|
|
7/20/08 2:27 AM
|
|
Viewed 259, Replies 27
|
|
|
People highlighted some very real problems with the original game (bugs, incomplete quests, lack of content, buff lines, mind pool attacks that couldn't be countered effectively). SOE's answers to these problems were the CU and the NGE. Both of these answers were extremely unwanted by the players. In fact work done in consultation with players was scrapped when WoW envy took hold. One of the devs for the NGE explained clearly that it was designed in part based on input from focus groups that contained ZERO current players of the game. It was designed to cater to the wants of some other target group, not the current players of SWG. So, to blame the players is really off-base in light of what people know about the history of the game.
|
|
|
|
7/20/08 2:12 AM
|
|
Viewed 606, Replies 60
|
|
Originally posted by kryten
No, if you've played both of those games since release, you're a masochist.
lol it is so strange to see people defend this game so. on one hand they say we ruined the game by being forced out by management and then sometimes they say we arent even vets. i suppose we should take it as acompliment as it seems we are all things to them!
Yup, it's pretty bizarre isn't it. One minute we're the vocal minority, the next minute we're ruining the game with all of our criticism of the NGE, and the next we're said to be the cause of the NGE. You'd almost think some people who post here have some kind of agenda... |
|
|
|
7/20/08 1:56 AM
|
|
Viewed 59, Replies 3
|
|
Originally posted by Mackerni I could give you a link to the documents, but I've noticed that those get edited by moderators. I'm concluding that the link is taboo then here for some reason. Some of the correspondents that participated in the work done on the CURB actually post on these forums, so you might hear something from one of them :) |
|
|
|
7/20/08 1:51 AM
|
|
Viewed 259, Replies 27
|
|
Originally posted by DrChicken Lol, your postulating isn't too complicated for me. Was that intentionally insulting, or do you just come across that way?
That was intentional, my friend. I'm sorry for it, but I tend to respond in kind when insults are made against me. I'll scoot along now - I'm not interested in proving how right I am anymore. "Move along." Feel free to scroll up for further clarifications if you're interested in further dialogue. As for being intentionally insulting, yeah I kind of figured you were. It doesn't really help your argument, or your credibility in my view. As for responding to insults you claim were made against you, will I certainly didn't intentionally insult you at any point, so I think your so-called retalition was unnecessary. If you found something I said insulting, I don't mind you pointing that out. If I can see it coming across that way, I'd gladly express myself differently. For the record, I respect you as a person, even though I disagree with your views at times, perhaps strongly. Something else I've noticed. The more people talk about what actually happened regarding SWG, the more SOE defenders seem to resort to insults. It usually starts with some kind of p.r. spin--like players are to blame for the NGE--but quickly degenerates to name-calling or more clever insults when embarassing facts come to light. You're very articulate, and clearly very intelligent, but I see them same old routine here, just with bigger words. Lol, at least I was insulted cleverly :) |
|
|
|
7/20/08 1:36 AM
|
|
Viewed 259, Replies 27
|
|
Originally posted by DrChicken
You have a habit for seeking me out - that you do. I applaud your efforts, but you fail to see the big picture. In the meantime, I'm sorry if my postulating is too complicated for you. I enjoy the fact that you can over-simplify my argument - good for you. I guess that makes things all the more simpler. My previous post was in regard to how the profit-margin is king - a group of disgruntled gamers cannot persuade any change in a profitable company if they do just that, make profits. This last post was in regard to profit-motive. If you have a large player base that is satisfied with the mediocre, then why bother trying to surpass that mediocrity and make something new and exciting? There's no insurance on how much profit you'll make if you use an entirely new system, not a system that is tried and true. This is why WoW, however good and popular you say it is right now, is ultimately a stigma to the MMO market. This is also the reason why the NGE was made. Lol, your postulating isn't too complicated for me. Was that intentionally insulting, or do you just come across that way? And, the NGE was made because SOE added 1 and 1 and came up with eleven, not because WoW was successful. If SOE learned anything from Bizzard, truly, the NGE would not have been their solution to their subscription decline. Also, if your company suddenly experiences a massive subscription drop off, do you really think that player feedback won't be considered? If it isn't, it should be. Maybe you're right though, maybe SOE doesn't look at things like that. They've surprised me time and again with how they do things. It's like they have a very unique sort of spurious logic that guides their decisions. Also, just so you know, I'm not seeking you out. Apparently the same topics interest us albeit for different reasons. And, I didn't mean to oversimplify your postion on anything. It seemed to me in one post that you said players have virtually no influence, and then in another, you seemed to give them an awful lot of power. That came across as contradictory, and made me wonder if you have some kind of agenda. |
|
|
|
7/20/08 1:33 AM
|
|
Viewed 182, Replies 22
|
|
Originally posted by Jatwhal
"Game Experience May Change During Online Play" is part of the ESRB rating. It is not a reference to the developers dismantling the product by turning it into the single worst MMO on the market. It is a reference to the fact than a "T" rated game may include content that doesn't fit inot the "T" rating, becuase other players might say or do things that are not confined to the rating on the box. Your other posts are just as clueless as the one I'm responding to. The changes made to SWG were not made for the folks playing the game, they were made in the hopes of making the game more appealing to the folks who didn't play the game. The end result was a game that appealed to neither the folks who used to play it, nor the folks who didn't play it. Outside of the Star Wars IP, the game barely appeals to the folks who currently play it.
Well no I disagree, it's not about the ESRB rating as there is a statement that covers the aspect you are talking about. On the contrary your clueless if you believe my other posts are, In fact if you believe those to be clueless I question how much you played SWG and how much time you spent on the official forums. You're talking about the statements in the EULA reserving SOE's right to enhance or update their game over time. What you quoted was in fact related to the ESRB warning. So you're making a valid point, but quoting the wrong information. If you want to research your argument a bit further, you may want to look at some case-law related to EULA's, and how in some cases they have been deemed unconscionable contracts. They have in fact been judged at times to be not binding as a result. In one case a company was ordered by a judge to change their EULA and pay punitive damages because it contradicted relevant legislation. Furthermore, reserving the right to update a game, does not allow a company to market one service while they are in fact developing and planning to deliver something else entirely. This is what would have got the State Attorney General's attention. It also got the attention of the Federal Trade Commission, and rightly so. Changes to videogames may not interest law enforcement agencies, but allegedly fradulent marketting certainly does. |
|
|
|
7/20/08 1:23 AM
|
|
Viewed 182, Replies 22
|
|
Originally posted by DrChicken
I politely disagree. SOE is still here to do what they did to SWG - they can still walk over the player base and rinse and repeat what they did as far as the NGE and CU. Have the "vets" forced SOE to acknowledge their profit-motives and how they affect their games? No. Have the "vets" provided an example for all other developers and publishers out there that such actions are intolerable (you even point these things out for me)? No, Funcom, among many, many others, illustrated that these shenanigans continue to exist in the MMO department. The real changes were never made -all the "vets" got were some puny little refunds and some petty content added. Real change has yet to occur. Sorry. Well, I'll agree with you on this: more change in the MMO industry in the direction of honest communication with consumers would be very welcome. Working on it :) This stuff takes time. The last piece of legislation I consulted on professionally took about 10 years to come to fruition. Bill C-13, fyi. I don't think the expansion refunds were "puny" to SOE either, but I respect your right describe them this way. I also don't think the lost revenue due to mass cancellations after the NGE was puny either, but again, we can agree to disagree. Also, some of the restored content wasn't "petty" to those that really wanted it back. To others though, yes I agree, the changes were much too little too late. |
|
|
|
7/20/08 1:16 AM
|
|
Viewed 182, Replies 22
|
|
Originally posted by Jatwhal
You really don't know what happened in response to the NGE do you? The more you post about this stuff, the more it seems you've been out of the loop. |
|
|
|
7/20/08 1:11 AM
|
|
Viewed 182, Replies 22
|
|
Originally posted by Obee
The only people who accomplished anything were the ones who contacted their State Attorney General about ToOW. It wasn't heartfelt complaints that resulted in those refunds, it was the threat of severe fines. I don't know of anyone who recieved a refund for pre-paid time due to the NGE. It was SOE's policy to not offer any refunds for pre-paid time. That was something that a large number of folks complained about in the weeks following the NGE. Camps were not re-implemented to the game because of the current customers. It was an attempt to make the game appeal to the folks who quit due to the NGE. At the time camps were re-added, SOe had given up on the NGE appealing to new customers. That isn't to say that we haven't kept people from trying the NGE version of SWG. I'm sure we have. The reason I don't view that as much of an accomplishment is because those folks could have tried the current game, and they still would have been very unlikely to subscribe to it. The game is bad enough that it does a much better job of repelling new subscribers than anything we could ever do.
I'm thinking I should have used a different word than complaint for the title of this thread. I mean player action, feedback, input etc.. Contacting your state attorney general would be an example of player action in my view--a complaint with teeth. Some claims have been made that subscription refunds were also achieved via this channel. One other player posted that he got months worth of sub time refunded by copying the attorney general with a complaint letter to SOE. I'm going to change the title of the thread because I think "complaint" has unintended connotations. |
|
|
|
7/20/08 1:05 AM
|
|
Viewed 259, Replies 27
|
|
Originally posted by Rhoklaw Interesting list, I guess that's why I play City of Heroes and WoW. Me and a few million other happy customers. |
|
|
|
7/20/08 1:03 AM
|
|
Viewed 259, Replies 27
|
|
Originally posted by DrChicken
You know, in another thread you just tried to convice us that players really have no influence over MMO's. Of course, that thread was talking about player feedback having a postive impact. Now, you blame players for negative changes in the MMO industry. I think I understand your bias. Do you blame the players of WoW for enjoying a fun, functional and highly populated game? What's to blame? Is it the players' fault that companies like SOE see WoW's success, and try to take from their slice of the pie by coming up with a busted ass copy, and pushing it on an unsuspecting playerbase, after advertising something completely different? Players didn't ask them to do this. Dan Rubenfield and Jeff Freeman et al. came up with these plans within SOE when they were told to make the game better, and make it successful. Their solution was crap, and they are responsible for their own work and decisions, not the players that were then cursed by it. |
|
|
|
7/20/08 12:51 AM
|
|
Viewed 182, Replies 22
|
|
Originally posted by Hadean
I agree. I think voting with your wallet does send a stronger message. At the same time I think it's important to let companies know why they're no longer getting your cash. If you just leave, they may not get the message you're trying to send. |
|
|
|
7/20/08 12:46 AM
|
|
Viewed 259, Replies 27
|
|
Originally posted by Jatwhal Let's see now players, accountants, LucasArts. Whose missing from this equation? Oh yeah, SOE. It must be everyone's fault but theirs, even though their development team came up with the NGE. Yes, I think I see where you're coming from -_^. I think most of the people that read these forums will also get your drift. |
|
|
|
7/20/08 12:37 AM
|
|
V | |