Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I'm speaking for everyone that is wondering why you are asking for the whole report when the information we already have, from other sources as well, show that the game is a success.
I'm not defending an opinion. I'm asking why you think it's necessary to have more information.
Because if you base evidence on only the cover, 99% of the best evidence of the book is missing.
It's also proves a point about business: it exists to make a profit. They're not going to give that information out for free. And if people try to defend ideas on the cheap, they'll soon learn how expensive it is to be a researcher (yeah!).
In other words, the whole topic itself was countered, simply because the evidence can't be provided... without paying for it.
F2P is a flawed concept -- even for research -- just like Keynesian economics was thought to be the Holy Grail, until the 70s proved otherwise.
BTW, you're defending an opinion, as people don't go out of their way to defend THEMSELVES without a motive (they just ignore what they're not interested in). ^-^
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I'm speaking for everyone that is wondering why you are asking for the whole report when the information we already have, from other sources as well, show that the game is a success.
I'm not defending an opinion. I'm asking why you think it's necessary to have more information.
Because if you base evidence on only the cover, 99% of the best evidence of the book is missing.
It's also proves a point about business: it exists to make a profit. They're not going to give that information out for free. And if people try to defend ideas on the cheap, they'll soon learn how expensive it is to be a researcher (yeah!).
In other words, the whole topic itself was countered, simply because the evidence can't be provided... without paying for it.
F2P is a flawed concept -- even for research -- just like Keynesian economics was thought to be the Holy Grail, until the 70s proved otherwise.
BTW, you're defending an opinion, as people don't go out of their way to defend THEMSELVES without a motive (they just ignore what they're not interested in). ^-^
That still doesn't answer the question, why we need that information to say it was successful?
And yes the BEST evidence may be missing, however we still do not need that evidence to show that swtor is a success. What we have is enough.
The only opinion I'm defending, is not an opinion, it is a fact. Swtor is successful based on the number of players and the revenue.
We know from other sources they have (or had anyway) 500k subscribers and 2 million f2p players. That is a lot and the envy of almost every other MMO in the world.
From the information that superdata stated they had 200 million from the free to players. That is a lot and the envy of almost every other MMO in the world. It is also not out of line based on the number of players that have been stated.
In both cases that is a lot of money and a lot of players.
The other information the report may provide would be nice, but it is not necessary to have that to state the game is successful.
So once again - why do we need the rest of the repot to conclude that swtor is successful, when the information we already have shows that it is successful?
The above points that I stated are already out there, that evidence as already been released. We do not need the report to state that.
F2p being a flawed concept is a completely different argument than is swtor successful. And in that your wrong as well. It has stood the test of time. F2p games have been around since before UO. They can also make a lot of money.
You've also made a blanket assumption about people's motivations, and like most blanket assumptions it is wrong. Yes people do things with motive, however that motive may not be based on an opinion, it can, and often is based on a lot of other things. In this case a question and curiosity.
Why do we need the rest of the report to conclude that Swtor is successful, when the information we already have shows that it is successful?
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I am not saying EQ combat was not challenging. I am saying it had a very low skill cap. There is a difference. These are not empty words.
In a modern more 'twitch' based game the player skill can make dramatic difference in the outcome. The idea here is that a high skill cap class has a large variance in player performance.
In EQ for most of the basic jobs there wasn't a high skill cap. This isn't to say the fights were 'easy.'
Let me explain:
The fights were tuned such that you didn't have a lot of 'leeway' If you were soloing something for example you would hit your buttons - the monster would do his stuff - rinse and repeat for a very long time (easily 5 - 10x as long as WoW) and you would eventually win - but usually not much against even a light blue conned mob. Fights would get easier if you had some great gear but assuming you didn't have the scepter of destruction and a fungi tunic this is how it went.
In group fights it was more of the same. Yes if someone did something stupid you would fail. But most of the time provided your group had enough people it was nothing but tank and spank. You got in a groove. You could grind for hours and hours and hours - and that's what most people in groups did. There was very little skill involved. Guys had to pay attention but it was easy. But the important thing here is that it didn't matter if you had 'good' players or not. The skill cap for most roles was so low that it just didn't matter. They simply had to click on their appropriate buttons and wait till they refreshed - and then repeat cycle.
More modern games have a much higher skill cap. That's to say the performance variance from a good player to a mediocre or bad one is HUGE. In a modern game like GW2 you can avoid ALOT of damage via circe strafing, dodge, abilities and at the same time put out way more damage with careful positioning and timing of abilities.
It's the same kind of thing in WoW where good tanks and healers can pull off amazing feats not strictly because of gear but because of perfect use of abilitiy. Its more EQ like now with WoW nerfing the higher skill cap classes (feral druid rotation for example) or DK tanking..but its still stronger then EQ.
EQ was mostly about the numbers - it was basically a spreadsheet battle. Its almost like a simulation of combat instead of actual combat. You weren't sure if you were gonna win or lose sometimes till the fight was almost over and it turned out your set of numbers didn't match up to the mobs abilities.
Modern games though do things totally different. Rank and file encounters are now tuned to be dog easy. BUT.. highly skilled players can vastly outperform poor ones and do 'heroic' things that was pretty rare outside of soloing Bards, Druids and Necros. Those were the high skill cap classes in EQ - pulling monks also needed some video game skills.
The rest of it..meh. It was dog boring and slow. I played an f'in lot of EQ. I just loved it back in the day. But there is a reason that all the people in this forum who long for the old dungeons don't go back. They just weren't that good. None of those dungeons was as good as Naxx. Naxx alone is greater then all the raids and dungeons EQ had. It had fun boss mechanics- and wasn't entirely 'tank and spank'.
Its not even a fair comparison really. WoW kicked the f'in crap out of EQ for a reason. It was just far more interesting to play. I won't even mention a place like Ulduar so epic they wrote a song about it. :P No seriously SOE was totally outgunned by WoW. Its surprising but true. Granted you had to really play both games to know this - and by play I mean play way too much.
But I did so I know.
There are also some lower skill cap classes in WoW too. For a while resto druid was pretty awful - just rejuv everone..haha. Arcane Mage is kinda awful too. GW2 does better in this regard - rewarding more skilled players. And I look for even more modern MMOs to do better bringing some platform style skills to MMOs. Wildstar should be a more skill based game.
I had a lot of fun in World of Warcraft, but I don't remember much specific from the game. I relate this to it being a lot easier play. It was for me and that's why I played it. I'm pretty certain people didn't play EQ dungeons because they were just to hard to go through at the appropriate level for the average person.
There is no twitch combat in mmos. Even the elder scrolls online is turn based. It's just masked with a system that appears to be twitch based. A large part of what makes these games easier is there are no adds, when there are adds it doesn't matter because it's they die so fast usually, players abilities are more powerful.
Eh. I see where you are going with this. You are making some distinction with regards to how they run their engine - am I right? I don't know if in your mind that's not 'twitch' or whatever..
But according to the wiki definition of twitch gaming - modern MMOs absolutely have twitch elements. Any sudden reaction to some kind of threat would be 'twitch' gaming. Thus MMOs in general are getting twitchier. WoW was a lot more reactive then EQ - EQ was more reactive then Gemstone IV etc etc. GW2 allows you to actually avoid ranged attacks by moving out of the way. There have been some steps backward (SWTOR, FFXIV) but this is the general path. Tera is shooteresque.
The idea that f2p means a game is crap or unsuccessfull or really anything other than free to play is misleading. As is the idea that p2p means good or successful or anything other than pay to play.
The games have evolved. The way devs operate have evolved. The tools the devs used have evolved. The businesses have evolved. Now the business models are evolving.
In order to be successful it is no longer good enough just to have a good game. The game must be tailored to the clients you are targeting. This also means that the business model must be tailored to your target as well.
A good game, aimed at the wrong audience will be in trouble.
A good game. aimed at the right audience, with a business model the audience will not accept will also be in trouble.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I'm speaking for everyone that is wondering why you are asking for the whole report when the information we already have, from other sources as well, show that the game is a success.
I'm not defending an opinion. I'm asking why you think it's necessary to have more information.
Because if you base evidence on only the cover, 99% of the best evidence of the book is missing.
It's also proves a point about business: it exists to make a profit. They're not going to give that information out for free. And if people try to defend ideas on the cheap, they'll soon learn how expensive it is to be a researcher (yeah!).
In other words, the whole topic itself was countered, simply because the evidence can't be provided... without paying for it.
F2P is a flawed concept -- even for research -- just like Keynesian economics was thought to be the Holy Grail, until the 70s proved otherwise.
BTW, you're defending an opinion, as people don't go out of their way to defend THEMSELVES without a motive (they just ignore what they're not interested in). ^-^
That still doesn't answer the question, why we need that information to say it was successful?
It does. You just don't like the conclusion, though.
But do keep asking the Whys. It's interesting what info you provide in the process.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I'm speaking for everyone that is wondering why you are asking for the whole report when the information we already have, from other sources as well, show that the game is a success.
I'm not defending an opinion. I'm asking why you think it's necessary to have more information.
Because if you base evidence on only the cover, 99% of the best evidence of the book is missing.
It's also proves a point about business: it exists to make a profit. They're not going to give that information out for free. And if people try to defend ideas on the cheap, they'll soon learn how expensive it is to be a researcher (yeah!).
In other words, the whole topic itself was countered, simply because the evidence can't be provided... without paying for it.
F2P is a flawed concept -- even for research -- just like Keynesian economics was thought to be the Holy Grail, until the 70s proved otherwise.
BTW, you're defending an opinion, as people don't go out of their way to defend THEMSELVES without a motive (they just ignore what they're not interested in). ^-^
That still doesn't answer the question, why we need that information to say it was successful?
It does. You just don't like the conclusion, though.
But do keep asking the Whys. It's interesting what info you provide in the process.
No it doesn't. Stating that the best evidence isn't available available until you buy the report does not change the fact that the information, from several sources, which shows both consistency (stating the same things) and objectivity (hard numbers), we have already shows it is successful.
edit - just so you know, I'm not personally invested in the conclusion one way or another. I could care less about the actual answer, I'm interested in the process. So far you haven't provided anything that leads to a reasonable doubt about the data provided by superdata, or EA themselves. If you have something state it.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
So once again - why do we need the rest of the repot to conclude that swtor is successful, when the information we already have shows that it is successful?
Oh come on you know the answer to that - because he/she lives in some weird alternate universe where Blizzard makes great innovative games like Diablo III and Pandaria..
And the rest of the industry which only rakes in 10s of billions evidently can't do squat..
So once again - why do we need the rest of the repot to conclude that swtor is successful, when the information we already have shows that it is successful?
Oh come on you know the answer to that - because he/she lives in some weird alternate universe where Blizzard makes great innovative games like Diablo III and Pandaria..
And the rest of the industry which only rakes in 10s of billions evidently can't do squat..
And you don't live in a sandbox world removed from reality???
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I'm speaking for everyone that is wondering why you are asking for the whole report when the information we already have, from other sources as well, show that the game is a success.
I'm not defending an opinion. I'm asking why you think it's necessary to have more information.
Because if you base evidence on only the cover, 99% of the best evidence of the book is missing.
It's also proves a point about business: it exists to make a profit. They're not going to give that information out for free. And if people try to defend ideas on the cheap, they'll soon learn how expensive it is to be a researcher (yeah!).
In other words, the whole topic itself was countered, simply because the evidence can't be provided... without paying for it.
F2P is a flawed concept -- even for research -- just like Keynesian economics was thought to be the Holy Grail, until the 70s proved otherwise.
BTW, you're defending an opinion, as people don't go out of their way to defend THEMSELVES without a motive (they just ignore what they're not interested in). ^-^
That still doesn't answer the question, why we need that information to say it was successful?
It does. You just don't like the conclusion, though.
But do keep asking the Whys. It's interesting what info you provide in the process.
No it doesn't. Stating that the best evidence isn't available available until you buy the report does not change the fact that the information, from several sources, which shows both consistency (stating the same things) and objectivity (hard numbers), we have already shows it is successful.
edit - just so you know, I'm not personally invested in the conclusion one way or another. I could care less about the actual answer, I'm interested in the process. So far you haven't provided anything that leads to a reasonable doubt about the data provided by superdata, or EA themselves. If you have something state it.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I'm speaking for everyone that is wondering why you are asking for the whole report when the information we already have, from other sources as well, show that the game is a success.
I'm not defending an opinion. I'm asking why you think it's necessary to have more information.
Because if you base evidence on only the cover, 99% of the best evidence of the book is missing.
It's also proves a point about business: it exists to make a profit. They're not going to give that information out for free. And if people try to defend ideas on the cheap, they'll soon learn how expensive it is to be a researcher (yeah!).
In other words, the whole topic itself was countered, simply because the evidence can't be provided... without paying for it.
F2P is a flawed concept -- even for research -- just like Keynesian economics was thought to be the Holy Grail, until the 70s proved otherwise.
BTW, you're defending an opinion, as people don't go out of their way to defend THEMSELVES without a motive (they just ignore what they're not interested in). ^-^
That still doesn't answer the question, why we need that information to say it was successful?
It does. You just don't like the conclusion, though.
But do keep asking the Whys. It's interesting what info you provide in the process.
No it doesn't. Stating that the best evidence isn't available available until you buy the report does not change the fact that the information, from several sources, which shows both consistency (stating the same things) and objectivity (hard numbers), we have already shows it is successful.
edit - just so you know, I'm not personally invested in the conclusion one way or another. I could care less about the actual answer, I'm interested in the process. So far you haven't provided anything that leads to a reasonable doubt about the data provided by superdata, or EA themselves. If you have something state it.
What several sources, again?
(See how quickly the goal posts are moved!).
Superdata and EA for 2. Multitudes of interviews that EA has done with websites for another.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I'm speaking for everyone that is wondering why you are asking for the whole report when the information we already have, from other sources as well, show that the game is a success.
I'm not defending an opinion. I'm asking why you think it's necessary to have more information.
Because if you base evidence on only the cover, 99% of the best evidence of the book is missing.
It's also proves a point about business: it exists to make a profit. They're not going to give that information out for free. And if people try to defend ideas on the cheap, they'll soon learn how expensive it is to be a researcher (yeah!).
In other words, the whole topic itself was countered, simply because the evidence can't be provided... without paying for it.
F2P is a flawed concept -- even for research -- just like Keynesian economics was thought to be the Holy Grail, until the 70s proved otherwise.
BTW, you're defending an opinion, as people don't go out of their way to defend THEMSELVES without a motive (they just ignore what they're not interested in). ^-^
That still doesn't answer the question, why we need that information to say it was successful?
It does. You just don't like the conclusion, though.
But do keep asking the Whys. It's interesting what info you provide in the process.
No it doesn't. Stating that the best evidence isn't available available until you buy the report does not change the fact that the information, from several sources, which shows both consistency (stating the same things) and objectivity (hard numbers), we have already shows it is successful.
edit - just so you know, I'm not personally invested in the conclusion one way or another. I could care less about the actual answer, I'm interested in the process. So far you haven't provided anything that leads to a reasonable doubt about the data provided by superdata, or EA themselves. If you have something state it.
What several sources, again?
(See how quickly the goal posts are moved!).
Venge is right: All the information available to us points to the fact that the game was a success. What could the report possibly tell you that would change that?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I'm speaking for everyone that is wondering why you are asking for the whole report when the information we already have, from other sources as well, show that the game is a success.
I'm not defending an opinion. I'm asking why you think it's necessary to have more information.
Because if you base evidence on only the cover, 99% of the best evidence of the book is missing.
It's also proves a point about business: it exists to make a profit. They're not going to give that information out for free. And if people try to defend ideas on the cheap, they'll soon learn how expensive it is to be a researcher (yeah!).
In other words, the whole topic itself was countered, simply because the evidence can't be provided... without paying for it.
F2P is a flawed concept -- even for research -- just like Keynesian economics was thought to be the Holy Grail, until the 70s proved otherwise.
BTW, you're defending an opinion, as people don't go out of their way to defend THEMSELVES without a motive (they just ignore what they're not interested in). ^-^
That still doesn't answer the question, why we need that information to say it was successful?
It does. You just don't like the conclusion, though.
But do keep asking the Whys. It's interesting what info you provide in the process.
No it doesn't. Stating that the best evidence isn't available available until you buy the report does not change the fact that the information, from several sources, which shows both consistency (stating the same things) and objectivity (hard numbers), we have already shows it is successful.
edit - just so you know, I'm not personally invested in the conclusion one way or another. I could care less about the actual answer, I'm interested in the process. So far you haven't provided anything that leads to a reasonable doubt about the data provided by superdata, or EA themselves. If you have something state it.
What several sources, again?
(See how quickly the goal posts are moved!).
Superdata and EA for 2. Multitudes of interviews that EA has done with websites for another.
Superdata has been eliminated, since the F2P people are too cheap to BUY the dataset.
Unless the F2P folks are willing to swallow the "everything is for free" mindset, and put down at least $4,000 and "share" the motherload to everyone! After all, sharing is caring, right? ^-^
EA data doesn't even enter the equation. As this wasn't even a comment about any numbers, other than the price for the data itself.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I'm speaking for everyone that is wondering why you are asking for the whole report when the information we already have, from other sources as well, show that the game is a success.
I'm not defending an opinion. I'm asking why you think it's necessary to have more information.
Because if you base evidence on only the cover, 99% of the best evidence of the book is missing.
It's also proves a point about business: it exists to make a profit. They're not going to give that information out for free. And if people try to defend ideas on the cheap, they'll soon learn how expensive it is to be a researcher (yeah!).
In other words, the whole topic itself was countered, simply because the evidence can't be provided... without paying for it.
F2P is a flawed concept -- even for research -- just like Keynesian economics was thought to be the Holy Grail, until the 70s proved otherwise.
BTW, you're defending an opinion, as people don't go out of their way to defend THEMSELVES without a motive (they just ignore what they're not interested in). ^-^
That still doesn't answer the question, why we need that information to say it was successful?
It does. You just don't like the conclusion, though.
But do keep asking the Whys. It's interesting what info you provide in the process.
No it doesn't. Stating that the best evidence isn't available available until you buy the report does not change the fact that the information, from several sources, which shows both consistency (stating the same things) and objectivity (hard numbers), we have already shows it is successful.
edit - just so you know, I'm not personally invested in the conclusion one way or another. I could care less about the actual answer, I'm interested in the process. So far you haven't provided anything that leads to a reasonable doubt about the data provided by superdata, or EA themselves. If you have something state it.
What several sources, again?
(See how quickly the goal posts are moved!).
Superdata and EA for 2. Multitudes of interviews that EA has done with websites for another.
Superdata has been eliminated, since the F2P people are too cheap to BUY the dataset.
Unless the F2P folks are willing to swallow the "everything is for free" mindset, and put down at least $4,000 and "share" the motherload to everyone! After all, sharing is caring, right? ^-^
EA data doesn't even enter the equation. As this wasn't even a comment about any numbers, other than the price for the data itself.
Superdata has not been eliminated has they have provided information, just not the whole report. EA does enter into the equation because they are the ones that actually have the information.
You do not need to buy the data to get these numbers. You only need to buy the data to get the whole report. The numbers I stated have been provided by superdata without buying the report, and EA has confirmed the subs/players.
Your comment was questioning if swtor was a success. The numbers show it's a success.
Your 2nd sentence is irrelevant.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Superdata has been eliminated, since the F2P people are too cheap to BUY the dataset.
Unless the F2P folks are willing to swallow the "everything is for free" mindset, and put down at least $4,000 and "share" the motherload to everyone! After all, sharing is caring, right? ^-^
EA data doesn't even enter the equation. As this wasn't even a comment about any numbers, other than the price for the data itself.
Your crusade on F2P is silly. You are fighting windmills. Can't you see that?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Superdata has been eliminated, since the F2P people are too cheap to BUY the dataset.
Unless the F2P folks are willing to swallow the "everything is for free" mindset, and put down at least $4,000 and "share" the motherload to everyone! After all, sharing is caring, right? ^-^
EA data doesn't even enter the equation. As this wasn't even a comment about any numbers, other than the price for the data itself.
Your crusade on F2P is silly. You are fighting windmills. Can't you see that?
Actually, it's more silly watching folks defend it...especially with pay wall data, and using a cover sheet as evidence.
Originally posted by imsoenthused Blizzard doesn't innovate anymore, and WoW isn't a standard. All they did was spend more on marketing to convince people that WoW wasn't just for geeks. That's it. The end.
That and the fact the talent that produced and helped create WoW and Diablo and Starcraft no longer work for Blizzard and have since moved on to open their own studios and create their own games. And you can see since that talent left the quality has declined from there on out.
Superdata has been eliminated, since the F2P people are too cheap to BUY the dataset.
Unless the F2P folks are willing to swallow the "everything is for free" mindset, and put down at least $4,000 and "share" the motherload to everyone! After all, sharing is caring, right? ^-^
EA data doesn't even enter the equation. As this wasn't even a comment about any numbers, other than the price for the data itself.
Your crusade on F2P is silly. You are fighting windmills. Can't you see that?
Actually, it's more silly watching folks defend it...especially with pay wall data, and using a cover sheet as evidence.
Get it?
Man, you don't know when to tap out. Holophonist, is this you?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I'm speaking for everyone that is wondering why you are asking for the whole report when the information we already have, from other sources as well, show that the game is a success.
I'm not defending an opinion. I'm asking why you think it's necessary to have more information.
Because only information which supports his conclusion is valid, and as long as nobody can find any, there needs to be more made available. Duh.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Many other MMOs are not as popular as WoW because they don't have a Paladin = pure conjecture on your part.
That conjecture is fine, it's your opinion, but it definitely reeks of fan-boyism to me, especially when it appears in print above your forum signature. That's the way most of your posts come across to be honest, like WoW is some kind of revered Golden Idol, but we should trust you because you know the idol has some scratches, it just happens to be the best Idol we can choose in this imperfect world. Maybe it's just me and other people read your posts differently.
Prove to me otherwise. Show me a MMORPG without a paladin class that's successful.
You can't, as it doesn't exist.
My whole point.
I'm guessing I missed the beginning of this debate... but are you suggestion that WoW is popular because of a single class?
I know the whippersnappers who only know post WoW-Dungeons of today can't hear it anymore. The talk of the grand old days. Even I accept I could not take all the hardships of the past. But one thing that really grinds my gears is the sheer deneration and decay of a once epic concept: Dungeons!
Back in the days of D&D, Pen and Paper and the early Everquest era dungeons, and boy entire single player games revolved solely around dungeons. Ultima Underworld! An epic fight against the end boss, the Slasher of Veils, after MONTHS real life time dungeon crawling is something I NEVER will forgoet. Against months long complex dungeon romps like Stonekeep or Anvil of Dawn, even the retro-game Grimrock is simplistic and childlike easy! People today playing dungeons have no idea what a Dungeon actually is.
A Dungeon is something large. So large you can get lost in it. Dungeon romp PC games of the past literally kept me busy for months, up to half a year, and even at a time when I was a student with plenty of time. Simply because they were VAST and FUCKING DANGEROUS. There were traps! And those traps were DEADLY. Now play "Neverwinter", it has traps like the old D&D had, only they are not at all like them. I played a Rogue in a dungeon run in Neverwinter, and the party just RAN through the dungeon, because they were easily able to soak up the traps and there was ZERO risk in running. Running like that through any of the old dungeons would have been literally impossible, because you'd be dead in seconds.
Which is how Dungeons are SUPPOSED to be.
Take this epic Dungeon from the PnP Greyhawk:
THIS is how Dungeons looked in the Pen and Paper days. When Dungeoneering dangerous and epic.
The came MMOs. They made stuff a bit toned down, but they were still large and epic.
This was Solusek from Everquest. Coo, detailed, deadly, interesting.
Aaaand this is how Dungeons are today:
In this case one image indeed says more than a 1000 words. Dungeons are a FARCE and this is really the newest low in the development of Dungeons. Why not save us the hassle and eliminate Dungeons entirely instead of this JOKE of a dungeon. Or copy and Dungeon map from SWTOR. Three rooms in a row. No risks, no secret rooms, no puzzles, nothing to think and ponder. Do you recall the Morrowind puzzle where you could enter a room only when you drowned and died? Wow, there was only a VERY vague hint. That is challange. Today's challange is just, put 20 mobs in every room. Wow. How genius and thoughtful. In today's MMOs people are GRINDING dungeons! Like it were some lame pig you grinded for achievements! People rush in 10-20 mins speedruns and do the same dungeons 20 times a day to grind some rare token. That is just the very antithesis to danger and fun! Why not make one badass huge dungeon and make it SO large people take days or weeks to see most of it, instead of coercing them to do the same small dungeon 20 times a day? Would that not serve the purpose to keep people playing much better??
Now don't ge me wrong. I don't need corpse runs or super heavy death penalities. That doesn't appeal me. But Dungeons are one of the most privotal fantasy stuff, ever since Gandalf died in the Mines of Moria. But today, they are a frigging joke, they are a blight and a shame and alas a symbol and symptom for all that is WRONG with MMOs in particular but the RPGs in general. The famous internet meme based on FPS devolution is even more sad with RPGs, since Dungeons were once a central part of RPG and MMORPG fun. THESE today are simply lame, even if the devs put 50 mobs in every room. And god forbid some player actually has to THINK or memorize BY HIMSELF what to do! As long as this is the trend, MMOs and RPGs will never be as cool and fun as they used to be.
Ohh yes. Dungeon Master, Ultima Underworld 1 & 2, hell even Eye of the Beholder. The early MMO dungeons from Ultima Online, EverQuest or Darkness Falls from DAoC were not that bad either.. but after WoW it is all about big fat loot and the dungeon experience doesn't matter anymore as long as you get big fat loot.
You are comparing apples to oranges. PnP dungeons cater to a niche market, a small group of friends who gather together couple of times a week and can pick up exactly where they left off, taking weeks to clear a dungeon. MMOs are a completely different medium, oriented on progression and action, less on exploration and socialization. Many mmo gamers are not interested in getting lost and exploring a dungeon or avoiding traps, they want action and to test their skills against a boss, so the dungeons simply evolved to cater to those needs.
The issue is the lack of alternative to those simplified dungeons, not that they have changed. I think Dungeons&Dragons Online still feature decent dungeons compared to the rest of mainstream games tho.
My first MMO was WoW so the biggest dungeon i know of is BRD. I liked it, alot, but it wasn't endgame. Also most runs even then was Emperor runs where you killed minimum other bosses and went straigh for the endboss, or it was jailbreak for people who needed to get their Onyxia-key-quest going. Very few run were made that killed any off the path bosses.
Maybe as an open world solo/duo experience it could work but as a dungeon i just dont think many people would run it. Not unless the loot was better^^.
When Blizzard redid scholomance even that place was deemed too big for todays crowd, or whatever the excuse was to ruin my favorite 5man dungeon. I tried MoP but it just didn't feel right. And ofc the scholomance thing didn't help.
IMO what is ruining dungeon runs are gear inflation. When the new tier with better gear comes out it devalues all earlier content. I realy wish someone would make more of a Team fortress aproach to gear//weapons. Instead of new dungeons/raids have better armor/weapon they have different armor/weapon. Weapons with different enchants or procs. Armorsets with different setbonusses or use-effects. New mounts, pets and gadgets.
In team fortress ex. i have a setbonus that leaves a calling card when i kill someone. It's a fun setbonus, but it doesn't make me a better or more powerfull player. In WoW i had a cannon trinket that placed a cannon on the ground and shot at the enemy. (loved that trinket even if it was terribad for a healer)
There's loads of options for different gadgets with different effects instead of allways going for more powerfull gadgets. What we want is fun, and for me i loved the 5man dungeons, but gearscaling is ruining that experience.
The problem is that mmos are dumbed down single player games with no sense of community. The cure would be to bring back grouping like FFXI and create a sense of community once again. Highly doubt how running dungeons today is the problem.
If simplified dungeons is the symptom, what's the cause?
The average gamer is as follows;
50/50 Male Female
36 to 37 YEARS OLD
Is it any surprised that the trend is towards 'less consecutive time in a hole in the ground'?
10 years ago, yeah, the average gamer had heaps of free time.
Now more than 50% is approaching 40s and would have things like 'kids / partner / jobs'.
With the way the national labor participation rate is these days, the average gamer is not working, even if he's not in college. So most likely they have as much or more time on their hands then 10 years ago.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar I'm speaking for everyone that is wondering why you are asking for the whole report when the information we already have, from other sources as well, show that the game is a success.
I'm not defending an opinion. I'm asking why you think it's necessary to have more information.
Because if you base evidence on only the cover, 99% of the best evidence of the book is missing.
It's also proves a point about business: it exists to make a profit. They're not going to give that information out for free. And if people try to defend ideas on the cheap, they'll soon learn how expensive it is to be a researcher (yeah!).
In other words, the whole topic itself was countered, simply because the evidence can't be provided... without paying for it.
F2P is a flawed concept -- even for research -- just like Keynesian economics was thought to be the Holy Grail, until the 70s proved otherwise.
BTW, you're defending an opinion, as people don't go out of their way to defend THEMSELVES without a motive (they just ignore what they're not interested in). ^-^
I don't know what logical fallacy this is, but it's one of them. You've created a connection between the fact that there is data that is not visible, and the idea that the data presented cannot be used or is invalid because it is only a portion of the overall data set. Additional data that cannot be seen does not prove that the data that's been presented is false. If anything, since the overall data set is a product that can be sold, it implies that the data presented is valid, since it is a portion of an overall valid set of data.
Is there more information? Of course. Can we see it? No, of course not. Nobody is going to spend $5,000 on information to prove an argument in a thread on the internet. Even then, there are probably restrictions in place that would prevent publishing the information anyway, since publishing the information would devalue the product. There is information we can see though, we know where it came from and we have a pretty good idea of how those numbers were created.
I'm going to make an assumption that we're talking about Star Wars here. I could be wrong, but any time there's a F2P discussion, SWToR comes up, so I think it's a safe bet. If you want indicators that SWToR is making money, look at EA's stock price that recovered much of what it lost when SWToR released. Of course, they lost that recovery fumbling whatever the war game is they publish, but for awhile there, SWToR was really helping the company. Next, we have a ten year deal with Disney. If EA completely bungled the financial aspects of the game, why would Disney keep partnering with them? They wouldn't. EA is doing something right with the Star Wars game(s).
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
Because if you base evidence on only the cover, 99% of the best evidence of the book is missing.
It's also proves a point about business: it exists to make a profit. They're not going to give that information out for free. And if people try to defend ideas on the cheap, they'll soon learn how expensive it is to be a researcher (yeah!).
In other words, the whole topic itself was countered, simply because the evidence can't be provided... without paying for it.
F2P is a flawed concept -- even for research -- just like Keynesian economics was thought to be the Holy Grail, until the 70s proved otherwise.
BTW, you're defending an opinion, as people don't go out of their way to defend THEMSELVES without a motive (they just ignore what they're not interested in). ^-^
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
That still doesn't answer the question, why we need that information to say it was successful?
And yes the BEST evidence may be missing, however we still do not need that evidence to show that swtor is a success. What we have is enough.
The only opinion I'm defending, is not an opinion, it is a fact. Swtor is successful based on the number of players and the revenue.
We know from other sources they have (or had anyway) 500k subscribers and 2 million f2p players. That is a lot and the envy of almost every other MMO in the world.
From the information that superdata stated they had 200 million from the free to players. That is a lot and the envy of almost every other MMO in the world. It is also not out of line based on the number of players that have been stated.
In both cases that is a lot of money and a lot of players.
The other information the report may provide would be nice, but it is not necessary to have that to state the game is successful.
So once again - why do we need the rest of the repot to conclude that swtor is successful, when the information we already have shows that it is successful?
The above points that I stated are already out there, that evidence as already been released. We do not need the report to state that.
F2p being a flawed concept is a completely different argument than is swtor successful. And in that your wrong as well. It has stood the test of time. F2p games have been around since before UO. They can also make a lot of money.
You've also made a blanket assumption about people's motivations, and like most blanket assumptions it is wrong. Yes people do things with motive, however that motive may not be based on an opinion, it can, and often is based on a lot of other things. In this case a question and curiosity.
Why do we need the rest of the report to conclude that Swtor is successful, when the information we already have shows that it is successful?
Eh. I see where you are going with this. You are making some distinction with regards to how they run their engine - am I right? I don't know if in your mind that's not 'twitch' or whatever..
But according to the wiki definition of twitch gaming - modern MMOs absolutely have twitch elements. Any sudden reaction to some kind of threat would be 'twitch' gaming. Thus MMOs in general are getting twitchier. WoW was a lot more reactive then EQ - EQ was more reactive then Gemstone IV etc etc. GW2 allows you to actually avoid ranged attacks by moving out of the way. There have been some steps backward (SWTOR, FFXIV) but this is the general path. Tera is shooteresque.
The idea that f2p means a game is crap or unsuccessfull or really anything other than free to play is misleading. As is the idea that p2p means good or successful or anything other than pay to play.
The games have evolved. The way devs operate have evolved. The tools the devs used have evolved. The businesses have evolved. Now the business models are evolving.
In order to be successful it is no longer good enough just to have a good game. The game must be tailored to the clients you are targeting. This also means that the business model must be tailored to your target as well.
A good game, aimed at the wrong audience will be in trouble.
A good game. aimed at the right audience, with a business model the audience will not accept will also be in trouble.
It does. You just don't like the conclusion, though.
But do keep asking the Whys. It's interesting what info you provide in the process.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
No it doesn't. Stating that the best evidence isn't available available until you buy the report does not change the fact that the information, from several sources, which shows both consistency (stating the same things) and objectivity (hard numbers), we have already shows it is successful.
edit - just so you know, I'm not personally invested in the conclusion one way or another. I could care less about the actual answer, I'm interested in the process. So far you haven't provided anything that leads to a reasonable doubt about the data provided by superdata, or EA themselves. If you have something state it.
Oh come on you know the answer to that - because he/she lives in some weird alternate universe where Blizzard makes great innovative games like Diablo III and Pandaria..
And the rest of the industry which only rakes in 10s of billions evidently can't do squat..
And you don't live in a sandbox world removed from reality???
Pot. Kettle. Black!
lololol
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
What several sources, again?
(See how quickly the goal posts are moved!).
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Superdata and EA for 2. Multitudes of interviews that EA has done with websites for another.
Venge is right: All the information available to us points to the fact that the game was a success. What could the report possibly tell you that would change that?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Superdata has been eliminated, since the F2P people are too cheap to BUY the dataset.
Unless the F2P folks are willing to swallow the "everything is for free" mindset, and put down at least $4,000 and "share" the motherload to everyone! After all, sharing is caring, right? ^-^
EA data doesn't even enter the equation. As this wasn't even a comment about any numbers, other than the price for the data itself.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Superdata has not been eliminated has they have provided information, just not the whole report. EA does enter into the equation because they are the ones that actually have the information.
You do not need to buy the data to get these numbers. You only need to buy the data to get the whole report. The numbers I stated have been provided by superdata without buying the report, and EA has confirmed the subs/players.
Your comment was questioning if swtor was a success. The numbers show it's a success.
Your 2nd sentence is irrelevant.
Your crusade on F2P is silly. You are fighting windmills. Can't you see that?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Actually, it's more silly watching folks defend it...especially with pay wall data, and using a cover sheet as evidence.
Get it?
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
That and the fact the talent that produced and helped create WoW and Diablo and Starcraft no longer work for Blizzard and have since moved on to open their own studios and create their own games. And you can see since that talent left the quality has declined from there on out.
Man, you don't know when to tap out. Holophonist, is this you?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Because only information which supports his conclusion is valid, and as long as nobody can find any, there needs to be more made available. Duh.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I'm guessing I missed the beginning of this debate... but are you suggestion that WoW is popular because of a single class?
Ohh yes. Dungeon Master, Ultima Underworld 1 & 2, hell even Eye of the Beholder. The early MMO dungeons from Ultima Online, EverQuest or Darkness Falls from DAoC were not that bad either.. but after WoW it is all about big fat loot and the dungeon experience doesn't matter anymore as long as you get big fat loot.
You are comparing apples to oranges. PnP dungeons cater to a niche market, a small group of friends who gather together couple of times a week and can pick up exactly where they left off, taking weeks to clear a dungeon. MMOs are a completely different medium, oriented on progression and action, less on exploration and socialization. Many mmo gamers are not interested in getting lost and exploring a dungeon or avoiding traps, they want action and to test their skills against a boss, so the dungeons simply evolved to cater to those needs.
The issue is the lack of alternative to those simplified dungeons, not that they have changed. I think Dungeons&Dragons Online still feature decent dungeons compared to the rest of mainstream games tho.
My first MMO was WoW so the biggest dungeon i know of is BRD. I liked it, alot, but it wasn't endgame. Also most runs even then was Emperor runs where you killed minimum other bosses and went straigh for the endboss, or it was jailbreak for people who needed to get their Onyxia-key-quest going. Very few run were made that killed any off the path bosses.
Maybe as an open world solo/duo experience it could work but as a dungeon i just dont think many people would run it. Not unless the loot was better^^.
When Blizzard redid scholomance even that place was deemed too big for todays crowd, or whatever the excuse was to ruin my favorite 5man dungeon. I tried MoP but it just didn't feel right. And ofc the scholomance thing didn't help.
IMO what is ruining dungeon runs are gear inflation. When the new tier with better gear comes out it devalues all earlier content. I realy wish someone would make more of a Team fortress aproach to gear//weapons. Instead of new dungeons/raids have better armor/weapon they have different armor/weapon. Weapons with different enchants or procs. Armorsets with different setbonusses or use-effects. New mounts, pets and gadgets.
In team fortress ex. i have a setbonus that leaves a calling card when i kill someone. It's a fun setbonus, but it doesn't make me a better or more powerfull player. In WoW i had a cannon trinket that placed a cannon on the ground and shot at the enemy. (loved that trinket even if it was terribad for a healer)
There's loads of options for different gadgets with different effects instead of allways going for more powerfull gadgets. What we want is fun, and for me i loved the 5man dungeons, but gearscaling is ruining that experience.
With the way the national labor participation rate is these days, the average gamer is not working, even if he's not in college. So most likely they have as much or more time on their hands then 10 years ago.
I don't know what logical fallacy this is, but it's one of them. You've created a connection between the fact that there is data that is not visible, and the idea that the data presented cannot be used or is invalid because it is only a portion of the overall data set. Additional data that cannot be seen does not prove that the data that's been presented is false. If anything, since the overall data set is a product that can be sold, it implies that the data presented is valid, since it is a portion of an overall valid set of data.
Is there more information? Of course. Can we see it? No, of course not. Nobody is going to spend $5,000 on information to prove an argument in a thread on the internet. Even then, there are probably restrictions in place that would prevent publishing the information anyway, since publishing the information would devalue the product. There is information we can see though, we know where it came from and we have a pretty good idea of how those numbers were created.
I'm going to make an assumption that we're talking about Star Wars here. I could be wrong, but any time there's a F2P discussion, SWToR comes up, so I think it's a safe bet. If you want indicators that SWToR is making money, look at EA's stock price that recovered much of what it lost when SWToR released. Of course, they lost that recovery fumbling whatever the war game is they publish, but for awhile there, SWToR was really helping the company. Next, we have a ten year deal with Disney. If EA completely bungled the financial aspects of the game, why would Disney keep partnering with them? They wouldn't. EA is doing something right with the Star Wars game(s).
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.