Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What *really* has the SOE apologisits all stirred up?
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Smedley's own statements are that the game was self-supporting, but taht they 'wanted to do better."
One doesn't have to be gambling in a las vegas way in order to be still gambling in an immature business way. They did shabby research did not check their facts and made bad decisions, all based upon envy. These are things good, mature business people do not do. Ever.
If your business is making X dollars, and your competition is making 10X dollars, you do not screw your current customers to hope to capture some of the other guys 10X dollars. Anyone with any business experience knows this. Only kids and other unqualified people do not know this: people like Smedley, Torres, and Ward.
Well, I do have business experience as well as the "pleasure" of working in large companies. And there is a difference between self supporting and growth. Businesses that are in business for their own sake usually try to make ends meet, keep their employees as long as they can and essentially stay in business. Large companies have an obligation to their own stockholders and do not try to stay self supporting but strive for year over year growth.
Anyone who knows anything about business knows this. It is not enough to just have enough money to stay in business. If you can't meet your growth projections then you have to do something in order to change that.
And I'll add this, had smedly and his boys made the changes and attracted a far greater playerbase he would have been a good guy to his company and stockholders. They essentially tried to mimic a formula that they surely thought worked. Many companies do this. Heck, movie makers do this as well whcih is why you have many movies that seem to be rehash of older movies.
YOU were the one who said they supposedly did this because they were not sustaining themselves. I explained that according to Smedley's own words, they were. Now you are moving the goalposts to justify their bad business decisions. Interesting. I'll play your game though, being the magnanimous sort that I am.
Growth is a great thing, and yes, is the goal of every business. So what? None of that has anything to do with whether or not you screw your current customers in the name of growth. Mature business people know that growth comes from building on your base and making the right decisions, not pissing on your base and acting emotionally out of envy.
The "had Smedley succeeded" argument is moot. There is no way he could have succeeded, and anyone who knew anything about business predicted this. We turned out to be right. Again it shows immaturity, and what happens when people who do not understand business run businesses.
There are two reasons (among many I suppose) reasons that a company would do this. They were either NOT sustaining themselves or were not meeting their growth projections. If indeed they were sustaining themselves as per that quote then it was more than likely it was that they they needed more growth.
Whether or not a company or people in that company make smart decisions has nothing to do with maturity (and I am a bit suspect as to why you think that even figures into anything and why you keep throwing that around. If you want to argue as to what maturity is then that is another subject). We will assume that they have a modicum of maturity because of their age and position Does that mean they are the pinnacle of all that is mature? No of course not, but I highly doubt that people in their board meetings are sitting back, argueing and pulling the maturity card. Just because someone makes a business decision that you disagree with doesn't mean they are immature. Had they made this change AND succeded but disenfranchised a portion of their playerbase would this have been immature?
Immaturity has nothign to do with it. It is whether or not the business decision was a good one. Since they did not make the gains they wanted and disenfranchised a portion of the playerbase then it was not.
Still, companies do this. Look at the coke example. They tried it, it didn't work and they went back to orginal recipe. But then again their is conjecture that they did this for publicity's sake. (there was at the time a thought that the whole thing was planned out).
Apple moving over to OS X and then making the decision that they were not going to support OS 9 anymore also disenfranchised a portion of their customer base (and a good portioin at that) and forced them to either stay with OS 9 (unsupported), Move completely to OS X or not use their product anymore. And you know what? It was the right move as they believed that their product had a better future with the OS X platform regardless of the uproar of many customers.
You have this idea that public companies owe an allegiance to their customers and that simply is not the case. They owe their allegiance to the stock holders and their investments and if they belive they can make more money they will.
Actually immaturity had everything to do with it. Ward, Torres and Smedley are all immature businessmen who were out of their league.
You analysis is flawed in that the REASONS they did it have nothing to do with whether it was a good idea to do it, or whether it was the correct (mature) response to the possible two reasons you put forward.
The apple comparison is EXTREMELY flawed because they improved their product without making drastic changes, and no, they didn't disenfranchise their customer base.
Once again you resort to ad hominem. First you arrive making the claim that the people you disagree with are mentally ill.
Now, you are making false claims about me. A company owes no one anything. A company is a relationship, not an entity. I firmly believe that all a company owes anyone is to make money, lots of it -- generate more wealth than has ever before in its niche.
That has nothing to do with what we are saying. Every mature businessperson knows you do NOT do that by screwing your customers. The immature business people at SOE and LA also should have known this, but because they were way out of their league they did something no mature business person would do, and of course, as predicted bu the more mature business people who were their customers, they failed.
I use the term maturity because it is the correct one. The only people who would make the move would be people who are immature and inexperienced in business -- and that's just what Smedley, Torres and Ward are/were.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Coke went back to the original because they were losing market share to Pepsi over their formula change decision.
Your growth projection is spot on though. They were not meeting it...however that does not mean that they were not successful in the industry/genre at the time compared to the other active titles sans WoW at the time.
The bottom line is do they have more subscriptions now then they had when the made the changes? No...Therefore they failed. But what is worse is that they failed to admit it and revert back to what was successful.
Koster was right when he said that you have the customers that you have when you start. SOE failed to head a basic business rule...It costs more to get a new customer than it takes to keep one. Because of this they have a hugely tarnished reputation in the industry now.
WoW was the exception that blew up the curve and that is still true today. SOE spent all this time and money to copy Blizzard but failed to copy the one thing that set them apart. Polish...The shit WoW published for the most part worked with few bugs.
Well, that's an interesting point. Why didn't they revert back to SWG pre-NGE? Was it that they thought it would be a public relations fiasco to do so as admitting they were wrong might suggest that they had no idea what they did? Or was it too costly to revert? Did they think that they could ride it out?
And you are absolutely right, Blizzard brought polish and ease of use. I'm not sure that Sony understood how important that was to players.
No, they did not go back because they were immature in business, and too proud to adnit their error. More signs of immaturity,
fishermage.blogspot.com
If you lose your customers, then I'd think the stockholders would be pissed.
On the other hand, if you're an MBA out to maximize the short term for your own personal benefit, as in cashing in your stock options before the whole thing collapses, then, by all means, screw over your customers AND your stockholders.
They're just different flavors of marks, after all.
Yes that's true, of course. But if you lose some customers because you truly believe there is a greater customer base to tap into, one that you are sure you can do because you see that other companies are doing it then that is a business decision.
I have no doubt that they sat in their meetings and argued the pros and cons of making the change. do not think for one moment that they didn't know they were going to piss people off and lose customers.
I have sat through enough quarterly meetings to have witnessed some of the most amazing conversations, including the creation of the word "productizing" and "Productization".
Oh I know they sat their and made their bad, immature decisions that came from a lack of wisdom due mostly to inexperience and ignorance of how such things usually go. I have witnessed amazing conversations as well, but wise, mature business people never would have made the decisions these guys did.
fishermage.blogspot.com
A better phrase would be willfuly ignorant. I think that sums it up much more than immature.
A better phrase would be willfuly ignorant. I think that sums it up much more than immature.
Well, I don't think they were intentionally ignorant of things; I think they wanted to make money, but Smed and co were without business wisdom which comes from experience. That is why I say "maturity" and qualify it by saying "business maturity" most times I am using it here.
He, Ward, and Torres were three young men who were out of their league and blew it. They did not have the wisdom, that inner voice that comes from maturirty that tells you it's not a good idea to screw over your customers if you want to grow your business.
fishermage.blogspot.com
A better phrase would be willfuly ignorant. I think that sums it up much more than immature.
Well, I don't think they were intentionally ignorant of things; I think they wanted to make money, but Smed and co were without business wisdom which comes from experience. That is why I say "maturity" and qualify it by saying "business maturity" most times I am using it here.
He, Ward, and Torres were three young men who were out of their league and blew it. They did not have the wisdom, that inner voice that comes from maturirty that tells you it's not a good idea to screw over your customers if you want to grow your business.
I use the phrase willfully ignorant because the only type of market research they did was to invite a small group of SOE yes-men down to Austin, put them up in a nice hotel, feed them and then showed them the NGE. Now, if you're enjoying a free vacation from SOE you're probably going to have a pretty positive outlook on what SOE tells you at the time, right?
SOE didn't care what the current players were going to think about the game and as Jeff Freeman stated more than once they never even really gave us a thought while they were working on the NGE. They had also sold this bill of goods to LucasArts.
I still believe that the entire NGE was born out of Smed's insane jealousy over WoW which does show some immaturity but the fact that they proceeded to shove the NGE down our throats without doing any kind of market research meant they were more than happy to remain ignorant about its effects on the current players. Then after it all hit the fan and everybody left they are still unwilling to admit that the NGE was a bad idea. Willful ignorance defined.
A better phrase would be willfuly ignorant. I think that sums it up much more than immature.
Well, I don't think they were intentionally ignorant of things; I think they wanted to make money, but Smed and co were without business wisdom which comes from experience. That is why I say "maturity" and qualify it by saying "business maturity" most times I am using it here.
He, Ward, and Torres were three young men who were out of their league and blew it. They did not have the wisdom, that inner voice that comes from maturirty that tells you it's not a good idea to screw over your customers if you want to grow your business.
I use the phrase willfully ignorant because the only type of market research they did was to invite a small group of SOE yes-men down to Austin, put them up in a nice hotel, feed them and then showed them the NGE. Now, if you're enjoying a free vacation from SOE you're probably going to have a pretty positive outlook on what SOE tells you at the time, right?
SOE didn't care what the current players were going to think about the game and as Jeff Freeman stated more than once they never even really gave us a thought while they were working on the NGE. They had also sold this bill of goods to LucasArts.
I still believe that the entire NGE was born out of Smed's insane jealousy over WoW which does show some immaturity but the fact that they proceeded to shove the NGE down our throats without doing any kind of market research meant they were more than happy to remain ignorant about its effects on the current players. Then after it all hit the fan and everybody left they are still unwilling to admit that the NGE was a bad idea. Willful ignorance defined.
See, I never said Smed or anyone was jealous or EMOTIONALLY immature; just immature in business -- those are completely different things. Words are influenced, and the meaning changes, when you modify them -- as I did very clearly and enoug times to show what I mean.
I have no knowledge whether Smed is a mature person or not emotionally; I can see from his actions that in this case, he showed business immaturity. He lacked wisdom and it showed. he lacked forethought and it showed. Wisdom and forethought are the products of maturity which he did not have.
fishermage.blogspot.com
What I think is he felt that there were more of the other types of customers out there and that he was takinig a gamble that though he would lose a portion of his playerbase he would get more of another type of player.
so sure, one of the first lessons in business is to not lose your customer base but there is another lesson. If your current customer base cannot support your business (or bring in the profits that you want/require) then it is sometimes a priority to either extend to new markets or tap into a new customer base.
The current swg playerbase could not bring in the money they wanted, They saw that there was more money to be had and they went after that.
The second rule of business is that it is not gambling. We know from what the participants have said that they WERE making enough money to sustain the business, and the reason they decided to gamble was because they were greedy, envious of WoW, and wanted MORE than that. Again, it was a clear sign of business immaturity from the get-go.
Your customers are your investment base. To gamble that away is always folly. Again, it shows what happens when non business people run businesses.
I don't think it was a gamble in the las vegas way. I really think they had done their research and assumed that there was a larger group of people out there who were willing to play a different type of game and decided to go after that market instead. As far as whether or not there were enough people willing to play swg and support it properly, i've never seen any such numbers.
I have no doubt they wanted more money. Whether or not they needed more money is another thing. What was the playerbase just prior to the nge?
I'll also say again, if swg had 200k subscribers and a game like wow for instance started have significantly more, it would be an easy decision for the suits to start making changes so that they could try to capture that same market share. If there are millions of people who would play your game but your game only attracts a few hundred thousand then that initial playerbase will suddenly become less important.
there weren't any server mergers pre-cu even... are there server mergers post-nge?
methinks that is telling one way or another... yes?
could we please get correspondent writers and moderators, on the eve forum at mmorpg.com, who are well-versed on eve-online and aren't just passersby pushing buttons? pretty please?
"there weren't any server mergers pre-cu even... are there server mergers post-nge?
methinks that is telling one way or another... yes?"
Don't forget who you are dealing with. Everyone else that has played and enjoyed the game since the NGE is wrong. These are the same clowns that want a real life person to, let's see, be shot in the head, have his house burned down, etc...etc...
Like the game as it is now or not, in these "peoples" eyes you are WRONG.
Time to grow up....
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
It's pretty well known by now that the research that SOE/LEC did with regard to the NGE was completely flawed because they focus grouped non players, and completely failed to even consider the possibility of the veteran player backlash.
They did this because they knew the existing players would despise the NGE, and so were essentially trying to find a whole new customer base. Whomever even thought that this was even POSSIBLE in a 3 year old game was of course completely incompetent because they conducted this research in a vaccum without taking into account what the REACTION of 250K subscribers to the pre-NGE game would be when told to go suck it.
Basically the whole NGE fiasco proves that focus grouping does not work, nor does researchm when gone into with a flawed premise, or by omitting prime factors. I'd imaging the "target audience" who was focus grouped would have given drastically different answers had they been asked if they'd play this wonderful craptastic "new" game enhancement if it was done to an existing game and 200,000 odd people were told to "go pound sand".
Things like the NGE only arise from epically BAD management. In the case of SOE, that management largely remains in place. Which means you are only going to see further horrific mistakes in the future. Which is why I'd NOT count on SOE ever recovering, or even surviving in the long run. It may even be too late. Had SOE been purged of everyone responsible for the NGE, from Smed on down to Cao, Rubbenfield, etc, new managers brought in, the NGE rolled back in the weeks after the NGE, they might have turned it around.
But it's too late now, FAR too late. Not only is the NGE well past a retreivable position, so has the rot made SOE's ills incurable. They prove it by continuing to make horrifically bad decisions that piss on their customers, such as the TCG loot gambling and the sudden appearance of an EQ RMT store.
Instead, SOE continues it's usual ways of ignoring negative reaction to stupid decisions, silencing, banning, not admitting there is a problem until their name is dragged through the mud, then finally saying the problem is they "miscommunicated" then the inevitable promise to "fix this and communicate better in the future" until the next time they pull a boner and fail to "communicate" again.
Picking and choosing your extremes made by a few people to make your statement? In light of the quote you decided to include - if you are responding to it, I would suggest that you actually address the point. Which by the way, was a valid one.
Any SOE apologist who wanders into the "Veteran Refuge" is going to get what they are asking for.
I will never play swg again but if u guys havent seen there are some ppl trying to make a pre cu swg again its called swgemu heres the link fellow vets. www.swgemu.com/ its still in testing and i believe u use the same client soe used go take a look.
Yes but SONY has effectively censored this forum so people are not allowed to talk about such things. They pay for advertizing here, so they call the shots.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Sony hasn't censored anything here, you can't talk about it here because it isn't legal.
That said if SOE was censoring this place you wouldn't even have a vet forum now would you? and wouldn't all the other companies that pay for ads here be censoring things also?
"The great thing about human language is that it prevents us from sticking to the matter at hand."
- Lewis Thomas
Sony hasn't censored anything here, you can't talk about it here because it isn't legal.
That said if SOE was censoring this place you wouldn't even have a vet forum now would you? and wouldn't all the other companies that pay for ads here be censoring things also?
Firstly, it is far from fully demonstrated that it is illegal, so that's a false trail. Second, we may talk about many illegal thin gs on these forums, so that's another false trail.
You certainly MIGHT have a vet forum here if SONY was censoring this place -- it creates the appearance of the place NOT being censored, when the greater threat is censored. Lastly, only SONY is so paranoid that they need to control things so much that they censor people wherever they place ads.
Sorry, I'm not buying what you are selling. I've experienced the bias here first hand many, many times (as have most of us vets) and know you are incorrect in your conclusions.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Sony hasn't censored anything here, you can't talk about it here because it isn't legal.
That said if SOE was censoring this place you wouldn't even have a vet forum now would you? and wouldn't all the other companies that pay for ads here be censoring things also?
Why do you think the vet forum was created in the first place? Of course SOE has a say in the moderation of these forums. Advertising $$$ are more important to mmorpg.com than an open and vigorous debate about online games.
Sony hasn't censored anything here, you can't talk about it here because it isn't legal.
That said if SOE was censoring this place you wouldn't even have a vet forum now would you? and wouldn't all the other companies that pay for ads here be censoring things also?
Why do you think the vet forum was created in the first place? Of course SOE has a say in the moderation of these forums. Advertising $$$ are more important to mmorpg.com than an open and vigorous debate about online games.
Yes indeed. Originally all this discussion about pre-CU went on on the regular SWG general discussion area, but since that was all that was being discussed there (essentially disgruntled vets took over the SWG forums here due to so much participation), and the pro-SOE faction could not handle being challenged without engaging in flame wars, this ghetto was created.
I'm a current player and have been since August '03, so I am well qualified to know how the flaming here works, since BOTH sides view me as a traitor lol.
The pro-SWG side is much worse with regards to flaming and obnoxious behavior. The anti-NGE faction attacks SOE, John Smedley, and the game, then the pro-SWG faction attacks the poster as an individual -- usually attacking their mental health and completely ignoring what they said.
Both sides take general swipes at each other as a faction, but once again, the pro-SOE side is much worse in that regard. It is an amusing debate to watch from the center.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Sony hasn't censored anything here, you can't talk about it here because it isn't legal.
That said if SOE was censoring this place you wouldn't even have a vet forum now would you? and wouldn't all the other companies that pay for ads here be censoring things also?
Firstly, it is far from fully demonstrated that it is illegal, so that's a false trail. Second, we may talk about many illegal thin gs on these forums, so that's another false trail.
You certainly MIGHT have a vet forum here if SONY was censoring this place -- it creates the appearance of the place NOT being censored, when the greater threat is censored. Lastly, only SONY is so paranoid that they need to control things so much that they censor people wherever they place ads.
Sorry, I'm not buying what you are selling. I've experienced the bias here first hand many, many times (as have most of us vets) and know you are incorrect in your conclusions.
Since i have seen other companies shutdown people doing this with their games, not just illegal servers, i believe it is illegal, and other illegal topics here have been stopped but yes some get by they system.
We might have a vet forum here if SONY was censoring things but i highly doubt it, so unless you have hard proof, not just your gut feeling, then nobody is censoring anyone except the mods enforcing their rules (which i do know and have had them wrongly censor things, maybe i should claim someone is paying them to censor me eh?)
Maybe when you take off the tinfoil hat you won't be as paranoid as you seem to be.
Not selling anything by the way, just looking at things from a non paranoid view.
Besides don't call others out on Bias when you demonstrate Bias yourself.
Show me proof or your making crap up.
"The great thing about human language is that it prevents us from sticking to the matter at hand."
- Lewis Thomas
Sony hasn't censored anything here, you can't talk about it here because it isn't legal.
That said if SOE was censoring this place you wouldn't even have a vet forum now would you? and wouldn't all the other companies that pay for ads here be censoring things also?
Firstly, it is far from fully demonstrated that it is illegal, so that's a false trail. Second, we may talk about many illegal thin gs on these forums, so that's another false trail.
You certainly MIGHT have a vet forum here if SONY was censoring this place -- it creates the appearance of the place NOT being censored, when the greater threat is censored. Lastly, only SONY is so paranoid that they need to control things so much that they censor people wherever they place ads.
Sorry, I'm not buying what you are selling. I've experienced the bias here first hand many, many times (as have most of us vets) and know you are incorrect in your conclusions.
Since i have seen other companies shutdown people doing this with their games, not just illegal servers, i believe it is illegal, and other illegal topics here have been stopped but yes some get by they system.
We might have a vet forum here if SONY was censoring things but i highly doubt it, so unless you have hard proof, not just your gut feeling, then nobody is censoring anyone except the mods enforcing their rules (which i do know and have had them wrongly censor things, maybe i should claim someone is paying them to censor me eh?)
Maybe when you take off the tinfoil hat you won't be as paranoid as you seem to be.
Not selling anything by the way, just looking at things from a non paranoid view.
Besides don't call others out on Bias when you demonstrate Bias yourself.
Show me proof or your making crap up.
No, you show ME proof or you are making crap up. I am sharing my opinion of things; you are sharing yours. I am fine with that. For the record, I don't believe in attacking people the way you do, so I feel neither of us is making crap up (something I don't generally say), just sharing opinions based upon our experiences.
I believe they are censoring people here; you don't. I believe the censorship comes from SONY, since pro-SONY people have much more freedom here than the vets. the mods violate the rules to protect SONY. Not a gut feeling -- my experience here tells me this. Are there sites that have been created by pro-SONY people because they have been moderated off this site? No.
I feel that speaks the way the censorship goes around here.
You don't agree. That's just dandy. Neither one of us can prove it either way and we obviously have different experiences with the moderation and tactics on this heavily censored site. To me, that's all the proof I need to hold my opinion. For you, it's not. I do feel however that what little evidence we have jives with me and not with you.
Now, as to my bias, I am obviously one of the least biased here. I am a current player; sometimes I praise SOE, sometimes not. I get attacked from BOTH sides regularly for my positions. That shows that I am somewhere in the middle, and less biased than most.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I agree with this 100%.
Originally posted by Fishermage
"I believe they are censoring people here; you don't. I believe the censorship comes from SONY, since pro-SONY people have much more freedom here than the vets. the mods violate the rules to protect SONY. Not a gut feeling -- my experience here tells me this."
"I agree with this 100%."
And the conspiracy rolls on and on....
That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!
What conspiracy? I don't see any discussion of a conspiracy here...at least not the kind you are implying. Advertisers controlling the people they advertise in is not conspiracy -- it's what businesses do all the time.
But, appeal to ridicule is so much more effective than an actual point, isn't it?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Plus Slampig, the fact that you are here openly making fun of people in a way that would get someone from my side banned is most illuminating. It is interesting that YOU are allowed to do so, but the anti-SONY side is not.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The fact that you haven't been banned is proof enough for anybody.