Originally posted by Raltar

Originally posted by Night_Hawke

Games that make money have a future, games that don't make money get shutdown.

Please tell me one game that was making money that got shutdown? TR was losing money, but if it could have paid its own costs it would likely still be here.

 

Again, this is wrong.

Money is part of it, but only part. The real deal is if a game has a chance to become a success in the long term. If every game that wasn't instantly making money got shut down right away there wouldn't be a lot of games out there. Hell, games wouldn't even be developed in the first place. When a company like NCsoft sinks over 100 million dollars into a game they don't expect to get a return on that money over night. They expect to get a return on that money over the course of many years. Thus, the FUTURE that the game is required to have.

If you look at a game and say: "Wow, in a year from now nobody will be playing this game because they will all have gotten bored with it" that is when a game has no future. That is the situation Tabula Rasa was in. They did not shut it down because it wasn't earning a profit TODAY, they shut it down because it wasn't going to be earning a profit EVER.

So again, give me an example of a game that was shut down because it wasn't earning money on the day it was shut down, when it might have been making money a year later. You can't do it. There is no such game. Games get shut down when they have no future.

And AGAIN with the whole opinion thing. Even that lunatic Rokurgetpa said: "SOE has a bad reputation and I agree they have done some amazingly stupid things to some good games"

Look though this forum, or any forum for that matter, and you will see that pretty much everyone feels this way about SoE, minus a few fanboys. So while YOU may like a few of the games SoE has decided to keep alive through the all access pass, most people do not. This isn't some opinion or some random thing I have made up. No survey is needed, just look around and see the common attitude people have toward SoE and their games. You would have to be blind not to see it.

You act like I'm some kind of Nazi who wants to shut down the whole industry. LISTEN to what I am saying. I don't want to shut games down for being small. I want to shut down games that are bad and I want to do it BEFORE people get invested in them. So its not an issue of SoE doing anyone a favor by keeping the game online for the small minority of people who like it. A bad game should never get that far. When its bad it shouldn't even be released. And if it does somehow get released and turns out to be unpopular, it should be closed down as quickly as possible, hopefully with refunds for customers who feel they deserve them, so that people don't find themselves getting screwed out of months or years of work (you know, the way SoE screwed people with the NGE).

SoE is the perferct example of doing this the wrong way. As was ponted out before, SoE didn't make Vanguard or MxO. They bought the games when development was already mostly done and the companies who made the games wanted to be rid of them. SoE knew at this time the games in question were bad but bought them anyway to pad the value of the all access pass. Their plan all along was to get games that were bad and sell them under the all access pass. This is how they are hurting people.

Do you get it now?

Now I understand. You think by profit we mean making back all the money immediately. Read closely by profit we mean making more per month than costs. The initial investment will not be made back overnight and anyone who knows anything about business understand that part. The point is games like TR get closed because they are not making enough money monthly to cover costs or ever make back initial investment.
 

I took TRs Quarterly report and came up with them making an actual profit in 2028. With initial costs and monthly costs they needed 21 years from release to finally get back to even.

Newsflash, if only a few people liked the All Access pass SOE would be in huge financial problems and probably have to close games like NCSoft has to do. I understand you got hurt by SWG, it is all so clear now where your hate comes from, but you need to move on and stop using words you seem not to understand.

If 40k people keep playing a game how do you know it is bad and should be shut down? We should listen to you? Just because a game does not appeal to you does not make it good or bad. You really have an overinflated feeling of self importance. These are games and it is a business, put on your big boy pants and get over it.

Originally posted by Raltar

Originally posted by Night_Hawke

Games that make money have a future, games that don't make money get shutdown.

Please tell me one game that was making money that got shutdown? TR was losing money, but if it could have paid its own costs it would likely still be here.

Again, this is wrong.

Money is part of it, but only part. The real deal is if a game has a chance to become a success in the long term. If every game that wasn't instantly making money got shut down right away there wouldn't be a lot of games out there. Hell, games wouldn't even be developed in the first place. When a company like NCsoft sinks over 100 million dollars into a game they don't expect to get a return on that money over night. They expect to get a return on that money over the course of many years. Thus, the FUTURE that the game is required to have.

If you look at a game and say: "Wow, in a year from now nobody will be playing this game because they will all have gotten bored with it" that is when a game has no future. That is the situation Tabula Rasa was in. They did not shut it down because it wasn't earning a profit TODAY, they shut it down because it wasn't going to be earning a profit EVER.

So again, give me an example of a game that was shut down because it wasn't earning money on the day it was shut down, when it might have been making money a year later. You can't do it. There is no such game. Games get shut down when they have no future.

And AGAIN with the whole opinion thing. Even Rokurgetpa said: "SOE has a bad reputation and I agree they have done some amazingly stupid things to some good games"

Look though this forum, or any forum for that matter, and you will see that pretty much everyone feels this way about SoE, minus a few fanboys. So while YOU may like a few of the games SoE has decided to keep alive through the all access pass, most people do not. This isn't some opinion or some random thing I have made up. No survey is needed, just look around and see the common attitude people have toward SoE and their games. You would have to be blind not to see it.

You act like I'm some kind of Nazi who wants to shut down the whole industry. LISTEN to what I am saying. I don't want to shut games down for being small. I want to shut down games that are bad and I want to do it BEFORE people get invested in them. So its not an issue of SoE doing anyone a favor by keeping the game online for the small minority of people who like it. A bad game should never get that far. When its bad it shouldn't even be released. And if it does somehow get released and turns out to be unpopular, it should be closed down as quickly as possible, hopefully with refunds for customers who feel they deserve them, so that people don't find themselves getting screwed out of months or years of work (you know, the way SoE screwed people with the NGE).

SoE is the perferct example of doing this the wrong way. As was ponted out before, SoE didn't make Vanguard or MxO. They bought the games when development was already mostly done and the companies who made the games wanted to be rid of them. SoE knew at this time the games in question were bad but bought them anyway to pad the value of the all access pass. Their plan all along was to get games that were bad and sell them under the all access pass. This is how they are hurting people.

Do you get it now?

 

@ Rokurgetpa: You seem unable to do anything but use childish insults and try to troll other posters by complaining about minor details in their posts, such as the definition of "everyone" or other irrelevant issues. Try actually listening to the POINT people have to make rather than trying to force your own opinion on them by insulting everything they say. Until you can do that I'm blocking your posts.

Yeah good idea. Because using a word like everyone is just a small point in your rants.  If you understood what I was saying you would not be acting like a child over this. When you say everyone knows or the majority agree, those are not irrelevant issues, they are the core of your opinion and post. You have proven you lack the ability to debate like an adult and I suggest you never unblock me.
 

I waited to see your reply before blocking you and I see I made the right decision. Not only did you feel the need to continue your childish insults, you still apparently refuse to see my point if you think the word "everyone" had anything to do with it. Take a second look at the RED TEXT in my last post. THAT is and always has been my point. See the word "everyone" in it? No? That is why you are not able to debate like an adult. And that is why I'm done talking with you.

Originally posted by Raltar

Originally posted by Night_Hawke

Games that make money have a future, games that don't make money get shutdown.

Please tell me one game that was making money that got shutdown? TR was losing money, but if it could have paid its own costs it would likely still be here.

Again, this is wrong.

Money is part of it, but only part. The real deal is if a game has a chance to become a success in the long term. If every game that wasn't instantly making money got shut down right away there wouldn't be a lot of games out there. Hell, games wouldn't even be developed in the first place. When a company like NCsoft sinks over 100 million dollars into a game they don't expect to get a return on that money over night. They expect to get a return on that money over the course of many years. Thus, the FUTURE that the game is required to have.

If you look at a game and say: "Wow, in a year from now nobody will be playing this game because they will all have gotten bored with it" that is when a game has no future. That is the situation Tabula Rasa was in. They did not shut it down because it wasn't earning a profit TODAY, they shut it down because it wasn't going to be earning a profit EVER.

So again, give me an example of a game that was shut down because it wasn't earning money on the day it was shut down, when it might have been making money a year later. You can't do it. There is no such game. Games get shut down when they have no future.

And AGAIN with the whole opinion thing. Even Rokurgetpa said: "SOE has a bad reputation and I agree they have done some amazingly stupid things to some good games"

Look though this forum, or any forum for that matter, and you will see that pretty much everyone feels this way about SoE, minus a few fanboys. So while YOU may like a few of the games SoE has decided to keep alive through the all access pass, most people do not. This isn't some opinion or some random thing I have made up. No survey is needed, just look around and see the common attitude people have toward SoE and their games. You would have to be blind not to see it.

You act like I'm some kind of Nazi who wants to shut down the whole industry. LISTEN to what I am saying. I don't want to shut games down for being small. I want to shut down games that are bad and I want to do it BEFORE people get invested in them. So its not an issue of SoE doing anyone a favor by keeping the game online for the small minority of people who like it. A bad game should never get that far. When its bad it shouldn't even be released. And if it does somehow get released and turns out to be unpopular, it should be closed down as quickly as possible, hopefully with refunds for customers who feel they deserve them, so that people don't find themselves getting screwed out of months or years of work (you know, the way SoE screwed people with the NGE).

SoE is the perferct example of doing this the wrong way. As was ponted out before, SoE didn't make Vanguard or MxO. They bought the games when development was already mostly done and the companies who made the games wanted to be rid of them. SoE knew at this time the games in question were bad but bought them anyway to pad the value of the all access pass. Their plan all along was to get games that were bad and sell them under the all access pass. This is how they are hurting people.

Do you get it now?

 

@ Rokurgetpa: You seem unable to do anything but use childish insults and try to troll other posters by complaining about minor details in their posts, such as the definition of "everyone" or other irrelevant issues. Try actually listening to the POINT people have to make rather than trying to force your own opinion on them by insulting everything they say. Until you can do that I'm blocking your posts.

OK, please don't insert words into my mouth, i NEVER said instant or overnight  And Don't assume to know what games I do and Don't like.

You can't say for fact that nobody would have been playing TR in a year. You can speculate, assume, Hypothosize that TR wouldn't have any population in a year but you cannot say for fact that nobody will play it. If you can, well can you give me the lottery numbers please?

They looked at TR and said they are not making any money right now and they have lost money for a year, so they canceled the game. They didn't say is it possible that nobody will be playing this game in the future? no? ok cancel. Nobody know that info, and to assume anyone does is absurd.

I feel their was a good chance TR would be making money in a year, you feel otherwise, neither of us have facts on that if the game was to continue.

LOL i don't care about SOE's rep. However Reputation by nature is opinion, not fact. That opinion might be based on fact or not but it is still an opinion.

As far as the station pass, enough people like it to make it profitable for SOE, so again not a bad thing, Not hurting anyone.

Wanting to shutdown a game that only a small portion of the people like is like saying its ok to do the NGE in any game as long as the majority like the changes. LOL

They bought those games to pad the value of the All Station Pass because some people still liked them and if the original company doesn't want those subs then SOE will take them in. So i am still not seeing how its hurting anyone at all, only helping those that want to remain playing those games.

Unless by hurting you mean not giving people who spent money and where disappointed their money back? Then i would say tough cry else were "you spend yous money, yous take you chances".

Originally posted by Raltar

I waited to see your reply before blocking you and I see I made the right decision. Not only did you feel the need to continue your childish insults, you still apparently refuse to see my point if you think the word "everyone" had anything to do with it. Take a second look at the RED TEXT in my last post. THAT is and always has been my point. See the word "everyone" in it? No? That is why you are not able to debate like an adult. And that is why I'm done talking with you.

I read the red text and once again it was more they knew this and they knew that and they are hurting people. You can not seperate fact from fiction from opinion. You had the nerve to call me a lunatic, then edit it and you accuse me of insults by pointing out that your opinion is just that one mans opinion and not based in any facts you can provide. Can you prove this was their plan or is this more of your facts that look like opinions?

SOE forces no one to play those games. SOE All Access pass is not mandatory to play other SOE games. You might have a valid point if they forced you to buy them all to play any SOE game, but they do not. And coincedently neither do you.

Originally posted by Raltar

I don't want to shut down small games. I want to shut down bad games. If a game has been around for less than a year and already the majority of people who know of its existence hate it, then thats a good sign that it is simply a bad game, a game with no future. This has been the case with the majority of MMOs that have been shut down thus far and I want this trend to continue. SoE is only doing a disservice to all gamers by keeping bad games alive as an excuse to milk people with their all access pass. Just because one of their bad games happened to get a tiny bit better doesn't excuse them for keeping bad games alive in the first place.

The problem with your argument is simple: what constitutes a "Bad" game is a matter of opinion.  Many people beleive WOW is a  bad game...that doesnt stop 12 million other people from playing it.   The shutting down of games is purely a business decision.   SOE has found a way to keep some games alive thru their access pass, and I say bully for them.  VG HAS improved significantly and many have attested to this fact.  As long as this model works for SOE  I dont see it as a disservice to anyone.  Gamers that dont like SOE games simply wont play them or participate in their access pass, no harm no foul.  Please get off your high horse already, are you the judge of what game should live and what should die?

there is a simple way to save this game though they will most likely never do it. it is simply let the players be the bane. so many possibilities with it yet it will never happen.

Originally posted by Night_Hawke

They looked at TR and said they are not making any money right now and they have lost money for a year, so they canceled the game. They didn't say is it possible that nobody will be playing this game in the future? no? ok cancel. Nobody know that info, and to assume anyone does is absurd.

I feel their was a good chance TR would be making money in a year, you feel otherwise, neither of us have facts on that if the game was to continue.

As far as the station pass, enough people like it to make it profitable for SOE, so again not a bad thing, Not hurting anyone.

They bought those games to pad the value of the All Station Pass because some people still liked them and if the original company doesn't want those subs then SOE will take them in. So i am still not seeing how its hurting anyone at all, only helping those that want to remain playing those games.

Unless by hurting you mean not giving people who spent money and where disappointed their money back? Then i would say tough cry else were "you spend yous money, yous take you chances".

Stop worrying about words and asking for lotto number like a child. When I say "everyone" or "nobody" those are gerneral terms. I don't literally mean 100% of the population of the galaxy. I'm sure there are people in Africa who don't care and I'm sure there is intellignet life somewhere in the galaxy which also doesn't care. Don't fall into Rokgetpa's trap of complaining about my arguement based on it not being 100% compatibale with the dictionary tatooed into his head. If you do that I may have to start making an issue out of how poorly spelled your posts are and I'm sure we don't need to drag this discussion down to that childish level like a certain someone around here, do we?

Tabula Rasa was shut down because it had no future. Seriously, it didn't matter to them thaty the game wasn't profitable to them now, today, instantly, this year or any other terms you might wish to infer that I used. What mattered to them was that it was a bad game, it cost them too much to develop, delivered too little and to top it all off Richard Garriot had made fools out of them by taking their money and running away with it to outer space. It was hurting their company to keep the game online and THAT is why it was closed, not simply because it wasn't making money.

Lastly, explain to me how SoE selling a game they KNOW is bad is okay. Seriously, if you can explain that in any way that makes sense then you need to apply for a job with Funcom to take over Cobra Solidus' job as their viral marketer for these forums. I've been asking this exact same question to the AoC fanboys and none of them has yet to anwser it. If a company sells a product they know does not qualify as meeting the standards set by their advertisement then how is that not wrong?

Maybe you see SoE as doing you a favor by keeping a game you or someone else likes alive, but how does that erase the fact that all the people who bought the game were spending money on a product that the seller knew did not meet the standard the buyer was expecting? This is exactly what happened with Vanguard. It was made by someone else, it was bad, SoE knew it was bad, SoE bought it anyway and then sold it themselves to other people without telling them it was bad. This is pretty much the definition of false advertising. Or fraud.

To sum up my point for you again in case you missed it: SoE sells bad games that they know are bad. Stop trying to ignore this by complaining about what words I used to describe it.

Just a friendly reminder kids, don't flame others. Comments on topic, don't attack other posters. If you have personal differences with another user, settle them like men.

Originally posted by Broomy

The problem with your argument is simple: what constitutes a "Bad" game is a matter of opinion.  

 Please get off your high horse already, are you the judge of what game should live and what should die?

As I've told the others: Stop getting worked up over which words I use to describe my point. Pay attention to the point itself.

I'm not a nazi, so stop acting like I'm on a "high horse" or "soap box" or any other tall objects. I'm not trying to determine which games should live and die. I'm trying to make the point that when a developer knows a game is bad they should not sell that game to the public when they know the majority of people who buy it will be dissapointed with it. Games which are not ready for release or are simply not good at all should never go on sale. When a publisher like SoE sells a game which they know is bad that is wrong.

It doesn't make any difference that they sometimes keep games a small number of people like alive through the all access pass. If you happen to be one of those people then lucky you I guess. But it doesn't help the people who lost money buying a game they didn't like.

Originally posted by Raltar

Originally posted by Night_Hawke

They looked at TR and said they are not making any money right now and they have lost money for a year, so they canceled the game. They didn't say is it possible that nobody will be playing this game in the future? no? ok cancel. Nobody know that info, and to assume anyone does is absurd.

I feel their was a good chance TR would be making money in a year, you feel otherwise, neither of us have facts on that if the game was to continue.

As far as the station pass, enough people like it to make it profitable for SOE, so again not a bad thing, Not hurting anyone.

They bought those games to pad the value of the All Station Pass because some people still liked them and if the original company doesn't want those subs then SOE will take them in. So i am still not seeing how its hurting anyone at all, only helping those that want to remain playing those games.

Unless by hurting you mean not giving people who spent money and where disappointed their money back? Then i would say tough cry else were "you spend yous money, yous take you chances".

 

Stop worrying about words and asking for lotto number like a child. When I say "everyone" or "nobody" those are gerneral terms. I don't literally mean 100% of the population of the galaxy. I'm sure there are people in Africa who don't care and I'm sure there is intellignet life somewhere in the galaxy which also doesn't care. Don't fall into Rokgetpa's trap of complaining about my arguement based on it not being 100% compatibale with the dictionary tatooed into his head. If you do that I may have to start making an issue out of how poorly spelled your posts are and I'm sure we don't need to drag this discussion down to that childish level like a certain someone around here, do we?

 

Tabula Rasa was shut down because it had no future. Seriously, it didn't matter to them thaty the game wasn't profitable to them now, today, instantly, this year or any other terms you might wish to infer that I used. What mattered to them was that it was a bad game, it cost them too much to develop, delivered too little and to top it all off Richard Garriot had made fools out of them by taking their money and running away with it to outer space. It was hurting their company to keep the game online and THAT is why it was closed, not simply because it wasn't making money.

 

Lastly, explain to me how SoE selling a game they KNOW is bad is okay. Seriously, if you can explain that in any way that makes sense then you need to apply for a job with Funcom to take over Cobra Solidus' job as their viral marketer for these forums. I've been asking this exact same question to the AoC fanboys and none of them has yet to anwser it. If a company sells a product they know does not qualify as meeting the standards set by their advertisement then how is that not wrong?

Maybe you see SoE as doing you a favor by keeping a game you or someone else likes alive, but how does that erase the fact that all the people who bought the game were spending money on a product that the seller knew did not meet the standard the buyer was expecting? This is exactly what happened with Vanguard. It was made by someone else, it was bad, SoE knew it was bad, SoE bought it anyway and then sold it themselves to other people without telling them it was bad. This is pretty much the definition of false advertising. Or fraud.

 

To sum up my point for you again in case you missed it: SoE sells bad games that they know are bad. Stop trying to ignore this by complaining about what words I used to describe it.

LOL, please i'll say it again don't place words into my mouth, I was using your terms the same way you used them. And please don't assume what i do and don't play. For the record i don't play a single game the SOE publishes. Does that clear this up for you I am not a fanboy. I just don't see how they are hurting anyone by giving people what they want. And if you wish to correct my spelling please do.

They cancelled TR because it wasn't making money, that's not my opinion that is NCSoft's own reasoning. You are assuming that its for other reasons, which is your right. But what they say is their reason is their reason. And how was TR hurting the company? By not making money.... not by not having a future in your opinion.

If someone wants to play Matrix online and SOE is willing to provide this service how is it bad? Yes i believe some of the games on the station pass are bad but thats my opinion, obviously their are people that like them and don't think they are bad otherwise the station pass would fail.

Your arguement is that finding a way to sell people the game they want to play is a bad thing because other people don't want to play it. Nobody is forced to buy the station pass, nobody.

So again how is this hurting anyone? Please stop avoiding answering this question by sticking words in my mouth and attacking my spelling :)

Originally posted by Raltar

Originally posted by Broomy

The problem with your argument is simple: what constitutes a "Bad" game is a matter of opinion.  

 Please get off your high horse already, are you the judge of what game should live and what should die?

 

As I've told the others: Stop getting worked up over which words I use to describe my point. Pay attention to the point itself.

I'm not a nazi, so stop acting like I'm on a "high horse" or "soap box" or any other tall objects. I'm not trying to determine which games should live and die. I'm trying to make the point that when a developer knows a game is bad they should not sell that game to the public when they know the majority of people who buy it will be dissapointed with it. Games which are not ready for release or are simply not good at all should never go on sale. When a publisher like SoE sells a game which they know is bad that is wrong.

It doesn't make any difference that they sometimes keep games a small number of people like alive through the all access pass. If you happen to be one of those people then lucky you I guess. But it doesn't help the people who lost money buying a game they didn't like.

OK this is a different point.

Yes releasing a game for the first time that isn't complete and will dissapoint the customer is bad, with that I agree. However no game is 100% bad and SOE is providing a service to the people that do like the game, which isn't a bad thing.

If you buy a game and are disappointed that sucks but "You pays your money and you takes your chances." Sorry it didn't work out.

SOE isn't providing a service for those whom don't like the game, they are providing a service to those that do like the game.

We will just have to agree to disagree about the Station Pass thing.

Originally posted by Night_Hawke

Your arguement is that finding a way to sell people the game they want to play is a bad thing because other people don't want to play it. Nobody is forced to buy the station pass, nobody.

So again how is this hurting anyone? Please stop avoiding answering this question by sticking words in my mouth and attacking my spelling :)

I'm not putting words into your mouth nor am I telling you which games you play. You are however still complaining about minor details while ignoring the real point of my post.

Show me where NCsoft said "We cancelled TR because it wasn't making any money." Because I just re-read their annuncement and it says "but the game never achieved the player population we hoped for" and nothing else about their reasoning. Sure, I guess I'm just assuming that they closed it because Richard Garriot wrecked the hell out of the game and made tham all look bad. But it seems I have the same amount of evidence to support that which you have to support your opinion that they closed it because of the money: Just personal observation. Neither of us can read minds and I'm not suggesting we can. But we can surely see what is happening right in front of us.

I explained quite a few posts back about how SoE is hurting people. Its not because they keep MxO or Vanguard going. Its because those games were bad games to begin with and SoE sold them to the public anyway knowing they were bad. Its really that simple. I'm not putting words into your mouth or telling you which games you play, I'm just telling you SoE sold games that weren't ready for release. That hurt people.

EDIT: I just saw your second post. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Raltar

Originally posted by Night_Hawke

Your arguement is that finding a way to sell people the game they want to play is a bad thing because other people don't want to play it. Nobody is forced to buy the station pass, nobody.

So again how is this hurting anyone? Please stop avoiding answering this question by sticking words in my mouth and attacking my spelling :)

I'm not putting words into your mouth nor am I telling you which games you play. You are however still complaining about minor details while ignoring the real point of my post.

Show me where NCsoft said "We cancelled TR because it wasn't making any money." Because I just re-read their annuncement and it says "but the game never achieved the player population we hoped for" and nothing else about their reasoning. Sure, I guess I'm just assuming that they closed it because Richard Garriot wrecked the hell out of the game and made tham all look bad. But it seems I have the same amount of evidence to support that which you have to support your opinion that they closed it because of the money: Just personal observation. Neither of us can read minds and I'm not suggesting we can. But we can surely see what is happening right in front of us.

I explained quite a few posts back about how SoE is hurting people. Its not because they keep MxO or Vanguard going. Its because those games were bad games to begin with and SoE sold them to the public anyway knowing they were bad. Its really that simple. I'm not putting words into your mouth or telling you which games you play, I'm just telling you SoE sold games that weren't ready for release. That hurt people.

 

EDIT: I just saw your second post. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

MxO was originally released by Warner Bros/Sega not SOE.

Vanguard was originally launched by Sigl Games online, then purchased by SOE.

SOE just bought them after they tanked and keeps them alive for the few people that do like them. I can't blame SOE for their intitial failure and those that got burned, that is the failure of the original owner.

Anyway since you agreed to disagree we will just leave it alone, i just wanted to make sure you knew the games history. :)

Originally posted by Raltar

Originally posted by Broomy

The problem with your argument is simple: what constitutes a "Bad" game is a matter of opinion.  

 Please get off your high horse already, are you the judge of what game should live and what should die?

 

As I've told the others: Stop getting worked up over which words I use to describe my point. Pay attention to the point itself.

I'm not a nazi, so stop acting like I'm on a "high horse" or "soap box" or any other tall objects. I'm not trying to determine which games should live and die. I'm trying to make the point that when a developer knows a game is bad they should not sell that game to the public when they know the majority of people who buy it will be dissapointed with it. Games which are not ready for release or are simply not good at all should never go on sale. When a publisher like SoE sells a game which they know is bad that is wrong.

It doesn't make any difference that they sometimes keep games a small number of people like alive through the all access pass. If you happen to be one of those people then lucky you I guess. But it doesn't help the people who lost money buying a game they didn't like.

You continue to miss the point that when you use words like everyone and everybody  that is a huge part of your point. If the basics like this elude you how do you expect people to truly understand your point of view?

You are now blaming a game company for someone buying a game they do not like? Well so what? People are going to buy lots of things in life and find out later they did not like them. Have you ever seen the clothes from the 1970s?  How about the economy right now? Do you think someone wasting some money on a game they do not like is as bad as the millions lost wioth the problems we are having?

You use language and fail to understand how it helps to create your point and opinion. What other people read here is the only way they get to know what you are thinking and all you tell them is to ignore the actual words and just understand the point, do you realize how impossible that really is?

Originally posted by Night_Hawke

MxO was originally released by Warner Bros/Sega not SOE.

Vanguard was originally launched by Sigl Games online, then purchased by SOE.

*head crashes on table*

Yes... that was exactly my point... SoE Bought the games from someone else even though they knew the games were bad...

Nevermind.

Originally posted by Raltar

Originally posted by Night_Hawke

Your arguement is that finding a way to sell people the game they want to play is a bad thing because other people don't want to play it. Nobody is forced to buy the station pass, nobody.

So again how is this hurting anyone? Please stop avoiding answering this question by sticking words in my mouth and attacking my spelling :)

I'm not putting words into your mouth nor am I telling you which games you play. You are however still complaining about minor details while ignoring the real point of my post.

Show me where NCsoft said "We cancelled TR because it wasn't making any money." Because I just re-read their annuncement and it says "but the game never achieved the player population we hoped for" and nothing else about their reasoning. Sure, I guess I'm just assuming that they closed it because Richard Garriot wrecked the hell out of the game and made tham all look bad. But it seems I have the same amount of evidence to support that which you have to support your opinion that they closed it because of the money: Just personal observation. Neither of us can read minds and I'm not suggesting we can. But we can surely see what is happening right in front of us.

I explained quite a few posts back about how SoE is hurting people. Its not because they keep MxO or Vanguard going. Its because those games were bad games to begin with and SoE sold them to the public anyway knowing they were bad. Its really that simple. I'm not putting words into your mouth or telling you which games you play, I'm just telling you SoE sold games that weren't ready for release. That hurt people.

 

EDIT: I just saw your second post. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Except NCSoft puts out a quarterly financial report and if you looked you could see TR and how much money they were not making. So no one needs to read minds to see TR was in trouble.  You see subscriptions are important because those pay the bills. A game with a small population needs to keep costs to a minimum in order to make money. You do understand that not reaching the population they hoped for also means not making the money they hoped for?
 

Your theory has nothing to support it, you are guessing. Some actual research into the subject would show you that money was the root.

Originally posted by Raltar

Originally posted by Night_Hawke

MxO was originally released by Warner Bros/Sega not SOE.

Vanguard was originally launched by Sigl Games online, then purchased by SOE.

 

*head crashes on table*

Yes... that was exactly my point... SoE Bought the games from someone else even though they knew the games were bad...

Nevermind.

Why would SOE buy a game it thought was bad and had no future? You obviously have no idea how a business works. No one risks millions in something they have no belief in.

Your theory seems to be that SOE buys bad games, does nothing to fix them and hopes the entire world,except you, is too stupid to notice. Do I have this right?