| 2144 posts found | |
|---|---|
Originally posted by therain93 Although...
You'll have to admit you're making a couple very big assumptions: Big assumption #1: They were indeed losing 10k subs per month. ( If there is proof of that... I haven't seen it yet.) Big assumption #2: They would have continued to lose 10k per month until every single player was gone. (I can't think of a single MMO where that has ever been the case. If someone knows of one... again, I'd be interested in reading about it. Even MMOs that were shutdown had subscribers up to the very last day).
With that in mind... it's a bit of a stretch to think that what they have now is better than what they would have had if they had done nothing.
Of course I'm making assumptions -- all anyone can do is make assumptions. It's not about hindsight, it's about foresight. Looking at it from the lens of executives in 2005, they would have had to make the same assumptions and say so "oh <bleep>, this game could be dead in 20 months if we don't do something." And as I alluded to in my last sentence, unfortunately it seems they didn't really make a good choice on what action to take... Yeah, I agree that part.
Although it still baffles me that they were willing to throw away 200k +/- subs on a gamble. It's not like SWG was the first MMO in existence. They knew at that time that 200k was very respectable. Sure, WOW was tearing it up and going into the millions of subs... but all MMOs before WOW had not done that. It seems a bit presumptuous on their part to think that a rushed re-vamp would be a mega-hit.
For me anyway the NGE lesson is about greed. Those in charge of SWG thought they could throw away the subs they had for a chance to gain many more subs. They were wrong. Instead, they lost what they had, and now are know as THE prime example of what NOT to do in a MMO. So, in the end, perhaps SWG served an important role in the evolution of MMOs.
|
|
Originally posted by therain93
Well.....at 10K a month, if there were 200,000 at November of 2005.....then there would have been no subscribers left by August 2007 at that rate, so yes, it could have been worse than the present. Clearly they felt they had to act. Now, of course, there's a difference between taking action and making the right choice about what action to take.... Although...
You'll have to admit you're making a couple very big assumptions: Big assumption #1: They were indeed losing 10k subs per month. ( If there is proof of that... I haven't seen it yet.) Big assumption #2: They would have continued to lose 10k per month until every single player was gone. (I can't think of a single MMO where that has ever been the case. If someone knows of one... again, I'd be interested in reading about it. Even MMOs that were shutdown had subscribers up to the very last day).
With that in mind... it's a bit of a stretch to think that what they have now is better than what they would have had if they had done nothing. |
|
Originally posted by Agricola1
Well it only has 7k subs now according to the figures I last heard from an insider, how bad could it have got without the NGE? In fact how bad could it have got without the NGE or CURB? Certainly no worse than the 7k and item shops crap it has today? Seems they wasted alot of time and resources to convince the playerbase to quit and play something else! Well done SOE! Gotta agree with that.
They would have had a decent-sized loyal fan-base still playing if they hadn't gone down the CU/NGE path. My guess would be somewhere in the 100-150k ballpark. Too bad that we'll never know what it's true potential was. It's hard to imagine a time when another MMO will eclipse the debacle that was made with the NGE implementation. |
|
|
Update for: 2/28/2010 EU: = 12,452 (Weekly Increase of 108) EU Active: = 2,226 (Weekly Decrease of 121) NA: = 8,778 (Weekly Increase of 281) NA Active: = 4,785 (Weekly Increase of 794) Total: = 21,230 (Increase of 2,574 since 11/17/2009) |
|
|
I personally think all this silliness over the $1 fee for the Trial is just forum banter...
In the end, it is an honest to goodness Trial that the general public can now participate in for DarkFall. Something that I've been harping about for them to get implemented since October of 2008. Sure, it would have been even better (for those not currently playing) if it was totally free. Sure, it would have been better if it was for more than 7 days.
I personally think it's a decent start from Aventurine, and I think they deserve a bit of kudos for providing it. (Yeah, I know... I've probably officially lost my skeptic/hater label now).
As an aside... Has anyone thought that Aventurine decided to charge $1 for their Trial for the specific reason we are now witnessing? Meaning that it has created it's own buzz and advertising for said Trial. Aventurine has done some bizarre things in the past... it wouldn't surprise me if this was one of their better decisions in the marketing arena. Just saying.
|
|
Originally posted by Kasmos
Too bad Aventurine never said it was a FREE trial, and it costs $1 to protect the current user base.
To be fair to toddze... He didn't say he was responding to Aventurine.
That being said, you are correct in that even before release technically Tasos said he "HOPED" everyone would be able to try the game for free before they needed to buy it. It was quite an issue back before release, and there was much discussion on the subject of a Trial at Release. Obviously that didn't happen, and it was where a lot of the initial distrust of Aventurine and Tasos started.
If I have time, I'll go back through my posts and see if I can find the exact quote. Doesn't really matter either way now... but I like to try and be accurate with my information.
If someone else has a link to the exact quote post it up.
EDIT: Found this old thread: www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/2487719#2487719 Quite a few of us who posted a lot before release were talking about the statement made by Tasos, but there was no link to it. I'll keep looking for a link to the quote. |
|
|
Can we get a lock on this thread mods... it's from last July... with the deleted posts it doesn't even make any sense anymore. Thanks. |
|
Originally posted by kcc9889 Heh... I agree with Darth on this one. The $1 isn't there to stop hackers. www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3411745#3411745
""We’ve also taken major steps to further improving our cheat detection and GM tools. We have a no-tolerance policy to exploiting and cheating and we will be strictly enforcing our policies as always." Quote by Tasos forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php
If you think $1 will stop hackers... |
|
Originally posted by Kost
Don't forget to mention whether you are on NA-1 or EU-1, might be confusing if someone tries to find you on one server and you are actually on the other :P This is a great idea though and I fully support it. All long time players should try and adopt-a-newb imho, I've already taken someone under my wing as well and they are having an absolute blast so far. Good to see you're on board with a Trial now, Kost. This is the type of thing that a Trial can do for a game, and far from being detrimental; it can be instrumental to a healthy and growing subscription base. You guys have the right idea to make the most of it with getting some of the Trial players to convert to a full subscription. Keep up the good work. |
|
Originally posted by toddze Yes, Tasos did say he HOPED we would all get to try the game for free before buying it.
Technically, you are correct... $1 is not FREE... but, it's close enough. Sure, I would have like for them to have offered a Free Trial for 14 or even 21 days... but this is a good start. $1 isn't something that someone who has a CC or a PayPal account can legitimately complain about.
If the $1 is stopping someone... they just aren't that interested in playing it. I can respect that, but let's call it for what it is. |
|
Originally posted by DarthRaiden Heh... I agree.
See, I had more faith in Aventurine than some of the fans. A Trial was always going to happen... it just depended on when. An MMO without a Trial is a dead MMO.
Sure, hacks are going to happen... probably a bit more now than before. But, in the end the extra players the Trial attracts out-weighs the negatives it brings with it.
Glad to see you're on board with the Trial though. After the initial rush, I'll give it a go myself. |
|
Originally posted by Kyleran
Yup, I agree Kyleran.
No sense jumping in when it'll be too crowded to do anything. I've waited a year... I can wait a few more weeks.
I wonder what those who thought a Trial was a bad idea think now? I guess Aventurine agreed with those of us who wanted a Trial afterall.
Just makes it a bit more funny when some put up their opinion on the subject just a few short days before Aventurine went ahead and released what some said was a bad idea, or was a long time in coming. (Remember... originally Aventurine was planning to have a Trial from day 1 of release). Don't believe me that some thought a Trial was a bad idea? Read this thread: www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/270336/Waiting-on-a-trial.html |
|
Originally posted by Hairysun
Lol ..... ~Hairysun~
Well... it's not like they didn't say those things just a few days ago.
Perhaps some will be brave enough to come back and comment... I doubt most will though.
In the end it's all good. DarkFall FINALLY has an (essentially) free Trial. |
|
Originally posted by Consensus forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php "Darkfall is about to have its first birthday and to celebrate we’ve decided to offer a Darkfall trial. You can now try Darkfall for a week for a symbolic price: 1Euro (EU servers) or $1 (NA Servers). After the seven days are up, users need to purchase the Darkfall client in order to continue. We recommend that you download the Darkfall Client before purchasing the Darkfall trial to maximize your playing time. Following are links where you can create an account, download Darkfall and get the Darkfall Trial North American Servers: North American Server Account Management European Servers: European Server Account Management
Community Publishers promoting the trial will earn their publisher fee as usual whenever a trial account is upgraded to a full account. We hope that you enjoy checking out Darkfall."
Not exactly what I was hoping for (Free and a bit longer).... but still it's a Trial that will allow those who want to be able to try out the game for next to nothing.
Now... I wonder if some of those in this thread who said what they did will come back and give their take on this?
Some key quotes: "I can tell you now not to hold your breath of a free trial." (Yeah, $1 is technically NOT free... heh, we'll see if that is said.)
"As for a trial?? I don't think Darkfall will come looking for you any time soon...."
"if AV put trials many ppl will take trial accounts to teleport hack/speedhack/etc farm chests or trade route trials=bad idea" (Does the $1 negate that? Or, is it still true?)
"Fear of ban has probably keeping a lot of people away from hacking. But knowing it would be just a free trial alt who would receive ban probably would make em care less ?" (So is $1 enough to keep people from hacking?)
"So the chances of a free trial anytime soon...very very small."
"If they don't fear they hack, and no protection will stop them..." (Is $1 enough of a deterrent?)
"What Aventurine knows, is that a trial is detrimental to the way there game is setup." (Guess they changed "there" game?)
"The game simply isn't designed in a way where a trial program could be easily implemented, which imho is a tribute to the complexity and aggressive nature of the game as a whole." (Is this still true?)
"AV isn't Funcom. they don't have dev hours and money to waste developing a system for people to try their game. (Read Tasos' post... guess they did afterall) UNtil some kind of "trial island" is developed, I just don't see it happeneing...and I don't see that kind of thing being developed soon due to money and time. Any other form of trial would cause more headaches than it would be worth, IMO. There's just too many ways that trial accounts could be exploited or abused." (Still true?)
"To be completely frank AV would offer a free trail if they needed to, the fact that they havent pretty much suggests that they do not need or want to right now." (Does the $1 negate this?... or, does it mean that AV needed to, or wanted to now?)
Perhaps some of those will offer some opinion on why Aventurine has decided to offer a 7-day $1 Trial now... considering what they said just a few days ago. Thanks, Aventurine. |
|
Originally posted by Esther-Chan Yup. Funny, that those who are arguing against a trial don't mention that part.
DarkFall's Devs thought a Trial was a good idea for DarkFall for 6-8 years (as well as ALL it's fans). They haven't said one way or the other since release... yet some fans claim it's a bad idea. I guess they know better than the Devs. |
|
Originally posted by TalRasha
"There are no hacks in the game. Sure there were some a year ago, but no one has seen one since." - Quote from multiple darkfall players.
Seriously tho, if trial accounts can be used to abuse the game, then that should obviously be fixed before they allow trial accounts. Trial accounts should not be a bad idea just because the game is hack/cheat friendly at this moment. (is it?)
Well said TalRasha.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say that DarkFall is basically barren of hacks... and then use hacks as the excuse to NOT do a Trial.
One thing most people seem to forget... DarkFall's devs had planned on doing some sort of Trial from the very inception of DarkFall. It wasn't until DarkFall was released that it became know there was not going to be a Trial. For the 6-8 years leading up to release it was always a given that there was indeed going to be a Trial.
NOBODY... not a single person... said having a Trial was a bad idea for the 6-8 years leading up to release. There were some skeptics who questioned the practicality of having a Trial from the beginning... but those skeptics were quickly shown Tasos' quote "proving" there was indeed going to be a Trial.
For some reason now the thought process has changed to... a Trial isn't a good idea for DarkFall. |
|
|
Update for: 2/21/2010 EU: = 12,344 (Weekly Increase of 3) EU Active: = 2,347 (Weekly Increase of 191) NA: = 8,497 (Weekly Increase of 118) NA Active: = 3,991 (Weekly Increase of 1,394) Total: = 20,841 (Increase of 2,185 since 11/17/2009)
|
|
Originally posted by therain93 Didn't articulate very well???
Umm... heh, o.k.
Perhaps these statements might have been what led to that:
"Two Thumbs Way Down" --- Yup, the title itself sets yourself up for being misunderstood from the very beginning.
"Clearly, there are some extremely ridiculous scores on this chart, scores that are making me physically angry just looking at them." --- Really? "physically angry" and "clearly" Perhaps, that's an example of not "articulating" very well?
"...some of which are inherent to how Metacritic "works"; and all of which can be abused and manipulated."
"Metacritic doesn't care if your review site is "small" -- your review is assumed to be as legitimate as one of the larger game sites, and given as much "weight"." --- Ahh... so now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Are you sure this isn't a tiff between the importance of metacritic vs. mmorpg.com? With statements like that it sure comes off as one. Again... why isn't mmorpg.com a member of metacritic? What happened to the application from back in August of '09? www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3027577#3027577
"I've come to realize that the aggregate review process fails badly when applied to MMOs, and those scores should be treated with the utmost suspicion." --- So then non-aggregate review scores are better? Wouldn't it make sense that an average of 30 reviews is better than a single review? Again... this type of statement makes your article come off as a jealousy piece. Is "re-articulating" it going to make that sound any different?
"So clearly, Metacritic scores, especially MMORPG ones, are wildly inaccurate and should be taken with a grain of salt, right?" ---Umm... how was that "clear" in the least? Again, you are making it seem like metacritic comes up with these review scores themselves. They are taking an aggregate of a host of review scores... which would be a BETTER example of a review score than using one from a single source... right?
"At some point in the last few years, the big publishers decided that Metacritic was the most awesome thing evah." "It literally makes me want to puke if I think about whether Metacritic scores were used to determine who got laid off last year." "Somehow, Metacritic became the quality yardstick for the video-game industry." "I've been at one company where a chunk of my bonus was directly proportional to the Metacritic scores of the projects I worked on." "If Metacritic is going to generate bogus scores for MMOs, it can't also be used as a financial tool to determine whether developers are successful or not. That's just not fair." ---Are you sure this is a case of just "I didn't articulate my point very well"?
Because it sure looks like it's a personal vendetta from here. Seriously... it's fine if you have a beef with metacritic... but don't try to be coy with us when we call you on it and say that you didn't "articulate" the point very well. I think you articulated the point you wanted to get across just fine... it's just that the vast majority of us were able to see through it and call you out on it.
Nicely played -- I didn't have the motivation to go back and pull apart his work quote for quote ( ' : Just bugs me when someone tries to play the... "I didn't articulate my point very well" card.
B.S.! If you're going to write a smear piece article like the OP did... have the decency to own up to it when you're called on it.
To come back and say that it wasn't articulated very well... bleh! I think the quotes from the piece speak for themselves.
How many times was metacritic cast in a negative light in that article? That was an accident? How many times was the OP's OPINION written as fact? That was an accident? Umm... yeah.
|
|
Originally posted by mmosnark There have been a couple of posts like this one. Which only goes to show that I didn't articulate my point very well. My bad. I'll try harder next week. However, I'd like to stress that I don't have a problem with Metacritic. I use it all the time. It's a very useful consumer tool. I was being a bit dramatic to show that Metacritic can occassionally spit out some spurious scores. But, i f you know how it works, you can work around these scores, or just go to the review sites you trust, or ignore Metacritic altogether. No biggie. What I really wanted to get across, and seemingly failed at, is that publishers use these scores in a very real sense. Bonuses at some studios are based on scores. Publishers use Metacritic scores in their earnings reports (which is mind boggling). As a working designer, I really don't want an aggregate review site helping determine how much compensation i get. And I really, really don't want Metacritic giving ammunition to big-multi-studio publishers looking to trim any fat. So, sorry for being a bit confusing. And thanks to everyone who's left a comment.
Didn't articulate very well???
Umm... heh, o.k.
Perhaps these statements might have been what led to that:
"Two Thumbs Way Down" --- Yup, the title itself sets yourself up for being misunderstood from the very beginning.
"Clearly, there are some extremely ridiculous scores on this chart, scores that are making me physically angry just looking at them." --- Really? "physically angry" and "clearly" Perhaps, that's an example of not "articulating" very well?
"...some of which are inherent to how Metacritic "works"; and all of which can be abused and manipulated."
"Metacritic doesn't care if your review site is "small" -- your review is assumed to be as legitimate as one of the larger game sites, and given as much "weight"." --- Ahh... so now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Are you sure this isn't a tiff between the importance of metacritic vs. mmorpg.com? With statements like that it sure comes off as one. Again... why isn't mmorpg.com a member of metacritic? What happened to the application from back in August of '09? www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3027577#3027577
"I've come to realize that the aggregate review process fails badly when applied to MMOs, and those scores should be treated with the utmost suspicion." --- So then non-aggregate review scores are better? Wouldn't it make sense that an average of 30 reviews is better than a single review? Again... this type of statement makes your article come off as a jealousy piece. Is "re-articulating" it going to make that sound any different?
"So clearly, Metacritic scores, especially MMORPG ones, are wildly inaccurate and should be taken with a grain of salt, right?" ---Umm... how was that "clear" in the least? Again, you are making it seem like metacritic comes up with these review scores themselves. They are taking an aggregate of a host of review scores... which would be a BETTER example of a review score than using one from a single source... right?
"At some point in the last few years, the big publishers decided that Metacritic was the most awesome thing evah." "It literally makes me want to puke if I think about whether Metacritic scores were used to determine who got laid off last year." "Somehow, Metacritic became the quality yardstick for the video-game industry." "I've been at one company where a chunk of my bonus was directly proportional to the Metacritic scores of the projects I worked on." "If Metacritic is going to generate bogus scores for MMOs, it can't also be used as a financial tool to determine whether developers are successful or not. That's just not fair." ---Are you sure this is a case of just "I didn't articulate my point very well"?
Because it sure looks like it's a personal vendetta from here. Seriously... it's fine if you have a beef with metacritic... but don't try to be coy with us when we call you on it and say that you didn't "articulate" the point very well. I think you articulated the point you wanted to get across just fine... it's just that the vast majority of us were able to see through it and call you out on it. |
|
Originally posted by mmosnark
Yeah, you got me. It does read a bit more whiney than I planned. I really just wanted to show that Metacritic is an OK (but flawed at times) tool, and, because of it's inaccuracy, should not be used as an internal tool by publishers. You can have one, the other, but not both. Note to self: less whiney next time. Thanks for the comments Any word on the application process that mmorpg.com did for metacritic back in August 2009? |
|
