May-bee, just may-bee the MMORPG bubble is on its way to bursting as I think it is. With so many games struggling to find enough income to survive on Ye' OIde Subscription system and falling back into that "Freemium" model, it was hard to believe the market would have accepted TSW any warmer than it did.
Funcom have a few things going against them.
1) It was a new, refreshing idea that the genre, or sub-genre as Sovrath coined, badly needed. However, there is a limited amount of gamers in this sub-genre.
2) It was a risky, new idea that many players in this sub-genre weren't ready to take a $50.00 risk on (for now).
3) The payment plan was at par with how the rest of the members of the oligopoly set: $50.00-$60.00 box sale, $15.00 per month and a cash shop on the side for vanity Roars.
4) Funcom is a foriegn company-to some. Doesn't have the best reputation AoC etc. and some cautious gamers (like myself) are probably waiting for the first-nerd-herdtm to roll in and listen to thier feedback.
5) Poor timing going against GW2.
6) Poor marketing.
7) In the beginning they had a real good run with the ARG they had started, but then walked away from it in favor of teaser anouncements, interviews and trailers. I would have kept it going viral and given the community something to do in the meantime. We are gamers after all, let us play something.
8) MMO's are darn expensive to make. Taking in only $10,000,000 if they sold all 200k at $50 is only a drop in the bucket. Knowing the industry, they are in the hole for hundreds of millions possibly. I don't have any hard data on how much TSW cost to make and I am not going through the investor relation releases and balance sheets to find out.
9) Very cheap with the beta. Beta testing is now only used to pre-market games and it gives some gamers time-strapped not a lot of time to really get into it.
10) Once again, taking a chance on a risky IP. I have to say, that gamers are really used to only a few things and not willing to go against the traditional sword and board, ship and shooty genres. I do like the setting, for heaven sake how many other places will I be able to start of in New York! I will say one thing about Funcom, they like to take risks. I just hope this one doesn't mean the end of them.
But can someone please answer me: Would this world would have benefitted more from Anarchy Online 2 instead of Secret Societies R US?
The problem with reviews in general is that they have a very limited scope, especially in the case of MMORPGs. You'll very rarely see reviewers reaching halfway through the game before making their review, because they have to get it out there as fast as possible. Which is why I believe we see so many hyped up MMORPGs raise very high score with reviewers, but the complete opposite for the players. The reviewers are still in the honeymoon phase, the game's fresh, aesthetically looks different, seems different, and the game's shortcoming don't seem as prominent, yet. But as players continue to play in the beta, more and more issues rises and reality sets in. Some will choose to continue playing, others will leave. The reviewer's job is long done, so the game's score is often contradictory with the game's launch and it's following month.
I'll disagree with Bill on TSW being a niche game, I really do believe it is not a niche. I think the game simply did not meet players expectations, and what looked very amazing for the first week or so, quickly become dull and boring. Quite frankly, I view the use of the "niche" excuse as more of a cop-out than an actual reason to explain a game's success or failure. If the game is fun, people will play it, whether it is "niche" or not. Minecraft, DayZ, etc there's plenty of examples like this.
Originally posted by itsneo ... I am NOT a completionist, or hardcore end game raider (tho I certainly do enjoy it), in two short months, I have completed all 5 nightmares, ran through all the lairs, completed EVERY Quest but one. (Too Deep) and have killed EVERY rare mob in EVERY map. Sooooo.. I ended up being a completionist without even trying.
thats a matter of your point of view. i'm playing tsw since pre-release and i'm loving it. but i haven't even done half of what you list there. actually, i haven't even completed the regular missions yet - just arrived in transsylvania. ok, maybe i'm an unusually slow player, but to me, you do sound like the perfect example if a 'completionist'. :P
I seriously don't get it HOW can anyone say that with a straight face.
Hub based, linear solo way till end game composed of instance grinding for gear and tokens.
Hardly "ahead". More like "behind".
Unless you mean 'story'? Well Swtor showed how heavy story based experience pan's out in mmorpg's. So not really surpsising that it did not work in TSW.
If TESO is really like scarce information avabile and is also very story-heavy and 'online-rpg' rather than mmorpg - then it will also fail hard.
This doesn't surprise me. I think a ton of people learned not to trust Funcom after how bad they were with AoC. I think that factor plays a major role in how TSW went down. Could this be the end of Funcom? I guess they do live up to the name that people coined for them "Failcom"
Originally posted by fenistil "Ahead of it's time?"
I seriously don't get it HOW can anyone say that with a straight face.
Hub based, linear solo way till end game composed of instance grinding for gear and tokens.
Hardly "ahead". More like "behind".
Unless you mean 'story'? Well Swtor showed how heavy story based experience pan's out in mmorpg's. So not really surpsising that it did not work in TSW.
If TESO is really like scarce information avabile and is also very story-heavy and 'online-rpg' rather than mmorpg - then it will also fail hard.
Hub based? Have you played TSW or do you speak of hearsay? Fyi: This game is not Hub based!
Linear? Much less linear than almost any other modern MMOrpg!
Not ahead of its time? 50:50 bcs it mixes very traditional conepts with some that have to be reinvented as they be lost in the past and also: The Graphic is ahead of any other game! The immersion is bigger than in any other Themepark! The Story and the Presentation top SWTOR at any level! The Single Server Tech is a brillant concept!
To much story based? A good story connects you to the world and delivers a reason to be there, stay there, develop an emotional link to the Gameworld and your Avatar. In the case of TSW there is not to much story - they missed the Chance to use their setup as the PvP-Revolution anybody aches for (or at least tells us so) and they have no ingame economy, the crafting is like in AoC an afterthought and they miss the boat when they start to offer the same boring geargrind any other mmorpg offers that also had not helped AoC to keep Subs high.
The Sin of TSW is also the bad timing, the horrbile fame of Funcom, the general competetive situation on the market that is in decline while oversaturated, the limiting Themepark approach of TSW that leaves the game with a few big strengths and many big weakneasses that be natural to Themeparks and they overestimated probably the past fame of "Ragnar Thornquist" and his "Longest Jounrey" that from its very nature is uncapable to build up a huge and strong yet uncritical fanbase of addicted onlinegamers like a few others very successful did with different products.
I think Funcom missed the Ship with AoC, while partly a very good game it never was "fixed" the amount needed to restore faith in Funcom and make peace with all the hostile playerbase after their AoC-Launchdisaster.
Funcom has pretty brillant ideas and designers but falls short on the execution and evolution of their projects.
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
May-bee, just may-bee the MMORPG bubble is on its way to bursting as I think it is. With so many games struggling to find enough income to survive on Ye' OIde Subscription system and falling back into that "Freemium" model, it was hard to believe the market would have accepted TSW any warmer than it did.
Funcom have a few things going against them.
1) It was a new, refreshing idea that the genre, or sub-genre as Sovrath coined, badly needed. However, there is a limited amount of gamers in this sub-genre.
2) It was a risky, new idea that many players in this sub-genre weren't ready to take a $50.00 risk on (for now).
3) The payment plan was at par with how the rest of the members of the oligopoly set: $50.00-$60.00 box sale, $15.00 per month and a cash shop on the side for vanity Roars.
4) Funcom is a foriegn company-to some. Doesn't have the best reputation AoC etc. and some cautious gamers (like myself) are probably waiting for the first-nerd-herdtm to roll in and listen to thier feedback.
5) Poor timing going against GW2.
6) Poor marketing.
7) In the beginning they had a real good run with the ARG they had started, but then walked away from it in favor of teaser anouncements, interviews and trailers. I would have kept it going viral and given the community something to do in the meantime. We are gamers after all, let us play something.
8) MMO's are darn expensive to make. Taking in only $10,000,000 if they sold all 200k at $50 is only a drop in the bucket. Knowing the industry, they are in the hole for hundreds of millions possibly. I don't have any hard data on how much TSW cost to make and I am not going through the investor relation releases and balance sheets to find out.
9) Very cheap with the beta. Beta testing is now only used to pre-market games and it gives some gamers time-strapped not a lot of time to really get into it.
10) Once again, taking a chance on a risky IP. I have to say, that gamers are really used to only a few things and not willing to go against the traditional sword and board, ship and shooty genres. I do like the setting, for heaven sake how many other places will I be able to start of in New York! I will say one thing about Funcom, they like to take risks. I just hope this one doesn't mean the end of them.
But can someone please answer me: Would this world would have benefitted more from Anarchy Online 2 instead of Secret Societies R US?
Funcom really did not spend hundreds of millions of dollars, like EA/Bioware did with SW:TOR.
They maybe spend 40 million or so at max! And made a much better game SW:TOR will ever be.
But yes 200k boxes sold doesn't give an instant return on investment, what investors seem to expect these days.
The whole investor market has become sick and overly spoiled! Couple that with global economic crisis and you got a soup for dissaster.
Investors expect an instant RoI on launchday these days and anything less is seen as total failure!
I do not wish failure to any game, but there are games I do not like at all. Some I like but have some problem or limitation that eliminates fun factor. One of them is TSW. I would like they workout problems (and this for sure is NOT by layoffs!!!) as I would return some day. But for now I have stopped even before 30 days free time. Main problem at start: bugs and constant crashes. After purchasing and installing W7 64-bit however all problems were gone. But they can not seriously aspect somebody will spend 5 times price of client for specifically 64 bit w7 to be able to play without crashes. Second problem, imo of course, very stupid idea to limit active abilities to only 7 buttons. This simply spells button mashing. And i do not play button mashers. I do not care if there are similar spells or abilities as long as I can use them. Or maybe will need some spell every 5th fight but then I WANT that spell available. And has nothing to do "great because one must THINK in advance what to put on". It has to do with button mashing.
Interesting isn't it. TSW is the second highest ranking MMO on this site behind GuildWars 2 yet the MMO community at large has dumped it.
I think this goes to show how out of touch this site reviews are with what REAL mmo players want and like to play
This is perhaps the next question after,
"I really don't know what to say. Every part of our 8.5 review for The Secret World ..."
The numbers are not absolute, there are at least a good number of players out of 200k that perhaps love the game. But evidently something is out of sorts? What?
In the review assum it was a classic:
Graphics
Presentation
Music/Sounds
Gameplay
Longevity
TOTAL: 8.5
But the question is what weightings do you give to Gameplay and Longevity? They could score 5-7 vs 9-10 for the other categories and you'd still end up with 8.5. As said, the other problem is if your scoring gives high marks ie the range only ever yields >6: The difference between those 4 points and 0.1 point differences should be much more explicit or meaningful. Otherwise as it seems the scores are too inflated and are just a personal yardstick which is not helpful for other people relying on reviews addtional to eg youtube. Speaking of which youtube of eg gameplay combat is good idea.
I think scoring system needs these traditional reviews with a more thorough systems of scoring using it's own marking scheme for reference, write-ups and comparisions with "around the web" and some metacritic also. Gameplay and Longevity seem to need mulitple reviews also: Over time and By Comparison (youtube and mechanics discussion??): These areas gotta be targetted and analysed more perhaps?
Anyway there's the diconnect between the reception/performance and the review. Could be a case of good game just got unlucky (tough market Diablo, GW2, Firefall, PS2, even SWTOR) - probably true too.
Interesting isn't it. TSW is the second highest ranking MMO on this site behind GuildWars 2 yet the MMO community at large has dumped it.
I think this goes to show how out of touch this site reviews are with what REAL mmo players want and like to play
This is perhaps the next question after,
"I really don't know what to say. Every part of our 8.5 review for The Secret World ..."
The numbers are not absolute, there are at least a good number of players out of 200k that perhaps love the game. But evidently something is out of sorts? What?
In the review assum it was a classic:
Graphics
Presentation
Music/Sounds
Gameplay
Longevity
TOTAL: 8.5
But the question is what weightings do you give to Gameplay and Longevity? They could score 5-7 vs 9-10 for the other categories and you'd still end up with 8.5. As said, the other problem is if your scoring gives high marks ie the range only ever yields >6: The difference between those 4 points and 0.1 point differences should be much more explicit or meaningful. Otherwise as it seems the scores are too inflated and are just a personal yardstick which is not helpful for other people relying on reviews addtional to eg youtube. Speaking of which youtube of eg gameplay combat is good idea.
I think scoring system needs these traditional reviews with a more thorough systems of scoring using it's own marking scheme for reference, write-ups and comparisions with "around the web" and some metacritic also. Gameplay and Longevity seem to need mulitple reviews also: Over time and By Comparison (youtube and mechanics discussion??): These areas gotta be targetted and analysed more perhaps?
Anyway there's the diconnect between the reception/performance and the review. Could be a case of good game just got unlucky (tough market Diablo, GW2, Firefall, PS2, even SWTOR) - probably true too.
I agree that the scoring system for MMOs in general need to change. Instead of giving these games a numerical rating why can't these sites just give the goods and bads of a game and let the player decided from there.
Back on the topic of TSW, I was hyped for this game like 2 years back but i played the beta the combat and quest system felt very boring to me. On the other hand, i liked the weapons, lore, skill wheel, and the setting of the game but it wasn't enough for me to buy and subscrib to the game.
The reasons why The Secret World's sales were shockingly low will no doubt be debated for years and years... but at the end of the day, it comes down to this:
I have a subscription. I pay for the game - and I'm happy to do it. I play the game - and I am thrilled to be playing it.
I am not going anywhere... and 99% of my circle of friends feels the same way.
I played in the last weekend of The Secret World beta, and I have to say that while I enjoyed the game, I wasn't really blown away by it. At least, not enough to justify spending $50+ to buy the game AND $15/month on a subscription.
I hate to say it, but the days of buy and subscribe are coming to an end. RIFT may be hanging in there, but the list of successful titles using that business model are getting smaller and smaller. Factor in that WoW can now be picked up, with expansions, for only $20 (limited time, sure, but it's still there), and I really can't see anyone paying that much money for TSW.
I really feel like this is a free-to-play game, and I don't see myself ever paying to play it. And I suspect I'm not alone in feeling that way.
If you can't change your mind, are you sure you still have one?
I have played MMOs since they existed. I have played a lot of them. I like several. TSW is one of the best ever, and has the potential to get better and better. Its storyline is already the best, from a literary and sophistication standpoint.
I would have to agree that EA/Funcom made some major marketing mistakes.
In the end, different gamers like different things for different rerasons. But TSW has the potential to revolutionise how these games are made, and dared to break the mold.
It is also less than 2 months old in "live" play. A bit early to expect it to be everything to everyone.
I think one of the most interesting numbers to toss around is the beta number - over a million players in the beta. That only 200k of them bought the game is startling, but it really says a ton about how important the beta is anymore if you are going to use it for marketing.
Beta reviews for TSW were rather poor, and my opinion pretty much mirrored that. Things got fixed and prettied up right before launch but it appears the damage was already done. Makes me sad but it is illuminating.
I actually love TSW, bought box at release and after a few weeks subbed for 1 year.
Having said that. I do think they would have been better off with a B2P model with cash shop like GW2. Since I began following TSW many moons ago alot of people were turned off by the Sub + cash shop model. Which is understandable IMO.
Great game that I will continue to enjoy and support ( along with GW2), but a different payment structure might have served them better. especially releasing so close to GW2 and its model.
I played the Beta of TSW and my first impression was "Wow" this looks interesting and different until you got over the first impression and became aware of just how plain it was, yes it's had it extras like skill and talent wheels but it was too linier.
For me the story line/quest line was exactly the same regardless what character you played as, and I felt I was just playing a spinoff of SWTOR and for a game that was meant to be far reaching I found the character movement and indeed the graphics to be so substandard compared to say AOC and the combat system given what as in AOC was a step backwards not forwards.
Now I know this was just the Beta and things may have changed since release but for me the biggest game killer was not the broken quest lines or poor character movement and combat system in the beta but the Community that was present in the Beta, I personally found most of them to be rude, unhelpful and spiteful and every time someone tried to help out another person they were constantly being told to shut up as what they were doing was giving out spoilers or being told to just go Google it.
For me, the Secret World had the potential to be and become something special simple given the direction Funcom had taken with the story line and Lore however the fact that it was in the end a linier grind fest with a community that seemed to spit on everyone who used general chat turned me away from the game and in fact has guaranteed I won't return to it even if it goes F2P.
I speak here for any game that seems to have a dissapointing reception, not just TSW, as I see the same thing repeated for other games that have less then expected receptions. I think there is a tendency among fans of a game (and cleary TSW has some here) to dismiss criticism of the game itself and to try push the blame for why a game might not be as well recieved by others as it was by them on factors completely external to the game.....everything from the business model, to the advertising and marketing, to timing of release, etc. At the same time they have a tendency to dismiss critics as being intellectualy dishonest or not having played the game or simpletons or simply "haters". Apparently this trend is starting to extend to some of the staff writers here at mmorpg.com. Frankly I find that disturbing and it needs to stop. It's not doing the games or the community or the hobby itself any favors, quite the opposite.
It may be true that there are a few posters who are simply "haters", just as there are a few posters who may be paid shills, viral marketers or have ulterior motives for supporting a game. However I think folks need to accept that the majority of posters here who have a problem with a game that made them to decided not to buy/play it are legitimately and honestly expressing thier perceptions of the games shortcomings and those perceptions may be held by others as well. Just as I'm sure most of you who are fans legitimately and honestly are describing your perceptions of the games strengths. Perhaps if we examined the content of those opinions we might actualy gain some insight as to WHY the game wasn't universaly recieved as well as was expected rather then simply dismissing them and blaming external factors. While there may even be some kernal of truth in external factors, it's clear that any product that in and of itself is strong enough can overcome them. I also learned a long time ago in my own proffesion and in my own work..... that while there might be many outside factors beyond my control that played a role...if a piece of work or service I was responsible for failed......if the primary place I was looking to assign blame for it wasn't straight in the mirror...then I was simply doomed to repeat the same less then satisfying results over and over again. That's something that Developers, Publishers, Pundits and Fans here need to take to heart if they want to achieve different results in future. Ego's and CYA's need to be set aside.
I've already expressed my primary 3 problems with TSW previously in this thread and others....so I won't repeat them here. I want to stress something here though. I'm NOT a hater. I WANTED to like TSW. I loved the concept. I'm clearly part of the audience that the game COULD have been sold to.....but when I got my hands on it (in beta) I absolutely found the execution horribly lacking. Speaking only for myself, it WAS ENTIRELY the GAME ITSELF that kept me from purchasing it.
- I have no problem with the subscription based business model. It's my PREFERED method to pay for a game. At $15 a month, I think MMO's are some of the cheapest per hour entertainment you can buy. I'd easly pay 3 times that in monthly fee's for a quality product.
- I am a PnP Role-Player at heart. It's actualy my prefered form of gaming. So I'm completely into RP-ing and Drama and Atmoshphere. Personaly I found TSW pretty LACKING in that regard.
- While I like fantasy, I also like other genre's as well, including sci-fi and modern. I absolutely loved the concept for the games setting, so much so I even wanted to run a PnP campaign based off it. I thought TSW's execution didn't do justice to the concept of the setting.
- While I'm more of a "make your own story" kind of guy in games, I can appreciate a good narative. I love reading. Tolkien may be my favorate author but I also enjoy the likes of Stoker, Shelley, LoveCraft, Arthur Conan Doyle, etc and I love watching creepy old black and white movies. Frankly again...I found TSW's execution lacking in this regards.
- In terms of complex and deep gameplay. In addition to PnP games my other gaming love is turn based board and computer wargaming. When not playing MMO's, I enjoy the likes of World in Flames, Advanced Squad Leader, Advanced Tactics WWII and Combat Mission Normandy. I'm the kind of gamer who likes to debate the merits of whether supporting the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War is worth US Neutrailty Shifts, how many trucks you should have in an HQ to ferry replacements to front line combat units and whether you should use HEAT or APFSDS ammo to engage a PZIVF2 from 500yds. I went looking for "deep and complex" satisfying game-play in TSW and I FAILED TO FIND ANY.
Finally I DID give TSW a try in Beta. I did so because I was excited about it. I played it for a good 4-6 hours. Frankly if a game can't convince me in the first 4-6 hours that there is at least some potential for fun there...it's not getting a shot beyond that. Simply put, MY TIME is too valuable to waste on things that aren't providing fun/entertainment to me. Personaly TSW failed miserably for me in that regard. YMMV.
I'll assume whoever reviewed the game actually got to the level cap and saw most content and bugs.
There are certain things that probably need to be taken into account when reviewing. Was the game polished on release? How buggy is the game? What's the value of the product relative to competition? Is this game even worth a subscription?
As far as the 200K number. None of the advertisements really sold the game very well. It's a brand new IP and can't bank on existing fans. Funcom has a terrible track record of releasing too early. Why buy TSW when you can get GW2 and not pay a sub? That's the main question.
This is a niche game, but I have to admit I believe one of the major errors funcom made besides releasing it waaaaay to close to GW2 & WoW's MoP expansion, was not broadly advertising it. I never even knew it existed until I got an e-mail from EA one day. So I went over checked it out...very little info was given, no videos available on the site about it or game play, and I thought the prices were way to high.
Then I got a beta key and thought "hey why not i'm board, I'll give it a go for a few hours." the rest is history, I was hooked instently. I went and pre-ordered and have been playing ever since.
There is a HUGE niche player base for horror games. Otherwise games like the Resident Evil, Left 4 Dead, and Dead Space series would have never been as sucessfull as they were. TSW could have been amongst those if it had done just a few things diffrently
1) Been released in a better time slot. The release date was way to close to GW2 and Wow's MoP. Had it been released sooner or some time after it might have stood a better chance.
2) It was NOT advertised very well or very broadly. I mean I see WoW and Rift adverisments on buses around my home town! I never heard a peep about this game until receiving a random e-mail from EA....and then nothing....that was it.
3) The cost...as lothe as I am to admit it....I don't honestly think it was worth over $50 with a required continuing subscription fee. Had it been a bit cheaper it probably would have grabbed people's attention a little more.
And also to expand on #3, I don't know about you, but I rarely buy a physical copy of a game I can download. After purchesing the game online and then registering my key code, I can download the game as many times as I need to, and considering it only sold 200k copies (I'm I right in assumeing those were "physical" copies only?) making games available for download only is the future. And doing this might have freed up more funds for them to advertise the game better. Not only that but by eleminating the "physical copy" you possibly lower the cost of preducing the game therefore lowering the cost that players have to pay.
Bill you are quite a funny guy.... Your review was spot on its a great game. However, trying to make a game buy to play/subscription based/ and toss a cash shop in there..... Is just inconceivable. I was very excited about this game early on until I heard about their plans for the game. I got no problems with a sub game or a cash shop game, or even a buy to play game.... Combining them all together makes me view the company as arrogant. Think I'll steer clear of this title for awhile. Have a feeling they might be making some drastic changes in 2013.
I dont think you can blame marketing/advertising for TSWs failure....Alot of us have known about TSW for a couple years now....It all boils down to not making a very good game then overcharging for it.
Comments
May-bee, just may-bee the MMORPG bubble is on its way to bursting as I think it is. With so many games struggling to find enough income to survive on Ye' OIde Subscription system and falling back into that "Freemium" model, it was hard to believe the market would have accepted TSW any warmer than it did.
Funcom have a few things going against them.
1) It was a new, refreshing idea that the genre, or sub-genre as Sovrath coined, badly needed. However, there is a limited amount of gamers in this sub-genre.
2) It was a risky, new idea that many players in this sub-genre weren't ready to take a $50.00 risk on (for now).
3) The payment plan was at par with how the rest of the members of the oligopoly set: $50.00-$60.00 box sale, $15.00 per month and a cash shop on the side for vanity Roars.
4) Funcom is a foriegn company-to some. Doesn't have the best reputation AoC etc. and some cautious gamers (like myself) are probably waiting for the first-nerd-herdtm to roll in and listen to thier feedback.
5) Poor timing going against GW2.
6) Poor marketing.
7) In the beginning they had a real good run with the ARG they had started, but then walked away from it in favor of teaser anouncements, interviews and trailers. I would have kept it going viral and given the community something to do in the meantime. We are gamers after all, let us play something.
8) MMO's are darn expensive to make. Taking in only $10,000,000 if they sold all 200k at $50 is only a drop in the bucket. Knowing the industry, they are in the hole for hundreds of millions possibly. I don't have any hard data on how much TSW cost to make and I am not going through the investor relation releases and balance sheets to find out.
9) Very cheap with the beta. Beta testing is now only used to pre-market games and it gives some gamers time-strapped not a lot of time to really get into it.
10) Once again, taking a chance on a risky IP. I have to say, that gamers are really used to only a few things and not willing to go against the traditional sword and board, ship and shooty genres. I do like the setting, for heaven sake how many other places will I be able to start of in New York! I will say one thing about Funcom, they like to take risks. I just hope this one doesn't mean the end of them.
But can someone please answer me: Would this world would have benefitted more from Anarchy Online 2 instead of Secret Societies R US?
The problem with reviews in general is that they have a very limited scope, especially in the case of MMORPGs. You'll very rarely see reviewers reaching halfway through the game before making their review, because they have to get it out there as fast as possible. Which is why I believe we see so many hyped up MMORPGs raise very high score with reviewers, but the complete opposite for the players. The reviewers are still in the honeymoon phase, the game's fresh, aesthetically looks different, seems different, and the game's shortcoming don't seem as prominent, yet. But as players continue to play in the beta, more and more issues rises and reality sets in. Some will choose to continue playing, others will leave. The reviewer's job is long done, so the game's score is often contradictory with the game's launch and it's following month.
I'll disagree with Bill on TSW being a niche game, I really do believe it is not a niche. I think the game simply did not meet players expectations, and what looked very amazing for the first week or so, quickly become dull and boring. Quite frankly, I view the use of the "niche" excuse as more of a cop-out than an actual reason to explain a game's success or failure. If the game is fun, people will play it, whether it is "niche" or not. Minecraft, DayZ, etc there's plenty of examples like this.
thats a matter of your point of view. i'm playing tsw since pre-release and i'm loving it. but i haven't even done half of what you list there. actually, i haven't even completed the regular missions yet - just arrived in transsylvania. ok, maybe i'm an unusually slow player, but to me, you do sound like the perfect example if a 'completionist'. :P
"Ahead of it's time?"
I seriously don't get it HOW can anyone say that with a straight face.
Hub based, linear solo way till end game composed of instance grinding for gear and tokens.
Hardly "ahead". More like "behind".
Unless you mean 'story'? Well Swtor showed how heavy story based experience pan's out in mmorpg's. So not really surpsising that it did not work in TSW.
If TESO is really like scarce information avabile and is also very story-heavy and 'online-rpg' rather than mmorpg - then it will also fail hard.
Hub based?
Have you played TSW or do you speak of hearsay?
Fyi: This game is not Hub based!
Linear?
Much less linear than almost any other modern MMOrpg!
Not ahead of its time?
50:50 bcs it mixes very traditional conepts with some that have to be reinvented as they be lost in the past and also:
The Graphic is ahead of any other game!
The immersion is bigger than in any other Themepark!
The Story and the Presentation top SWTOR at any level!
The Single Server Tech is a brillant concept!
To much story based?
A good story connects you to the world and delivers a reason to be there, stay there, develop an emotional link to the Gameworld and your Avatar.
In the case of TSW there is not to much story - they missed the Chance to use their setup as the PvP-Revolution anybody aches for (or at least tells us so) and they have no ingame economy, the crafting is like in AoC an afterthought and they miss the boat when they start to offer the same boring geargrind any other mmorpg offers that also had not helped AoC to keep Subs high.
The Sin of TSW is also the bad timing, the horrbile fame of Funcom, the general competetive situation on the market that is in decline while oversaturated, the limiting Themepark approach of TSW that leaves the game with a few big strengths and many big weakneasses that be natural to Themeparks and they overestimated probably the past fame of "Ragnar Thornquist" and his "Longest Jounrey" that from its very nature is uncapable to build up a huge and strong yet uncritical fanbase of addicted onlinegamers like a few others very successful did with different products.
I think Funcom missed the Ship with AoC, while partly a very good game it never was "fixed" the amount needed to restore faith in Funcom and make peace with all the hostile playerbase after their AoC-Launchdisaster.
Funcom has pretty brillant ideas and designers but falls short on the execution and evolution of their projects.
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
MWO Music Video - What does the Mech say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6HYNqCDLI
Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0x2iwK0BKM
Funcom really did not spend hundreds of millions of dollars, like EA/Bioware did with SW:TOR.
They maybe spend 40 million or so at max! And made a much better game SW:TOR will ever be.
But yes 200k boxes sold doesn't give an instant return on investment, what investors seem to expect these days.
The whole investor market has become sick and overly spoiled! Couple that with global economic crisis and you got a soup for dissaster.
Investors expect an instant RoI on launchday these days and anything less is seen as total failure!
Interesting isn't it. TSW is the second highest ranking MMO on this site behind GuildWars 2 yet the MMO community at large has dumped it.
I think this goes to show how out of touch this site reviews are with what REAL mmo players want and like to play
This is perhaps the next question after,
The numbers are not absolute, there are at least a good number of players out of 200k that perhaps love the game. But evidently something is out of sorts? What?
In the review assum it was a classic:
TOTAL: 8.5
But the question is what weightings do you give to Gameplay and Longevity? They could score 5-7 vs 9-10 for the other categories and you'd still end up with 8.5. As said, the other problem is if your scoring gives high marks ie the range only ever yields >6: The difference between those 4 points and 0.1 point differences should be much more explicit or meaningful. Otherwise as it seems the scores are too inflated and are just a personal yardstick which is not helpful for other people relying on reviews addtional to eg youtube. Speaking of which youtube of eg gameplay combat is good idea.
I think scoring system needs these traditional reviews with a more thorough systems of scoring using it's own marking scheme for reference, write-ups and comparisions with "around the web" and some metacritic also. Gameplay and Longevity seem to need mulitple reviews also: Over time and By Comparison (youtube and mechanics discussion??): These areas gotta be targetted and analysed more perhaps?
Anyway there's the diconnect between the reception/performance and the review. Could be a case of good game just got unlucky (tough market Diablo, GW2, Firefall, PS2, even SWTOR) - probably true too.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
I agree that the scoring system for MMOs in general need to change. Instead of giving these games a numerical rating why can't these sites just give the goods and bads of a game and let the player decided from there.
Back on the topic of TSW, I was hyped for this game like 2 years back but i played the beta the combat and quest system felt very boring to me. On the other hand, i liked the weapons, lore, skill wheel, and the setting of the game but it wasn't enough for me to buy and subscrib to the game.
The reasons why The Secret World's sales were shockingly low will no doubt be debated for years and years... but at the end of the day, it comes down to this:
I have a subscription. I pay for the game - and I'm happy to do it. I play the game - and I am thrilled to be playing it.
I am not going anywhere... and 99% of my circle of friends feels the same way.
I played in the last weekend of The Secret World beta, and I have to say that while I enjoyed the game, I wasn't really blown away by it. At least, not enough to justify spending $50+ to buy the game AND $15/month on a subscription.
I hate to say it, but the days of buy and subscribe are coming to an end. RIFT may be hanging in there, but the list of successful titles using that business model are getting smaller and smaller. Factor in that WoW can now be picked up, with expansions, for only $20 (limited time, sure, but it's still there), and I really can't see anyone paying that much money for TSW.
I really feel like this is a free-to-play game, and I don't see myself ever paying to play it. And I suspect I'm not alone in feeling that way.
If you can't change your mind, are you sure you still have one?
Personal opinion:
I have played MMOs since they existed. I have played a lot of them. I like several. TSW is one of the best ever, and has the potential to get better and better. Its storyline is already the best, from a literary and sophistication standpoint.
I would have to agree that EA/Funcom made some major marketing mistakes.
In the end, different gamers like different things for different rerasons. But TSW has the potential to revolutionise how these games are made, and dared to break the mold.
It is also less than 2 months old in "live" play. A bit early to expect it to be everything to everyone.
I think one of the most interesting numbers to toss around is the beta number - over a million players in the beta. That only 200k of them bought the game is startling, but it really says a ton about how important the beta is anymore if you are going to use it for marketing.
Beta reviews for TSW were rather poor, and my opinion pretty much mirrored that. Things got fixed and prettied up right before launch but it appears the damage was already done. Makes me sad but it is illuminating.
I actually love TSW, bought box at release and after a few weeks subbed for 1 year.
Having said that. I do think they would have been better off with a B2P model with cash shop like GW2. Since I began following TSW many moons ago alot of people were turned off by the Sub + cash shop model. Which is understandable IMO.
Great game that I will continue to enjoy and support ( along with GW2), but a different payment structure might have served them better. especially releasing so close to GW2 and its model.
Just my 2cp
I played the Beta of TSW and my first impression was "Wow" this looks interesting and different until you got over the first impression and became aware of just how plain it was, yes it's had it extras like skill and talent wheels but it was too linier.
For me the story line/quest line was exactly the same regardless what character you played as, and I felt I was just playing a spinoff of SWTOR and for a game that was meant to be far reaching I found the character movement and indeed the graphics to be so substandard compared to say AOC and the combat system given what as in AOC was a step backwards not forwards.
Now I know this was just the Beta and things may have changed since release but for me the biggest game killer was not the broken quest lines or poor character movement and combat system in the beta but the Community that was present in the Beta, I personally found most of them to be rude, unhelpful and spiteful and every time someone tried to help out another person they were constantly being told to shut up as what they were doing was giving out spoilers or being told to just go Google it.
For me, the Secret World had the potential to be and become something special simple given the direction Funcom had taken with the story line and Lore however the fact that it was in the end a linier grind fest with a community that seemed to spit on everyone who used general chat turned me away from the game and in fact has guaranteed I won't return to it even if it goes F2P.
I speak here for any game that seems to have a dissapointing reception, not just TSW, as I see the same thing repeated for other games that have less then expected receptions. I think there is a tendency among fans of a game (and cleary TSW has some here) to dismiss criticism of the game itself and to try push the blame for why a game might not be as well recieved by others as it was by them on factors completely external to the game.....everything from the business model, to the advertising and marketing, to timing of release, etc. At the same time they have a tendency to dismiss critics as being intellectualy dishonest or not having played the game or simpletons or simply "haters". Apparently this trend is starting to extend to some of the staff writers here at mmorpg.com. Frankly I find that disturbing and it needs to stop. It's not doing the games or the community or the hobby itself any favors, quite the opposite.
It may be true that there are a few posters who are simply "haters", just as there are a few posters who may be paid shills, viral marketers or have ulterior motives for supporting a game. However I think folks need to accept that the majority of posters here who have a problem with a game that made them to decided not to buy/play it are legitimately and honestly expressing thier perceptions of the games shortcomings and those perceptions may be held by others as well. Just as I'm sure most of you who are fans legitimately and honestly are describing your perceptions of the games strengths. Perhaps if we examined the content of those opinions we might actualy gain some insight as to WHY the game wasn't universaly recieved as well as was expected rather then simply dismissing them and blaming external factors. While there may even be some kernal of truth in external factors, it's clear that any product that in and of itself is strong enough can overcome them. I also learned a long time ago in my own proffesion and in my own work..... that while there might be many outside factors beyond my control that played a role...if a piece of work or service I was responsible for failed......if the primary place I was looking to assign blame for it wasn't straight in the mirror...then I was simply doomed to repeat the same less then satisfying results over and over again. That's something that Developers, Publishers, Pundits and Fans here need to take to heart if they want to achieve different results in future. Ego's and CYA's need to be set aside.
I've already expressed my primary 3 problems with TSW previously in this thread and others....so I won't repeat them here. I want to stress something here though. I'm NOT a hater. I WANTED to like TSW. I loved the concept. I'm clearly part of the audience that the game COULD have been sold to.....but when I got my hands on it (in beta) I absolutely found the execution horribly lacking. Speaking only for myself, it WAS ENTIRELY the GAME ITSELF that kept me from purchasing it.
- I have no problem with the subscription based business model. It's my PREFERED method to pay for a game. At $15 a month, I think MMO's are some of the cheapest per hour entertainment you can buy. I'd easly pay 3 times that in monthly fee's for a quality product.
- I am a PnP Role-Player at heart. It's actualy my prefered form of gaming. So I'm completely into RP-ing and Drama and Atmoshphere. Personaly I found TSW pretty LACKING in that regard.
- While I like fantasy, I also like other genre's as well, including sci-fi and modern. I absolutely loved the concept for the games setting, so much so I even wanted to run a PnP campaign based off it. I thought TSW's execution didn't do justice to the concept of the setting.
- While I'm more of a "make your own story" kind of guy in games, I can appreciate a good narative. I love reading. Tolkien may be my favorate author but I also enjoy the likes of Stoker, Shelley, LoveCraft, Arthur Conan Doyle, etc and I love watching creepy old black and white movies. Frankly again...I found TSW's execution lacking in this regards.
- In terms of complex and deep gameplay. In addition to PnP games my other gaming love is turn based board and computer wargaming. When not playing MMO's, I enjoy the likes of World in Flames, Advanced Squad Leader, Advanced Tactics WWII and Combat Mission Normandy. I'm the kind of gamer who likes to debate the merits of whether supporting the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War is worth US Neutrailty Shifts, how many trucks you should have in an HQ to ferry replacements to front line combat units and whether you should use HEAT or APFSDS ammo to engage a PZIVF2 from 500yds. I went looking for "deep and complex" satisfying game-play in TSW and I FAILED TO FIND ANY.
Finally I DID give TSW a try in Beta. I did so because I was excited about it. I played it for a good 4-6 hours. Frankly if a game can't convince me in the first 4-6 hours that there is at least some potential for fun there...it's not getting a shot beyond that. Simply put, MY TIME is too valuable to waste on things that aren't providing fun/entertainment to me. Personaly TSW failed miserably for me in that regard. YMMV.
I'll assume whoever reviewed the game actually got to the level cap and saw most content and bugs.
There are certain things that probably need to be taken into account when reviewing. Was the game polished on release? How buggy is the game? What's the value of the product relative to competition? Is this game even worth a subscription?
As far as the 200K number. None of the advertisements really sold the game very well. It's a brand new IP and can't bank on existing fans. Funcom has a terrible track record of releasing too early. Why buy TSW when you can get GW2 and not pay a sub? That's the main question.
This is a niche game, but I have to admit I believe one of the major errors funcom made besides releasing it waaaaay to close to GW2 & WoW's MoP expansion, was not broadly advertising it. I never even knew it existed until I got an e-mail from EA one day. So I went over checked it out...very little info was given, no videos available on the site about it or game play, and I thought the prices were way to high.
Then I got a beta key and thought "hey why not i'm board, I'll give it a go for a few hours." the rest is history, I was hooked instently. I went and pre-ordered and have been playing ever since.
There is a HUGE niche player base for horror games. Otherwise games like the Resident Evil, Left 4 Dead, and Dead Space series would have never been as sucessfull as they were. TSW could have been amongst those if it had done just a few things diffrently
1) Been released in a better time slot. The release date was way to close to GW2 and Wow's MoP. Had it been released sooner or some time after it might have stood a better chance.
2) It was NOT advertised very well or very broadly. I mean I see WoW and Rift adverisments on buses around my home town! I never heard a peep about this game until receiving a random e-mail from EA....and then nothing....that was it.
3) The cost...as lothe as I am to admit it....I don't honestly think it was worth over $50 with a required continuing subscription fee. Had it been a bit cheaper it probably would have grabbed people's attention a little more.
And also to expand on #3, I don't know about you, but I rarely buy a physical copy of a game I can download. After purchesing the game online and then registering my key code, I can download the game as many times as I need to, and considering it only sold 200k copies (I'm I right in assumeing those were "physical" copies only?) making games available for download only is the future. And doing this might have freed up more funds for them to advertise the game better. Not only that but by eleminating the "physical copy" you possibly lower the cost of preducing the game therefore lowering the cost that players have to pay.
wow you really dont like funcom do you.