Don't fool yourself. SE does everything they can to make as much profit as possible. So does Valve, and Bioware, and Activision... and every game company out there.
I think Bioware's market expert told them: Don't do anything. Trust in the force.
Now they just sit back and let everyone else do all of the hype for them. Great plan, and it's working.
Why do the graphics of XIV not suck then? Why is there no PvP?
For all of these things, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that more profit would be a given were both of these features implemented. Yet they choose not to.
Releasing the game on the PS3 is obviously a move to make lotsa profit. But a lot more could be done, which they choose not to do.
It's too bad not every move is for the customer's benefit, but hell, I'll take what I can get.
I would not be so bold as to say XIV's graphics do suck but they do not appeal to me so much. Why do you think no PVP is a good thing, an why is it a bad thing to include it if its what the customer will want?
its being released on PS3 because Square Enix depends on money from Sony now to complete its projects like XIV.
But apparantly you DO need to be a rocket scientist to understand risk management. Improving the graphics and adding PvP would require time, resources, and cash. They have made a business decision, weighing out the possible losses and profits, and have decided to spend LESS money. Making the game prettier and letting players kill each other wouldn't guarantee them more money than it would cost to implement them. So to maximize profit and minimize risk, the game is what it is.
NO move is for the customer's benefit. Not one.
I do not agree that they would spend less money that way, but I do agree that they prioritize their manpower and resources the way they see fit.
The only difference here is, who decides? The developers or the marketing experts? It's a decision of "what would make the game better" and "what would generate most income".
But in the end, frankly, going against the norm is never a riskless move. Doing your own thing is never riskless.
But anyway, I disagree that no move is for the customer's benefit. If the developers do not appeal to the lowest common dominator by making the game actually look GOOD, some customers, in fact, benefit from it. Is it just a side effect from maximizing profit, I don't know.
Rather, I'd say, there are business decisions that are better than others and please more people.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
But apparantly you DO need to be a rocket scientist to understand risk management. Improving the graphics and adding PvP would require time, resources, and cash. They have made a business decision, weighing out the possible losses and profits, and have decided to spend LESS money. Making the game prettier and letting players kill each other wouldn't guarantee them more money than it would cost to implement them. So to maximize profit and minimize risk, the game is what it is.
NO move is for the customer's benefit. Not one.
I do not agree that they would spend less money that way, but I do agree that they prioritize their manpower and resources the way they see fit.
The only difference here is, who decides? The developers or the marketing experts? It's a decision of "what would make the game better" and "what would generate most income".
But in the end, frankly, going against the norm is never a riskless move. Doing your own thing is never riskless.
But anyway, I disagree that no move is for the customer's benefit. If the developers do not appeal to the lowest common dominator by making the game actually look GOOD, some customers, in fact, benefit from it. Is it just a side effect from maximizing profit, I don't know.
Rather, I'd say, there are business decisions that are better than others and please more people.
You don't agree that it would cost them more money to develop or purchase a better graphics engine? Or to program pvp aspects into the game? If you can't agree with that, then there's really no purpose in this conversation. It's really a simple concept.
In general, they have to do things that please the customer in order to make money. But the money behind it is always the deciding factor.
I would not be so bold as to say XIV's graphics do suck but they do not appeal to me so much. Why do you think no PVP is a good thing, an why is it a bad thing to include it if its what the customer will want?
its being released on PS3 because Square Enix depends on money from Sony now to complete its projects like XIV.
I do not get why you think that S-E isn't incredibly rich. Multiple projects released this year have generated tons of profit, and the general opinion of the vocal public doesn't affect the fact that is that their games do Sell. They don't need Sony, and in fact there is no reason for them to not release the game for Xbox360 but they do not need Microsoft to succeed. Not to mention that they bought Eidos which I'm sure means that they're not doing too well... >_>
Less PvP content = more PvE content. For people that like PvE and not PvP, it benefits them.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
You don't agree that it would cost them more money to develop or purchase a better graphics engine? Or to program pvp aspects into the game? If you can't agree with that, then there's really no purpose in this conversation. It's really a simple concept.
In general, they have to do things that please the customer in order to make money. But the money behind it is always the deciding factor.
I think you are misunderstanding something here. FFXIV looks good, and yes, I'm sure developing or purchasing a new graphics engine must have cost them a fortune.
But it's all something that you do with the resources given to you. You don't really need to spend -more- money to develop PvP features, you just need to take the funds from other aspects of the game (like crafting perhaps?). In the best case the company can strike a good balance, but in the worst case every feature ends up being lackluster at best.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I would not be so bold as to say XIV's graphics do suck but they do not appeal to me so much. Why do you think no PVP is a good thing, an why is it a bad thing to include it if its what the customer will want?
its being released on PS3 because Square Enix depends on money from Sony now to complete its projects like XIV.
I do not get why you think that S-E isn't incredibly rich. Multiple projects released this year have generated tons of profit, and the general opinion of the vocal public doesn't affect the fact that is that their games do Sell. They don't need Sony, and in fact there is no reason for them to not release the game for Xbox360 but they do not need Microsoft to succeed. Not to mention that they bought Eidos which I'm sure means that they're not doing too well... >_>
Less PvP content = more PvE content. For people that like PvE and not PvP, it benefits them.
If you have planned for pvp that does not mean less PvE content. So your biggest arguement against TOR and for XIV is it will have more PvE because they didnt take time to generate a PvP experience.
Eidos was not major bonus. Do not recall mentioning Xbox360. Certainly, Square Enix needs Sony they have had a partnership since PS1, this partnership has kept both companies afloat in US otherwise Microsoft's Xbox and now the Wii would have long since run Sony's PS3 out of business. Square Enix was created because Square Soft was failing. Do not get me wrong I do like SE but they are repeating the same crap again and again. I do not see this as a sign for success any more.
If you have planned for pvp that does not mean less PvE content. So your biggest arguement against TOR and for XIV is it will have more PvE because they didnt take time to generate a PvP experience.
Eidos was not major bonus. Do not recall mentioning Xbox360. Certainly, Square Enix needs Sony they have had a partnership since PS1, this partnership has kept both companies afloat in US otherwise Microsoft's Xbox and now the Wii would have long since run Sony's PS3 out of business. Square Enix was created because Square Soft was failing. Do not get me wrong I do like SE but they are repeating the same crap again and again. I do not see this as a sign for success any more.
I don't really care to argue about XIV as related to TOR here since I know how that ends up. That derail was only loosely related to TOR and rather it is something most game developers do, not only EA.
As for your opinion about Square-Enix, I do not think that has anything to do with reality here.. but I respectfully agree to disagree since I do not think this conversation will go anywhere from this point onwards.
But if you think that FFXI = FFXII = FFXIII, I am frankly at loss for words.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
If you have planned for pvp that does not mean less PvE content. So your biggest arguement against TOR and for XIV is it will have more PvE because they didnt take time to generate a PvP experience.
Eidos was not major bonus. Do not recall mentioning Xbox360. Certainly, Square Enix needs Sony they have had a partnership since PS1, this partnership has kept both companies afloat in US otherwise Microsoft's Xbox and now the Wii would have long since run Sony's PS3 out of business. Square Enix was created because Square Soft was failing. Do not get me wrong I do like SE but they are repeating the same crap again and again. I do not see this as a sign for success any more.
I don't really care to argue about XIV as related to TOR here since I know how that ends up. That derail was only loosely related to TOR and rather it is something most game developers do, not only EA.
As for your opinion about Square-Enix, I do not think that has anything to do with reality here.. but I respectfully agree to disagree since I do not think this conversation will go anywhere from this point onwards.
But if you think that FFXI = FFXII = FFXIII, I am frankly at loss for words.
FFXI was not a bad game entirely. I played it for a while, EQ2 and WoW where just better games IMO. FFXII and FFXIII are in no way on the level of FFVII or even any of the FFs prior to FFX-2, but this is not the forum for that debate.
My opinion on Squre-Enix is of course an opinion and agree to disagree is logical here.
FFXI was not a bad game entirely. I played it for a while, EQ2 and WoW where just better games IMO. FFXII and FFXIII are in no way on the level of FFVII or even any of the FFs prior to FFX-2, but this is not the forum for that debate.
My opinion on Squre-Enix is of course an opinion and agree to disagree is logical here.
Yes. However 'repeating that same crap over and over again' when these 3 games are obviously more different from each other than FF7 to 9 ever were is just.. wrong.
I mean, one of them is an MMO. That's as different as it gets!
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
FFXI was not a bad game entirely. I played it for a while, EQ2 and WoW where just better games IMO. FFXII and FFXIII are in no way on the level of FFVII or even any of the FFs prior to FFX-2, but this is not the forum for that debate.
My opinion on Squre-Enix is of course an opinion and agree to disagree is logical here.
Yes. However 'repeating that same crap over and over again' when these 3 games are obviously more different from each other than FF7 to 9 ever were is just.. wrong.
I mean, one of them is an MMO. That's as different as it gets!
Dont get me wrong though that game did need an up date, and I truely have nothing against SE other then the reuse of same ideas for 20years now. Its good and bad, maybe I expect too much from SE.
Dont get me wrong though that game did need an up date, and I truely have nothing against SE other then the reuse of same ideas for 20years now. Its good and bad, maybe I expect too much from SE.
You do realize I could have said the exact same thing about WC3 and WoW, right?
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Dont get me wrong though that game did need an up date, and I truely have nothing against SE other then the reuse of same ideas for 20years now. Its good and bad, maybe I expect too much from SE.
You do realize I could have said the exact same thing about WC3 and WoW, right?
True but I would side with you on that as, blizzard is only using someone else's idea (flagship studios) who is no longer with blizzard. There is not an original idea left in all of blizzard. WoW sealed its fate.
Less PvP in a game does not mean more PvE. That's an odd way to associate MMOs and it's a pretty shallow one. Also, looking at the combat of FF14 compared to TOR, you can obviously see why Square doesn't see PvP as any type of main concept in their game. You can't have worthwhile or fun PvP with such a slow combat system. It's better to go outside, get 2 earthworms, and make them fight eachother.
As far as graphics go between the two games, one would have to be blind to think TOR is better graphically than FF14. FF14 has the advantage there, but graphics to many players isn't the end-all-be-all of their choice of gaming. Obviously it'll all come down to taste, whether you want PvP as well as PvE, or if you want only PvE with a slower, more deliberate combat system. The communities will both be great I'm sure, both games should do well, although FF14 will very much be a more niche MMO. So, that's my opinion on this whole FF14 vs TOR thing that's been floating around these forums.
On topic, I think this video made me feel a little better about the combat in this game. But people should not forget, watching developer released "combat videos" and basing opinions solely based on those is never a good thing. Watch player-made vids from betas, that's where you'll see the real way the combat flows.
Good point on the video Kyelthis, devs playing a game versus the actually paying customer will be much different, as players we always are able to do more then the devs, and the player usually is much more skilled then the devs aswell. Devs control the way they want a video to be seen, thus we will only see what they want us too on most occasions. From what i gather those toons are not even near the lvl 10 mark so I agree with another poster thats some of best lower end combat I have seen yet in an MMO, of this nature.
Good point on the video Kyelthis, devs playing a game versus the actually paying customer will be much different, as players we always are able to do more then the devs, and the player usually is much more skilled then the devs aswell. Devs control the way they want a video to be seen, thus we will only see what they want us too on most occasions. From what i gather those toons are not even near the lvl 10 mark so I agree with another poster thats some of best lower end combat I have seen yet in an MMO, of this nature.
Agreed. One thing to remember about low levels in Bioware games (and a lot of others for that matter) is that the combat moves MAY appear very "clunky" because they are designed that way for a reason: to give the impression that the avatar is kinda amateurish in how it handles itself in combat at lowlevels. AOC's combat looked kinda that way at lower levels too.
But as the avatar progresses through the game they gain new versions of skills and entirely knew ones which have animations that look more "fluidic" as they are used in combat.
This is one reason why I would personally like to see a group combat scene where the characters are higher level to see the difference.
Comments
I would not be so bold as to say XIV's graphics do suck but they do not appeal to me so much. Why do you think no PVP is a good thing, an why is it a bad thing to include it if its what the customer will want?
its being released on PS3 because Square Enix depends on money from Sony now to complete its projects like XIV.
I do not agree that they would spend less money that way, but I do agree that they prioritize their manpower and resources the way they see fit.
The only difference here is, who decides? The developers or the marketing experts? It's a decision of "what would make the game better" and "what would generate most income".
But in the end, frankly, going against the norm is never a riskless move. Doing your own thing is never riskless.
But anyway, I disagree that no move is for the customer's benefit. If the developers do not appeal to the lowest common dominator by making the game actually look GOOD, some customers, in fact, benefit from it. Is it just a side effect from maximizing profit, I don't know.
Rather, I'd say, there are business decisions that are better than others and please more people.
You don't agree that it would cost them more money to develop or purchase a better graphics engine? Or to program pvp aspects into the game? If you can't agree with that, then there's really no purpose in this conversation. It's really a simple concept.
In general, they have to do things that please the customer in order to make money. But the money behind it is always the deciding factor.
I do not get why you think that S-E isn't incredibly rich. Multiple projects released this year have generated tons of profit, and the general opinion of the vocal public doesn't affect the fact that is that their games do Sell. They don't need Sony, and in fact there is no reason for them to not release the game for Xbox360 but they do not need Microsoft to succeed. Not to mention that they bought Eidos which I'm sure means that they're not doing too well... >_>
Less PvP content = more PvE content. For people that like PvE and not PvP, it benefits them.
I think you are misunderstanding something here. FFXIV looks good, and yes, I'm sure developing or purchasing a new graphics engine must have cost them a fortune.
But it's all something that you do with the resources given to you. You don't really need to spend -more- money to develop PvP features, you just need to take the funds from other aspects of the game (like crafting perhaps?). In the best case the company can strike a good balance, but in the worst case every feature ends up being lackluster at best.
If you have planned for pvp that does not mean less PvE content. So your biggest arguement against TOR and for XIV is it will have more PvE because they didnt take time to generate a PvP experience.
Eidos was not major bonus. Do not recall mentioning Xbox360. Certainly, Square Enix needs Sony they have had a partnership since PS1, this partnership has kept both companies afloat in US otherwise Microsoft's Xbox and now the Wii would have long since run Sony's PS3 out of business. Square Enix was created because Square Soft was failing. Do not get me wrong I do like SE but they are repeating the same crap again and again. I do not see this as a sign for success any more.
I don't really care to argue about XIV as related to TOR here since I know how that ends up. That derail was only loosely related to TOR and rather it is something most game developers do, not only EA.
As for your opinion about Square-Enix, I do not think that has anything to do with reality here.. but I respectfully agree to disagree since I do not think this conversation will go anywhere from this point onwards.
But if you think that FFXI = FFXII = FFXIII, I am frankly at loss for words.
FFXI was not a bad game entirely. I played it for a while, EQ2 and WoW where just better games IMO. FFXII and FFXIII are in no way on the level of FFVII or even any of the FFs prior to FFX-2, but this is not the forum for that debate.
My opinion on Squre-Enix is of course an opinion and agree to disagree is logical here.
Yes. However 'repeating that same crap over and over again' when these 3 games are obviously more different from each other than FF7 to 9 ever were is just.. wrong.
I mean, one of them is an MMO. That's as different as it gets!
Corret and FFXIV is FFXI made over.
Aside from the gameplay and music, yes.
Dont get me wrong though that game did need an up date, and I truely have nothing against SE other then the reuse of same ideas for 20years now. Its good and bad, maybe I expect too much from SE.
You do realize I could have said the exact same thing about WC3 and WoW, right?
True but I would side with you on that as, blizzard is only using someone else's idea (flagship studios) who is no longer with blizzard. There is not an original idea left in all of blizzard. WoW sealed its fate.
I'll bite-
Less PvP in a game does not mean more PvE. That's an odd way to associate MMOs and it's a pretty shallow one. Also, looking at the combat of FF14 compared to TOR, you can obviously see why Square doesn't see PvP as any type of main concept in their game. You can't have worthwhile or fun PvP with such a slow combat system. It's better to go outside, get 2 earthworms, and make them fight eachother.
As far as graphics go between the two games, one would have to be blind to think TOR is better graphically than FF14. FF14 has the advantage there, but graphics to many players isn't the end-all-be-all of their choice of gaming. Obviously it'll all come down to taste, whether you want PvP as well as PvE, or if you want only PvE with a slower, more deliberate combat system. The communities will both be great I'm sure, both games should do well, although FF14 will very much be a more niche MMO. So, that's my opinion on this whole FF14 vs TOR thing that's been floating around these forums.
On topic, I think this video made me feel a little better about the combat in this game. But people should not forget, watching developer released "combat videos" and basing opinions solely based on those is never a good thing. Watch player-made vids from betas, that's where you'll see the real way the combat flows.
Good point on the video Kyelthis, devs playing a game versus the actually paying customer will be much different, as players we always are able to do more then the devs, and the player usually is much more skilled then the devs aswell. Devs control the way they want a video to be seen, thus we will only see what they want us too on most occasions. From what i gather those toons are not even near the lvl 10 mark so I agree with another poster thats some of best lower end combat I have seen yet in an MMO, of this nature.
Agreed. One thing to remember about low levels in Bioware games (and a lot of others for that matter) is that the combat moves MAY appear very "clunky" because they are designed that way for a reason: to give the impression that the avatar is kinda amateurish in how it handles itself in combat at lowlevels. AOC's combat looked kinda that way at lower levels too.
But as the avatar progresses through the game they gain new versions of skills and entirely knew ones which have animations that look more "fluidic" as they are used in combat.
This is one reason why I would personally like to see a group combat scene where the characters are higher level to see the difference.
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's