Originally posted by lizardbones

 

The problem (at least on these forums) is that everyone who posts thinks that they know what that 'something' is, and it's always something that the person posting doesn't like. Anything else wrong with the game is irrelevant.

Some examples:
Mortal Online has a very poor subscriber count. Obviously this is because of the FFA PvP. Never mind the host of bugs, unfinished features, lack of polish and the history of lies the CEO has littered among the playerbase.

WoW's Subscription Numbers have dropped. Obviously it's how easy it is to level. Never mind that the new content required existing players to level all over again and there were no new classes added. And don't even bring up that the game is old and people have been playing for years. It's not that at all, it's because of the LFG tool (or something else the poster doesn't like).

And so on. Forums are full of dissatisfied armchair designers. It's not possible that they represent the playerbase in the details, even if the playerbase in general is dissatisfied.

 

Snipped just to trim it up. . . .

. . .which is why I never made any specific comments as to what the "something" is.  But just as an aside, isn't it ironic that most every mainstream subscription-based gaming Studio delivers more homoginous-type content games wrapped in a different dress, while suffering the same majority subscription decline 6-months to a year-out over the last several years.

Ever since Meridian 59 and UO, then leveraging Turbine and Sony's success in the mmorpg market by Blizzard with their Warcraft IP in WoW, most of the game design followers of WoW in this genre have lost more consumers that have purchased a box than they have retained.  Seems like an upside-down business plan to me.

With so much demonstrated disatisfaction by lost subscribership from box purchasers over such a short period of time, it's hard not to challenge that much of what the disatisfied posts are about does represent much of the dissatsfied player-base' attitude in-general.  It's just up to a studio to flesh-out the specifics with good'ol qualitative and quantitative research.  It seems obvious they haven't done it, or we'd see a shift in the unsubscription pattern, which doesn't seem to have been the case yet.

Originally posted by Mothanos

I realy wanted to play SW...

*snip*

I played EQ / Eve / AoC / GW / WoW / Aion / Warhammer and had a long relation with some of those mmo's.

But when i began to see footage of SW i was getting more and more disapointed :(

Major flaw in my anticipation was that i expected a little bit of Eve / Next Gen mmo style and got a pure wow clone in space instead :(

 I hope it succeed in holding players and dont end up like AIon / Warhammer who got drop kicked after 1 month time.

GW2 / Archage has my attention for the time being, but what a missed opertunity for Bioware to make a real space based mmo.

Dude, I don't think it was ever supposed to be a space mmo, and aside from it being far from "massively", I think that you'll at least enjoy the journey in swtor.  I take swtor as a very high-production story and game-play rich Bioware game that will probably justify the few extra bucks for the first 3-months in a cooperative online rpg environment.

Even though I can understand the appreciation for GW2 and Archage, I think that swtor will at least be a very enjoyable transient corpg.

Kudos to Bioware, and the pre-orders shouldnt be surprising.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by Cik_Asalin
Oh great.  Okay, I'll bite.  Another post where someone implies that their 'opninion' is more representative than someone elses.
 

---

Originally posted by Kyleran
While it is true that forum posters here are a minority of the total gaming population what can't be proven in any fashion is whether or not the opinions here are representative of the greater group.

---

 
lol.  What can't be proven in any fashion is whether or not a consumers' -or- potential consumers' opinion here is not representative of the greater group.
 
In a time where most entertainment gaming products over the last several years appear and play more like homoginous carbon-copies than not, box-sales to subscribership numbers show that though most consumers may not participate in forums actively, they do speak with their wallets, which can be reflective of quite a bit of the discord when compared to the less than flattering forum input about said entertainment gaming products.  
 
Just a consistent coincidence?  Perhaps. But a funny coincidence.  For example with these subscription-based mainstream labeled mmorpgs, Warhammer and AoC sold ~ 1 Million Copies which plummeted to ~ 200k sustained subscriptions a year later.  While Vanguard, Tabula Rasa, PotBSo, and STO never got off the block with probably only selling a measly ~ 300k boxes and only retaining ~ 75k sustained subscribers a year later (let alone TR cancelling).  And then there's Rift; it is slowly fading, but doing better than its' counterparts, though "customers" are defined as those who have installed and played the game but have not necessarily subscribed.
 
So to infer that consumers that have a bit more time to voice a disatisfied thought on a forum about entertainment gaming product(s) that has done poorly in the market, that their input doesn't have some merit, is a tad presumptuous.  But at the same time to suggest that that disatisfied voiced opinion should be taken as what is precisely wrong, is also a tad presumptuous.
 
What is perhaps far less presumptuous, based upon subscription-based mainstream entertainment gaming products not holding their box-purchasers attention 6-months to a year-out with a subscription, is that ~ 70% of said consumers are not interested in continuing to pay $15/month for them.

---

The devil is in the details. In general, forums goers who are dissatisfied with a game can reflect the opinion of a larger group of players, but the reason why they players are dissatisfied could be something totally different.

None of this changes the fact that forum goers are, by definition, a minority of the playerbase of any given game. They are a vocal minority by definition, because they are a minority and they've chosen to speak.

That doesn't mean developers should ignore forums, but it also doesn't mean developers should take all the extreme positions represented on forums as indicators of how to develop games either.

** edit **
The biggest clue that you can't really take forum posts as totally accurate is that they overwhelmingly represent people who are dissatisfied with the games they are talking about. If forums really represented the playerbase, there would be a more balanced opinion presented.

 

Which is why i specifically said that, what is perhaps far less presumptuous, based upon subscription-based mainstream entertainment gaming products not holding their box-purchasers attention 6-months to a year-out with a subscription, is that ~ 70% of said consumers are not interested in continuing to pay $15/month for them; [for whatever reason].

So while it's presumptuous to suggest that the consumers that do post dissatisfaction, though a very small portion of the base, it's also very presumptuous to suggest that those opinions don't have over-arching merit to suggest something really is unappealing in light of lost subscribership to a subscription-based mmorpg by a majority that might not post about it, for example.

Oh great.  Okay, I'll bite.  Another post where someone implies that their 'opninion' is more representative than someone elses.

Originally posted by Kyleran
While it is true that forum posters here are a minority of the total gaming population what can't be proven in any fashion is whether or not the opinions here are representative of the greater group.

lol.  What can't be proven in any fashion is whether or not a consumers' -or- potential consumers' opinion here is not representative of the greater group.

In a time where most entertainment gaming products over the last several years appear and play more like homoginous carbon-copies than not, box-sales to subscribership numbers show that though most consumers may not participate in forums actively, they do speak with their wallets, which can be reflective of quite a bit of the discord when compared to the less than flattering forum input about said entertainment gaming products.  

Just a consistent coincidence?  Perhaps. But a funny coincidence.  For example with these subscription-based mainstream labeled mmorpgs, Warhammer and AoC sold ~ 1 Million Copies which plummeted to ~ 200k sustained subscriptions a year later.  While Vanguard, Tabula Rasa, PotBSo, and STO never got off the block with probably only selling a measly ~ 300k boxes and only retaining ~ 75k sustained subscribers a year later (let alone TR cancelling).  And then there's Rift; it is slowly fading, but doing better than its' counterparts, though "customers" are defined as those who have installed and played the game but have not necessarily subscribed.

So to infer that consumers that have a bit more time to voice a disatisfied thought on a forum about entertainment gaming product(s) that has done poorly in the market, that their input doesn't have some merit, is a tad presumptuous.  But at the same time to suggest that that disatisfied voiced opinion should be taken as what is precisely wrong, is also a tad presumptuous.

What is perhaps far less presumptuous, based upon subscription-based mainstream entertainment gaming products not holding their box-purchasers attention 6-months to a year-out with a subscription, is that ~ 70% of said consumers are not interested in continuing to pay $15/month for them.

Here's another perfect example of pnihead developers that can't just implement "gear", without the nonsense.

As with every other mmorpg before it, Rift is an extremely casual, solo, cooperative friendly multi-player or single-player rpg; as with most games like it, it is more of a single-player rpg with a multi-player ability.  Anyone who hasn't tried it, even solo, would enjoy the journey I'd think.

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by Cik_Asalin

Very insightful and no-spin. 

There isn't one online-game that's labeled a mmorpg coming out this year or next that is "massive".  They will be CORPG's.

However, those same CORPG's will be fun, I'd assume, but at $15/month for a prolonged time? Not too sure, save GW2.

GW2 is not a CORPG. Many PvE events scale up to a 100 players, and there will be a lot more than that in the mists.

GW2 is in fact the furthest from a CORPG we seen in many years.

Not demonstrated or experienced.  Suggesting it is furthest from a CORPG is very misleading until it is demonstrated beyond a copy-written bullet-point or generalized statement from a podium.

Originally posted by precious328

"Massive" should be removed from today's MMORPG titles.

 

 

There is nothing "Massive" about 5v5 / 8v8 Battlegrounds.

There is nothing "Massive" about instanced PvP.

There is nothing "Massive" about a heavily instanced game

There is nothing "Massive" about a two faction game.

There is nothing "Massive" about funnel-like land.

There is nothing "Massive" about invisible walls.

 

The only things "Massive" about modern MMOs are the nickel & diming schemes, e.g., cash shops on top of monthly subscription etc.

Very insightful and no-spin. 

There isn't one online-game that's labeled a mmorpg coming out this year or next that is "massive".  They will be CORPG's.

However, those same CORPG's will be fun, I'd assume, but at $15/month for a prolonged time? Not too sure, save GW2.

Originally posted by Xzen

Wish I knew what you guys were talking about so I could find information for myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrwCd4oeuXc

LoL and MOBA game-play is far from a niche, and I was actually thinking about something similar as the OP.  Would be a very fun minigame, I'd think.  Particularly if rewards were tied to participation.

Originally posted by Elikal

*snip*  Another thing definitely is that soloism also made people arrogant. In the past, say in Everquest, you KNEW you were always dependent on others... *snip*

This right here is the backbone of current mmorpg design; studios have their mmorpg design plan and mechanics centered around soloism, personal selfishness, instanced cooperative play and independence as opposed to community cooperativeness and reliance.

Many know that not only hasn't this changed in the last several years, but it's to become more prevalent and will not change with labeled mmorpg's coming out this year or next.

Now that doesn't mean that I wont buy an entertaining game 'labeled' as a mmorpg, but which is clearly a corpg, it just means that I probably wont pay $15/month to play the same exact solo-play or cooperative content repeatedly, for an extended period, at $15/month.

Originally posted by Xiaoki

 

---

Originally posted by Zookz1

---

Originally posted by Himshim This has got to be a joke. Drowned in his own imaginary world of success.   

---

 The game sold over one million copies and has a healthy population.

---

Yeah, Rift is doing so well they had to "close" 20 servers after 4 months of release.

 

It's the trend of the themepark content model as a show of entertainment appreciation by subscribers.  Those types of multiplayer games play like single-player games and force mmorpg enthusiasts into the realization that there is nothing there that is worth a box purchase + a $15/month subscription.

This genre has seen that trend for years, and will continue to see it.  The majority of players that purchase a supposed mmorpg box have become mmorpg nomads and transients after being subject to these overly glorified lobby-system single-player / cooperative online rpgs while they are subject to playing the same instanced content ad nauseum.

Originally posted by Man1ac

With most you need to spend quite a while maxing the level of your character before you can indulge the end game experience.

So what approach do you guys who are in that position take? Do you play the MMOs which are designed for casual players perhaps, or just play an MMO you enjoy but you know you'll never fully enjoy the game because you don't have enough time to play them. Or am I just talking gibberish because there is always enough time to play MMOs even with a really busy life?

Your seemingly instant gratification attitude and entitlement slant appears as a broad assumption that beginning to intermediate game-play isnt filled, isn't fully chock with game-play encourangement, fun, interaction, content, etc. that is engaging and entertaning for casual players.

Granted that most mmorpg's are shallow cooperative rpg's with @ a 3-month shelf-life, since end-game content mostly consists of playing the same battleground map or dungeon map over and over and over again.  However, real mmorpg's are about more than that, the journey, progressively more challenging and community-centric organic player interactive progression and character development through open-world dynamic player-base encouraged and influenced mechanics and content; content that is bolstered by community interaction as opposed to npc interaction.

I might suggest that you might be better off playing MOBA's if that is your real attitude about the need to rush to end-game.  Moba's do fill a niche for myself.

Originally posted by Distopia

Will TOR be the last MMO built for those of us who prefer the traditional MMO mechanics it incorporates? With so many major publications beating on Bioware over their choices in design, I really don't see many following in their footsteps. Will the media push this industry into something it was never meant to be, action oriented?

I think Pre-Trammel UO, EQ, Asherons Call and EVE were the last traditional MMO's.  I see that most of the early-stage reviews and game-play videos that have been pouring-out from convention play, etc. has debunked SWTOR as a MMO, but more of a CORPG.

Trion with their Rift had injected an open-world dynamic ingredient that helped ward-off the single-player or coop-minded studio bend on the supposed MMO label, though needed more community and organic motivation and purpose to offer any game-play value to mount a coordinated and community-wide effort to thwart, with tangible and recognizable in-game repercusions,risks and rewards for either doing so or not doing so. 

Originally posted by GreenHell

If TOR makes money this style of MMO will be popular and emulated over and over again until another game with different mechanics makes more money.

And from my perspective, it appears that GuildWars already made money with this style of mmo, actually called CORPG, thought not at $15/month.  But where the world is a single-player interactive management lobby, though not a combative lobby, from which you instance into the pertinent character progression game-play within a personal space for accomplishments and core-content of game-play, whether it be PvE or PvP, for example.

So, no.  TOR is not the last.  The last already passed us by.

I'm an organic open-world pvevp themepark light mmorpg enthusiast.

I scoffed at the thought of LoL for over a year,but never publically on the boards because I dont post about what I have not played or don't have a very secure thought about.

I was wrong about LoL and am enjoying playing it.  Wish I had started it and within the moba genre a year ago for some immediate access coop fun.

Originally posted by lizardbones

I would think there would have been some beta testing or some announcements before now if Defiance is releasing before SW:ToR. Rift's advertising and feature announcements started waaay before they released the game.

I haven't even seen anything on Syfy about a new television show...which is kind of the point of the game.

I would have thought there would have been some PR as well, but regarding your "beta testing" comment; those days are over, right?

I thought that studio's have shown to develop from the inside-out around a pre-defined and hard-stop project timeline with concrete, unwaivering core design, content, and game-play mechanics that really doesn't require "Beta Testing" any longer. 

I just think of previous RPG's and most recently SWTOR where Bioware goes as far as to term it 'game-testing' as opposed to 'beta-testing'.

Originally posted by Distopia

"he comes to the conclusion this is a game for people who still enjoy and want more of the WoW-esque formula."

Which to me would be just like saying BF3 is a game for people who like the battlefield-esque formula.

 

 

Right. 

This has been a common recurring theme from most that play SWTOR, it seems, as reported, again.

Bottom-line is that this will be a fun cooperative rpg (not massively-multiplayer). 

But just as BF3 will probably be a fun cooperative shooter, it will get old in a couple of months, but I still dont have to pay $15/month to play it.

 I'll play SWTOR, and probably as yet another transitional themepark rpg, from the writing of most short-term reviews.  It does seem demeaning to the mmorpg moniker to call them, these types of games, an mmorpg, since its a CORPG.

But time will tell.  Though time has told us the same time after time, over the past several years,

Originally posted by czekoskwigel

I absolutely loved the game during beta.  It wasn't quite what I was looking for at the time, but that didn't stop me from recognizing it's good points.  The game was polished and pretty, which goes a long way.  I enjoyed the rifts and the impromptu grouping, it was an absolute riot!  I hate raiding, hate dealing with putting together groups, but this really made it fun.

I was very impressed with the dev team and how responsive they were to feedback, as well. 

I don't mean this in a bad way, but it's like WoW... WoW with more open classes... way better graphics.. a better crowd of people playing... new worlds, new stories, and engaging lore... and some dynamic content thrown on top! 

I think that combined with the open-world rifts and ability to auto-group for participation and the frequency of those open-world (non-instanced) raid-type encounters and game-play is what leaves Rift as the only themepark game on the market that does better justice to the mmorpg tag/definition, compared to its' competition.

Originally posted by maji

Sorry, but if you think SWTOR will be much different or much better than existing MMORPGs, you just fell for the hype machine.

Ya know, I didn't want to believe it, but with the ever so frequent "the game felt like a Star Wars-themed World of Warcraft punctuated all too rarely rarely with BioWare's typically high-quality storyline", my enthusiasm decompresses a bit more, leaving me wondering which mmorpg will I transition to shortly after SWTOR.  http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/10/01/mmo-impressions-from-eurogamer-expo-2011-part-2/