Originally posted by flclimax where is 325k concurrent a record at? japan? gotta laught at the AFK kick + more servers. you're going to see "concurrency" drop now that all the AFKer's won't count, and the game will look empty with less people standing around yet more servers to spread people out in.
Except that what you fail to take into consideration, is that for every AFK'er in the game there were perhaps at least twice as many trying to get into the game. So this AFK dynamic that many of you are alluding to, is really a non factor in that regard. If anything, now that the game as been stabilized, we will see a lot more active players running around, since people that want to play will be able to get in the game and replace the AFK'ers, who were standing around doing nothing. In other words, the game will be better off for it, not worse. Sorry to have refuted your thoughtless negativity with a little common sense. Someone had to do it.
Originally posted by Mahavishnu This reminds me more of the start of SWTOR - wait 3 months.
No..FF ARR is really different than SWTOR - it's FUN...it RUNS SMOOTHLY...graphics are gorgeous...crafting is complex...deep...fun...and matters. Did I mention it's fun and runs really well?
SWTOR also was hyped to the max while FF ARR has taken the MMO community by storm because of word of mouth - which will make or break a game. And I'm a big Star Wars fan...I wish SWTOR would have been 1/2 of what FF ARR turned out to be.
Currently playing SWTOR and it's MUCH better than it was at launch.
Originally posted by flclimaxwhere is 325k concurrent a record at? japan? gotta laught at the AFK kick + more servers. you're going to see "concurrency" drop now that all the AFKer's won't count, and the game will look empty with less people standing around yet more servers to spread people out in.
You think 53 full servers at launch is a joke?
Name another game that had 53 completely full servers at launch and had to suspend sales until they could get the capacity to handle them all. I can think of two games.
I didn't count them. Probably more than 53 servers. They weren't all full, but many of them were. They didn't have to suspend sales because they could roll out new servers fast enough to keep up with demand (a novel idea, I know).
GW2 had close to 50 servers at launch (I think they have 51 now), and they have this nifty overflow ability so that if your server is full, you can still log in and play on a non-full server.
There were 88 US servers, with additional EU/OC servers available. no additional servers were added until several months later - although some of the more popular servers were full right after launch. WoW I don't think had digital sales when it first released.
Now with all of that linked above, I hesitate to say it, but look where they all are now - it's all over the place. WoW is probably the only one to grow beyond that, GW2 has held steady (but it's only been out for a year), while Rift and SWTOR are both down to nearly single-digit servers.
What I find funny about this is that ArenaNet announces that GW2 has a peak concurrency(which means the highest number ever) of 460,000 and people lose their minds about how "OMG, so awesome" it is, whereas FF14 announces a peak concurrency of 325,000 and people are like "lol, whatever".
WoW peak concurrent: >1Mil. In China alone. Only from The9 subscribers. Not including any other areas.
It's fantastic that FFXIV is doing as well as it is, but that still doesn't really excuse many of the problems they have had.
If you played WoWs first month you would have quit if you think FF14 is doing badly lol. WoW still stands as the worst launch I have ever played. More server down time this up. They had to hand out free time hand over fist and max out players rest exp as they were down 3 days at a stretch. This is bad but its not outside the norm of a new MMO growing to fast,
Originally posted by flclimaxwhere is 325k concurrent a record at? japan? gotta laught at the AFK kick + more servers. you're going to see "concurrency" drop now that all the AFKer's won't count, and the game will look empty with less people standing around yet more servers to spread people out in.
You think 53 full servers at launch is a joke?
Name another game that had 53 completely full servers at launch and had to suspend sales until they could get the capacity to handle them all. I can think of two games.
I didn't count them. Probably more than 53 servers. They weren't all full, but many of them were. They didn't have to suspend sales because they could roll out new servers fast enough to keep up with demand (a novel idea, I know).
GW2 had close to 50 servers at launch (I think they have 51 now), and they have this nifty overflow ability so that if your server is full, you can still log in and play on a non-full server.
There were 88 US servers, with additional EU/OC servers available. no additional servers were added until several months later - although some of the more popular servers were full right after launch. WoW I don't think had digital sales when it first released.
Now with all of that linked above, I hesitate to say it, but look where they all are now - it's all over the place. WoW is probably the only one to grow beyond that, GW2 has held steady (but it's only been out for a year), while Rift and SWTOR are both down to nearly single-digit servers.
SWTOR rolled out all those new servers and then had at least 2 server merges, with more than 2 servers being pushed together. It's for that reason, I can understand SE not wanting to just drop 10 new servers and open up sales. They probably are missing some sales and permanently losing some customers, but it shows that they are not going for the initial money grab and are thinking more long term.
Originally posted by flclimax where is 325k concurrent a record at? japan? gotta laught at the AFK kick + more servers. you're going to see "concurrency" drop now that all the AFKer's won't count, and the game will look empty with less people standing around yet more servers to spread people out in.
You think 53 full servers at launch is a joke?
Name another game that had 53 completely full servers at launch and had to suspend sales until they could get the capacity to handle them all. I can think of two games.
Its a sign of success. Theres no avoiding it.
Argue it wont last if you want, at least then you will have an argument.
GW2 comes to mind. I love FFXIV but this is nothing to brag about. Every MMO at release have more servers than actually needed and all are full. However, after 6 months it is a different story.
Originally posted by flclimaxwhere is 325k concurrent a record at? japan? gotta laught at the AFK kick + more servers. you're going to see "concurrency" drop now that all the AFKer's won't count, and the game will look empty with less people standing around yet more servers to spread people out in.
You think 53 full servers at launch is a joke?
Name another game that had 53 completely full servers at launch and had to suspend sales until they could get the capacity to handle them all. I can think of two games.
I didn't count them. Probably more than 53 servers. They weren't all full, but many of them were. They didn't have to suspend sales because they could roll out new servers fast enough to keep up with demand (a novel idea, I know).
GW2 had close to 50 servers at launch (I think they have 51 now), and they have this nifty overflow ability so that if your server is full, you can still log in and play on a non-full server.
There were 88 US servers, with additional EU/OC servers available. no additional servers were added until several months later - although some of the more popular servers were full right after launch. WoW I don't think had digital sales when it first released.
Now with all of that linked above, I hesitate to say it, but look where they all are now - it's all over the place. WoW is probably the only one to grow beyond that, GW2 has held steady (but it's only been out for a year), while Rift and SWTOR are both down to nearly single-digit servers.
SWTOR rolled out all those new servers and then had at least 2 server merges, with more than 2 servers being pushed together. It's for that reason, I can understand SE not wanting to just drop 10 new servers and open up sales. They probably are missing some sales and permanently losing some customers, but it shows that they are not going for the initial money grab and are thinking more long term.
That's exactly right - EA/Bioware went with the initial money grab with little thought for long term (IMO) which is why the game is mostly dead now. FF won't lose money...these same people that are whining right now who say they'll NEVER play this game will the 1st ones to run out and get the game when it's back on the shelves...physical as well as digital.
Why? The game is awesome...that's why and I was initially unhappy about not being able to play last weekend but rather than totally pissing off EVERYONE they opted to halt sales and fix the problem. It's the mark of a company thinking of it's players and not the $$$$.
Currently playing SWTOR and it's MUCH better than it was at launch.
Originally posted by flclimaxwhere is 325k concurrent a record at? japan? gotta laught at the AFK kick + more servers. you're going to see "concurrency" drop now that all the AFKer's won't count, and the game will look empty with less people standing around yet more servers to spread people out in.
You think 53 full servers at launch is a joke?
Name another game that had 53 completely full servers at launch and had to suspend sales until they could get the capacity to handle them all. I can think of two games.
I didn't count them. Probably more than 53 servers. They weren't all full, but many of them were. They didn't have to suspend sales because they could roll out new servers fast enough to keep up with demand (a novel idea, I know).
GW2 had close to 50 servers at launch (I think they have 51 now), and they have this nifty overflow ability so that if your server is full, you can still log in and play on a non-full server.
There were 88 US servers, with additional EU/OC servers available. no additional servers were added until several months later - although some of the more popular servers were full right after launch. WoW I don't think had digital sales when it first released.
Now with all of that linked above, I hesitate to say it, but look where they all are now - it's all over the place. WoW is probably the only one to grow beyond that, GW2 has held steady (but it's only been out for a year), while Rift and SWTOR are both down to nearly single-digit servers.
SWTOR rolled out all those new servers and then had at least 2 server merges, with more than 2 servers being pushed together. It's for that reason, I can understand SE not wanting to just drop 10 new servers and open up sales. They probably are missing some sales and permanently losing some customers, but it shows that they are not going for the initial money grab and are thinking more long term.
Redo123 proposed a challenge, to name another MMO that had 53 servers at launch and had to halt sales.
The only meaningful part of that, really, is 'which game had 53 servers". "Having to halt sales" has more to do with the company's preparedness to launch more servers/worlds, and less to do with the number of people. Developers with a plan in place to rapidly open new servers didn't have to halt sales. Less prepared developers did.
Regardless, Ridelynn met that challenge handily, providing info and links to several MMOs that met either or both criteria. Anything after that is really irrelevant.
Whether or not they had to merge later is irrelevant. And, frankly, I'd rather see a developer prepared for a rush by having "too many" servers at launch, than to see players locked out of playing for almost 2 weeks (as many were) by not having enough servers, exacerbated by not having a fluid enough system in place to launch them as needed.
People have tried arguing "well, you can't just launch servers that quickly". As has been pointed out in Ridelynn's post, you absolutely can... if you're prepared to. SE clearly weren't.
I am very surprised with these numbers, especially when Japanese and NA/EU "peak" times are no where close to each other. And the fact it was a relaunch of a failed MMO.
Data like this is pretty much a slap in the face of people that say the era of "subscription" is over. When FFXIV has just as much concurrent players as SWTOR and even though they shutdown digital sales for 5-7 days.
That's exactly right - EA/Bioware went with the initial money grab with little thought for long term (IMO) which is why the game is mostly dead now.
Ummm, no, not even close. ToR tried to do what was probably the most controlled rolling start in MMO history, and the playerbase shit bricks and tried to eat them alive over it.
Early access was staggered exactly to try and avoid some of the problems FFXIV ARR had, and and guilds were assigned servers in an effort to try and keep server populations balanced. It didn't work, and, given the nature of the MMO playing population, probably couldn't work, but it was a decent effort and pretty much the opposite of a "money grab".
That's exactly right - EA/Bioware went with the initial money grab with little thought for long term (IMO) which is why the game is mostly dead now.
Ummm, no, not even close. ToR tried to do what was probably the most controlled rolling start in MMO history, and the playerbase shit bricks and tried to eat them alive over it.
Early access was staggered exactly to try and avoid some of the problems FFXIV ARR had, and and guilds were assigned servers in an effort to try and keep server populations balanced. It didn't work, and, given the nature of the MMO playing population, probably couldn't work, but it was a decent effort and pretty much the opposite of a "money grab".
Bioware/EA made their $$ up front - plain and simple. The game was mega hyped to be the 2nd coming and people lapped it up. After the 1st month subs dropped DRAMATICALLY and never recovered which is why it went F2P. On top of that...they charged almost twice as much than FF did.
I can forgive a rough launch if the game is really good and SWTOR ain't...plain and simple. I still want my $$ back for that garbage - 2 Deluxe Editions worth!
Currently playing SWTOR and it's MUCH better than it was at launch.
I am very surprised with these numbers, especially when Japanese and NA/EU "peak" times are no where close to each other. And the fact it was a relaunch of a failed MMO.
Data like this is pretty much a slap in the face of people that say the era of "subscription" is over. When FFXIV has just as much concurrent players as SWTOR and even though they shutdown digital sales for 5-7 days.
Huh? jumping the gun are we? game is still in free time period and subs have not kicked yet. I don't know why fans do not refrain from making posts like these? just gives more fuel to critics later on when population will start to drop.
Originally posted by flclimaxwhere is 325k concurrent a record at? japan? gotta laught at the AFK kick + more servers. you're going to see "concurrency" drop now that all the AFKer's won't count, and the game will look empty with less people standing around yet more servers to spread people out in.
You think 53 full servers at launch is a joke?
Name another game that had 53 completely full servers at launch and had to suspend sales until they could get the capacity to handle them all. I can think of two games.
I didn't count them. Probably more than 53 servers. They weren't all full, but many of them were. They didn't have to suspend sales because they could roll out new servers fast enough to keep up with demand (a novel idea, I know).
GW2 had close to 50 servers at launch (I think they have 51 now), and they have this nifty overflow ability so that if your server is full, you can still log in and play on a non-full server.
There were 88 US servers, with additional EU/OC servers available. no additional servers were added until several months later - although some of the more popular servers were full right after launch. WoW I don't think had digital sales when it first released.
Now with all of that linked above, I hesitate to say it, but look where they all are now - it's all over the place. WoW is probably the only one to grow beyond that, GW2 has held steady (but it's only been out for a year), while Rift and SWTOR are both down to nearly single-digit servers.
SWTOR rolled out all those new servers and then had at least 2 server merges, with more than 2 servers being pushed together. It's for that reason, I can understand SE not wanting to just drop 10 new servers and open up sales. They probably are missing some sales and permanently losing some customers, but it shows that they are not going for the initial money grab and are thinking more long term.
Redo123 proposed a challenge, to name another MMO that had 53 servers at launch and had to halt sales.
The only meaningful part of that, really, is 'which game had 53 servers". "Having to halt sales" has more to do with the company's preparedness to launch more servers/worlds, and less to do with the number of people. Developers with a plan in place to rapidly open new servers didn't have to halt sales. Less prepared developers did.
Regardless, Ridelynn met that challenge handily, providing info and links to several MMOs that met either or both criteria. Anything after that is really irrelevant.
Whether or not they had to merge later is irrelevant. And, frankly, I'd rather see a developer prepared for a rush by having "too many" servers at launch, than to see players locked out of playing for almost 2 weeks (as many were) by not having enough servers, exacerbated by not having a fluid enough system in place to launch them as needed.
People have tried arguing "well, you can't just launch servers that quickly". As has been pointed out in Ridelynn's post, you absolutely can... if you're prepared to. SE clearly weren't.
[mod edit]. If you cant handle the hundrids of problems a new MMO can have at launch, then you should wait 1-3 months when things are running smooth.
SWTOR rolled out all those new servers and then had at least 2 server merges, with more than 2 servers being pushed together. It's for that reason, I can understand SE not wanting to just drop 10 new servers and open up sales. They probably are missing some sales and permanently losing some customers, but it shows that they are not going for the initial money grab and are thinking more long term.
So you are saying it is good to just ignore players that want to play the game, becasue they already have enough? I don't understand your reasoning, it is like spitting into face of customer/players. Or like assuming that they will do bad, we won't open new servers, because you will quit our game after a month anyway...
No reason to reply like that. You just show your own stripes when you do that.
There are 2 types of MMO'rs. 1's that can deal with a launch. 1's that can't. It's simply that. Some people understand that nothing i perfect. Others don't. If you want polish on launch of an MMO, it'd be best NOT to play them at launch.
Testing only can do so much. QA can only do so much. It happens. SE didn't have the in-game bugs like some but they under expected their re-launch. Since there is no significant relaunch in history, any sort of numbers would have been baseless and wasteful. People expect SE to have been omnipotent.
No reason to reply like that. You just show your own stripes when you do that.
There are 2 types of MMO'rs. 1's that can deal with a launch. 1's that can't. It's simply that. Some people understand that nothing i perfect. Others don't. If you want polish on launch of an MMO, it'd be best NOT to play them at launch.
Testing only can do so much. QA can only do so much. It happens. SE didn't have the in-game bugs like some but they under expected their re-launch. Since there is no significant relaunch in history, any sort of numbers would have been baseless and wasteful. People expect SE to have been omnipotent.
No i think people expected SOE to learn from their past experiences both good and bad from FFXI and 1.0. As one plays the game he/she realises more and more rookie mistakes made by an experinced company like SE. No AFK time out is one of the many such rookie mistakes.
No i think people expected SOE to learn from their past experiences both good and bad from FFXI and 1.0. As one plays the game he/she realises more and more rookie mistakes made by an experinced company like SE. No AFK time out is one of the many such rookie mistakes.
It was a deliberate design decision from 1.0 that was left over. But clearly you don't know the history of the game you're criticizing...
It is most certainly not even a mistake. There's nothing wrong with sitting AFK.
And if you're going to point out it was the cause of the login problems, it was not and you are wrong per SE and their repair. If AFK was the cause, then we'd still be having login issues, which we are NOT because... again... it wasn't the cause. Only the red herring people can latch onto.
"The implementation of an automatic logout timer for AFK players is also planned for implementation between one and three weeks for now."
Again, it was left over from a 1.0 design decision. If not for this knee jerk backlash they wouldn't be removing it. But since I'm not a dev.. I have no control over it.
The same reason that after that McDonald's hot coffee fiasco, you couldn't get a decent warm cup of coffee there for a LONG time.
Originally posted by flclimaxwhere is 325k concurrent a record at? japan? gotta laught at the AFK kick + more servers. you're going to see "concurrency" drop now that all the AFKer's won't count, and the game will look empty with less people standing around yet more servers to spread people out in.
You think 53 full servers at launch is a joke?
Name another game that had 53 completely full servers at launch and had to suspend sales until they could get the capacity to handle them all. I can think of two games.
I didn't count them. Probably more than 53 servers. They weren't all full, but many of them were. They didn't have to suspend sales because they could roll out new servers fast enough to keep up with demand (a novel idea, I know).
GW2 had close to 50 servers at launch (I think they have 51 now), and they have this nifty overflow ability so that if your server is full, you can still log in and play on a non-full server.
There were 88 US servers, with additional EU/OC servers available. no additional servers were added until several months later - although some of the more popular servers were full right after launch. WoW I don't think had digital sales when it first released.
Now with all of that linked above, I hesitate to say it, but look where they all are now - it's all over the place. WoW is probably the only one to grow beyond that, GW2 has held steady (but it's only been out for a year), while Rift and SWTOR are both down to nearly single-digit servers.
SWTOR rolled out all those new servers and then had at least 2 server merges, with more than 2 servers being pushed together. It's for that reason, I can understand SE not wanting to just drop 10 new servers and open up sales. They probably are missing some sales and permanently losing some customers, but it shows that they are not going for the initial money grab and are thinking more long term.
Redo123 proposed a challenge, to name another MMO that had 53 servers at launch and had to halt sales.
The only meaningful part of that, really, is 'which game had 53 servers". "Having to halt sales" has more to do with the company's preparedness to launch more servers/worlds, and less to do with the number of people. Developers with a plan in place to rapidly open new servers didn't have to halt sales. Less prepared developers did.
Regardless, Ridelynn met that challenge handily, providing info and links to several MMOs that met either or both criteria. Anything after that is really irrelevant.
Whether or not they had to merge later is irrelevant. And, frankly, I'd rather see a developer prepared for a rush by having "too many" servers at launch, than to see players locked out of playing for almost 2 weeks (as many were) by not having enough servers, exacerbated by not having a fluid enough system in place to launch them as needed.
People have tried arguing "well, you can't just launch servers that quickly". As has been pointed out in Ridelynn's post, you absolutely can... if you're prepared to. SE clearly weren't.
[mod edit]. If you cant handle the hundrids of problems a new MMO can have at launch, then you should wait 1-3 months when things are running smooth.
It's not exactly a new MMO. It's a remake of a really shitty one. You can say they completely redid it all you want but the fact remains that the infrastructure of the game isn't all that much different. Any game can be better if the company is willing to throw the money at it and re-launch.
The fact still remains that this is a re-launch. There shouldn't be hundreds of problems. The coding from the main game should run smooth as shit since its been out for going on 3 years.
Comments
Except that what you fail to take into consideration, is that for every AFK'er in the game there were perhaps at least twice as many trying to get into the game. So this AFK dynamic that many of you are alluding to, is really a non factor in that regard. If anything, now that the game as been stabilized, we will see a lot more active players running around, since people that want to play will be able to get in the game and replace the AFK'ers, who were standing around doing nothing. In other words, the game will be better off for it, not worse. Sorry to have refuted your thoughtless negativity with a little common sense. Someone had to do it.
No..FF ARR is really different than SWTOR - it's FUN...it RUNS SMOOTHLY...graphics are gorgeous...crafting is complex...deep...fun...and matters. Did I mention it's fun and runs really well?
SWTOR also was hyped to the max while FF ARR has taken the MMO community by storm because of word of mouth - which will make or break a game. And I'm a big Star Wars fan...I wish SWTOR would have been 1/2 of what FF ARR turned out to be.
Currently playing SWTOR and it's MUCH better than it was at launch.
http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=254
I didn't count them. Probably more than 53 servers. They weren't all full, but many of them were. They didn't have to suspend sales because they could roll out new servers fast enough to keep up with demand (a novel idea, I know).
http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/02/28/rift-adds-31-additional-servers-for-launch/
Rift started with 68 servers, and quickly had to add 31 more because they filled up.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/31/guild-wars-2-suspends-digital-sales
Also not the only game to suspend digital sales.
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/introducing-the-worlds-of-guild-wars-2/
GW2 had close to 50 servers at launch (I think they have 51 now), and they have this nifty overflow ability so that if your server is full, you can still log in and play on a non-full server.
And just in case anyone has forgotten, here is the list of WoW servers and when they were added:
http://www.wowwiki.com/Timeline_of_the_creation_of_US_realms
There were 88 US servers, with additional EU/OC servers available. no additional servers were added until several months later - although some of the more popular servers were full right after launch. WoW I don't think had digital sales when it first released.
http://www.tentonhammer.com/wow/editorial/remembering-the-launch-of-wow
This is a great read.
----
Now with all of that linked above, I hesitate to say it, but look where they all are now - it's all over the place. WoW is probably the only one to grow beyond that, GW2 has held steady (but it's only been out for a year), while Rift and SWTOR are both down to nearly single-digit servers.
What I find funny about this is that ArenaNet announces that GW2 has a peak concurrency(which means the highest number ever) of 460,000 and people lose their minds about how "OMG, so awesome" it is, whereas FF14 announces a peak concurrency of 325,000 and people are like "lol, whatever".
http://wow.joystiq.com/2008/04/11/chinese-wow-hits-1-million-concurrent-players/
WoW peak concurrent: >1Mil. In China alone. Only from The9 subscribers. Not including any other areas.
It's fantastic that FFXIV is doing as well as it is, but that still doesn't really excuse many of the problems they have had.
An MMORPG having problems during the first week of release. That has never happened before. The horror.
If you played WoWs first month you would have quit if you think FF14 is doing badly lol. WoW still stands as the worst launch I have ever played. More server down time this up. They had to hand out free time hand over fist and max out players rest exp as they were down 3 days at a stretch. This is bad but its not outside the norm of a new MMO growing to fast,
SWTOR rolled out all those new servers and then had at least 2 server merges, with more than 2 servers being pushed together. It's for that reason, I can understand SE not wanting to just drop 10 new servers and open up sales. They probably are missing some sales and permanently losing some customers, but it shows that they are not going for the initial money grab and are thinking more long term.
i agree - as long as a mmo is sustainable and fun, that's all that matters
EQ2 fan sites
GW2 comes to mind. I love FFXIV but this is nothing to brag about. Every MMO at release have more servers than actually needed and all are full. However, after 6 months it is a different story.
That's exactly right - EA/Bioware went with the initial money grab with little thought for long term (IMO) which is why the game is mostly dead now. FF won't lose money...these same people that are whining right now who say they'll NEVER play this game will the 1st ones to run out and get the game when it's back on the shelves...physical as well as digital.
Why? The game is awesome...that's why and I was initially unhappy about not being able to play last weekend but rather than totally pissing off EVERYONE they opted to halt sales and fix the problem. It's the mark of a company thinking of it's players and not the $$$$.
Currently playing SWTOR and it's MUCH better than it was at launch.
Redo123 proposed a challenge, to name another MMO that had 53 servers at launch and had to halt sales.
The only meaningful part of that, really, is 'which game had 53 servers". "Having to halt sales" has more to do with the company's preparedness to launch more servers/worlds, and less to do with the number of people. Developers with a plan in place to rapidly open new servers didn't have to halt sales. Less prepared developers did.
Regardless, Ridelynn met that challenge handily, providing info and links to several MMOs that met either or both criteria. Anything after that is really irrelevant.
Whether or not they had to merge later is irrelevant. And, frankly, I'd rather see a developer prepared for a rush by having "too many" servers at launch, than to see players locked out of playing for almost 2 weeks (as many were) by not having enough servers, exacerbated by not having a fluid enough system in place to launch them as needed.
People have tried arguing "well, you can't just launch servers that quickly". As has been pointed out in Ridelynn's post, you absolutely can... if you're prepared to. SE clearly weren't.
I am very surprised with these numbers, especially when Japanese and NA/EU "peak" times are no where close to each other. And the fact it was a relaunch of a failed MMO.
Data like this is pretty much a slap in the face of people that say the era of "subscription" is over. When FFXIV has just as much concurrent players as SWTOR and even though they shutdown digital sales for 5-7 days.
Ummm, no, not even close. ToR tried to do what was probably the most controlled rolling start in MMO history, and the playerbase shit bricks and tried to eat them alive over it.
Early access was staggered exactly to try and avoid some of the problems FFXIV ARR had, and and guilds were assigned servers in an effort to try and keep server populations balanced. It didn't work, and, given the nature of the MMO playing population, probably couldn't work, but it was a decent effort and pretty much the opposite of a "money grab".
Bioware/EA made their $$ up front - plain and simple. The game was mega hyped to be the 2nd coming and people lapped it up. After the 1st month subs dropped DRAMATICALLY and never recovered which is why it went F2P. On top of that...they charged almost twice as much than FF did.
I can forgive a rough launch if the game is really good and SWTOR ain't...plain and simple. I still want my $$ back for that garbage - 2 Deluxe Editions worth!
Currently playing SWTOR and it's MUCH better than it was at launch.
Huh? jumping the gun are we? game is still in free time period and subs have not kicked yet. I don't know why fans do not refrain from making posts like these? just gives more fuel to critics later on when population will start to drop.
[mod edit]. If you cant handle the hundrids of problems a new MMO can have at launch, then you should wait 1-3 months when things are running smooth.
So you are saying it is good to just ignore players that want to play the game, becasue they already have enough? I don't understand your reasoning, it is like spitting into face of customer/players. Or like assuming that they will do bad, we won't open new servers, because you will quit our game after a month anyway...
[mod edit]
No reason to reply like that. You just show your own stripes when you do that.
There are 2 types of MMO'rs. 1's that can deal with a launch. 1's that can't. It's simply that. Some people understand that nothing i perfect. Others don't. If you want polish on launch of an MMO, it'd be best NOT to play them at launch.
Testing only can do so much. QA can only do so much. It happens. SE didn't have the in-game bugs like some but they under expected their re-launch. Since there is no significant relaunch in history, any sort of numbers would have been baseless and wasteful. People expect SE to have been omnipotent.
No i think people expected SOE to learn from their past experiences both good and bad from FFXI and 1.0. As one plays the game he/she realises more and more rookie mistakes made by an experinced company like SE. No AFK time out is one of the many such rookie mistakes.
It was a deliberate design decision from 1.0 that was left over. But clearly you don't know the history of the game you're criticizing...
It is most certainly not even a mistake. There's nothing wrong with sitting AFK.
And if you're going to point out it was the cause of the login problems, it was not and you are wrong per SE and their repair. If AFK was the cause, then we'd still be having login issues, which we are NOT because... again... it wasn't the cause. Only the red herring people can latch onto.
It would seem SE disagrees with you.
According to the article linked to in the OP:
"The implementation of an automatic logout timer for AFK players is also planned for implementation between one and three weeks for now."
Again, it was left over from a 1.0 design decision. If not for this knee jerk backlash they wouldn't be removing it. But since I'm not a dev.. I have no control over it.
The same reason that after that McDonald's hot coffee fiasco, you couldn't get a decent warm cup of coffee there for a LONG time.
Given how well 1.0 went, that's about the weakest defense possible.
It's not exactly a new MMO. It's a remake of a really shitty one. You can say they completely redid it all you want but the fact remains that the infrastructure of the game isn't all that much different. Any game can be better if the company is willing to throw the money at it and re-launch.
The fact still remains that this is a re-launch. There shouldn't be hundreds of problems. The coding from the main game should run smooth as shit since its been out for going on 3 years.