So it's okay to claim failure before beta, during beta, before release, after release, a month after release...


Yet it's 'premature' for OP to state his observations and opinion.  Pure hypocrisy.


While I'm in the camp of "wait till the 4 month mark"(free month + 3months of subs) I simply can't stand the double standards, flawed logic and inconsistencies people spin around here to help them cope with the idea that a game they don't like might do well.


I think the OP has a valid topic to bring up that there wasn't a huge drop off after the first month like so many predicted.  Just because YOU didn't personally predict it doesn't mean anything in relation to this thread nor does it mean he was calling you out. 

Exceptions to the rule, strawman and derailment all over this thread.  Not a single thread in this forum can be made without those things being forced into it.
 

I'd suspect around 250lk overall subs in March.  Should give them 3.75 mil a month to work with.  How much are they paying their development staff?  Currently theres probably like 3k per server(thats generous I know).   215 servers. 645k subs atm.  2 Mil sales at launch.  You get the picture.

The bean counters at EA are pretty good when it comes to seeing the future.  LIke warhammer when you start seeing layoffs and a new lead is coming in to take over.  Thats the big red flag.

Don't know what game you are playing but the swtor I was playing was already dead last week when I canceled.

Granted EA and bioware are lying about it and using a dishonest misleading advertising campaign " these gameplay  images are not represenitive of all actual gameplay " to try and cover their failure, but the financials, empty servers that are actually claiming they are heavy, and 2 hour queues for warfronts on heavy servers are pretty good indicators that the game is dead and the coverup is underway.

But hey keep throwing good money after bad you are helping pay for ME 4 development cost : )

Originally posted by Kaocan

Simple explination to the OPs thought. MMORPG - six letters, MMO RPG - all there at once. The problem isnt that SWTOR is just RPG, its that so many of the currect MMORPG games on the market are almost all MMO with very little RPG in them. They made this game a real MMORPG and not just another MMOG like all the rest.

It is not a single player RPG, just so many people completely forgot what a real MMORPG is supposed to be like, that they can't figure out how to play it with all that story in it. An MMORPG includes it all, if it doesn't it isnt one. Oh and before everyone goes nuts, there is plenty of MMO in SWTOR too, if you dont see it, it just means you dont know how play well with others. Sorry, I know, it doesn't FORCE people to come together with you like other games do, it gives you the option and the ability, you have to go get it on your own.

Despite the Bioware and ANet party line that you need a focus on story to be an RPG...I just don't think this is true.  RPG is a VERY broad category that encompasses a lot of things.

For example, older western RPGs like Ultima and Might and Magic focused FAR more on open-world and freedom than they did on story.  I do not consider them to be "less" of an RPG because of this.  And on the flip side, I don't consider JRPGs that are almost ALL linear storyline to be "more" of an RPG.

"Story-driven" RPG is just a kind of RPG game.  It's no more of an RPG, than an RPG that emphasizes the open-world and freedom more.

Acting like you can't be an RPG without a huge focus on story makes it seem like it's objectively better to have a huge focus on story.  And really, I just think it's a point of preference.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Kaocan

Simple explination to the OPs thought. MMORPG - six letters, MMO RPG - all there at once. The problem isnt that SWTOR is just RPG, its that so many of the currect MMORPG games on the market are almost all MMO with very little RPG in them. They made this game a real MMORPG and not just another MMOG like all the rest.

It is not a single player RPG, just so many people completely forgot what a real MMORPG is supposed to be like, that they can't figure out how to play it with all that story in it. An MMORPG includes it all, if it doesn't it isnt one. Oh and before everyone goes nuts, there is plenty of MMO in SWTOR too, if you dont see it, it just means you dont know how play well with others. Sorry, I know, it doesn't FORCE people to come together with you like other games do, it gives you the option and the ability, you have to go get it on your own.

Despite the Bioware and ANet party line that you need a focus on story to be an RPG...I just don't think this is true.  RPG is a VERY broad category that encompasses a lot of things.

For example, older western RPGs like Ultima and Might and Magic focused FAR more on open-world and freedom than they did on story.  I do not consider them to be "less" of an RPG because of this.  And on the flip side, I don't consider JRPGs that are almost ALL linear storyline to be "more" of an RPG.

"Story-driven" RPG is just a kind of RPG game.  It's no more of an RPG, than an RPG that emphasizes the open-world and freedom more.

Acting like you can't be an RPG without a huge focus on story makes it seem like it's objectively better to have a huge focus on story.  And really, I just think it's a point of preference.

I agree to an extent, my point wasn't that SWTOR was so much MORE of an RPG than others, but that there are a majority that are so much LESS. How many of the current flock of games we have out there right now focus on the journey, the role playing aspect of the game compared to the ones that focus on the mechanics.

At some point along the run in this genre it became exceptable to consider doing the same thing over and over (called a daily) as the norm. Tell me how this is progression in a story line? How many books have you read where they just randomly repeat the first 5 chapters over and over again. Not a story anymore at that point. Nor does it mean role playing to stand on the same street in a town for nearly all of your adult life (cross server dungeon finder comes to mind). Where is the roleplay factor behind this one? 'I have been to every dungeon in this game, at least five times now.' And when you ask them where in the world they are each found you get a blank stare and silence.

Granted, UO and Might and Magic were bred off the PnP tabletop RPG theory, the MUDs, MOOs, and MUSHs. And even as sandbox games, with open worlds, your character was still driven by progressing the story of the RPG. Todays games, do you honestly think that is still true? Honestly? They aren' driven by the achievement system, the vanity pets, the titles, the next tier of gear? Sure SWTOR has some of these things in it, but the game progressing is based on the story more than the material rewards of the other games we have out there now.

That was my point, not to cut down the MMORPG games of the past which were in fact MMORPG games, but to point out that we have lost our RPG factor on so many of the games out which claim to be what they are not, MMORPGs.

Originally posted by papardelios

If you check XFIRE numbers, you will see that the drop is 27-30% for total players (i m speaking always only for xfire users) and 50% for minutes played per day, which i think is not small, if you consider its only the first month.

I dont say that XFIRE is something that mirrors the whole player base of a game, but its a good sample.

I don't know about you, but no game I've ever played has kept me playing, after a month, as long as I did when it launched, or even NEARLY as much.

After about a month or so, you're going stop playing every free minute and it will become much less of a devourer of your free time.

I still love the game, still have plenty of content to run, and I've easily cut my playtime in half.  My play schedule at launch was simply unsustainable.

On the number of players, you can't take meaning from Xfire regarding that.  Again, a person who played every day at launch will eventually chill down to a more reasonable schedule.  And so they'll count as "less than one person" in Xfire.

In other words, yes, indeed that's pretty small.

Originally posted by Kaocan

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Kaocan

....

Despite the Bioware and ANet party line that you need a focus on story to be an RPG...I just don't think this is true.  RPG is a VERY broad category that encompasses a lot of things.

For example, older western RPGs like Ultima and Might and Magic focused FAR more on open-world and freedom than they did on story.  I do not consider them to be "less" of an RPG because of this.  And on the flip side, I don't consider JRPGs that are almost ALL linear storyline to be "more" of an RPG.

"Story-driven" RPG is just a kind of RPG game.  It's no more of an RPG, than an RPG that emphasizes the open-world and freedom more.

Acting like you can't be an RPG without a huge focus on story makes it seem like it's objectively better to have a huge focus on story.  And really, I just think it's a point of preference.

I agree to an extent, my point wasn't that SWTOR was so much MORE of an RPG than others, but that there are a majority that are so much LESS. How many of the current flock of games we have out there right now focus on the journey, the role playing aspect of the game compared to the ones that focus on the mechanics.

At some point along the run in this genre it became exceptable to consider doing the same thing over and over (called a daily) as the norm. Tell me how this is progression in a story line? How many books have you read where they just randomly repeat the first 5 chapters over and over again. Not a story anymore at that point. Nor does it mean role playing to stand on the same street in a town for nearly all of your adult life (cross server dungeon finder comes to mind). Where is the roleplay factor behind this one? 'I have been to every dungeon in this game, at least five times now.' And when you ask them where in the world they are each found you get a blank stare and silence.

Granted, UO and Might and Magic were bred off the PnP tabletop RPG theory, the MUDs, MOOs, and MUSHs. And even as sandbox games, with open worlds, your character was still driven by progressing the story of the RPG. Todays games, do you honestly think that is still true? Honestly? They aren' driven by the achievement system, the vanity pets, the titles, the next tier of gear? Sure SWTOR has some of these things in it, but the game progressing is based on the story more than the material rewards of the other games we have out there now.

That was my point, not to cut down the MMORPG games of the past which were in fact MMORPG games, but to point out that we have lost our RPG factor on so many of the games out which claim to be what they are not, MMORPGs.

You're basically getting at the fundamental conundrum of the developer-driven MMORPG, which is that there is a clash between two facts:

1.  An MMORPG is supposed to be played for a very long period of time.

2.  Developer driven content is by definition finite and will inevitably be completed faster than it can be developed.

No matter how much content a developer makes, players are always going to blast through it and then ask "what next?"  And this is where you get the "mechanics focus" as you call it.  Developers have to give players something to do once they blow through their finely crafted story or content, so they provide a way for players to grind their mechanics on highly repeatable pieces of content.

I really think that in a purely developer-driven MMORPG, this will ALWAYS happen.  There's no way out of it.  A developer cannot make enough content to keep players occupied for years, simply because content can be played and completed exponentially faster than it can be developed.

The only real solution is to have an element of player-driven content in your MMORPG.

Open world PvP, town building, politics, social systems...

All of these are "renewable" resources.  Players can make these things interesting for a LOOONG period of time.  Just look at the retention rate of the old sandbox MMORPGs compared to the new themepark ones.  Eve actually grows...GROWS.  Shocking for an MMORPG...and especially an MMORPG with such complicated and inaccessible gameplay (I couldn't get into it).

WoW has made itself successful by focusing on the end-game "mechanics grind" but I think other MMORPGs should try for a less tedious approach.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

---

I'm not amazed so much anymore. It's S.O.P. I think. I also think that BioWare will need to release more story content for end game players. Well, I should say I want them to release more story content for end game players. It suppose it possible that a third game could have the same Raid/So-So PvP/? end game but it seems like we're reaching a saturation point with that stuff.

 

That, they should.  A company would have to be total idiots to focus on endgame at launch.  Most of your players will never get to max level in the first couple months(unless you're DCUO) so the focus should be on the journey before launch.

But yes indeedy, they're gonna have to push out some serious endgame over the next few months.  I haven't maxed yet, so I dunno how much/little there is, but the game will start being top heavy in a couple months, I suspect.  I'll still be going through alts, but not everybody is gonna be doing what I do.

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Kaocan

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by Kaocan

....

Despite the Bioware and ANet party line that you need a focus on story to be an RPG...I just don't think this is true.  RPG is a VERY broad category that encompasses a lot of things.

For example, older western RPGs like Ultima and Might and Magic focused FAR more on open-world and freedom than they did on story.  I do not consider them to be "less" of an RPG because of this.  And on the flip side, I don't consider JRPGs that are almost ALL linear storyline to be "more" of an RPG.

"Story-driven" RPG is just a kind of RPG game.  It's no more of an RPG, than an RPG that emphasizes the open-world and freedom more.

Acting like you can't be an RPG without a huge focus on story makes it seem like it's objectively better to have a huge focus on story.  And really, I just think it's a point of preference.

I agree to an extent, my point wasn't that SWTOR was so much MORE of an RPG than others, but that there are a majority that are so much LESS. How many of the current flock of games we have out there right now focus on the journey, the role playing aspect of the game compared to the ones that focus on the mechanics.

At some point along the run in this genre it became exceptable to consider doing the same thing over and over (called a daily) as the norm. Tell me how this is progression in a story line? How many books have you read where they just randomly repeat the first 5 chapters over and over again. Not a story anymore at that point. Nor does it mean role playing to stand on the same street in a town for nearly all of your adult life (cross server dungeon finder comes to mind). Where is the roleplay factor behind this one? 'I have been to every dungeon in this game, at least five times now.' And when you ask them where in the world they are each found you get a blank stare and silence.

Granted, UO and Might and Magic were bred off the PnP tabletop RPG theory, the MUDs, MOOs, and MUSHs. And even as sandbox games, with open worlds, your character was still driven by progressing the story of the RPG. Todays games, do you honestly think that is still true? Honestly? They aren' driven by the achievement system, the vanity pets, the titles, the next tier of gear? Sure SWTOR has some of these things in it, but the game progressing is based on the story more than the material rewards of the other games we have out there now.

That was my point, not to cut down the MMORPG games of the past which were in fact MMORPG games, but to point out that we have lost our RPG factor on so many of the games out which claim to be what they are not, MMORPGs.

You're basically getting at the fundamental conundrum of the developer-driven MMORPG, which is that there is a clash between two facts:

1.  An MMORPG is supposed to be played for a very long period of time.

2.  Developer driven content is by definition finite and will inevitably be completed faster than it can be developed.

No matter how much content a developer makes, players are always going to blast through it and then ask "what next?"  And this is where you get the "mechanics focus" as you call it.  Developers have to give players something to do once they blow through their finely crafted story or content, so they provide a way for players to grind their mechanics on highly repeatable pieces of content.

I really think that in a purely developer-driven MMORPG, this will ALWAYS happen.  There's no way out of it.  A developer cannot make enough content to keep players occupied for years, simply because content can be played and completed exponentially faster than it can be developed.

The only real solution is to have an element of player-driven content in your MMORPG.

Open world PvP, town building, politics, social systems...

All of these are "renewable" resources.  Players can make these things interesting for a LOOONG period of time.  Just look at the retention rate of the old sandbox MMORPGs compared to the new themepark ones.  Eve actually grows...GROWS.  Shocking for an MMORPG...and especially an MMORPG with such complicated and inaccessible gameplay (I couldn't get into it).

WoW has made itself successful by focusing on the end-game "mechanics grind" but I think other MMORPGs should try for a less tedious approach.

And it deservs to GROW for many many reasons. Give it a chance and you ll see that after spending some time, the complicated becomes brilliant :)

Originally posted by Robsolf

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

---

I'm not amazed so much anymore. It's S.O.P. I think. I also think that BioWare will need to release more story content for end game players. Well, I should say I want them to release more story content for end game players. It suppose it possible that a third game could have the same Raid/So-So PvP/? end game but it seems like we're reaching a saturation point with that stuff.

 

That, they should.  A company would have to be total idiots to focus on endgame at launch.  Most of your players will never get to max level in the first couple months(unless you're DCUO) so the focus should be on the journey before launch.

But yes indeedy, they're gonna have to push out some serious endgame over the next few months.  I haven't maxed yet, so I dunno how much/little there is, but the game will start being top heavy in a couple months, I suspect.  I'll still be going through alts, but not everybody is gonna be doing what I do.

Almost every1 gets to max lvl before the first couple of months :)

If you want to focus on the journey then it must be a long one, else there is no point.

I think that one of the reasons why SWTOR didnt get much deeper drop in subs is that a lot of palyers come from single player RPGs with no knowlege of how subscription works and they dont know yet why they have to put their credit card numbers in order to play.  But after few months when bill from bank arive they will learn it hard way.

Originally posted by oobla

Quite frankly I had my doubts as to what would happen in month 2 . I was convinced there would be a large drop off this has thus far failed to materialise with plenty of full servers and no low ones at peak times . I think the reason for this is because it appeals to people who enjoy single player RPG games . ToR to me is a single player rpg  game with mmo elements  which is the reverse of most mmos where story takes a back seat . I think whats happened is that ToR has attracted people that dont normally play mmos . Maybe some are StarWars fans and others are fans of games like Dragon Age or Mass Effect and perhaps went into the game not expecting any different to what they have got . The trick Bioware may have pulled off is spotting a gap in the mmo market . Still you cant argue with success and the game although it maybe not what many of us wanted ( I felt this myself ) it is indeed maintaining its numbers well into month 2 . Of course to retain that long term will require updates to the story on a regular basis .  

Fromn me to you : A tip,  DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE. Be it good or bad. Nothing is ever "as good", or "as bad" as claimed.

In a more personal direction, maybe you should adjust your view. It should be obvious that the MMO market has MUCH lower standards than we, MMO players, like to admit. SOoooo it could very well be that ToR is better than you think, in the eyes of the masses. I doubt that there were/are hundreds of thousands of NOn-MMO players that suddenly flocked to ToR. Not to say that there arent, but to claim that ToR's pop is made up mostly of these is silly.

Originally posted by oobla

Quite frankly I had my doubts as to what would happen in month 2 . I was convinced there would be a large drop off this has thus far failed to materialise with plenty of full servers and no low ones at peak times . I think the reason for this is because it appeals to people who enjoy single player RPG games . ToR to me is a single player rpg  game with mmo elements  which is the reverse of most mmos where story takes a back seat . I think whats happened is that ToR has attracted people that dont normally play mmos . Maybe some are StarWars fans and others are fans of games like Dragon Age or Mass Effect and perhaps went into the game not expecting any different to what they have got . The trick Bioware may have pulled off is spotting a gap in the mmo market . Still you cant argue with success and the game although it maybe not what many of us wanted ( I felt this myself ) it is indeed maintaining its numbers well into month 2 . Of course to retain that long term will require updates to the story on a regular basis .  

You seems pretty sure about your numbers, where do you get your information?

Because from Swtor official forums, it looks like people are already asking for Server consolidation due to lack of people on several servers.

If I have to be honest Bioware got it completely wrong actually, because after the player run out of stories (and after the second Alt the storuy is pretty much the same), people will move on to something else.......because there are very little MMO features to keep people playing the game until the next content update in a year time (Next expansion)

Rift will end up having more subscribers than Swtor in few months time, mark my words

Originally

Rift will end up having more subscribers than Swtor in few months time, mark my words

Marked, pray your words don't return to haunt you.

Currently there are 16 American servers for Rift.  100 plus American servers for Tor.

Originally posted by Robsolf

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

---

I'm not amazed so much anymore. It's S.O.P. I think. I also think that BioWare will need to release more story content for end game players. Well, I should say I want them to release more story content for end game players. It suppose it possible that a third game could have the same Raid/So-So PvP/? end game but it seems like we're reaching a saturation point with that stuff.

 

That, they should.  A company would have to be total idiots to focus on endgame at launch.  Most of your players will never get to max level in the first couple months(unless you're DCUO) so the focus should be on the journey before launch.

But yes indeedy, they're gonna have to push out some serious endgame over the next few months.  I haven't maxed yet, so I dunno how much/little there is, but the game will start being top heavy in a couple months, I suspect.  I'll still be going through alts, but not everybody is gonna be doing what I do.

I have an idea. The End Game content, those big nasty only a select few can do them things. For the first 3 months, every time your group wipes in them, every member on the team loses 10 levels of experiences and has to go back and learn to play before trying it again.   :)

Originally posted by MattNe

Originally

Rift will end up having more subscribers than Swtor in few months time, mark my words

Marked, pray your words don't return to haunt you.

Currently there are 16 American servers for Rift.  100 plus American servers for Tor.

yes................. 16 servers half empty (or half full) that's why people are asking for a merge already.........1 month after launch.

I don't think my words will return to hunt me, I am quite confident we will see server mergers in 2 months.

Originally posted by ste2000

Originally posted by MattNe

Originally

Rift will end up having more subscribers than Swtor in few months time, mark my words

Marked, pray your words don't return to haunt you.

Currently there are 16 American servers for Rift.  100 plus American servers for Tor.

yes................. 16 servers half empty (or half full) that's why people are asking for a merge already.........1 month after launch.

I don't think my words will return to hunt me, I am quite confident we will see server mergers in 2 months.

Where you get these numbers at?? Took a screenie one day and seen some at light did ya? Lets see the link on this one, I'm callin BS on it. Lets see ALL these people screaming for merges already (oh and yes I do read the official forums too, lets see your proof here).

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by FlawSGI

Who's to say. I think I have seen a lot of the claims stating that drops would start at around the 2-3 month and not as many claiming within the first month. I woulda been the unsub before first payment myself. I think it was a little premature to claim substantial drop after first month but I also think it's premature to claim it will retain after only a month. The new car smell will wear off pretty fast, just quicker for some than others.

 

I will say this, TOR came out at a time wher there is a lack of options for some of those starving for a decent MMO so that will probably play more into retention than appeal to the RPG audience. I personally speak with my wallet and I was lucky enough to have a friend who got sick of the game and allowed me to play on his account as long as I forked over the $15 to keep the sub going for a month. Wasn't worth the money IMO but I am now one sub they will show as retention unfortunately.

The 2 - 3 month claims happened after SWTOR showed decent retention rates after the first month.  Alot of those wishing TOR to fail said it wouldn't keep a player base after the first month... now its the 2 - 3 month mark,  and if that doesn't prove true, we'll see 6 months to a year, or when X game releases.

 

Listen, I unsubbed too, and I like the game a lot,  I have almost every class to 50 now, and I've seen most of the stories whether it be in beta (which I played for 6 months) or in the live game.

 

That being said,  depending on what happens,  I may resub.  I'm looking forward to KOA,  but I also just joined an amaziing guild with a lot of people I like.. so that might actually keep me around for one more month... at least.

Not really true. While there are some who have switched from 1 month to 2-3, a decent amount of people were calling this game a 3 monther LONG before release. I myself was one of those people. My reason is simple, standard themepark MMO's just can't hold people very long anymore. If you were in beta then you should know about those threads discussing the longevity, or lack there of, of SWTOR.

The game X releases have been a wildcard for a while now, infact if you look back to the old "how many subscribers will SWTOR have" threads you will see them included. GW2, D3, and Secret World will certainly have an impact on SWTOR's population, this isn't something that just came up after launch.

3-6 months is when you'll truly see the outcome of the game. It took most players a month to hit 50 and they didn't really experience endgame before the sub period was upon them, so naturally the first month isn't going to be the final nail. Month 2 is when most people will experience endgame and make a decision to stay or leave. Month 3 is when the people who thought Bioware could put out a miracle patch realize that it simply won't happen. Obviously the 6 month people are going to be the hardcore fans that refuse to believe Bioware isn't going to make it better. Sorry to say it, but the game needs far too many changes to be able to retain players and they simply won't happen. The best that Bioware is going to do is keep adding content every 2-3 months and that lasts a week if you're lucky.

I am not english native man, it sounds like nonesense to me. "It appeals to the rpg audiance, rather than traditional RPG player" so the "traditional RPG player" is not part of "RPG audiance"?

I am the one who is saying that the game is dying now, not in 2-3 month, the game is dying right now at the very moment, and this process will take more than 6month, and the only way to prove otherwise or, for that matter, prove that it is dying, is to see the real subscribtion numbers for each week, for atleast 2 month.

Right now, it only talk

from gamelovers: i see 150 at republic fleet each evening

from not-gamelovers: game is dying look at the xfire, swtorarena charts.

I believe not-gamelovers, haters, whatever you call us, but there is no real numbers to discuss, what we know for real? only our own feelings about the game...

Originally posted by Fearmeirl

People still play this game? (being serious)

 

Not everybody pcked it up on December 20.  I didn't start until a couple of weeks ago, mainly because I was looking for something at least a little different from WoW, and the space setting appealed to me.

I think 3-4 months is a good estimate of how long I will stay.  I've played a bit of every class and not found one that is really "me".  It was also disappointing to learn that there are really only two stories in the game, so once I play a Republic and a Sith, and dabble int he endgame, I will be ready to leave.

Maybe I'll go back to GW while I wait for GW2.