Trending Games | Stronghold Kingdoms | Elder Scrolls Online | Path of Exile | H1Z1

    Facebook Twitter YouTube YouTube.Gaming
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:3,191,014 Users Online:0

Show Blog

Link to this blogs RSS feed

Teala's Wickedly Cool Blog For The Masses

Just my thoughts on MMO's, roleplaying, game companies, and the people that play these games.

Author: Teala

Why I Think Michael Pachter is Wrong.

Posted by Teala Wednesday July 11 2012 at 2:01PM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

Michael Pachter, a video game analyst for Wedbush Securities, who is well known to many in the games industry(has a history of controversial statements), recently spoke at the Evolve Conference and had this to say about the MMO industry.

I personally believe that Pachter is wrong when he states that just because Star Wars: the Old Republic failed to bring in new players on masse - nothing will.   He says that the MMO player base has peaked and will never be more than what it is(for subscription based games).  

Not true Mr. Pachter...not true.

Just because Bioware failed to deliver a fun game based on the Star Wars IP doesn't mean the industry should give up and figure that the subscription based model for MMO's died with it and that their is no room for growth.   In fact I would go so far as to say that I believe that Bioware and EA may have proven one of the points I have been saying for years and years and that is that bad games fail - good games succeed.   That was all Bioware and EA managed to prove.

Make a fun and engaging game and people will pay to play it and will stay subscribed.   That is all there is to it.   It isn't rocket science.   It is common sense.  All we need do is look at games like UO, EQ, WoW and we can see that people will stay subscribed for years and years - if the game is good.   I know people that play EVE and have been subscribed since it launched in 2003.   These games are older and they manage to keep people playing.   No Mr. Pachter, the market isn't dead and it is still able to grow.   The problem is companies are not making good games people are willing to play - let alone pay to play.

I would wager that if J.K. Rowling allowed a company to make an MMORPG based on the Harry Potter Universe, you'd see a massive growth in players.  Now, don't go saying, Kristi you are contradicting yourself.  You said that the size of the IP didn't matter - well in some ways it doesn't, but in this case I will have to say that I believe a well made MMORPG based off the Harry Potter IP could in fact do what Star Wars failed to do and that is bring in millions of new players based on the IP alone.

Here is how that could be done. 

Make the setting of the Harry Potter Game a few years after the death of Valdemort.   That way the game begins with a known setting and a clean slate.   You can still have players encounter some of their favorite people from the books(either as real people or ghost) that way it has all the tie-ins with the books and yet can bring something new.  

Make it a themepark.   Wait...what?  <--- That is what many of you said or thought just now didn't you.   Stop putting me in a box and that would have never crossed your mind because you keep telling yourself that I hate themepark based MMO's - which has never been true.  Anywho, make it a theme park.   Add Hogwarts(and areas surround it), Diagon Alley, London, and other key known places and then add some new ones.   

Add the usual things we see in themeparks.   Quest, resource gathering for crafting and casting spells, making potions, constructing magical items.   You know the typical things we find an a good MMO like World of Warcraft.  :)

Add Quidditch!   What would the game of Harry Potter if it didn't have Quidditch?  So make sure this is in there.   This would be so cool.   I'd play the game for this alone. 

Everyone would start out as a first year student.   You'd be assigned your house with the sorting hat.  Players will have access to housing of a sorts at first.  They can begin with a common room and a dorm room where they can store items - like you had in the books and movies.  What I would do different though is as a player progresses and eventually becomes a 4th year student they can opt for a single room or double(one you can share with a friend).  You can decorate that room as you wish(provided by tools in game with all the cool things you can imagine a game like this to have).    

Allow the creation of guilds to exist with the various Houses that make up Hogwarts.   That way players can form guild Quidditch teams, and participate in quest aimed at guild progression and such.   Characters go to class in game.   Just like they do in the books.   However, when you go to class you have options.  You can sit through a lecture on how to make a love potion or you can pick up a quest from the classes instructor/professor.    Quest can be given out be many different people and not just professors.    I can sit and write about how I would go about making a Harry Potter MMORPG for hours, but I must continue with the rest of my opinion.  Shall we move on.  

All that I have said would be for naught if the game were not made properly.   A game like this must be more than a simple grind game for gear.  It must be more than a skinner box.  It needs to bring the Universe of Harry Potter to the player.   Just putting a title on the game like this tied to the Harry Potter IP would not be enough.   You have to have a team of artist, developers and such that want to make a game they'd want to play...and then give them the reigns to do it. 

The biggest problem with SWTOR was they tried to make a game that should have been a sandbox game into a themepark game.   It just doesn't work.    SWTOR should have been either a straight up sandbox, or a hybrid sandbox/themepark.  Sadly, it was more of a themepark than any game that came before it and I believe that is one of it's biggest failings.  Confining the Universe that is Star Wars into such a linear game world that SWTOR did doesn't allow for a player to explore the richness that such an IP like Star Wars provided.   The even made the space combat on rails.   SWTOR space combat should never have been made into an arcade shoot-em-up amusement park ride.    Just as you wouldn't want Quidditch an amusement park ride either.   It is OK for an arcade style game in your local pizza parlor - but not in an MMORPG.   Star Wars is just so big, and the Universe of that game is so different that it screamed sandbox - open world - game play.   Freedom to go and do what you want, when you want, and how you want.   Allow smugglers to go to places that are a hive of villainy and make deals to run guns or smuggle goods, or allow Bounty Hunters to go after marks by being hired to track down the other scum of the earth.   Did SWTOR let you do these things?  No.  It holds your hand and confines you to doing things not even related to your characters class.   Yes, I am a smuggler and I'll be your healer. I the only one that found that so out of character it made you cringe just thinking about it?  Well I did.  If I wanted to play a healer they should have had a straight up medic class added to the game under the troopers tree.    Not under the smugglers tree.   As a smuggler I wanted to make shady deals.  Run guns.   Smuggle illicit goods.   You what a smuggler does!  SWTOR as a themepark just does not work - and that is one of the biggest  reasons it will never be a successful game.

The Universe of Harry Potter on the other hand is ideal for a themepark based MMORPG.   If you think about the world of Harry Potter and all the places he visited or they mentioned in the books, you should be saying - "yeah...this game would be the perfect candidate for a themepark based MMO." 

Harry Potter screams themepark.   Some games are better suited to be made into themeparks, while others should be sandbox based games.  

Just because it is a themepark, doesn't mean it can't be a wonderfully, delightful game, full of challenges, mystery, suspense, intrigue, exploration, all the while developing a character within that world that is unique and makes you want to play the game.  It all boils down to implementation.   If the game is not implemented correctly, it will fail.   Sorta like some of the other themeparks that tried to ride the coat tales of WoW.   If I was going to make an MMORPG based on Harry Potter, it would play a lot like World of Warcraft - only better - and not half-arsed.

I have said that before as well, if you are going to make a game like World of Warcraft, don't just copy it, do it better.   Start from the beginning and do it right.   First - add a more robust character creation system.   Look at SWTOR.   Now look at WoW.  Which is better?  See what I did there?   You can't say SWTOR's is better because it isn't.  I would take a wild guess(and be right) and many people would say it is worse.   SWTOR doesn't even have other races!  A Star Wars game and you are delegated to playing all human based races?!  Really?   The character creation system was so bad all they did was take a human model and slapped on a different skin color and said this is Chiss, this is a Rattataki, and this is a Mirialan - where are the Wookies, Bothans and Sullustans?  It just fails right from the start.  

And that is why Pachter is wrong.   SWTOR failed to bring in more players because it was a poorly conceived and implemented game.   It wasn't because of the IP.   It was all due to the game.   Just because Bioware is well known for making great single player, story based games, doesn't mean they are capable of making a great MMORPG.   If you look under the hood of SWTOR, I mean really look under what makes the game what it is, you can easily see it was a 1/4 the game World of Warcraft was. It was and is nothing more than a shallow skinner box game married to a pick your path story.  It is shallow and empty. Add to that,  no day and night cycles.  No random weather effects.   The worlds were sterile and devoid of life other than the MOBs one can fight and kill in the game.   The classes made little sense.   I've been over all this before...SWTOR was a mess and is a mess.

I can give you other examples if you like.  I can mention a game like Arma II with it's now infamous DayZ mod.   Arma II has a niche following.   It dosn't sell anywhere near the number of copies that games like COD or BF series games sell.   DayZ was released, and simply through word of mouth Arma II has become the cats meow and DayZ is one of the most loved game mods ever created and you know what.  People that never would touch an FPS are - you got it - playing DayZ!

Know why Skyrim was such a success Mr. Pachter?  Not because of the IP.   Sure many, many players know about single player RPG's, and Bethesda is known for TES games - but not even Bethesda imagined that Skyrim would rocket to 10 million units sold within a month of the games launch.   Why did this happen Mr. Pachter?  It happened because Skyrim was a good game.   MMO players were calling Skyrim the best single player MMO they ever played.   That says a lot about the mindset of MMO players and tells you one thing.   Make a good game and people will play it - they'll switch genres to play a good game as millions did - just to play Skyrim.   Make a good game and people will play it.  Simple as that.

That Mr. Pachter is why SWTOR failed to bring in millions of new MMO players.   Not because the MMO market is not capable of bringing new players to the genre, it can, and would if someone would make a decent game to attract the masses of players that are looking for a game that is good.   Good games Mr. Pachter attract players - bad games do not.  



MaouTsaou writes: hummmmmmm This is a long and thoughtful post. I agree with the author overall but there are a couple of things niggeling at me to mention. First off, while the "fun factor" is certainly a major indicator of success it doesn't assure popular success. Before some of the monumental flops of the last year or two franchises like Civ or Diablo or Starcraft seemed unassailable and a Blizzard release was gonna get massive preorders on rep alone. Pachter still thinks names like Bioware and EA indicate quality to gamers it seems to me. This misjudgment doesn't negate the fact that a large studio with full production and advertising backing can make a fair game successful and the lack can cripple a "fun" game. And I get your point about the IP stuff but I'd like to see different mechanics and ideas. How about some options for older players who don't have the time to grind and etc. How about allowing options for players to actually become business people in a town? Log out in your store and your character runs the shop as an NPC until you can log in again. For that matter how about a real sandbox where players can actually build constructions in the world? Instead of adding another neighborhood when one fills up actually add buildings to the existing village and watch it grow into a town and then a city. Anyway, rather than find the right game model for someone else's idea of a IP like the Potter universe I'd much rather see some newness in gameplay. Pretty art is nice but it should be icing, not the cake. Wed Jul 11 2012 10:35PM Report
Tethered writes:

I agree completely, this problem with todays games are that they feel like a reskin of something I did 10 years ago in another game. I am an old timer, gamer at heart. I have been playing games since before the avg gamer was a glimmer in the eyes of their parents.

I have to say that while I dabble in a lot of games now, I get bored easy. I played swtor beta and hated it, I told everyone of my gamer friends to stay as far away as possible just due game play I encountered. Tera...nice, pretty...lack-luster gaming...I am still waiting..GW2..nah beta was fun but nothing long term to suck me in and keep me in....still waiting I still play a little Eve online but never more then a month or is by far my favorite game still. WoW well I can not play it more then a few days, after you maxed a toon or two and run the raids...its pretty much the samething over and over. And why the hell does my toon look just like your toon...cept the boobs...j/k

I even play APB and CoH, APB is a nice rush but the bots get tiring, CoH is neat only because its fast to level up a toon just to play around with power builds.. heck I probably play a dozen different games in a given month just because I can not stay sucked in...maybe I am just old with a short attention span...but I think I am searching some thing more engaging. Not just eye candy with clicky clicky combat and pvp as an afterthought.


Fri Jul 13 2012 1:28PM Report
Soultice writes:

Going to have to agree with you on this one Teala.  Bioware failed to deliver.  KOTOR was not even a game I considered an MMORPG.  The game felt like guild wars to be honest, but you had to pay a fee. 

Soloing to the end game is not what MMORPG's are all about and Bioware took the solo thing too far.  Grouping along the way was neer necessary and pop lvl50 and now you had to group to progress.

Totally failed.  You must understand an analyst is a number cruncher not a gamer. He bases his outlok on numbers not games.  Just because Bioware did not get the repeat customers did not mean MMORPG's are dead.  Most of the time it means the games suck as MMORPG's are the cheapest form of entertainment, when you talk about shelling out some money for it.

Fri Jul 13 2012 2:53PM Report
wootin writes:

ahh but lest we forget, a ton of people got paychecks for years making this. They got great resume entries and references too. This game did more than fail to meet expectations, it was the wind beneath the wings of many an industry employee and insider. All they had to do was Hollywood-hype the potential (easy since many of them went into the game industry when they couldn't get work in Hollywood) and they got paid to make a grade-B game, just like they would have gotten paid to make a grade-B movie had they the chance.

We need to remember that companies are not people. The people who made great games at Bioware - were they the ones that made SWTOR, or ME2&3? Or was it other people who were  hired more recently?

Fri Jul 13 2012 11:56PM Report
Excession writes:

Pachter is wrong, quite obviously so, but not in the way Teala describes.

Pachter is claiming that only six or seven million players are willing to pay for a subscription to an MMO, which is completely, and blatantly, false.

There are already more than six or seven million people paying a subscription each month for various MMOs.

Teala could have just focused on this, but no, Teala just could not resist the urge to blather on about how bad SW:TOR is yet again.

A few blog posts ago, Teala claimed that they would not blog about SW:TOR again, yet here we are again........

Sat Jul 14 2012 7:34AM Report
TimothyTierless writes: According to his logic if its a big IP it HAS to sell. He takes 0 account as to whether the game is god awful, and he gives 0 credit to mmorpg customers for knowing a game is bad pre-launch. Sat Jul 14 2012 9:28AM Report
Alleneira writes:

Patcher is in some way right if you consider that he only talks about subscription based MMOs, espeacily the amount of players in one MMO.

Subscription based MMOs rival with free2play/microtransaction games and the amount on both sides, subscription and f2p games, start to raise and raise, but the playerbase stays close to the same.

I also think that Patcher didnt tried to praise SWTOR and Bioware and EA, but was more refering to the relase time of SWTOR... since the more years pass, the more games will be out there. If we look at it now then TSW and GW2 are around the corner, which are again 2 new titels... one is subscription, while the other one is f2p. That means you to take again the current amount of MMO players, take some of them and put them into 2 new games. It would be really hard to attract a huge amount of players, if you dont create new ones.

To get now a playerbase of over 6-7 million players, you need to suck them from other subscription games, which means you need to be vastly better at most things. But even then you didnt might reach this value. Now you need to try to attract even players who play an f2p game... but these players play an f2p game for an reason... the reason can be that they dont want an subscription and those players will be hard to attract. The very next possiblity could be to create new players. Teala mentioned already that she thinks the Harry Potter IP might create some new players, if the game was also made pretty interesting. But this becomes harder and harder the longer you wait as the variety of games out there becomes bigger and bigger.


Problem is that everyone has a different liking. Some like to Roleplay their character, some like PvP, some like PvE, some like Solo Content, some prefer fantasie, some prefer cyberpunk, some prefer guns, some prefer swords, ... and the list goes on.

Yet it IS possible to attract players who try to overcome some of their likings, but not all. I talked with some persons and alot of them said, that they dont like the setting of GW2, yet they want to play it for its PvP content (As you see, these players dont like the setting but their liking for the PvP content is their top priority). So how do you want to attract the PvP crowd, the PvE crowd, the roleplayers, the soloplayers and all others? Alone from the design some of these things dont work well together and DayZ is a very good example for it. At first it attracted the ones who liked the survival setting (lets call them PvErs) and PvPers. Maybe even some roleplayers who liked the feeling of playing an survivor of an post-zombocalyptican world. But the game changed... the PvE crowd together with the roleplayers got bored and got even PvPed away from the PvP crowd, as the game focus shifted due to a patch which was more in favor for the PvP crowd. The amount of PvPers maybe raised, but the amount of other players dwindled.

Combine that with the limited amount of players you have worldwide, it gets rather tricky to get a bigger and bigger playerbase.

Imagine someone would now make a DayX mod which takes some of the PvP out and boosts the PvE part... DayZ would lose some players while DayX would gain them... you basicly wouldnt attract that much new players but suck them out from other games and that is a problem which all MMOs suffer today. Alot of MMOs try to attract the WoW crowd and suck players from them as WoW itself was able to create that amount of players for that genre (Themepark world MMORPG genre) and it would be harder to create your own playerbase. That means even an Harry Potter IP based themepark-world-MMORPG would mainly be able to get a good playerbase due to sucking these players from WoW, it would only create some, but not that much new players.


Things we need now are more or less innovations in the MMO world, but you cant really make much innovations in the MMORPG world (MMO != MMORPG).

Creating an MMORPG is just too expensive as you need to create an very huge world with lots of content and you need to make everything somehow better as all other MMORPGs, like Teala said already. But did one of you ever did everything perfect when they tried something for the first time? The branche needs to experiement with different things but they cant do that in MMORPGs as too much money is at stake. We basicly just need other genres like MMO-RTS, MMO-Adventure, MMO-FPS, MMO-<insert random genre>. These genres run without much competition and due to that they are cheaper to develop as an full bloom MMORPG and alone due to that they allow expierments and innovations which then later can be transfered into the MMORPG world.

DayZ is here again a very good example as it is more or less "innovative" in the sense of perma-death, which gives the player a totally new feeling on how to play a game. You can easily introduce that feature in DayZ, but imagine you would have permadeath in an MMORPG... would you like to lose all your xp, all your gear and even your char because you had an lag, or were afk? Permadeath is an innovation but alot of other things are very important so that permadeath isnt the permadeath of the MMORPG itself.

DayZ also runs without any real competition so they are free to test EVERYTHING they want as there is little to no possiblities that your playerbase jumps the boat to another multiplayer Zombie-survival game.


There are also alot of other features and designs at which you have to look at, not only the death penalities... gear progression is also an important point:

Most games have a vertical progression, which puts some players off, GW2 on the other hand seems to have an horizontal gear progression, which again might put other players off ("What, I dont get better gear with max level as with lvl 30? What should I do now that I cant grind/farm gear?")

And now you can add tons and tons of other features/designs which you would need to test out before you can make an MMORPG which pleases Teala... well and alot of others... and we can only hope that there will be more games which arent an MMORPG so they can test these features out, so that we maybe someday get a really good MMORPG.

Sun Jul 15 2012 8:11AM Report
Alleneira writes:

Oh and I felt flattered that you mentioned the Skinner Box in this post Teala, as it was something which I pointed out to you all some time ago.. while someone else pointed it out to me once. ^^

Sun Jul 15 2012 8:13AM Report
ZombieKen writes:

Great IP, great execution, great gameplay, great marketing = huge hit


The fact that few MMORPGs as of late have been huge hits isn't an indication that the genre is dead.  But rather that the developer / publishers can't get a handle on the formula.

Mon Jul 16 2012 10:51AM Report
BigHatLogan writes:

Pachter fails to take into account a few very important variables.  The Star Wars IP isn't worth as much as everyone seems to think.   George Lucas has done everything in his power to make Star Wars suck since it was initially successful with the first 3 movies.  Everything else has been very substandard in quality.

Bioware making an mmorpg is also a failure.  Bioware focuses on storyline which is great for single player games but is just weird in multiplayer games.  

Pachter also failed to mention that Bioware just copied WoW's mechanics without any innovation beyond personal story.  The game became pretty dull and uninspired in all aspects except for personal story. 

SWTOR is just a bad game overall.  At a money per quality ratio it is the worst game ever, in my opinion at least.  Much like the three star wars prequels which are at a money per quality ratio, the three worst movies ever. 

If GW2 flops then we can just let the genre die.   


Mon Jul 16 2012 1:40PM Report
Nephaerius writes:

Considering he's only talking about subscription based MMOs, and pretty much everyone in the industry is saying the exact same thing, he's probably right. 

Most people do not want to pay a monthly sub for access to a videogame.  It's an archaic and terrible idea when it comes to gaming because it creates a ridiculous barrier to entry.  I know it's turned me off to MMO's entirely for quite some time now. 

I have 40+ games on my HDD that I can play anytime I feel like it without spending a dime.  There's NO game out there and there never will be at this point that's so good it deserves or needs a monthly fee. 

Server costs are miniscule and if you have a good game and keep pumping out new content through a F2P model with optional subs you'll make much more than you would have with the sub model.

Tue Jul 17 2012 2:56PM Report
teakbois writes:

I think the thoughts behind this are spot on.  Basically, if you build it, they will come.  And Bioware didn't build it.


The flipside, is there is now another force against the sub model, and that is quite frankly player stupidity.  I hear people say things like 'it doesnt cost that much to run an MMORPG, bandwidth is cheap!".  WHile the second part may be true, MMORPGs are insanely expensive.  Initial box sales typically dont come even close to covering development costs, so they start by playing catch up.  Then you have the development team, and good programmers aren't cheap.  On top of that you have your cs costs, your advertising, and last but far from least, taxes.  Despite this, you have people caliming they will never play a sub game because its a ripoff.

And of course players like to point to other games as examples. GW2 is buy to play!  Sub fees are outdated!  Except GW2 has a fairly aggressive cash shop and is planned to be supported by basically DLC, as they plan frequent expansions.  GW2 will be getting their money.  Its probably not a bad model, but its not meant to be a one time payment and for most of its players it wont be close to that.

Another one Ive seen lately is mentioning Aion and L2.  Aion and L2 offer everything for free and only sell fluff!  Except Aion and L2 were extremely low pop games in the regions they went f2p and have always been supported by the large Korean population.  Notice how the City of Heros f2p model is very similar to SoE's?  Thats because CoH isnt supported by a large p2p population like NCSofts other f2p titles are.  So no, Aion and L2 ftp model does not work under normal circumstances.

But these people are convinced, and the current p2p market may be shrinking a little because of that.  But perhaps if someone made another slam dunk p2p MMORPG they would change their mind.  And people new to the genre will never have even heard of Aion and L2 so it wont affect them, so getting new blood into the p2p market is still possible.  People are just going to have to do a lot better than SWTOR.

Wed Jul 18 2012 2:49PM Report
Teala writes: Good points teakbois and very well said. Thank you for the great comment. Wed Jul 18 2012 6:23PM Report
Trionicus writes:

Didn't expect the name Kristi... - anyways.


I'd been wondering for years why a big publisher hasn't tried to grab that juicy Harry Potter IP, even I would want to try it.

Speaking of IP's, the fact that SWTOR isn't gone the way of 38 studios only goes to show just how strong the Star Wars IP really is.

Also, I'm not sure who was to blame for SWTOR's downfall, in terms of its quality but, I get the feeling that everyone involved aside from the voice actors deserves some blame.

Now Zenimax thinks they can use Skyrim's success to launch a  MMO cash grab, not learning anything from what just happened with SWTOR. AND, since it's too late for them rework what looks like a failed WOW clone I'm actually rooting against this one.

The world Patcher is coming from is that of the mainstream Oprah type consumer. Him and his type are dinosaurs when it comes to gamer preference; terms like brand loyalty and Slogans are all they understand, not recognizing that gamers are slightly more informed than the average consumer and that not all they're magic circus tricks will work once they cross into our realm.

Sun Jul 22 2012 3:27AM Report
Konfess writes:

The devs and analysts don’t see a difference between their failed games and a good such as WoW.  Neither does the player base, when they call any RPG with tab targeting and a quest system a WoW clone.  You said that developers should make games they want to play, thing is they make games they want to get paid for.  The design philosophy is what can we put very little into and get a whole lot out of it, aka maximum return on investment.

I believe you are correct, a good game should do well.  But I also believe that the economy has more to do with the general decline in subscription numbers, than player apathy with their games.  BTW Harry Potter single player games have been made, I bought one and played it for 8 hours.  I believe that a HP license is either cost prohibitive, or is already in possession.  Maybe she fears the kind of online experience an HP MMO would expose her fans to, from other players.  In the form of gankers, griefers, and con-artist.  Or she doesn’t want a potential HP MMO flop to be associated with the HP brand.

Quidditch as a mini game?  Ask yourself why there is no FiFa MMO?  Because players can’t play such a dynamic team sport with the technology as it is.  Most FiFa and NFL games are about the AI and playing on rails.  Speaking of on rails, SWG space combat was about looping on the targets six and shooting the tail pipe until the target blew up.  This was not GL’s vision of SW space combat.  To achieve that vision TOR’s space combat had to be on rails.  I am not saying that on rails is best, just how and why it came to be.

Sat Aug 11 2012 2:19PM Report
BoganTemplar writes:

I love hearing this chick blab on about how sucky TOR is, it never really gets old!

The analyst is pretty much correct in his statement IMO. If the market for MMO's was going to get bigger under the subscription model, it already would have, a long time ago. If anything it has peaked and is falling off.

We can fantasize all day about what number of subscribers a "good mmo" would pull. Well actually I wont, because the number of subscribers a particular game has is largely irrelevent to me. I will play the game if it is fun and the game mechanics are solid and has an interesting setting. This used to be how gamers like myself quantified games that we consider good, under this criteria. It  didnt matter if the game had 500 regular players or 5 million. As long as the game doesnt close down and you have a guild to group with, let investors worry about their bottom line.

Somehow this whole thing got twisted somewhere, and were left with blogposts about what analysts have to say about subscription totals and profit margins and etc. etc. Dont get me wrong, Im here because I like reading them, in some twisted fashion I actually enjoy reading people ad lib regarding issues they are largely ignorant of. Its one my guilty pleasures.

Merry Christmas!


Fri Dec 14 2012 2:16PM Report
fifa14cheats writes:

Nice!! I love your article I'm so excited to try this game soon.. thanks!!

Tue Jul 30 2013 11:35PM Report
fifa14cheats writes: <a href="">FIFA 14 Cheats</a> Tue Jul 30 2013 11:35PM Report writes:
Login or Register to post a comment

Special Offers