Originally posted by star

Marvelous :)

@Deacon, who knows? The forums get a lot of lurkers and attendance could be really high; or, alternatively, it could be like, 5 of us ;P

True.. and.. I dunno.. if MikeB is gunna be there... ::rolls eyes:: I don't know about this....

Originally posted by Ozmodan

And someone would fund that why?

I'm going to have to second this....   I don't know why they'd need it,  if it isn't popular enough for them to monetize it or keep it going, then I don't see any reason it should...

Besides they got this far without a kickstart....

Originally posted by DeaconX

Just so it's perfectly clear, this isn't really meant to be a guild - not one taken seriously anyway.  The only reason I'll be setting up the guild is for the beta to make it easier for us all to communicate :)

 

Absolutely not.  I wouldn't join it if it was a guild.

So..

Should we call you Guild Master or can we just call you "Boss"...?

Well,  I'm going to be there... so thats one.  I counted a few others on this board so.. I'm guessing no less than 6 people....

yup,  definitely 6 people or more.

Originally posted by Hurvart

Some of them failed to be as popular or generate as much profit as the hype and maketing wanted both players and investors to believe. That is a fail even if servers are still open. They simply failed to live up to expectations.

A "WoW killer" with 50K players is not a WoW killer. It failed to become that. And if maketing/advertizing supported by fanboys told you more ore less clerly it would be just that...well. Fail game is the only proper way to put it...

We have, on average about 3 major triple A MMOs, at least... all of which shoot for the "WoW Killer" status of popularity.. all of which are bound to fall short.  Even WoW wasn't meant to garner that kind of population.  

If every new triple A title received 12 million players worldwide, we'd end up with a lot more gamers then we could ever hope for,  or we would end up with a great, shifting population, with no real trends on what games people are looking to play.  It also, obviously, would never happen.

The thing about games -- like SWTOR for instance, they did give a clear indicator of the amount of players they needed to break even, and what they needed to appear profitable... and thus far, they have been in that profitable range.. at least until we hear more about the numbers.

The entire game hasn't failed yet, as  - in the off chance that it hasn't gained any profits yet,  theres likely a long way to go before there game seems unreconcilable in terms of generating money.  Maybe it isn't as popular as a lot of people hoped,  it isn't a bad game though, and certainly not a failure at this point.

Originally posted by Elikal

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Elikal

"I can acknowledge even a failed game did some things good. Even a failed game can offer fun for a bit of time. Failed does not mean EVERYTHING is bad. You can fail in math and still be good in sports. But if you fail in more subjects than you succeed, overall you fail."

But what are you even defining as success, to call TOR a failure?

It almost certainly reached profitability (if not immediately at launch, then 3-4 months out...which I think is about now, right?)

It certainly netted a larger than average chunk of players.

It certainly evolved the art of storytelling in MMORPGs (even though the presentation pales compared to Mass Effect.)

It's not a particularly big failure overall.  It's just kinda mediocre due to moment-to-moment gameplay lacking variety or decisions as high quality as WOW offered.

I see it a failure because what it could and should have been. I have written all my reasons why.

I see things this way: Game developers and gamers are at "war" with each others. Game developers want to make as much profit as possible with as less work as they can. We as gamers want as good games as possible for as less money as possible. It is a war of contradictory interests. They tell us how great their idea is and want to make us believe that so we give them our money. We want to make them make good and complex games, which of course is more difficult to make. There is a "war" of opposing interests. Game developers are not our friends. They are our enemies. We must make them make games as WE wish, not as THEY wish. Of course they want us not to see this conflict and pretend to be "one of us" which they are not.

..Hate to be you and have an outlook like that.  I hope you don't play anything I make.   Developers are not enemies, they are not friends.. they are producers in the same way the chefs at a local eatery are not your friends or enemies... they just make games and hope people want to play them.

Just like the sandwich you eat is described as "flavorful" or "delicious" in a commercial or on the menu,  its personal taste, and the restaurant doesn't fail if that sandwich doesn't meet your expectations.  Everyone has different tastes and wishing the worst on a company that doesn't cater to your very strict view is the exact opposite of what you really want, if you stop and think about it.

A developer - singular - is doing a job.  A company is making money to pay those developers. YOU are just a customer, if you choose to be.  You don't have to buy a game, you don't have to like a game,  but it doesn't mean the game is a failure,  it means you just don't like it.  If the doors are still open and the lights are still on,  for a company anyways, thats a good sign, whether what they put out is to your liking or not.

I'm going Charr Engineer.... then likely a Human Elementalist like I was in GW1.

mm...I'll do it.. however, even if we post our names here, it will be tough to find everyone with different starting areas and such.. even if we get on the same server...

If there was a guild however.... 

mm, those aren't my top 5,  but I guess you got to start somewhere. :D   Looking forward to beta next week!

While I'm excited to play the game and try something different,  I don't want to spoil anything when the game goes live,  so my plan is to create my own personal, dynamic events.  

One where I sit in the corner and cry uncontrollably.  One where I follow a fellow player around and tell them how attractive they look.   One where I pretend I'm some sort of well-to-do female celebrity who is new to games and needs "assistance".   Maybe an event where I roleplay a mount that nobody wants to ride due to fast travel.  Theres no end to the possibilities.

Originally posted by Karahandras

Originally posted by maskedweasel

I come here quite often and every other thread is about games that have failed..  but honestly, what is wrong with people?  People like to talk about how much experience they've had with MMOs... like its some kind of indicator that they somehow know whether a game has failed or not....

 

The truth is, we know when games fail,  we've actually seen it many times.  We saw it with Auto Assault,  Tabula Rasa, Dark and Light.. The Matrix Online,  and a host of other titles that actually failed with little to no hope of revenue recovery.

 

Signs of failure aren't always - server merges or layoffs or games going free to play,  those are usually signs of meeting the bottom line to either keep, create, of generate more of  a profit.  Theres no need for me to explain how to make a game profitable.  

 

Games like WAR, AoC, SWTOR,  TERA, Champions Online, STO,  LOTRO, and so on, are not failures.  At least, not yet.  Eventually they won't be able to sustain subscribers, or interest through item shops,  but its likely they all have many profitable years left,  so whats the hangup?  

 

Isn't it enough to just not like it?  It has to fail too?

 

Likewise with all this company witch-hunting.  If it isn't EA now, its Blizzard, or Valve, or Zenimax.  Just like with the games in question, we've seen actual poorly managed game companies... most currently whats going on with THQ, but theres plenty out there to choose from.  Why does it have to always be about a company, or some shady ideal, thought, or standard?  Why isn't it about just playing what you think will be fun?

 

Maybe I'm just finding a big disconnect with the... "modern gamer."

So you're saying there is only one definition of when an mmo 'fails' and it must be yours?

Likewise with company witch hunting.

No, actually I'm saying there is only one definition of when an MMO fails, and it is actually defined by the company and nobody else.

Originally posted by Pale_Fire

Agree with you completely, OP.

I think a large part of the problem is the number of self-centered narcassists that believe that any game that doesn't make the cut for them is a complete failure and should be thrown on the scrap heap.  And it shocks me at how totally callous this crowd can be, not caring one whit whether hard-working people would lose jobs if the game got what they believe it deserved.  The fact that there may be thousands of other players who enjoy the game means absolutely nothing to them.

There are plenty of games I don't like, but they aren't failures.  They just don't appeal to me. 

Unfortunately for us, it doesn't feel like that mentality is the majority of those posting on most forums today.  Its not just MMOs anymore that have to deal with constant "failure"  --  its single player games,  its multiplayer games,  its the companies that produce them,  the developers that create them.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't voice an opinion on what you don't like, or when you think something is just unappealing,  but I'm tired of everything being a "failure" even -- or especially,  when these games are still up and running for years, or still garnering a healthy population.

Originally posted by dsmart

Yeah, around here - we just ignore them.

As you should.

I always check in on this game, and think about retrying it every so often....  What is shown in the OP looks good, when I get some time I might just check it out.  

Keep doing what you do.

While Zenimax (and bethesda) has a pretty good reputation and decent financial position,  they've put out their share of flops too.  EA on the other hand,  I just don't see them trying to acquire Zenimax.. as honestly, there isn't anything strategically important they need right now from them.

A smaller developer would likely be the case here -- and honestly I'd see EA going after Mojang before Zenimax.

Rockstar isn't even on the map with the new GTA coming up, amongst others... they are looking at high profitability in just that alone.

EA would be looking to acquire something a bit more strategic... Zenimax seems like a gamble for the few IPs they hold - even if they are pretty well received.

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Torgrim

Originally posted by troublmaker

In philosophy there is a thing called a "language game."  The idea is that we all mean the same thing except we are using different langauge.  Thus people's disagrees is not two people having different opinions it is two people having a different word for the same thing.

The word "fail" has many applications and definitions.

When a damn fails and New Orleans is sinking we are referring to the concrete crumbling or some structural integrity breaking.

However we can also mean that the engineers who designed it failed because they did not design it to meet the demands of New Orleans

Or we could mean the state failed because they did not provide proper upkeep and maintenance.

Or we could mean that the damn simply fell over and broke... as in its no one's fault (an act of god).

Because of how we use language it is very easy (especially in forums) for two people to say two opposite statements and be referring to two different things.

For example if a person states "Age of Conan failed" and another states "Age of Conan did not fail" either they do not have the facts right or they both mean fail in two different ways.

An MMO can fail to meet expectations.

It can fail to sustain a population.

It could shut down all its servers.

It could have a corporate bankrupcy.

It could be a really bad game.

It could not meet design goals.

Because we mean so many things by "fail" it makes for great forum conversations.

"SWTOR fails"

"No it doesn't"

"Yes it does"

"No it doesn't"

When people define what it fails at is when you get the interesting forum discussion.

 

Well sead.

Very well said, but where did you quote this from, I don't see it above in the thread?

That's the real issue, you first have to understand what a person means by the term fail before you can hold a meaningful conversation.

If you hold to a singular definition (like the company closing its doors) you won't understand someone who feels that if a MMO doesn't garner at least a million subs and hold them for multiple years it is considered a failure in their eyes even if it makes a profit for 10 years.

Right now the standard pattern in most MMO's is to launch with much fanfare, with people feverishly buying new titles only to toss them quickly aside and game sub numbers declining rapidly until they end up F2P in many cases.

This is a failure to capture people's imagination's in my book, and how I judge titles for the most part.  If they can't start out and continue to increase sub numbers or at least hold a very steady customer base greater than 500K subs then in my eyes, they've failed.

Heck, the fact that most MMORPG Dev's don't have the courage to post their sub numbers (or how many people are really online on the server) points to failure right away, if you are proud of something you tell people about it.  Most of these titles have nothing to be proud about in that regard.

 

Failing for you doesn't actually mean something is a failure for everyone.  For example, saying ... "SWTOR is a failure because people are leaving, and they won't release sub numbers" doesn't mean its a failure by any stretch of the imagination,  it just means it didn't reach expectations that you apparently held for it to meet.  Perhaps it didn't meet the companies or investors expectations either... in that respect it could have failed to meet financial expectations --  but a blanket statement saying something is just... "a failure" ...  is facetious.

Holding a sub base of more than 500K is a really poor way to judge whether a game has in any way failed.   The problem today is that people expect that a game needs a certain amount of players to be considered successful...  when in truth, as long as the playerbase is healthy to garner a profit, the game is doing its job for development companies, and those playing.

If you want to say a game has failed in certain aspects for you personally, I'd be all for that,  but we don't see that often enough... most of the time its about .. "The game has failed, F2P in 2 months, skeleton crew, then shut down and on to the next one."  -- paraphrasing of course.  

Its easy to misconstrue what "failure" means, sure,  but in conext it makes it much easier to understand, and I believe my OP holds true.  Obfuscate how you'd like,  but here, on this forum, its not tough to discern the meaning behind those that feel a game has "failed".  

I come here quite often and every other thread is about games that have failed..  but honestly, what is wrong with people?  People like to talk about how much experience they've had with MMOs... like its some kind of indicator that they somehow know whether a game has failed or not....

The truth is, we know when games fail,  we've actually seen it many times.  We saw it with Auto Assault,  Tabula Rasa, Dark and Light.. The Matrix Online,  and a host of other titles that actually failed with little to no hope of revenue recovery.

Signs of failure aren't always - server merges or layoffs or games going free to play,  those are usually signs of meeting the bottom line to either keep, create, of generate more of  a profit.  Theres no need for me to explain how to make a game profitable.  

Games like WAR, AoC, SWTOR,  TERA, Champions Online, STO,  LOTRO, and so on, are not failures.  At least, not yet.  Eventually they won't be able to sustain subscribers, or interest through item shops,  but its likely they all have many profitable years left,  so whats the hangup?  

Isn't it enough to just not like it?  It has to fail too?

Likewise with all this company witch-hunting.  If it isn't EA now, its Blizzard, or Valve, or Zenimax.  Just like with the games in question, we've seen actual poorly managed game companies... most currently whats going on with THQ, but theres plenty out there to choose from.  Why does it have to always be about a company, or some shady ideal, thought, or standard?  Why isn't it about just playing what you think will be fun?

Maybe I'm just finding a big disconnect with the... "modern gamer."

Originally posted by DeaconX

Originally posted by Zaltark

The letter is from 2004. Its been like 8 years.

Sorry that was kind of the point - the guy I work with, left EA 1 and a half year ago and was telling me much the same.

That would depend what department he worked for, there are many facets of EA.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by fivoroth

Avoiding EA means I won't be able to play FIFA, NFS, anything that comes from BioWare, Battlefield etc. 

Don't worry.  The employees who made the old games you liked will leave and go to other companies soon enough, and then you can get new games from the same people, too, even if it's a totally different IP.

Most employees who put together those "old games" have little to no say in game direction.  Direction as a whole is rarely a shared vision,   the employees that create the games "in question" can only make it happen according to the costs imposed on them, or not.

Before the studio got bought out, someone was making the decisions on game design, and that someone was not an EA bigwig whose only real specialty is tricking people into buying bad games.

"Bad games" is subjective, and in truth, they are not bad games by any stretch of the imagination. BF3, ME3, and even SWTOR are great games.

The issue with BioWare is that they are fragmented into different studios now.  Thats not to say they don't have additional pressure due to a strong production company pushing them forward,  but for the most part,  direction hasn't been the issue with BioWares most recent titles,  and  - BF3 has in fact surpassed many expectations in the industry as a whole.

Fragmentation will undoubtedly dilute a strong cohesive direction,  but if you look at what BioWare is putting out now, it doesn't stray too much from previous titles.  

Its like saying, because you disliked The Matrix Revolutions,  that it wasn't created by the same people who created The Matrix.    Its rare for any company to strike gold every time...  in BioWares case,  I have a strong feeling its less to do with EA and more to do with fragmented direction and an overwhelming task of management from the (still in charge and involved) BioWare founders.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by fivoroth

Avoiding EA means I won't be able to play FIFA, NFS, anything that comes from BioWare, Battlefield etc. 

Don't worry.  The employees who made the old games you liked will leave and go to other companies soon enough, and then you can get new games from the same people, too, even if it's a totally different IP.

Most employees who put together those "old games" have little to no say in game direction.  Direction as a whole is rarely a shared vision,   the employees that create the games "in question" can only make it happen according to the costs imposed on them, or not.

It all boils down to dollars, unfortunately, and if you can't put something halfway decent out with EAs dollars behind you, then its usually mismanagement and poor direction.

FIFA, NFS, Battlefield, ME 1 - 3  and yes, even SWTOR, are not indicative of a poorly managed or failing company,  or even remotely close to a company you should "beware" of.

Originally posted by killion81

Originally posted by fivoroth

Originally posted by Bunks

At this point, I view people who buy EA products the same way I view people who eat lead paint chips. It's damn bizzare, and I know what's going to happen next.

Avoiding EA means I won't be able to play FIFA, NFS, anything that comes from BioWare, Battlefield etc. 

This is why you guys should play those games on your console :D They can't collect any info from you console can they especially if you only use it for gaming, not browsing etc.

 

I'd rather deprive myself of those "quality products" than buy something with an EA tag on it.  I may miss out on a few games here and there, but at least I'm not contributing to the destruction of good game development studios.

If you think the only company that does it is EA then you don't know much about the industry.

If nothing else, at least EA is managed somewhat responsibly.  Activision-Blizzard (or vivendi)  and especially THQ are pretty bad, THQ especially in the scope of mismanagement,  but people pick on EA because they have the broadest profile.

Say what you will but they put out some of the best games in the industry, hands down, whether "haters" choose to play them or not.