Good article, it applies to many who post here.

[OlBuzzard]

I also think a difficulty toggle would be the way to go. Something like the story mode, veteran and master mode that we already have for chapters. You could set this when you start the game and leave it, but have the option to turn it on and off per planet and instance. To allow the transition to work, you would need to leave the planet or instance so that a load screen basically changes you to the difficulty you want to play at.

 

The way they could possibly do that for the vanilla version is to increase the damage done by mobs and make them the hardest to kill as default. To make gear valuable again, they would need to reduce planet sync levels a bit lower at the same time. Maybe even add some extra basic mechanics to make it harder. The challenge the developers have is to make it fun and not too grindy and boring. That fixes the difficulty at Master mode,

 

The way to adjust the difficulty for the story mode players and veteran players is to artificially bolster their damage and Defence rating and possibly up the planet sync levels above the master mode setting for each difficulty mode.

Basically, gear for story mode players in the vanilla game would be like it is now, not really needed. But people playing veteran would need to keep on top of it, just not as much as the master mode players.

 

Now, wether the game engine can deal with people in the same instance with different difficulty levels is another question.

If it can’t, the only option for a system like this would be to have 3 different instances for each mode. Which isn’t ideal for an MMO’s social activity.

A compromise might be to have only two instances instead of three and for the harder mode difficulty be based between veteran and master mode.

We already have a pvp instance, so having another one for higher difficulty wouldn’t be as big a technical hurdle as trying to allow people playing at different modes in the same instance.

 

If servers have a healthy enough population of players, this isn’t an issue. Of course that’s not the current case and we can only cross our fingers that 6.0 and beyond is a road map to change that.

Otherwise, it’s inevitable we will see more merges in the future after the 6.0 population release spike. If a Merge was to happen, that would be the perfect time to implement the above system because there would be a higher proportion of players on one server instead of spread across 2 or 3 servers (depending on region).

 

Please note, I’m not advocating a merge. Just being realistic based on Bioware’s track record when server populations drop too much, especially if the expansion is a flop or doesn’t keep sub players around long enough after the content is played through.

 

OK... I think I follow you ! There's some tech stuff in there that would need to be properly addressed .. I agree there too.

 

Please don't over look the other items ... all of which are of equal importance. (Particularly PvP restructure and updating )...

 

I'm serious !!! I want that 3rd option where no body gets left behind (so to speak).

 

Tall order .. you got that right !! IMO .. long over due !! Just coming out with a game .. the investors getting their share (so to speak) .. then letting this thing free wheel for a while ... then came the rest of the story !! ( I think I pretty well covered that earlier)

 

BTW... if 6.0 goes ZOT !! FIIIIIIIZZZZZZZZZ.. ... POOF !!!

 

NONE of us will be happy ... and that will be that !

Edited July 17, 2019 by OlBuzzard

[OlBuzzard]

This is something Bioware haven’t done in the past and I think they still struggle with. Part of me thinks it’s intrinsic in Bioware’s company culture and even new people who take the reins have an up hill battle to change it. But it gets too hard and they get captured by it and conditioned the same way. Early on in Keith’s rein, you could see he was trying to push change, then something happened and he seemed to get caught the same way.

 

I’m not saying Kieth isn’t still trying to make changes and isn’t listening. But I think it’s probably a monumental battle and he has to choose the fights he can win. A company culture is extraordinarily hard to change unless you are at the top of the food change and you have some good managers under you with similar vision. Some times you even need to get rid of perfectly good staff who just won’t bend enough to changes and get new people in. Which Bioware don’t seem to do. They just promote them and stick them in a new project (I’m looking at you Ben Irving).

 

The other thing is Japanese culture and business culture is completely different to western and American. Failure for them is a bigger deal and different if they lose their jobs or a company fails, it’s not just a professional stain, it’s also a social one on their honour. In the old days this would cause some executives to commit ritual suicide. Of course this is changing, but it’s in ground in their social psyche that failure is not an option.

I think that’s the only reason they were able to get the go ahead to re-do FFXIV and get the right people on board to do it. The whole project was a do or die affair for the FF franchise to continue.

 

Right ON !!

 

Seems like a significant part of the US culture is to: Get what you can $$$$ ... CAN all you get... then SIT on your can and run with the $$$$$

 

In short we gave you this game for (x) years ... you paid your subs... you played we collected ... everyone did their parts .. sooo what's the problem ?

 

The average employee at BW busts their butt as much as anyone. I have no doubt that they worked hard for their pay checks ! You would need to discuss things with the board of directors in order to actually affect any changes. That means when Eric and other team members have their meeting to discuss things ... they answer to someone else.

 

It is my hope that several of those who are in the decision making process get the message that we are discussing here and now ! And that we really are depending upon someone having a change of heart which in the end and will give the green light (and the cash needed) to addressing the issues that have been brought up !

 

(just my opinion)

[OlBuzzard]

Yes, but in context the game lost most of its player base during year 1, not during 4.0 or 5.0, which some people seem to continue to believe and act as such.

 

This is true..

 

However as we pointed out earlier that a number of issues began to snowball at or about the time of the release of KotFE... I don't think we need to discuss the story line. NOTE singular story line !! There were 8. All of them were shoved into one story ... and very little if ANY variations of the dialogue. Yes .. choices we made did matter ! BUT .. we all had the SAME choices ... (more or less). The "feel" for each of the different characters: Jedi Knight / Sith ; Smuggler / ... Inquisitor / Trooper .. It didn't matter. The dialogues were the same ! Only in cases when a player had to choose between Vette and Torian did the story change that much. (just as an example)

 

There were other complications ( these were discussed earlier in this thread ) ... and things began to spiral downward. There really has been a content drought for a while now. Ossus was OK .. but also pretty much cut out the interaction of companions altogether !

 

I hope this helps.

[TrixxieTriss]

Yes, but in context the game lost most of its player base during year 1, not during 4.0 or 5.0, which some people seem to continue to believe and act as such.

 

Correction - the game lost the most people trying the game out in the first year. The same as every game has a big spike and drop if the game isn’t what is promised,

 

There were increases in population again once those people left and changes were made. But since then, the population has gone up and down, but with a consistent downward spiral.

This is of course natural due to the game’s age and lack of enough technical updates to modernise it. Ie, we are still on 32 bit and dx9.

 

But there have been some really distinct drops in population that aren’t caused from natural decline.

Some of these are very noticeable and seem to have been the results of EA accountants squeezing profits before player enjoyment.

 

Ie, they lost a massive portion of the APAC player base when they merged all 3 servers into the west coast. Those of us who remained were then shafted again with the mergers to the east coast. This reduced the APAC player base again and also reduced the West Coast and South American player bases.

 

The next big one that’s stands out to me was a large portion of the pvp player base abandoning the game after 5.0 was released. This was significant for one main reason. Bioware have stated in the past (before 5.0), that the pvp community was the most stable subscriber base in the game. Losing all those pvp subscribers would have put a big dent in the on going stable subscriber base when there are dips or droughts between content.

 

There were of course ups when Hutt Cartel and Kotet and Kotfe were released. But star fighter was a monumental flop because they hadn’t listened to what fans wanted or they didn’t have enough vision or maybe know how to understand how to make it work and feel like Star Wars.

 

As others have pointed out. Kotet and kotfe drove a bunch of MMO players away and replaced them with RPG solo players. While this seemed like a good increase in population, a bunch of those RPG players left as soon as they’ve done the story and complained and demanded Bioware release more at the expense of the rest of the game. All that did was make the subscriber player base even more unstable because MMO centric players would have been more likely to stick around longer between new content because they play other parts of the game the RPG solo players don’t.

 

There is no one thing that’s driven down the population, it’s many things with poor planning and management and 90% of them could have been avoided.

 

First, you don’t let accountants and bean counters decide what players will tolerate and still stick around (ie moving regional populations that decrease playability due to increased lag).

 

Second, you don’t alienate your loyal and stable player base on the chance you may gain more players in the short term.

 

Third, you listen to what players want and find FUN to play. Adding the amount of grind to make up for less content is always a bad idea.

 

Fourth, you get the community involved in testing new mechanic features well before changes and listen to feed back on bugs and what’s doesn’t work.

 

Fifth, you listen to your player base and community when there are problems. You don’t go silent and ignore major issues that are driving loyal players from the game. Two way communication is essential. Dictating to the players what they should consider fun (when they don’t), aka, Ben Irving, is a great way to make people leave.

 

Sixth, you balance your content across the game to give the whole player base enjoyment. You don’t zero in on one group and forget every other loyal play for 2-3 years.

 

Seven, if you are trying to attract a new type of player to the game, you must understand what their needs will be going forward and how this will impact the rest of the game. Changing the game too much to accommodate and attract these players drives other players away.

 

Eight, I could keep listing more, but I think most of us who’ve been here for a while and even those who haven’t, already know all of this. The problem is Bioware still seem to be in the dark to most of it.

 

Let me finish off by saying, the decline of the game and population has been faster than it should have been. Those of us long term players who have never left are few and far between. We’ve seen the whole thing like watching a car crash in slow motion. Then seeing the car partially fixed and crashed again and again. Eventually people lose confidence and refuse the ride.

Edited July 17, 2019 by TrixxieTriss

[TrixxieTriss]

Please don't over look the other items ... all of which are of equal importance. (Particularly PvP restructure and updating )

 

 

You don’t need to remind me about pvp I’m a pvper, first and formost and the issues surrounding it are vast, but shouldn’t be overly complicated to fix, if Bioware has the will and money to fix them.

I could make another massive list to outline them all, but I wouldn’t be able to fit it all in one post and I don’t think people like reading my one post essays, I can’t imagine how they’d feel if I used a whole page or two

Plus I’ve so many posts and threads through the pvp section, that I’d just be repeating myself

 

I want what’s best for the total game. Even parts I don’t play or I’m not really that interested in. Everyone deserves to play the game the way they want and that’s how you have a successful game and community.

Edited July 17, 2019 by TrixxieTriss

[OlBuzzard]

You don’t need to remind me about pvp I’m a pvper, first and formost and the issues surrounding it are vast, but shouldn’t be overly complicated to fix, if Bioware has the will and money to fix them.

I could make another massive list to outline them all, but I wouldn’t be able to fit it all in one post and I don’t think people like reading my one post essays, I can’t imagine how they’d feel if I used a whole page or two

Plus I’ve so many posts and threads through the pvp section, that I’d just be repeating myself

 

I want what’s best for the total game. Even parts I don’t play or I’m not really that interested in. Everyone deserves to play the game the way they want and that’s how you have a successful game and community.

 

In this regard we both agree. I don't have the speed and hand-eye coordination I once had. Sooo PvP has been sidelined for now. But that does not mean that I don't understand its significance to the rest of the community.

 

There are other aspects as well ... but I know just how bad PvP is hurting and needs someone to step in make it what it should be... building it from the ground up if needed !

 

BTW... I like you other post as well.

[robertthebard]

WoW saw about 95% of it's playerbase growth during vanilla and Burning Crusade, it's first expansion. It's second expansion, Wraith of the Lich King, saw a little bit of growth, and it's all been downhill from there.

 

The thing is, during vanilla and Burning Crusade, the game was pretty brutal. It wasn't easy mode, and even leveling saw you getting killed pretty often if you weren't cautious or skilled. Even starting out, walking into a kobold cave for a low level, single player quest could be a nightmare if you did it alone. At endgame, if you couldn't do your job well in a dungeon, you'd get put on ignore lists to the point you'd literally not be able to advance in the game, and real raiding guilds only took serious players who knew what they were doing. There wasn't a story mode to cater to people who just wanted to get it done.

 

That's what people remember about WoW, and that's what people want. Difficult content give a sense of achievement and emotional engagement. WoW is extremely easy now, outside of the highest tier of raiding, and their sub numbers and profits are way down.

 

I've only played the Witcher 3 from CD Project Red, but that game starts out pretty brutal too. Three drowners, the weakest of almost all the common enemies, are enough to kill a new player over, and over again until they learn how to dodge and counterattack. Yet it's one of the most critically acclaimed games of all time.

 

The conception that you seem to subscribe to is that easy games are popular but it's actually the opposite. If you think i'm advocating for easier games, then you've misunderstood entirely. There might be a few, really bad players advocating for SWTOR to be easier, but the vast majority of people asking for change aren't asking for an easier time.

 

Fair and fun doesn't have to mean easy, and it really shouldn't. What devs need to do is make a product so good that it encourages people to actually want to get proficient at it. That's the consumer expectation of an mmo.

 

Listening to the playerbase doesn't mean taking every post seriously. It means taking the legitimate concerns and ideas and weighing them against the intent of the game design. If it compromises the intent, then the devs can communicate that intent of the game to those critics and move on.

 

These people "complaining" are customers. If what they want is compatible with what a company could give them, why not listen to them? Even if the particular idea for fixing it is bad, listening to the customers actually gives insight to what the core issues actually are.

 

Instead, most publishing companies and their devs act with a inflated sense of importance and entitlement, thinking that regardless of whatever they sell it's going to be bought. It's cost them the goodwill of the consumers in the past few years, to the point that no one trusts Bethesda, or Bioware/EA, or Activision. They have to earn our trust back, and they have to understand that they are not entitled to the cash in our wallets without giving something of value in return.

 

Well, that's certainly a stretch of a conclusion based on what I posted, since I literally stated that games don't need an easy mode. It seems likely that instead, you have this narrative you want to push, and will push it at the expense of actually reading what someone says, and just claim "you're just looking for ez mode".

 

Not sure what else you had to say, since you were so far off base with the assigning motive to my post that I stopped reading it. If you can start off so wrong, with a quoted post demonstrating the exact opposite of what you claim, how can you be right about anything that's not actually provided?

[robertthebard]

How is this not cherrypicking?

 

I mean, what are the goalposts here? Is it people being mean? Is it people getting personal?

 

And speaking of getting personal, way to make this personal toward people like me, talking about an "entitlement" to being responded to. Something that I've never indicated in any shape or form. I've just talked about what is and isn't good business, and provided specific examples of companies that do communication better and have more success with it.

 

That term, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Cherry picking is focusing on one out of context line to respond to. I simply listed an example of why devs may be hesitant to get involved in dialog on their forums. As to making it personal, if you truly believe that you're entitled to a gold post every time you start a thread, then it's not personal, other than you're own choice to make it such. It is simply stating that this type of poster does, in fact, exist. Just because you're one of them doesn't mean I singled you out for this behavior, it just means that I pointed out that they're out there, and you happen to be one of them.

[ZeroTypeR]

I know that several don't always agree with me on every point.. but IMO the simple fact is there is a positive solution to get this game back on its feet !!!

 

No question in my mind at all.

 

Easy ???

 

NOPE !! Never is !!

 

I know some of the frustrations taking a mom and pop operation and finally being able to compete on a national level even though the business never grew past having just the one location !! Not easy.. takes a lot of work .. but rewarding in the end !

 

Such is true.

[ZeroTypeR]

This is something Bioware haven’t done in the past and I think they still struggle with. Part of me thinks it’s intrinsic in Bioware’s company culture and even new people who take the reins have an up hill battle to change it. But it gets too hard and they get captured by it and conditioned the same way. Early on in Keith’s rein, you could see he was trying to push change, then something happened and he seemed to get caught the same way.

 

I’m not saying Kieth isn’t still trying to make changes and isn’t listening. But I think it’s probably a monumental battle and he has to choose the fights he can win. A company culture is extraordinarily hard to change unless you are at the top of the food change and you have some good managers under you with similar vision. Some times you even need to get rid of perfectly good staff who just won’t bend enough to changes and get new people in. Which Bioware don’t seem to do. They just promote them and stick them in a new project (I’m looking at you Ben Irving).

 

The other thing is Japanese culture and business culture is completely different to western and American. Failure for them is a bigger deal and different if they lose their jobs or a company fails, it’s not just a professional stain, it’s also a social one on their honour. In the old days this would cause some executives to commit ritual suicide. Of course this is changing, but it’s in ground in their social psyche that failure is not an option.

I think that’s the only reason they were able to get the go ahead to re-do FFXIV and get the right people on board to do it. The whole project was a do or die affair for the FF franchise to continue.

 

Unfortunately yes, and I suspect that Bioware management both has and had a lot to do with the deafness.

[Tsillah]

I do agree with the general point that there is too much toxicity. But I also think that criticism is too easily called toxic as well. I completely disagree with people who attack or threaten developers and their families, something that's actually happened with SWTOR in the past and it was a disgusting thing to see and crossed all borders of civility.

 

At the same time I also blame the game companies for their part in creating this toxic environment. Essentially they haven't learned to communicate properly with their communities and they don't listen or respond unless you start screaming and stomping your feet. If that's the only way you can get them to respond, then people will learn that that's what they need to do to get their attention.

 

Another part of the problem, as I see it, is that game companies have become bigger and bigger with more and more customers over the past 20 years. And what that does is that their numbers or metrics are also covering a larger group. However, there is a lot of diversity within that enormous group of players of sub groups that have different interests. I believe that they have been unable to address these sub groups separately and have maintained a one-size-fits all approach. Galactic Command was an example of how wrong the got they community and how a one-size-fits all solution for such a wide variety of activities was just a really bad idea... like everybody told them basically.

 

Sure there were people that liked the idea of being able to gain gear also by not doing operations or pvp and I get that, but they didn't think about how this would affect people who DO like to raid and pvp. Hopefully 6.0 will finally address that properly.

 

But anytime a publisher says "gamers want this or that" then I ask myself which gamers? They can't be looking at various sub groups because if they were they would make different decisions on many things. Blizzard's "don't you have mobile phones" is a clear example of that disconnect and how they didn't understand that mobile gamers are not the same as PC gamers for one.

 

But also EA's "surprise mechanics" defense clearly shows that. And to be honest SWTOR has had a long history of terrible lootboxes but I guess it saved the game and they have made some positive changes already. But what I've learned is that I didn't want those packs because they weren't fun but frustrating and when you make a new toon and have to go through 300 levels and thereby craters before you really get a chance of usable gear since you can get better gear in game more easily, it's a chore and not fun at all either. Point is, there is nothing fun about the surprise mechanics of lootboxes whether you pay for them or not.

 

So there is need of criticism to keep the game going in the right direction. I admit, I've been very angry in the past but I also always did try to make an argument for why I felt a certain way. I've even at times crossed the borders of what's toxic and I've had to think about that and why that happened. I hope that I can say I've left that behind now but I will still be critical... but I also want to offer arguments and solutions.

 

People get emotional of course and I get anger but what really can help is that you give more reasons than "it's ****" or "I hate it" so that developers can actually get what the problem is and some possible solutions which can give some direction in further understanding of the issue and how to approach it.

 

Then people should also understand that they won't always get what they ask for. There are many more players than just yourself and not everything is viable to spend resources on.

 

But there does need to be a better flow of communication from BioWare so that players actually can feel like they're not being ignored and treated like children. Improvements are needed on both sides but at some point the company wants to stay alive and make money and so that's where the initiative should be.

 

I'm not sure I like how this article treats the subject but the truth is that some people can put on the brakes a bit and companies should think more in terms of their customers than their share holders.

[ZionHalcyon]

I do agree with the general point that there is too much toxicity. But I also think that criticism is too easily called toxic as well. I completely disagree with people who attack or threaten developers and their families, something that's actually happened with SWTOR in the past and it was a disgusting thing to see and crossed all borders of civility.

 

At the same time I also blame the game companies for their part in creating this toxic environment. Essentially they haven't learned to communicate properly with their communities and they don't listen or respond unless you start screaming and stomping your feet. If that's the only way you can get them to respond, then people will learn that that's what they need to do to get their attention.

 

Another part of the problem, as I see it, is that game companies have become bigger and bigger with more and more customers over the past 20 years. And what that does is that their numbers or metrics are also covering a larger group. However, there is a lot of diversity within that enormous group of players of sub groups that have different interests. I believe that they have been unable to address these sub groups separately and have maintained a one-size-fits all approach. Galactic Command was an example of how wrong the got they community and how a one-size-fits all solution for such a wide variety of activities was just a really bad idea... like everybody told them basically.

 

Sure there were people that liked the idea of being able to gain gear also by not doing operations or pvp and I get that, but they didn't think about how this would affect people who DO like to raid and pvp. Hopefully 6.0 will finally address that properly.

 

But anytime a publisher says "gamers want this or that" then I ask myself which gamers? They can't be looking at various sub groups because if they were they would make different decisions on many things. Blizzard's "don't you have mobile phones" is a clear example of that disconnect and how they didn't understand that mobile gamers are not the same as PC gamers for one.

 

But also EA's "surprise mechanics" defense clearly shows that. And to be honest SWTOR has had a long history of terrible lootboxes but I guess it saved the game and they have made some positive changes already. But what I've learned is that I didn't want those packs because they weren't fun but frustrating and when you make a new toon and have to go through 300 levels and thereby craters before you really get a chance of usable gear since you can get better gear in game more easily, it's a chore and not fun at all either. Point is, there is nothing fun about the surprise mechanics of lootboxes whether you pay for them or not.

 

So there is need of criticism to keep the game going in the right direction. I admit, I've been very angry in the past but I also always did try to make an argument for why I felt a certain way. I've even at times crossed the borders of what's toxic and I've had to think about that and why that happened. I hope that I can say I've left that behind now but I will still be critical... but I also want to offer arguments and solutions.

 

People get emotional of course and I get anger but what really can help is that you give more reasons than "it's ****" or "I hate it" so that developers can actually get what the problem is and some possible solutions which can give some direction in further understanding of the issue and how to approach it.

 

Then people should also understand that they won't always get what they ask for. There are many more players than just yourself and not everything is viable to spend resources on.

 

But there does need to be a better flow of communication from BioWare so that players actually can feel like they're not being ignored and treated like children. Improvements are needed on both sides but at some point the company wants to stay alive and make money and so that's where the initiative should be.

 

I'm not sure I like how this article treats the subject but the truth is that some people can put on the brakes a bit and companies should think more in terms of their customers than their share holders.

 

So, I am going to be honest here.

 

In the past, I called SWG's community toxic, and rightfully so. However, nowadays, I am more hesitant to use that word because it has been weaponized and politicized to be used as a label by media and large entities such as organizations and corporations to mean "people who's option we not only disagree with, but which to permanently silence." It's application nowadays is meant as a soft-censorship tool, to try to get groups to not speak up for "fear of being labeled toxic."

 

That is why that article the op posted is so....insidious, in addition to being tone deaf. The author paints himself as a moral authority, and that gamers should just fall in lockstep or else risk being not included in the process entirely. It's advocating a form of censorship.

 

Prior to outrage culture, at least here in the US, the common held belief was that people were free to say what they wanted, and if something went against the grain, there was a natural consequence as those people were ignored naturally, by everyday people, not because the masses were told to. Businesses focused on servicing the majority and customer input mattered a great deal, while other businesses would find opportunity in niche markets to service those not a part of mainstream culture (those who may have been ignored) but still offered a potential business opportunity. And customer feedback was even MORE important in the niche markets, because the needs were extremely specific.

 

And the businesses that did this the best survived and thrived. At times when a business did exceptionally well, others who normally might not be interested in a particular niche started to become interested, creating a cross-over appeal. Now those who were ignored could be heard, but they also had a sense of scale - they had a voice with their wallet, but they also knew because of the size of the niche that they didn't represent everyone. No one dictating to another what to do, what to buy, who to be.

 

This is how business has been done for ages.

 

But now we live in an age where there are people who demand consumers conform to their products or be left behind, rather than trying to make money on a product that benefits their consumers. They are trying to change the whole paradigm to a more totalitarian one, and trying to get companies to buy in. This is what gamergate was really about - as people started to spot this. And even if a company doesn't want to do it, well then, in comes the echo-chamber to label the business toxic, or this-a-ist and that-a-phobe. Its not far removed from the Italian mob shaking down businesses for protection money.

 

Some of the smart businesses are learning though that average customers don't give a crap. If they want to buy your product, they aren't going to care about backlash, and in fact, backlash could even be helpful, creating a Streisand Effect - happened for Chik Fila when the shakedown artists in that industry tried to start a nationwide boycott; their business actually INCREASED from the exposure.

 

In short, video game communities will always be rough around the edges, especially in this day and age where games no longer deliver what was stated but instead overpromise and under-deliver except in the most extreme cases, usually by independent studios like ID and CD Projekt Red. And they thrive in part because, when outrage culture comes knocking on their door and demanding they turn their backs on the customer, those guys tell outrage culture to go fly a kite, and then go right back to listening to their customers...

Edited July 17, 2019 by ZionHalcyon

[OlBuzzard]

So, I am going to be honest here.

 

In the past, I called SWG's community toxic, and rightfully so. However, nowadays, I am more hesitant to use that word because it has been weaponized and politicized to be used as a label by media and large entities such as organizations and corporations to mean "people who's option we not only disagree with, but which to permanently silence." It's application nowadays is meant as a soft-censorship tool, to try to get groups to not speak up for "fear of being labeled toxic."

 

That is why that article the op posted is so....insidious, in addition to being tone deaf. The author paints himself as a moral authority, and that gamers should just fall in lockstep or else risk being not included in the process entirely. It's advocating a form of censorship.

 

Prior to outrage culture, at least here in the US, the common held belief was that people were free to say what they wanted, and if something went against the grain, there was a natural consequence as those people were ignored naturally, by everyday people, not because the masses were told to. Businesses focused on servicing the majority and customer input mattered a great deal, while other businesses would find opportunity in niche markets to service those not a part of mainstream culture (those who may have been ignored) but still offered a potential business opportunity. And customer feedback was even MORE important in the niche markets, because the needs were extremely specific.

 

And the businesses that did this the best survived and thrived. At times when a business did exceptionally well, others who normally might not be interested in a particular niche started to become interested, creating a cross-over appeal. Now those who were ignored could be heard, but they also had a sense of scale - they had a voice with their wallet, but they also knew because of the size of the niche that they didn't represent everyone. No one dictating to another what to do, what to buy, who to be.

 

This is how business has been done for ages.

 

But now we live in an age where there are people who demand consumers conform to their products or be left behind, rather than trying to make money on a product that benefits their consumers. They are trying to change the whole paradigm to a more totalitarian one, and trying to get companies to buy in. This is what gamergate was really about - as people started to spot this. And even if a company doesn't want to do it, well then, in comes the echo-chamber to label the business toxic, or this-a-ist and that-a-phobe. Its not far removed from the Italian mob shaking down businesses for protection money.

 

Some of the smart businesses are learning though that average customers don't give a crap. If they want to buy your product, they aren't going to care about backlash, and in fact, backlash could even be helpful, creating a Streisand Effect - happened for Chik Fila when the shakedown artists in that industry tried to start a nationwide boycott; their business actually INCREASED from the exposure.

 

In short, video game communities will always be rough around the edges, especially in this day and age where games no longer deliver what was stated but instead overpromise and under-deliver except in the most extreme cases, usually by independent studios like ID and CD Projekt Red. And they thrive in part because, when outrage culture comes knocking on their door and demanding they turn their backs on the customer, those guys tell outrage culture to go fly a kite, and then go right back to listening to their customers...

 

Hmmm..

 

Interesting read ! I'll probably go over it again before the day is out. Right now I'm in the middle of trying to rip wall paper down.. and prep surfaces for painting ... In addition I've got to drop the carriage on a riding mower at my dad's place and take care of the two lots they have at their home. He turns 90 on August 1.

 

My initial thoughts...

1. A lot of truth in the view of the word "toxicity" . I'm not sure I agree entirely though. I can't say why exactly. It may be just me this AM.. So please don't take that wrong. I'm just being straight up honest. I might ask.. How does this review of how toxicity compare in a direct comparison of counter culture ? By "labeling" does it have initially the same physiological impact ? I do agree that we need to be careful how we label things or people. I've noticed how some really have a passionate love to try to get people who read their threads to "label" or suggest that anything less than their own point of view is ... (XYZ) .. usually something that is very belittling. the idea is that anyone who differs in opinion is somehow a lesser being or one that is just plain stupid !

 

I don't think you are that sort of person by any means ! We may differ in opinion .. but we have both tried to simply discuss things in an open ... adult manner. For which I will tell you: I respect you opinion.

 

2. BTW.. I like Chick-Fil-A (good place to grab a quick mean as far as fast food stuff is concerned) ...

 

3. IMO .. the real problems with SWTOR began with using solutions that acted more like a small band aid on a massive wound. I genuinely feel for the people in BW who are doing the daily grind of the work. I would guess that if they were working for someone who really gave SWTOR the push in the right direction our feelings would be different.

 

The over promise is from the marketing division... who answers to someone at the helm ... who .. well answers to ??

-------

 

Conclusion for now:

I don't think we are really seeing the entire picture inside of BW .. and probably never will. BUT... IMO.. I really .. REALLY hope that threads like this one that has settled down and is focused on trying to get the RIGHT message across to BW soaks in deep and is heard. I'm not looking for someone to burn at the stake (so to speak) ... I think most of us just want to see this game get back up on its feet again ... then RUN !! GROW !!! And yes.. prosper !

 

I'll catch up later... a lot going on today !

 

BTW... a genuine thanks ...

Edited July 17, 2019 by OlBuzzard

[Xina_LA]

I do love the idea of a difficulty toggle, and yes that's far better than asking people to remove armor/companions, but I'd hope it wouldn't be a different instance/zone when it comes to open world. Sometimes the world already seems empty. I'd hate to divide up the players any farther than they already are. Maybe the toggle could just work for each person, or group based on the group-leader's setting. That way, I'll still see y'all out there with your crazy titles, cool mounts, and outrageous outfits (which is part of the fun!).

 

Also, I <3 Chick-Fil-A forever. They were open immediately after hurricanes Katrina and Rita (and others), even when nobody had power for days (and weeks!), serving hot fresh food to the weary and battered residents of my town.

Edited July 17, 2019 by Xina_LA

[ZionHalcyon]

Hmmm..

 

Interesting read ! I'll probably go over it again before the day is out. Right now I'm in the middle of trying to rip wall paper down.. and prep surfaces for painting ... In addition I've got to drop the carriage on a riding mower at my dad's place and take care of the two lots they have at their home. He turns 90 on August 1.

 

My initial thoughts...

1. A lot of truth in the view of the word "toxicity" . I'm not sure I agree entirely though. I can't say why exactly. It may be just me this AM.. So please don't take that wrong. I'm just being straight up honest. I might ask.. How does this review of how toxicity compare in a direct comparison of counter culture ? By "labeling" does it have initially the same physiological impact ? I do agree that we need to be careful how we label things or people. I've noticed how some really have a passionate love to try to get people who read their threads to "label" or suggest that anything less than their own point of view is ... (XYZ) .. usually something that is very belittling. the idea is that anyone who differs in opinion is somehow a lesser being or one that is just plain stupid !

 

I don't think you are that sort of person by any means ! We may differ in opinion .. but we have both tried to simply discuss things in an open ... adult manner. For which I will tell you: I respect you opinion.

 

2. BTW.. I like Chick-Fil-A (good place to grab a quick mean as far as fast food stuff is concerned) ...

 

3. IMO .. the real problems with SWTOR began with using solutions that acted more like a small band aid on a massive wound. I genuinely feel for the people in BW who are doing the daily grind of the work. I would guess that if they were working for someone who really gave SWTOR the push in the right direction our feelings would be different.

 

The over promise is from the marketing division... who answers to someone at the helm ... who .. well answers to ??

-------

 

Conclusion for now:

I don't think we are really seeing the entire picture inside of BW .. and probably never will. BUT... IMO.. I really .. REALLY hope that threads like this one that has settled down and is focused on trying to get the RIGHT message across to BW soaks in deep and is heard. I'm not looking for someone to burn at the stake (so to speak) ... I think most of us just want to see this game get back up on its feet again ... then RUN !! GROW !!! And yes.. prosper !

 

I'll catch up later... a lot going on today !

 

BTW... a genuine thanks ...

 

 

Ah, hopefully I didn't confuse - I was going over the word toxicity and the way it is being abused in today's climate.

 

I certainly wasn't trying to reflect that back to BioWare - I was speaking more generally on the topic.

 

Right now, I have nothing but good things to say regarding BioWare with Keith at the helm. I think it is finally going in the right direction, although I wish they had enough support to provide more content than what is being offered in the expansion, as others have noted.

[Tsillah]

Right now, I have nothing but good things to say regarding BioWare with Keith at the helm. I think it is finally going in the right direction, although I wish they had enough support to provide more content than what is being offered in the expansion, as others have noted.

 

You know, I quit this game a year and a half ago and I honestly thought this game was lost and would never be turned around. But when I saw that they were making a lot of changes and 6.0 even more, and I mean chances that I had on my list of things that needed to change, I couldn't deny that they did turn things around for a large part. I knew they could but I didn't think they would anymore.

 

It's a shame it had to come to that but maybe it was good for me to have that break anyway. But yeah, they really did make some significant changes and 6.0 will change some major things for the better as well. I have to be impressed by that turn-around. Fingers crossed they keep it up.

[Floplag]

Ignoring your audience is never a smart play.

Ignoring the idiots, yes.... that very vocal loud mouthed obnoxious humanoid sub species that simply wants everything their way... yeah, ignore them all day.

Those who are making actual points with real feedback... you better listen, or get your resume ready.

[Jeweledleah]

has anyone linked this article as a counterpoint yet?

 

https://www.pcgamesn.com/no-mans-sky/problems

 

or this one https://kotaku.com/how-biowares-anthem-went-wrong-1833731964

 

here is an interview with a developer who made some major MAJOR errors, but instead of doubling down on their hubris once the game was out and player feedback started rolling in - took that feedback to heart and got down to the fixing of their game. pay a particular attention to the part where "players are almost always right about the problems"

 

players are not developers. most of the time. and everyone has their own idea of what would be better and they are more then often - wrong about that, HOWEVER. when players point out a problem? you don't get to just ignore it and claim that they are misunderstanding, that they don't know what's good for them, etc. players are your customer based. its all fun and dandy to make a game YOU want to play and you probably should st least start with that becasue it results in a more genuine gaming experiences, BUT.. you MUST know your audience that is not merely you AND you MUST take them into account when working on development, unless you want your audience to stop being your audience.

 

and last but not least... its easy to blame the players when instead of figuring out genuine solutions that make your game better, you just go for knee jerk responses to criticism. (incidentally Anthem's issue wasn't just that it was trying to fix the graphical problems with ME andromeda, but rather due to ever changing vision within the development team - making sure that at least the game LOOKS pretty was the ONLY thing they all agreed on and had any time left for. so the author of that article? is completely misconstruing what actualy happened and ignoring most of the context)

 

incidentally. as of today. not all of my games are digital STILL, I STILL buy physical copies of console games. AND I more often then not - play offline, unless the game i'm playing - requires online connection. which is not often. why? becasue not all of us live in location where infrastructure is top notch, and where bandwith is unlimited.

 

but anyways. the author of the original article is full of it. I'd wager more games fail because of some executives personal preferences, than player feedback ACTUALLY being genuinely taken into account. not listened to slavishly, but at least taken into account when making changes.

 

P.S. /rubs temples. WoW. was NEVER. BRUTAL. EVER. it became popular BECAUSE it was super, ridiculously casual friendly and easy to play, especially compared to other MMO's available at the time. moreover, funny story, playerbase started to rapidly dwindle just after release of Cataclysm.... you know expansion when they tried to make the game harder. and had to nerf. over and over, because somehow.. they forgot that bulk of their audience from the very beginning - was casuals.

Edited July 17, 2019 by Jeweledleah

[OlBuzzard]

has anyone linked this article as a counterpoint yet?

 

https://www.pcgamesn.com/no-mans-sky/problems

 

or this one https://kotaku.com/how-biowares-anthem-went-wrong-1833731964

 

here is an interview with a developer who made some major MAJOR errors, but instead of doubling down on their hubris once the game was out and player feedback started rolling in - took that feedback to heart and got down to the fixing of their game. pay a particular attention to the part where "players are almost always right about the problems"

 

players are not developers. most of the time. and everyone has their own idea of what would be better and they are more then often - wrong about that, HOWEVER. when players point out a problem? you don't get to just ignore it and claim that they are misunderstanding, that they don't know what's good for them, etc. players are your customer based. its all fun and dandy to make a game YOU want to play and you probably should st least start with that becasue it results in a more genuine gaming experiences, BUT.. you MUST know your audience that is not merely you AND you MUST take them into account when working on development, unless you want your audience to stop being your audience.

 

and last but not least... its easy to blame the players when instead of figuring out genuine solutions that make your game better, you just go for knee jerk responses to criticism. (incidentally Anthem's issue wasn't just that it was trying to fix the graphical problems with ME andromeda, but rather due to ever changing vision within the development team - making sure that at least the game LOOKS pretty was the ONLY thing they all agreed on and had any time left for. so the author of that article? is completely misconstruing what actualy happened and ignoring most of the context)

 

incidentally. as of today. not all of my games are digital STILL, I STILL buy physical copies of console games. AND I more often then not - play offline, unless the game i'm playing - requires online connection. which is not often. why? becasue not all of us live in location where infrastructure is top notch, and where bandwith is unlimited.

 

but anyways. the author of the original article is full of it. I'd wager more games fail because of some executives personal preferences, than player feedback ACTUALLY being genuinely taken into account. not listened to slavishly, but at least taken into account when making changes.

 

P.S. /rubs temples. WoW. was NEVER. BRUTAL. EVER. it became popular BECAUSE it was super, ridiculously casual friendly and easy to play, especially compared to other MMO's available at the time. moreover, funny story, playerbase started to rapidly dwindle just after release of Cataclysm.... you know expansion when they tried to make the game harder. and had to nerf. over and over, because somehow.. they forgot that bulk of their audience from the very beginning - was casuals.

 

Well said !

As for the WoW stuff... even the really long drawn out "hard" raids were only completely ran on a regular basis by 2% of the entire game population.. That didn't help either !!

 

Good points... good post !

[ZeroTypeR]

has anyone linked this article as a counterpoint yet?

 

https://www.pcgamesn.com/no-mans-sky/problems

 

or this one https://kotaku.com/how-biowares-anthem-went-wrong-1833731964

 

here is an interview with a developer who made some major MAJOR errors, but instead of doubling down on their hubris once the game was out and player feedback started rolling in - took that feedback to heart and got down to the fixing of their game. pay a particular attention to the part where "players are almost always right about the problems"

 

players are not developers. most of the time. and everyone has their own idea of what would be better and they are more then often - wrong about that, HOWEVER. when players point out a problem? you don't get to just ignore it and claim that they are misunderstanding, that they don't know what's good for them, etc. players are your customer based. its all fun and dandy to make a game YOU want to play and you probably should st least start with that becasue it results in a more genuine gaming experiences, BUT.. you MUST know your audience that is not merely you AND you MUST take them into account when working on development, unless you want your audience to stop being your audience.

 

and last but not least... its easy to blame the players when instead of figuring out genuine solutions that make your game better, you just go for knee jerk responses to criticism. (incidentally Anthem's issue wasn't just that it was trying to fix the graphical problems with ME andromeda, but rather due to ever changing vision within the development team - making sure that at least the game LOOKS pretty was the ONLY thing they all agreed on and had any time left for. so the author of that article? is completely misconstruing what actualy happened and ignoring most of the context)

 

incidentally. as of today. not all of my games are digital STILL, I STILL buy physical copies of console games. AND I more often then not - play offline, unless the game i'm playing - requires online connection. which is not often. why? becasue not all of us live in location where infrastructure is top notch, and where bandwith is unlimited.

 

but anyways. the author of the original article is full of it. I'd wager more games fail because of some executives personal preferences, than player feedback ACTUALLY being genuinely taken into account. not listened to slavishly, but at least taken into account when making changes.

 

P.S. /rubs temples. WoW. was NEVER. BRUTAL. EVER. it became popular BECAUSE it was super, ridiculously casual friendly and easy to play, especially compared to other MMO's available at the time. moreover, funny story, playerbase started to rapidly dwindle just after release of Cataclysm.... you know expansion when they tried to make the game harder. and had to nerf. over and over, because somehow.. they forgot that bulk of their audience from the very beginning - was casuals.

 

The Crew 2 has also learned a painful lesson: Game came out, they didn't listen to the players who beta tested the game, 6 months later lost most of their player-base (if not sooner), started listening to feedback and has been slowly fixing the game (the game had too many issues to name.

 

Will the game survive? I don't know, but I returned to the game and have been playing it since, whenever I feel like driving/racing. It needs a lot of work, but at least Ubisoft has been listening to feedback, in recent months.

 

Then there's Forza Horizon 4: Has barely listened to feedback, started out strong, deletes most of the negative feedback (and there's has been a boat load of it.) to make it seem like the game is doing well (that's how I see it at least); it hasn't been said and there's no proof, but their player numbers are definitely no longer the 10 million that has been claimed. Are they in for a painful lesson? Who knows, but I quickly left that game, and will most likely never return, not that I matter, I'm just one player.

 

Point? Listen to feedback.

Edited July 18, 2019 by ZeroTypeR

[OlBuzzard]

The Crew 2 has also learned a painful lesson: Game came out, they didn't listen to the players who beta tested the game, 6 months later lost most of their player-base (if not sooner), started listening to feedback and has been slowly fixing the game (the game had too many issues to name.

 

Will the game survive? I don't know, but I returned to the game and have been playing it since, whenever I feel like driving/racing. It needs a lot of work, but at least Ubisoft has been listening to feedback, in recent months.

 

Then there's Forza Horizon 4: Has barely listened to feedback, started out strong, deletes most of the negative feedback (and there's has been a boat load of it.) to make it seem like the game is doing well (that's how I see it at least); it hasn't been said and there's no proof, but their player numbers are definitely no longer the 10 million that has been claimed. Are they in for a painful lesson? Who knows, but I quickly left that game, and will most likely never return, not that I matter, I'm just one player.

 

Point? Listen to feedback.

 

Agreed...

You can add STO on to that list. I have a LTS ... and still don't long on that often. I was a part of beta ...

1. Most warned them that the game was no where ready before launch .. launched anyways

2. Begged to get bugs fixed ... Ignored that as well (two of the main repeatable missions back then were never fixed and had to be finally phased out !

3. The company went F2P ... then sold it out to someone else.

4. Players BEGGED for someone to pay attention .. but to no avail !

 

IMO ... STO is effectively dead !

Edited July 18, 2019 by OlBuzzard