Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Smed Maybe Not So Clueless as People Think
squeaky1
Member Posts: 172
As an avid SWG fan, I have been very unhappy with SOE over the last several years. That being said, and with all of the Smed bashing going on, it seems that maybe he's not so dumb as many people think.
People here need to face reality. As much as you may hate it, micro-transactions are here to stay.
- How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
- I don't know, but some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they?
Comments
And that is only because people are lazy and impatient.
No, Smed is as clueless as everyone thinks. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
i don't believe him to be clueless at all, and frankly, thats the problem. he is conniving, manipulative, money-grubbing, and a liar.
"There are at least two kinds of games.
One could be called finite, the other infinite.
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse
Sorry, but suits say stupid shit like this all the time. In Smed's particular situation, everyone should be looking to him for exactly the opposite of the direction the industry should be taking, or game creators should be following. The poster above this is right to a great degree. The dude's a crook in a tie.
Rule: if Smed says turn right, turn left.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
lol...right-on.
This is akin to looking up at a cloudy grey sky and predicting that it's going to rain, let's face it the writing is already on the wall more and more games are converting f2p with cash shop and a few of the new releases are revealing that they are going that route as well it's not like Smed is saying something that someone with half an interest can't already see with their own two eyes.
And for all we know this has more to do with him explaining to his stock holders why his games continue to not do as well as they should considering the name behind the company he runs.
Anyone thinking that any guy in that kind of job is dumb, is dumb.
That said, he is a greedy heartless businessman.
An honest review of SW:TOR 6/10 (Danny Wojcicki)
Who said he's dumb? Clueless sure but don't often hear people declare that he is dumb.
I don't think anyone's under the impression that MT's aren't "here to stay". Obviously they are.
As far as Smed... I don't think anyone thinks he's "clueless". I've seen him accused of many things... "clueless" is not one that comes to mind. Greedy, dishonest and deceptive do, however.
What I took away from his statements are "I'm taking SOE in the direction of more microtransactions with future products... so I'm going to now talk up microtransactions, and talk about it like it's an inevitability".
People always do this kind of thing when they're pushing an agenda of their own. Media. politicians/pundits... you name it. What they say, how they say it and when they say it is all very carefully planned for maximum effect. They're not just "speaking off the cuff" when they make statements like Smed has here.
The best way to get people to "buy into" something, or at least just "accept" it, is to convince them that "it's inevitable" or "it's already happening" or "it's better". It's a core concept in marketing. It's a core concept in political campaigning. It's a core concept in any situation where someone is trying to get others to accept or otherwise "buy into" something.
Just think about it.
We've had subscription-based MMOs for over a decade. The model has been successful and worked just fine. It still works fine. No one complained about it, other than some people who felt it was "too expensive". If there was an issue with a sub-based game, it had to do with the game itself being poorly designed or supported.
Cash-shops and microtransactions enter the picture.. and all of a sudden, almost overnight, "Oh... Subscriptions are out-dated", "they don't work", "they're antiquated", "they're not profitable", "not justifiable".. and so on. People now blame the failure of sub-based games on being sub-based (which is ridiculous), rather than being due to poor design or support (which is accurate now as it's always been).
Think back, maybe.... 3-4 years or so or longer. Do you recall any of those being common complaints of subs/P2P? I sure don't, and I was every bit as active on MMO-related forums then as I am now. Wanna know what else wasn't happening about 3-4 years ago? Cash Shops/MT's weren't being embraced, implemented and pushed by many (if any) western MMO developers. Coincidence? I think not.
It's all propaganda and spin and, guess who pushes it? You guessed it... folks from companies who just *happen* to have an interest in cash-shops and getting more people to accept it. The other type are the general proponents of it - particularly those with a platform (e.g. Aihoshi).
It plays into human behavior. By and large, people like/want to think of themselve as "hip", "current" and "in-the-know". If they can be convinced that subscriptions are "out-dated", "antiquated" or, simply "not cool"... then of course they're not going to stand by them. They don't want to be thought of as "antiquated" or "not with the times". Hell no. They want to be "hip" and "current!" They're gonna drop those "antiquated" subscriptions like the plague and hop on that Cash Shop/MT bandwagon as fast as they can! That's where all the "hip" and "forward thinking" people are! It's classic schoolyard peer pressure. People want to "be in the cool crowd".
So, the challenge for people like Smed is to convince people that F2P/Cash Shops = "Cool, Hip and Progressive", while subscriptions = "Old, Antiquated and Undesirable". And that's exactly what he and others in that camp are trying to push. As another example... How many times has Aihoshi referred to people who don't share his enthusiasm for F2P as being "in denial" or "misinformed"? It's exactly the same concept.
It's so transparent that I find it hard to believe there's anyone who doesn't see right through it.
And for one last nugget...
Is it any coincidence that when you see PR or company developers coming out and talking down the subscription model (even if they've used it for years themselves), that they also just happen to be moving toward microtransactions? (Hint: No)
If you read between the lines, it's pretty obvious why folks like Smed make the statements they do. Or, the guy from ArenaNet who stated how "developers have to justify charging a monthly sub fee". Well, they justify it by providing a gaming experience that people find *worth* that $15 a month subscription fee. It's really as simple as that. If people find it worth the cost, they'll pay it... just like in anything else.
And anyway, by that same token, I think cash shop MMO developers should justify why I have to spend an additional $5 on an item that I would traditionally be able to get by playing the game in a sub-based MMO; an item that would account for less than 1% of the overall game content. But you won't see people like Smed or other pro-Cash Shop folks bringing *that* point up. No way. That doesn't further their agenda.
Sad part is... the propaganda seems to be working.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Close, purely MT-driven systems are the choice of companies that either don't have the ambition to build a serious player base, or don't have the talent to retain subs. In SOE's case, definitely the latter.
As long as there are games like WoW - or soon, TOR - there will always be some developer who resides somewhere in between Mount Blizzlympus and asian tenement startup looking to try to hit on that success level. Sure, the residing king is slipping, but millions of paying subs are still millions of paying subs. When the day comes that someone reaches their level of success with an f2p title, then maybe that "MTs are the future" argument might be true.
Just another simple QFT
Brad McQuaid is the real con artist, with the crap he pulled releasing Vanguard like that? I think its safe to say now Brad may have been the visionary behind EQ1 but Smed musta did his part keeping Brad in check and down to reality.
Personally I don't mind Smed, I think hes made some mistakes sure. But I also doubt they were all his fault. He's got a tough job, before WoW EQ2 was in line to be the next big MMO and EQ1 was still going strong by all standards for MMOs at the time. Suddenly WoW changes the entire playing field and hes gotta answer for why this WoW game is doing so much better than SoE games?
Imagine you in that position? Would you say, "Screw you, I don't wanna make WoW clones! What? i'm fired?". Or...would you try to do anything you could to increase sales and entice the players to switch to your product.
Unfortunately, vision and making games for the hardcore fans can only go so far. Sometimes it comes down to, do I wanna keep my job, or do what i'm told?
I hope he's after money he is a CEO and not only has a business to run but employees to take care of.
The fact most of you here can't accept micro-transactions are here to stay and will only get bigger over time has nothing to do with being lazy its a friggen game after all how one plays it is up to them. The fact some people have extra cash to blow on a game/s they enjoy playing is something we will have to accept. When the world quits using the monetary system then we can look back and say what fools we were or weren't until then you me and everyone else who plays games will have to accept it.
I've been gaming since MUDS were around and the start of the internet. I personally don't care for micro-transactions but in a wolrd where stocks holders speak we have to accept people will do whatever it takes to make more money for a company. We as gamers can either choose to participate or not. Just because a company uses these transactions doesn't require us to buy whatever virtual goods they are offering.
Instead of arguing the inevitable maybe it would be more constructive as a community to point out why some of you don't want micro-transactions and the benefits of avoiding to pay your way through a game?
Just an idea...
If Smed was so bad at his job and clueless or dumb or what have you, he would have been replaced a long time ago.
Clearly he's doing some things right as far as the shareholders are concerned....
Amen, they dont hesitate to replace a CEO when he's under performing.
Smed turned the behmoth of the MMORPG industry into the laughing stock of the MMORPG industry and some people here reckon he isn't dumb?
He ran EQ and SWG into the ground and left planetside to crumble, he acquired Vanguard which was even by his standards a massive mistake. He went crazy horny for cash shops and put them into every game he could whilst pumping out a ridiculous number of expansions for EQ.
Next his brainchild or should I say brainfart "The Agency" which was his micro transaction (AKA pay to win) baby went tits up before launch and SWG went from a high of over 350k subs to 7k subs thanks to his genius and is now finally shutting down.
If Smed built a car it would be a bullshit powered travant that after 50 miles of crawling along the wheels fell off and engine exploded. Then you'd have to go to the SOE garage to get it repaired. Until one day you realise it'd actualy be cheaper to buy a Rolls Royce!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
Yeah it's called cut backs, he works more with the bean counters than developers. That's why his little project got cut and why all of SOE's games are bargin basement shite on life support. He runs them on the lowest grade technology with as few developers as possible.
Rather than improve a game or develop a new one to improve revenue he fires employees and cuts back on tech then introduces pay to win to the present titles. He will put as many titles on his sony life support as he can by offering Sony's publishing skills but that often goes wrong (anyone remember the PotBS fiasco?).
Share holders look at profit margins and balance sheets, he manipulates them with bean counters to make it look good. It works but it's sent SOE down the shitter because without investment the games can't improve however he is too afraid to invest since it's more than his jobs worth.
Is he doing something right? If covering his own behind to stay employed at the expense of the companies reputation and many employees jobs is what you call doing something right then I guess he is. The real incompitents are upper managment who should have fired Smed years ago.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
[/quote]
Yeah it's called cut backs, he works more with the bean counters than developers. That's why his little project got cut and why all of SOE's games are bargin basement shite on life support. He runs them on the lowest grade technology with as few developers as possible.
Rather than improve a game or develop a new one to improve revenue he fires employees and cuts back on tech then introduces pay to win to the present titles. He will put as many titles on his sony life support as he can by offering Sony's publishing skills but that often goes wrong (anyone remember the PotBS fiasco?).
Share holders look at profit margins and balance sheets, he manipulates them with bean counters to make it look good. .
[/b][/quote]
I really like how you're totally talking out of your ass and making the assumption he's manipulating the books. Who are you? an ex soe employee to make this statement?
Stop talking out of your ass and making wild accusations. I dont agree with everything he's done, actually far from it but i believe he must be doing some things right or else he would have been canned.
If SOE hadnt picked up Vanguard and PoTBS those games would more than likely be defunct and closed by now. Also they have announced more ressources for Vanguard. What's gona happpen to the game, who knows, but it's positive news.
The money IS in micro transactions. There will always be someone willing to gamble, gain an advatange, and even cheat and steal to the top. In real life advantages like schooling, experience, and wisdom get people ahead, while the obsolete complain. Cash shops need to be community driven and community maintained. Prices should always be low, content should be community in demand, and feedback from the community should be constant all month long to all year long. If people start mass voting for a mudkip doll for $8, then swing one in.
Do NOT cater to the idiots advocating for a totally free game. Instead, get the players in game surveys where atleast real honesty will come out. People who are addicted to being cynical brats that want everything for free are selfish and greedy. Developers now see that to cater to this new kind of animal (they are no longer considered human) they will put high cas shop prices with very unbalanced systems like exp scrolls that can't be gained inside game. These animals are what developers have listened to, and to put down these animals we must first truely gain solid word from the real people and players. Think of me what you will, but your cynicism is at a end. Evolve or die, and I'll glady evolve to counter such animals as the cynical selfish people created only to destroy. That doesn't mean I support every action or cash shop, I support those willing to bring great balance and a low respective price to their communities.
I struggle not with life, money, emotions, and world, but against old mindsets and selves to be proven obsolete in a age and time of rapid changes. Go create fun, so you can have fun.
They are forcasting the next five years based on what has happened in the last four. 2011 figures are obviously not going to be out yet. So the accuracy is questionable.
But it is very likely that as more microtransactions are made monthly fees will be impacted. But does this prove that MT’s are better? That would be the same as looking at the recession and proclaiming less wealth to be a good thing.
Short term, MT’s may get MMO’s out of a hole, long term they will have the sustainability of any other microtransaction model. Think about those other models, phones which are pay as you go or phones which are subscription, Pay to Watch TV or subscription TV. For some types of media MT’s work, like downloading books on a Kindle, but that’s rare. For the highest quality we need MMO’s to be subscription, MT’s are leading MMO’s into the land of second rate games.
I am sure those second rate games will be popular, graphics over content and so on. We are on that road already and they are. I have already dropped a few MMO’s over the last couple of years for this reason. People like me who do won’t be missed as for every one of us a hundred kiddies new to MMO’s will be ready to take our place. That’s life, you just move on.
I agree. That's my take on this also. Just like the console manufacturers talk up consoles taking over PCs, a publisher going the route of cash shops will talk up cash shops.
Oh, SW:TOR is going to die because it's a subscription game. Heh, I think not.
If anything the future is sub + cash shop for novelty items + free to play in the form of unlimited trial. Just like WoW is doing.
Smed losed any creditibility to me long ago , really what he says does not matter to me at all.
Talk about MT because he want them to take over , so is paiting it as inevitable like WSIMike said. It is ALWAYS like that , when ANY industry is trying to push something new on the market. It is always said it will be inevitable , they HAVE to said like that. Normal marketting strategy. Yet reality is that sometimes some new think succed and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they are partial success.
MT won't go away that is certain. Will pure P2P games go away? Don't think so , even if F2P part of the market will generate more revenue.
Whow.
Whow.
Whow !
I am normally against getting personal in discussions, but Whow ! Seriously !! Of all the things you could possibly have complained about !!! I am thinking very hard now what even more idiotic complaint anyone could have about McQuaid, and so far I'm coming up empty. Or wait - you could complain McQuaid sold Vanguard to SOE. After Sigil was bankrupt. Yeah, that would be even more stupid.
Brad had the choice between Vanguard this way - OR NOT AT ALL, EVER.
In fact, he didnt even had that choice. Very likely SOE could have forced him. They where funding the development, after all.
So where exactly is your point ?!?!?!? I fail to find any. You could as well complain that a bankmanager gave the bankrobber the money when the bankrobber was using a loaded gun.
You can complain about a lot of things with McQuaid - that guy was a brilliant game designer, but a lousy manager that did some crucial errors during the production of Vanguard, obviously. But you cannot complain that he was, in the end, forced to release Vanguard early and unfinished.
That was entirely the fault of SOE, not of McQuaid.
It's called a forced truth. Con (wo)men, charlatans, and sales (wo)men have been using it for years. If I say that the newest jackalope model is by far the best idea to ever come about, and anyone to say different is a misinformed idiot, and obviously doesn't know what they are talking about, automatically when you say something to the contrary you have become one of the misinformed idiots who don't know what your are talking about. That is a really broad and obviously farfetched example, but you get the idea.
Micro-transactions are nothing new. Server transfers, vanity pets, sparkly ponies, faction changes, race changes, character customizations, these are all examples of micro-transactions done in such a way that has no real impact on game play (using WoW as the example). As soon as they start to dictate the way a game is played, as soon as I can purchase any sort of character upgrade, as soon as it becomes mandatory for me to pay to access quests in a certain area, that's when I have a problem. Some of you may like that model, the f2p/p2w works for you. More power to you (for an additional $25 it will be even more power than that
).
I can see some smaller studios going f2p or even b2p with cash shops and micro-transactions for a first release in hopes of generating enough revenue to work on a bigger project with a bigger budget. As for the AAA studios and their IP's, for me, the subscription model works, and if you want to have a cash shop where I can buy the new sparkle pony, well that's fine. Just don't expect me to be riding that pony anytime soon.
Sorry, but MT ARE inevitable, it WILL happen in every game released and to ever released, whether its sanctioned by the game devs or not, so game devs might as well make a cut.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.