE for a reason. interaction.

is there a multiplayer game out there that has an online environment, people running around and not interacting?

Hey, you're the one with the definition of multiplayer that's restrictive and narrow.

 

We just have different definitions. For me, this is a multiplayer game. It has multiple people playing it, in the same world, at the same time. That's all that's needed for my definition of multiplayer.

feel free to define things however you want. same way you're entitled to call fifa a first person shooter i guess. more power to ya. Edited November 25, 2015 by Pagy

[_NovaBlast_]

His point is that there's more to 'multiplayer' than just grouping. Obviously not in your world, but if your only definition of multiplayer is "must group to kill things" then that's a pretty narrow definition.

 

 

You're missing his point here, as well. Single player games don't have other people running around in them. Multiplayer ones do. You can argue that if you don't group with them, then that makes it pointless, but there's nothing in the definition that says you HAVE to group with the other people. They simply have to be there, in order for it to be multiplayer.

 

 

 

Hey, you're the one with the definition of multiplayer that's restrictive and narrow.

 

We just have different definitions. For me, this is a multiplayer game. It has multiple people playing it, in the same world, at the same time. That's all that's needed for my definition of multiplayer.

 

This ^^^

[_NovaBlast_]

is there a multiplayer game out there that has an online environment, people running around and not interacting

 

Seondlife - some people just log into build some just to log in an explore...there is no story no npc no raids no pvp no nothing.

 

there are other such platforms as well but i have made my point.

Edited November 25, 2015 by _NovaBlast_

[SootyTX]

Absolutely. The landscape is changing. Our lives are changing. I am not the same person I was 15 years ago when I was leading 60-man raids against Vox or Naggy. I am not the same person I was when I was organizing phone circles to get the guild out of bed at 2am because Ragefire had popped and <other guild> were about to gank him for their water sprinkler.

 

I have neither the time nor the desire to do that sort of thing any more. I log in when I can. I kill some bad guys, complete some missions, log back out. I chat to friends, help people who are stuck - or get helped, if I am stuck; I participate in the social aspect of an MMO. Sometimes I group if there's a shared objective. Sometimes I don't.

 

With the current structure of MMOs, all these things are possible. In EQ, I'd be stuck for 3 hours shouting LFG if none of my friends were on. I'm not sure I want to return to that paradigm.

 

As a fellow EQ raid leader, I agree 100%. MMO means something different today, it has to in a world of mobile connectivity and so much easier access to a wider variety of distractions than ever before. Expecting the old school MMO group required content to be successful is a recipe for disaster. SWTOR actually does a pretty good job of offering something for everyone. There's a lot of solo/duo content, there's PvP, there's raiding. While it can be argued that these are far from perfect (and PvP & Raiding elitists will forever do so in any game) they are there and they are, for those that partake in them, enjoyable.

 

MMOs have evolved from the focus being on the multi-player aspect to the focus being the persistent world aspect, that can be enjoyed by players in smaller doses and in many different ways. That to me seems like a pretty smart business model.

[Raphael_diSanto]

As for replaybility, we pretty much know by now that choices don't have consequences, or if they do, they are many months away, possibly more than a year away, so unless you enjoy hearing the same dialogue over and over again, and the same, generally uninspired gameplay (I mean really the combat is just filler come on) then you are the exception.

 

I think that depends on what you mean by 'consequence'. I'm not going to sit here and say that BioWare will write a massively branching story that will divergence and radically different things will happen based on your choices. They've never done that before, not in 20 years of making video games, and they're unlikely to do it now, especially given TOR's limited budget.

 

BioWare's consequences have always been more of the flavor type. The plot doesn't change. In Dragon Age, you still kill the Archdemon. In Mass Effect you still stop Saren. In the original KoTOR, doesn't matter what you do, you still stop Malak. LS Revan, DS Revan, it's all irrelevant in terms of the overall plot. And in KoTFE, we will stop Arcann. It doesn't take rocket science to figure that out. It's the path that changes.

 

For example, if you agree to let Valkorian help you twice, then have buyer's remorse and refuse his help in the final fight with Arcann on Asylum, he overrides your choice and basically says "No, you asked for help before, you dont' get to say no now." and forces you to accept his power. For me, that's a consequence. That's a change that depends on previous actions.

 

Yes. You still kill Arcann. But the path to get there was different.

 

If you consistently take darksided decisions throughout KoTFE (Especially ones that involve innocent Zakuul citizens - sun reactor, refugees, etc), you can't romance Koth, regardless of how much you've flirted with him. He tells you to go take a hike. That's a consequence.

 

If you play BioWare games expecting to see massively branching stories that run off into an infinite number of possibilities, you're gonna be disappointed, my friend. They don't write stories like that. They never have and they never will. They change the path in smaller, subtler ways, to give you a different flavor. But the meal will ALWAYS be the same. If you want something else, then quit this game right now, because you are NEVER gonna get that kind of wide open branching.

 

No, I don't work for BioWare, but I can almost guarantee that they won't give you what you want in terms of branching story. So if that's what is required for you to have replayability, I'd give up on a bad idea right now. The ship still sinks, guys. That's how BioWare write their stories. You either accept that it's going to be that way, or you stop playing BioWare products.

[TitusOfTides]

Has this honestly become a debate over the semantics of "single player" and "multiplayer?"

 

I think you were all better off insulting each other.

 

 

Still doesn't change the fact this IS an MMORPG.

 

When you play Mario on SNES do you complain about how you don't like to move only forward? Don't play a sidescroller.

 

Don't like SWTOR being an MMO? Don't play MMOs.

[Erasimus]

Apparently OP doesnt understand that a lot of people are here to be playing a Star Wars game/continuation of KOTOR and not just to play an MMO...

 

Just in case you didnt know, KOTOR 1& 2 were -Single Player- games...

 

And why wasn't there a KOTOR 3? Just an assumption, but probably because they didn't feel there was enough money to be made versus the effort and cost to produce.

 

Now I understand that there are a fair number of people that only want KOTOR 3, just as there are a number that want SWG. Because of the thrashing BioWare seems to be going through with SWTOR I'd suggest that they are searching for a model that will be sustainable (read profitable) for the long term. I'd argue that such a model needs to appeal to a far wider audience than the KOTOR faithful to be profitable. So how do you suggest they keeo the KOTOR faithful and still attract new players and keep them subscribed?

 

The OP has a point, if it is just KOTAR 3 then why continue to play once you've done the story on both sides?

[_NovaBlast_]

Has this honestly become a debate over the semantics of "single player" and "multiplayer?"

 

I think you were all better off insulting each other.

 

 

Still doesn't change the fact this IS an MMORPG.

 

When you play Mario on SNES do you complain about how you don't like to move only forward? Don't play a sidescroller.

 

Don't like SWTOR being an MMO? Don't play MMOs.

 

** Double facepalm** ...with head shake

Edited November 25, 2015 by _NovaBlast_

[Raphael_diSanto]

except i never said that.

You implied it. Feel free to state more clearly what your point is, so I can understand it, then.

 

and they are THERE for a reason. interaction.

We interact. We chat. We trade. We help each other. Grouping is optional, which means that yes, it sometimes happens, and sometimes it doesn't. Kinda like the real world, really. Sometime I carpool, sometimes I don't.

 

is there a multiplayer game out there that has an online environment, people running around and not interacting?

You haven't defined 'interacting'. Please give me a list of things that would define 'interacting' to you, since my inference from your earlier posts was that you believe that 'interacting' is defined only by grouping up to kill things. But you said that that assumption was wrong, so please give me an actual clear definition of what you would consider interacting that doesn't happen in TOR. Obviously, 'grouping to kill things' (i.e. raiding/grouping for heroics/etcs) isn't on that list, since you just said that that wasn't what you meant.

 

feel free to define things however you want. same way you're entitled to call fifa a first person shooter i guess. more power to ya.

False equivalency argument. You still haven't defined what multiplayer is, for you. We're just taking stabs in the dark here.

[DekaKira]

This is most likely offtopic but I have to ask anyway: Is this threads title a reference to Psycadelic Eyeball from youtube?

[_NovaBlast_]

You implied it. Feel free to state more clearly what your point is, so I can understand it, then.

 

We interact. We chat. We trade. We help each other. Grouping is optional, which means that yes, it sometimes happens, and sometimes it doesn't. Kinda like the real world, really. Sometime I carpool, sometimes I don't.

 

You haven't defined 'interacting'. Please give me a list of things that would define 'interacting' to you, since my inference from your earlier posts was that you believe that 'interacting' is defined only by grouping up to kill things. But you said that that assumption was wrong, so please give me an actual clear definition of what you would consider interacting that doesn't happen in TOR. Obviously, 'grouping to kill things' (i.e. raiding/grouping for heroics/etcs) isn't on that list, since you just said that that wasn't what you meant.

 

False equivalency argument. You still haven't defined what multiplayer is, for you. We're just taking stabs in the dark here.

 

 

100% win

[hadoken]

And why wasn't there a KOTOR 3? Just an assumption, but probably because they didn't feel there was enough money to be made versus the effort and cost to produce.

 

They thought at the time during development they'd de-throne World of Warcraft. They had the IP and they thought they had the right talent/design. And they actually weren't too far off on some things, but their engine was terrible and they had a clear lack of direction once the game launched. People might not agree with the direction they're taking now, but you can say there IS a direction.

[Pagy]

We interact. We chat. We trade. We help each other. Grouping is optional, which means that yes, it sometimes happens, and sometimes it doesn't. Kinda like the real world, really. Sometime I carpool, sometimes I don't.

perfect, then its multiplayer then.

 

You haven't defined 'interacting'. Please give me a list of things that would define 'interacting' to you, since my inference from your earlier posts was that you believe that 'interacting' is defined only by grouping up to kill things. But you said that that assumption was wrong, so please give me an actual clear definition of what you would consider interacting that doesn't happen in TOR. Obviously, 'grouping to kill things' (i.e. raiding/grouping for heroics/etcs) isn't on that list, since you just said that that wasn't what you meant.

do i really need to define the term "interacting"? I'm sure a dictionary could help you out on that one.

 

i did enjoy that part of the above where you correctly state "grouping isn't only interaction" then conclude in challenging me to define interaction the excludes grouping entirely.

 

you said players simply need to be there. i said that circumstance doesnt exist and is an obviously incorrect way to define it. players need to be there, and there is some interaction between them. like you said, chat, trade, combat, and *gasp* even grouping.

 

without any interaction with other players, it's a singpleayer game. this is a multiplayer game.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Pagy

[Raphael_diSanto]

perfect, then its multiplayer then.

 

do i really need to define the term "interacting"? I'm sure a dictionary could help you out on that one.

 

i did enjoy that part of the above where you correctly state "grouping isn't only interaction" then conclude in challenging me to define interaction the excludes grouping entirely.

 

you said players simply need to be there. i said that circumstance doesnt exist and is an obviously incorrect way to define it. players need to be there, and there is some interaction between them. like you said, chat, trade, combat, and *gasp* even grouping.

 

without any interaction with other players, it's a singpleayer game. this is a multiplayer game.

 

Uh, yeah. That's what I've been saying this whole time.

 

Wait, so have you been arguing that yes, TOR -is- a multiplayer game?

 

'Cause, you know, that's kinda my point here as well. TOR is an online multiplayer game, and thus deserves the MMO label.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Raphael_diSanto

[_NovaBlast_]

perfect, then its multiplayer then.

 

do i really need to define the term "interacting"? I'm sure a dictionary could help you out on that one.

 

i did enjoy that part of the above where you correctly state "grouping isn't only interaction" then conclude in challenging me to define interaction the excludes grouping entirely.

 

you said players simply need to be there. i said that circumstance doesnt exist and is an obviously incorrect way to define it. players need to be there, and there is so interaction between them. like you said, chat, trade, combat, and *gasp* even grouping.

 

without any interaction with other players, it's a singpleayer game. this is a multiplayer game.

 

No matter how many times you say that last line it does not make you correct.

 

As proven in the answer to a question you asked ...You could take out all Ops FP and PVP and would still be a multiplayer game becase multiple people are playing it at the same time.

 

You still actually answer didn't answer their question you sidestep it. and conveniently ignored my answer to yours.

 

is there a multiplayer game out there that has an online environment, people running around and not interacting

 

Seondlife - some people just log into build some just to log in an explore...there is no story no npc no raids no pvp no nothing.

 

there are other such platforms as well but i have made my point.

Edited November 25, 2015 by _NovaBlast_

[Pagy]

Uh, yeah. That's what I've been saying this whole time.

 

Wait, so have you been arguing that yes, TOR -is- a multiplayer game?

 

'Cause, you know, that's kinda my point here as well. TOR is an online multiplayer game, and thus deserves the MMO label.

yes, and only contention was you saying "players just need to be there" and i said it wasn't enough, there needs to be interaction.

No matter how many times yo say that does not make you correct.

solid argument bro. you should stick to writing companion fanfic and larping.

As proven in the answer to a question you asked ...You could take out all Ops FP and PVP and would still be a multiplayer game becase multiple people are playing it at the same time.

sure still a mp game, but not for the reason you're using.

You still actually answer didn't answer their question you sidestep it. and conveniently ignored my answer to yours.

defining the work "interaction" is a bit like defining the world "jump". I feel it isn't worth my time.

 

sorry, didnt see your second life example among your non-contributory "i agree 100%" posts but i'll handle this one rather easily.

 

second life isn't an mmorpg.

[_NovaBlast_]

yes, and only contention was you saying "players just need to be there" and i said it wasn't enough, there needs to be interaction.

solid argument bro. you should stick to writing companion fanfic and larping.

sure still a mp game, but not for the reason you're using.

defining the work "interaction" is a bit like defining the world "jump". I feel it isn't worth my time.

 

sorry, didnt see your second life example among your non-contributory "i agree 100%" posts but i'll handle this one rather easily.

 

second life isn't an mmorpg.

 

And now your just trolling... Normally i just ignore your post ...congrats you got me to take your troll bait this time .and reducing your arguments to mere immature insults ....

 

while i have not larped i have occasionally wrote fan-fiction .... whats your point.???

 

At least i had a point ... if you keep saying the world is flat it does not make you right ..... if you continue to insist that a multiplayer game must include fp ops and pvp as a requirement .... your no differnt that the person who says the world is flat.

 

What reason am i using ?

 

second life isn't an mmorpg.

 

MMO -- well fits that definition

RPG is a role playing game ....

 

In secondlife I can be who ever i want to be ..

 

I can be superman and fly around , I can be an alien.. I can be a hooloovoo I truly can be what ever my imagination wants and play any role that goes with it.

 

Seems to fit the definition of Role playing to me. Im sure if you went to their forums ans stated Secondlife is not a MMORPG you would find other who disagree with you as well.

 

Or do you have a just as self absorbed narrow tunnel vision of what is a RPG to?

Edited November 25, 2015 by _NovaBlast_

[Pagy]

At least i had a point ... if you keep saying the world is flat it does not make you right ..... if you continue to insist that a multiplayer game must include fp ops and pvp as a requirement .... your no differnt that the person who says the world is flat.

i never claimed it must include that. again with the strawman, geez.

there are plenty of multiplayer games without instances and pvp.

What reason am i using ?

that people are simply there.

MMO -- well fits that definition

RPG is a role playing game ....

 

In secondlife I can be who ever i want to be ..

 

I can be superman and fly around , I can be an alien.. I can be a hooloovoo I truly can be what ever my imagination wants and play any role that goes with it.

 

Seems to fit the definition of Role playing to me. Im sure if you went to their forums ans stated Secondlife is not a MMORPG you would find other who disagree with you as well.

 

Or do you have jst a self absorbed narrow tunnel vision of what is a RPG to?

like i've said before, you're free to define up as down, left as right, soccer as hockey and swimming as flying.

 

in this case, you aren't even arguing with me, but the creators of second life. i'll defer to them on this topic.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Pagy

[_NovaBlast_]

i never claimed it must include that. again with the strawman, geez.

there are plenty of multiplayer games without instances and pvp.

 

you said that again yet you refuse to answer this question.

 

You haven't defined 'interacting'. Please give me a list of things that would define 'interacting' to you, since my inference from your earlier posts was that you believe that 'interacting' is defined only by grouping up to kill things. But you said that that assumption was wrong, so please give me an actual clear definition of what you would consider interacting that doesn't happen in TOR. Obviously, 'grouping to kill things' (i.e. raiding/grouping for heroics/etcs) isn't on that list, since you just said that that wasn't what you meant.

 

that people are simply there.

 

That is all that is required to meet the DEFINITION of MMO ...

 

Q : If i went form 1-65 without interacting with any other player in any way shape or form would Swtor still be a MMORPG?

 

like i've said before, you're free to define up as down, left as right, soccer as hockey and swimming as flying.

 

There you go saying the world is flat again and think you are right.

 

in this case, you aren't even arguing with me, but the creators of second life. i'll defer to them on this topic.

 

 

There you go side stepping again ....

 

Ill ask you more directly does what i have outlined fit the DEFINITION of MMO and the DEFINITION of RPG?

 

 

MMO -- well fits that definition

RPG is a role playing game ....

 

In secondlife I can be who ever i want to be ..

 

I can be superman and fly around , I can be an alien.. I can be a hooloovoo I truly can be what ever my imagination wants and play any role that goes with it.

 

Seems to fit the definition of Role playing to me.

Edited November 25, 2015 by _NovaBlast_

[sjscorpiomark]

Q : If i went form 1-65 without interacting with any other player in any way shape or form would Swtor still be a MMORPG?

 

Yes just because you choose not to interact does not mean you could not interact with them. Oh and yes if you buy anything from GTN you are in fact interacting with some other player who posted that item.

 

Sheesh is it really so hard to understand that it's about many people in the same persistant world not how you or anyone else acts in that world?

[_NovaBlast_]

Yes just because you choose not to interact does not mean you could not interact with them. Oh and yes if you buy anything from GTN you are in fact interacting with some other player who posted that item.

 

Sheesh is it really so hard to understand that it's about many people in the same persistant world not how you or anyone else acts in that world?

 

**facepalm** buying something on gtn... that does fall into any way shape or form..... wow....just wow..

[Pagy]

you said that again yet you refuse to answer this question.

im not going to spend time defining the word "interacting" the same way i wouldnt waste the time to define the word "jump"

That is all that is required to meet the DEFINITION of MMO ...

your definition maybe, but good on you for having a special definition.

Q : If i went form 1-65 without interacting with any other player in any way shape or form would Swtor still be a MMORPG?

of course it is, and you're playing as a singleplayer game.

There you go saying the world is flat again and think you are right.

strawman.

There you go side stepping again ....

 

Ill ask you more directly does what i have outlined fit the DEFINITION of MMO and the DEFINITION of RPG?

second life is not a mmorpg.

 

why are you still hung up on this?

[_NovaBlast_]

Pagy you live in your own unique world and talking to you is trying to talk to someone who refuses to se the world round

 

Its not even just me no matter who talks to you you wont leave your world. You just keep preaching your definition of "MMO"

 

You cant even answer simple questions with a direct answer and im done wasting my time with you.

 

Have fun thinking your right and the world is flat.

Edited November 25, 2015 by _NovaBlast_

[Pagy]

Pagy you live in your own unique world and talking to you is trying to talk to someone who refuses to se the world round no matter who talks to you you wont leave your world.

 

You cant even answer simple questions with a direct answer and im done wasting my time with you.

 

Have fun thinking your right and the world is flat.

what's the question? i've answered everything.

 

are you still stuck on the second life not being an mmorpg. because it's not according to the people that created it.

 

do you just like arguing with everyone despite being proven wrong over and over and over?

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Others have already called up your false assumptions in the OP as well I ever could, but this part is completely false. We simply don't know what the result of our choices is yet AS THE STORY ISN'T OVER!

 

You also seem very content in telling other people what they should or shouldn't enjoy. Personally I've played every class story from 1-60, played KotFE 4 times and have another 12 or so to go before I even get to my sub-55 toons and I enjoy it every time. I've made subtlely or drasticallt different desicions at different points, few of which have anything to do with light or dark side, and seen the feedback about various characters remembering things. I've gone from agreeing with Koth on one toon to flat out calling him out on several others and I'm fully expecting to have to kill him in a later chapter.

 

You came in here, made a huge number of assumptions, insulted a lot of the playerbase, and expect to be treated with anything more than disdain?

 

How does anything you said disprove anything he said? He said if you are that type of person you are the exception thus ... you are the exception.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with him, I doubt very fewp layers are in your boat of repeating class stories and KoTFe numerous times.

 

Neither of us can prove it either way but I can say subs took a huge dive after launch once people did the story content and one can only assume that was because the majority had no interest in repeating that content, I doubt this has changed.