Originally posted by ArcheusCross That's a load of crap. The SC is why the game is failing. Number 1 its splitting the games population in thirds. 1. PVE 2. SC 3. OPVP. You eliminate it you have more pve for opvp. Secondly you can use the same "boring"/zerging arguement for SC's. Hell I would argue it applies more TO SC, as you can easily play a few games real fast. The more people you have bunched together the more likely you are going to be to steamroll the map. Not to mention as fast as you do the maps it can get boring fast. Thirdly it splits the cames content focus up more. It's just better to do away with it and focus on fun stuff for pve and opvp. Like I said. This isnt wow. We don't need bg's. Thanks.
Actually ppl also say the same about WoW, that the instanced BG's are killing the game, yet I see no dip in subscribers to back that up.
I thoroughly enjoy doing SC's, I can do them all day and still enjoy them, however I do mix it up a bit and participate in all aspects of the game.
However I really want Mythic to do something about PQ's, too many, not enough interest for the harder ones, rewards can be a tad weak for the risk and effort, and the rolling system used to allocate the loot can be too random at times to ensure ppl feel they are adequately rewarded for their efforts.
The difference is that the majority of WoW content is instanced PvE. Prior to WoTLK open world pvp had little to no effect on the way the game was played. I didn't play into WoTLK so I'm not certain on the benefits the new PvP areas brought. Open world pvp in WAR makes a huge difference.
One of the problems besides scenarios taking a chunk of players, is that it's not treated as a minigame. BGs in WoW are minigames, and affect the mingame aspects of the overall game. You play arena and BGs, get the welfare epics so you can pvp without dying immediately. While the overall focus is still mostly PvE, and that's why people play WoW. I don't think I've heard a big promotion of the great pvp WoW has to offer. WARs bread and butter is pvp, which unless they address the severe performance issues will continue to hamper the heavily pushed army on army conflicts. I think that issue must be address over all other concerns at this time.
Originally posted by LynxJSA Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by Pheace
Originally posted by LynxJSA
I researched that and it seems you misunderstood what he said. He was talking about what it would take to sucessfully become the number 2 NA MMO. He did not say WAR needed 500k to be a success.
Although i can understand what you are saying, in that particular interview he also says Lets just say north of half a million ""would mean were successful. Now how a far north? I wouldnt mind being a little bit cold. after having said "I want us to be no less than number two".
That part is already in doubt with Eve just having reached 300k users as well.
Again this comes down to the previous argumen tthough. He didn't say it was "needed to be a success" but he did say he would consider themselves "succesful" if they got at least 500k.
In all honestly though, does any of us really believe they were aiming that low? I sure wasn't with them having polls in the company on how long it would take them to reach 1 million etc etc.
You are right again, Pheace. What, you have an elephant memory or something? Everytime I check out something you say, it's backable.
Creative Director Paul Barnett in September interview talking about bets to Eurogamer Magazine: ----------------------------
Eurogamer: Do you have a number of players in mind that you'd consider a success?
Paul Barnett: I don't know what the business people have - they have all sorts of crazy numbers, and things to do with shareholders, and things that would probably get me fired. But we're having a staff pool. I put down my bet: a million within the year, and then three million.
Eurogamer: That's a confident bet.
Paul Barnett: But that's just me, personally. That's not Mythic or EA.
Finished that for you. Yep, good job. You just finished Pheace's point for him that you argued against.
That's how the #2 or #3 man at Mythic felt about WAR's future subscriptions.
If Mythic took away SC's today WAR would close up shop by next weeks Downtime. SC's are the only reason people play this game into tier 2 most leave before Tier 3 since everyone is Orvring by that time and the shit gets boring zerging the same keeps over and over.
The SC is why the game is failing. Number 1 its splitting the games population in thirds. 1. PVE 2. SC 3. OPVP. You eliminate it you have more pve for opvp. Secondly you can use the same "boring"/zerging arguement for SC's. Hell I would argue it applies more TO SC, as you can easily play a few games real fast. The more people you have bunched together the more likely you are going to be to steamroll the map. Not to mention as fast as you do the maps it can get boring fast. Thirdly it splits the cames content focus up more. It's just better to do away with it and focus on fun stuff for pve and opvp.
Like I said. This isnt wow. We don't need bg's. Thanks.
That is a load of crap, and purely a personal opinion which has no value, apart from to yourself.
I carried on playing War for a lot longer than I would have done, if it hadn't had scenarios. The rest of the game is utter bullshit devised by people with the imagination of a goldfish.
With better mmos ahead of us like Champions Online and Aion, do some of you really think that WAR will actually survive another year ? It might but only because they will be reluctant to shutdown the servers because they still want to squeeze whatever money they can from the game.
I researched that and it seems you misunderstood what he said. He was talking about what it would take to sucessfully become the number 2 NA MMO. He did not say WAR needed 500k to be a success.
Although i can understand what you are saying, in that particular interview he also says “Let’s just say north of half a million ""would mean we’re successful. Now how a far north? I wouldn’t mind being a little bit cold.” after having said "I want us to be no less than number two".
That part is already in doubt with Eve just having reached 300k users as well.
Again this comes down to the previous argumen tthough. He didn't say it was "needed to be a success" but he did say he would consider themselves "succesful" if they got at least 500k.
In all honestly though, does any of us really believe they were aiming that low? I sure wasn't with them having polls in the company on how long it would take them to reach 1 million etc etc.
You are right again, Pheace. What, you have an elephant memory or something? Everytime I check out something you say, it's backable.
Creative Director Paul Barnett in September interview talking about bets to Eurogamer Magazine:
----------------------------
Eurogamer: Do you have a number of players in mind that you'd consider a success?
Paul Barnett: I don't know what the business people have - they have all sorts of crazy numbers, and things to do with shareholders, and things that would probably get me fired. But we're having a staff pool. I put down my bet: a million within the year, and then three million.
Eurogamer: That's a confident bet.
Paul Barnett: But that's just me, personally. That's not Mythic or EA.
Finished that for you.
I'd like to see what his revised guesstimate is now.
I think he has a problem with decimal points - this game will be lucky to have 30k subs in 3 yrs time. Unless of course, they completely redesign the game and engine and employ someone who has a modicum of creativity.
The difference is that the majority of WoW content is instanced PvE. Prior to WoTLK open world pvp had little to no effect on the way the game was played. I didn't play into WoTLK so I'm not certain on the benefits the new PvP areas brought. Open world pvp in WAR makes a huge difference. One of the problems besides scenarios taking a chunk of players, is that it's not treated as a minigame. BGs in WoW are minigames, and affect the mingame aspects of the overall game. You play arena and BGs, get the welfare epics so you can pvp without dying immediately. While the overall focus is still mostly PvE, and that's why people play WoW. I don't think I've heard a big promotion of the great pvp WoW has to offer. WARs bread and butter is pvp, which unless they address the severe performance issues will continue to hamper the heavily pushed army on army conflicts. I think that issue must be address over all other concerns at this time.
1. As long as you make a PvP based game with hampered game play as in unresponsive control of your clunky avatars in War, you run into problems. A PvP based game MUST have the best fluid, fastest responsive controls. Period.
2. There are actually more PvP options in Wow than in War. Arena ? BG's are bigger and more themed. Daily open world PvP quests eliminate the RvR zones (which most players avoid) and Lake Wintergrasp is even too massively played in Wow (on every server every 2.5 hours multiple raid fights). Of course the fast, frantic and very responsive controls are the basis for this.
3. EA speaks now of "300K dedicated WAR "players", no longer of subscriptions. It clearly means they include the free trial accounts and no longer the subscribers only. And at under 3000K Xfire players it means that the game has (again) lost its 5500 Xfire number of players around Christmas 2008 (and the 15.000 Xfire daily players at launch in Sep 2008).
------
Mythic used a wrong engine for mmorpg pvp play.
The game is designed to be a pvp game but it doesn't have its fluid mechanics. Both in controls and in animation (ever saw a dwarf taking 5 steps at a time on a stair ???).
Pure PvP players demand FULL and utterly unhampered controls of their avatars.
PvP players are mostly the individual type of players. They want to compare, have a competition and talk about stats and tactics. War gives no stats (no duels/arenas), has no competition and no data to compare.
PvP zerg fests with the bigger group that gets healed "wins", are not very attractive for most PvP players in the long run.
Perhaps it is a deformation of PvP due to games like Wow and GW's, but is a reality because games are still being played individually...
That's a load of crap. I don't care how well WoW runs it still doesn't have better pvp. I don't care if they have "arenas" to go along with BGs and Lake Wintergrasp. There's no comparison to the amount of pvp in the two games.
And I do not find arena ratings attractive. I do not feel the need for those individual statistics you speak of. I RvR/PvP to have fun and hopefully accomplish something (and I consider taking a keep or something ten times the accomplishment of having an XXXX arena rating). And guess what - if they do desire those individual stats to compare - go farm some RPs so you can stroke your epeen when your name shows up on the most RP earned that week or whatever.
PvP players are the most individual type of player? What about the epeen stroking DPS chart watchers in WoW? The ones who go psycho over a piece of meaningless gear so they can achieve 10 more deeps to beat out that mage on the charts. Same with healing.
And - No - they don't include free trial accounts into that number.
I'm glad you're enjoying WoW - because that was WoW slurpfest in your post.
4.5 millions dollar a month from subs only and its not financialy viable..come on, considering how long this game was in developement (very shot) , this only mean good thing no?
Sorry to break it to you but they won't be makeing anywhere near that much.
Edit: The recession has nothing to do with falling subs if anything most mmorpgs are seeing increased subs because of it.
Yeah I think people have more time for MMOs if anything......If nothing else people may give games like WAR a shot because it offers a free trial.......Also even unemployed 15 bucks a month isnt bad........
[quote][i]Originally posted by Zorndorf[/i] [quote][i]Originally posted by Plaidpants[/i] [quote][i]Originally posted by Zorndorf[/i] [quote][i]Originally posted by joswij[/i] The difference is that the majority of WoW content is instanced PvE. Prior to WoTLK open world pvp had little to no effect on the way the game was played. I didn't play into WoTLK so I'm not certain on the benefits the new PvP areas brought. Open world pvp in WAR makes a huge difference. One of the problems besides scenarios taking a chunk of players, is that it's not treated as a minigame. BGs in WoW are minigames, and affect the mingame aspects of the overall game. You play arena and BGs, get the welfare epics so you can pvp without dying immediately. While the overall focus is still mostly PvE, and that's why people play WoW. I don't think I've heard a big promotion of the great pvp WoW has to offer. WARs bread and butter is pvp, which unless they address the severe performance issues will continue to hamper the heavily pushed army on army conflicts. I think that issue must be address over all other concerns at this time. [/quote] 1. As long as you make a PvP based game with hampered game play as in unresponsive control of your clunky avatars in War, you run into problems. A PvP based game MUST have the best fluid, fastest responsive controls. Period. 2. There are actually more PvP options in Wow than in War. Arena ? BG's are bigger and more themed. Daily open world PvP quests eliminate the RvR zones (which most players avoid) and Lake Wintergrasp is even too massively played in Wow (on every server every 2.5 hours multiple raid fights). Of course the fast, frantic and very responsive controls are the basis for this. 3. EA speaks now of "300K dedicated WAR "players", [u]no longer of subscriptions[/u]. It clearly means they include the free trial accounts and no longer the subscribers only. And at under 3000K Xfire players it means that the game has (again) lost its 5500 Xfire number of players around Christmas 2008 (and the 15.000 Xfire daily players at launch in Sep 2008). ------ Mythic used a wrong engine for mmorpg pvp play. The game is designed to be a pvp game but it doesn't have its fluid mechanics. Both in controls and in animation (ever saw a dwarf taking 5 steps at a time on a stair ???). Pure PvP players demand FULL and utterly unhampered controls of their avatars. PvP players are mostly the individual type of players. They want to compare, have a competition and talk about stats and tactics. War gives no stats (no duels/arenas), has no competition and no data to compare. PvP zerg fests with the bigger group that gets healed "wins", are not very attractive for most PvP players in the long run. Perhaps it is a deformation of PvP due to games like Wow and GW's, but is a reality because games are still being played individually... [/quote] That's a load of crap. I don't care how well WoW runs it still doesn't have better pvp. I don't care if they have "arenas" to go along with BGs and Lake Wintergrasp. There's no comparison to the amount of pvp in the two games. And I do not find arena ratings attractive. I do not feel the need for those individual statistics you speak of. I RvR/PvP to have fun and hopefully accomplish something (and I consider taking a keep or something ten times the accomplishment of having an XXXX arena rating). And guess what - if they do desire those individual stats to compare - go farm some RPs so you can stroke your epeen when your name shows up on the most RP earned that week or whatever. PvP players are the most individual type of player? What about the epeen stroking DPS chart watchers in WoW? The ones who go psycho over a piece of meaningless gear so they can achieve 10 more deeps to beat out that mage on the charts. Same with healing. And - No - they don't include free trial accounts into that number. I'm glad you're enjoying WoW - because that was WoW slurpfest in your post. [/quote] [u]Well opinions do vary[/u]. I respect your opinion. But the vast majority "could" think otherwise ... or people would still be playing Warhammer massively (as in 800K subs or above like they did at launch). I just pointed out some very obvious shortcomings when I played War (to me that is). It made the game not "fun" to play to me. No one is right, no one is wrong, but I only wanted to point out the views of some excellent PvP players I know in real life and who happened to play the two games. They play to be "up there" not "down there in some grey mass". As for the DPS chart watchers... they are mostly pure PVE players (and bad ones I may say), because every good pvp player knows it is more about CC, counter spells, fast reactions, LOS and positioning (as in attacking from the back ignores dodge ratings). ----- And .. where are the data to discuss over in War? No results pages, no data of class interactions in a competitive form at all. So HOW even to discuss class balances or imbalances ? The competition in War is only in a very limited RvR form, but ... most people don't give shit about RvR. Most people play to advance their avatars. That kind of lack of competition sucks big for a lot of PvP players. It is like constantly running 100 meters without ever declaring a winner or classification. It is clearly not adressed to all PvP players and the hampered controls did the rest: result is less and less players are interested in the long run. You conquer a fortress (knocking on a door to enter) and so what. You look back an hour later and it is being reconquered. Exactly the same thing as Wintergrasp, but at least in that game you can have a competition in pvp in another branche of the game... with stats and results to play for like titles. You may have ALL the fun in the world (re)conquering that Keep a "zillion" times. But eventually it will wear you down by simply lack of options and competition. [/quote]
The difference is that the majority of WoW content is instanced PvE. Prior to WoTLK open world pvp had little to no effect on the way the game was played. I didn't play into WoTLK so I'm not certain on the benefits the new PvP areas brought. Open world pvp in WAR makes a huge difference. One of the problems besides scenarios taking a chunk of players, is that it's not treated as a minigame. BGs in WoW are minigames, and affect the mingame aspects of the overall game. You play arena and BGs, get the welfare epics so you can pvp without dying immediately. While the overall focus is still mostly PvE, and that's why people play WoW. I don't think I've heard a big promotion of the great pvp WoW has to offer. WARs bread and butter is pvp, which unless they address the severe performance issues will continue to hamper the heavily pushed army on army conflicts. I think that issue must be address over all other concerns at this time.
1. As long as you make a PvP based game with hampered game play as in unresponsive control of your clunky avatars in War, you run into problems. A PvP based game MUST have the best fluid, fastest responsive controls. Period.
2. There are actually more PvP options in Wow than in War. Arena ? BG's are bigger and more themed. Daily open world PvP quests eliminate the RvR zones (which most players avoid) and Lake Wintergrasp is even too massively played in Wow (on every server every 2.5 hours multiple raid fights). Of course the fast, frantic and very responsive controls are the basis for this.
3. EA speaks now of "300K dedicated WAR "players", no longer of subscriptions. It clearly means they include the free trial accounts and no longer the subscribers only. And at under 3000K Xfire players it means that the game has (again) lost its 5500 Xfire number of players around Christmas 2008 (and the 15.000 Xfire daily players at launch in Sep 2008).
------
Mythic used a wrong engine for mmorpg pvp play.
The game is designed to be a pvp game but it doesn't have its fluid mechanics. Both in controls and in animation (ever saw a dwarf taking 5 steps at a time on a stair ???).
Pure PvP players demand FULL and utterly unhampered controls of their avatars.
PvP players are mostly the individual type of players. They want to compare, have a competition and talk about stats and tactics. War gives no stats (no duels/arenas), has no competition and no data to compare.
PvP zerg fests with the bigger group that gets healed "wins", are not very attractive for most PvP players in the long run.
Perhaps it is a deformation of PvP due to games like Wow and GW's, but is a reality because games are still being played individually...
That's a load of crap. I don't care how well WoW runs it still doesn't have better pvp. I don't care if they have "arenas" to go along with BGs and Lake Wintergrasp. There's no comparison to the amount of pvp in the two games.
And I do not find arena ratings attractive. I do not feel the need for those individual statistics you speak of. I RvR/PvP to have fun and hopefully accomplish something (and I consider taking a keep or something ten times the accomplishment of having an XXXX arena rating). And guess what - if they do desire those individual stats to compare - go farm some RPs so you can stroke your epeen when your name shows up on the most RP earned that week or whatever.
PvP players are the most individual type of player? What about the epeen stroking DPS chart watchers in WoW? The ones who go psycho over a piece of meaningless gear so they can achieve 10 more deeps to beat out that mage on the charts. Same with healing.
And - No - they don't include free trial accounts into that number.
I'm glad you're enjoying WoW - because that was WoW slurpfest in your post.
Well opinions do vary. I respect your opinion.
But the vast majority "could" think otherwise ... or people would still be playing Warhammer massively (as in 800K subs or above like they did at launch).
I just pointed out some very obvious shortcomings when I played War (to me that is). It made the game not "fun" to play to me.
No one is right, no one is wrong, but I only wanted to point out the views of some excellent PvP players I know in real life and who happened to play the two games. They play to be "up there" not "down there in some grey mass".
As for the DPS chart watchers... they are mostly pure PVE players (and bad ones I may say), because every good pvp player knows it is more about CC, counter spells, fast reactions, LOS and positioning (as in attacking from the back ignores dodge ratings).
-----
And .. where are the data to discuss over in War? No results pages, no data of class interactions in a competitive form at all. So HOW even to discuss class balances or imbalances ?
The competition in War is only in a very limited RvR form, but ... most people don't give shit about RvR. Most people play to advance their avatars. That kind of lack of competition sucks big for a lot of PvP players.
It is like constantly running 100 meters without ever declaring a winner or classification.
It is clearly not adressed to all PvP players and the hampered controls did the rest: result is less and less players are interested in the long run. You conquer a fortress (knocking on a door to enter) and so what. You look back an hour later and it is being reconquered.
Exactly the same thing as Wintergrasp, but at least in that game you can have a competition in pvp in another branche of the game... with stats and results to play for like titles.
You may have ALL the fun in the world (re)conquering that Keep a "zillion" times. But eventually it will wear you down by simply lack of options and competition.
I know the dps watchers are purely PvE people. That's why I brought it up - because PvE players are just as much or more about stats and their individual player than PvP players.
And the fortress/keep taking needs some changes - but it managed to occupy and satisfy tons and tons of people for quite awhile in DAoC - including me and those keeps were conquered a zillion times as well. (and yes - I'm aware the RvR/keep sieges and stuff isn't up to DAoC's standards but the game is new at this point)
They really need a couple more. I play on Vortex and it is one of the lower core ones left - not much at all in t2 or t3. I really hope they don't hold out too long though - because it will cause even more to quit if it gets any worse on some of the lower pop servers.
Sorry if this is old, but it looks like EA has posted the dedicated player base at 300k, along with their $1 billion annual loss financial statement. Source: www.gamespot.com/news/6209194.html Edit: (quote for the lazy!) "The most recent info on Warhammer Online puts the game's dedicated player base at 300,000."
Sorry if this is old, but it looks like EA has posted the dedicated player base at 300k, along with their $1 billion annual loss financial statement. Source: www.gamespot.com/news/6209194.html Edit: (quote for the lazy!) "The most recent info on Warhammer Online puts the game's dedicated player base at 300,000."
How about we wait a few more years to judge. And to call EvE a lil ole niche game is dumb. It's one of the most successful mmorpgs on the market right now.
Think WAR is gonna dip some more in the playerbase, but something will come and get the numbers back up again I think
No doubt the expansion is going to make the playerbase spike again, that happens with all MMO's, even complainers tend to give it another try "just in case".
I'd be more worried about new MMO releases in the future, i think those could hurt WAR the most.
WAR could grab a decent steady 500k subs probably if they manage to do a turnaround and fix up their game, kind of like AoC "apparently" has done(minus the boost in subs, lol).
Seems to be the rule nowdays to release a MMO before it's ready for release. I cannot figure out the reasons myself, sure, you get a lot of paying "beta testers". But you also ensure that you will leave a poor taste in the consumers mouth with your half completed product. And that taste is hard to remove, and we see many games now that will never reach any high numbers due to releasing a beta product and scaring off the customers or just making them angry to pay to beta test their game and thereby not continuing to subscribe.
Seems to be the rule nowdays to release a MMO before it's ready for release. I cannot figure out the reasons myself, sure, you get a lot of paying "beta testers". But you also ensure that you will leave a poor taste in the consumers mouth with your half completed product. And that taste is hard to remove, and we see many games now that will never reach any high numbers due to releasing a beta product and scaring off the customers or just making them angry to pay to beta test their game and thereby not continuing to subscribe.
Well some of that is because Corporate doesn't understand it.. or at least not the investors. What they see is money they invested and money spent over a period of time with no money coming back in (yet). This is the major advantage a privately owned and financed company has over any corporate or company that uses outside investors.
On the other hand I got into WAR beta at the start of Phase 2 I guess.. I think it was the end of Phase 1 because there was a pretty big down time while they revamped things.. but anyway...
I really liked how the beta was run.. by that I mean they removed testers who were just being obstacles. There was very little Ahat ratio until Phase 3. Altho I will admit I saw the most post asking to be removed from beta for WAR than any beta I've been in (beta'd most MMO's since UO). I'm not sure why that is.
The bad side of beta was... things were how they were going to be. You were not allowed to say "this is not fun.. if you changed it to this.. it would be fun."
If you did that James gave you a nice warning to provide feedback on the system as it was or that you would be removed from beta... *edit for clarification* This isn't talking about some form of nerd rage and forum spam resulting in warnings... I do mean entirely you were not allowed to suggest any alternative other than feedback on the system as it was... no matter how bad you or everyone (most everyone) thought it was.
So in that sense... my feeling was.. if you give me a pile of crap.. no matter how much sugar I sprinkle on it.. its still crap.
Translate that to: If your customers are telling you a paticular mechanic, system or even the entire core game.. is not fun. You might want to listen to that and figure out what it means... other wise you will have these systems YOU wanted and very few customers.
I honestly have no idea why it was like that.. I've never seen any other beta like that. In the past I've seen many concepts actually incorporated or things changed in pretty radical ways that really did improve things. Just wasn't allowed in that beta.
4.5 millions dollar a month from subs only and its not financialy viable..come on, considering how long this game was in developement (very shot) , this only mean good thing no?
I think a lot of people fail to realize that ISP's charge unbelievable amounts of money for bandwitdth. I remember a developer for EQ I stating that they spent more than a million a month for bandwitdth back in 2000 or so and I'm sure it's much more expensive now.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Overall pretty bad numbers, considering the game was released in Russia since the last report means either the game totaly tanked there or the US and EU sub numbers are still falling.
--The most recent info on Warhammer Online puts the game's dedicated player base at 300,000.
Well, if the number is from the last month that is true, but this sounds kinda unclear to me, they can also mean the numbers from this winter that we already knows about which was the same.
Still, if the launch would have been a succes we would have heard about it. Mythic needs to make sure that players stay longer, make T3 & 4 funnier and make RvR more rewarding are my suggestions. They also need to iron out the remaining buggs.
This is not a disaster however since the need over 250K to make a profit but if players quit after a shorter period of subbing that is bad in the long run. Mythic needs to work very hard to turn things around now, the Warhammer IP deservers nothing less.
Seems to be the rule nowdays to release a MMO before it's ready for release. I cannot figure out the reasons myself, sure, you get a lot of paying "beta testers". But you also ensure that you will leave a poor taste in the consumers mouth with your half completed product. And that taste is hard to remove, and we see many games now that will never reach any high numbers due to releasing a beta product and scaring off the customers or just making them angry to pay to beta test their game and thereby not continuing to subscribe.
Well some of that is because Corporate doesn't understand it.. or at least not the investors. What they see is money they invested and money spent over a period of time with no money coming back in (yet). This is the major advantage a privately owned and financed company has over any corporate or company that uses outside investors.
On the other hand I got into WAR beta at the start of Phase 2 I guess.. I think it was the end of Phase 1 because there was a pretty big down time while they revamped things.. but anyway...
I really liked how the beta was run.. by that I mean they removed testers who were just being obstacles. There was very little Ahat ratio until Phase 3. Altho I will admit I saw the most post asking to be removed from beta for WAR than any beta I've been in (beta'd most MMO's since UO). I'm not sure why that is.
The bad side of beta was... things were how they were going to be. You were not allowed to say "this is not fun.. if you changed it to this.. it would be fun."
If you did that James gave you a nice warning to provide feedback on the system as it was or that you would be removed from beta... *edit for clarification* This isn't talking about some form of nerd rage and forum spam resulting in warnings... I do mean entirely you were not allowed to suggest any alternative other than feedback on the system as it was... no matter how bad you or everyone (most everyone) thought it was.
So in that sense... my feeling was.. if you give me a pile of crap.. no matter how much sugar I sprinkle on it.. its still crap.
Translate that to: If your customers are telling you a paticular mechanic, system or even the entire core game.. is not fun. You might want to listen to that and figure out what it means... other wise you will have these systems YOU wanted and very few customers.
I honestly have no idea why it was like that.. I've never seen any other beta like that. In the past I've seen many concepts actually incorporated or things changed in pretty radical ways that really did improve things. Just wasn't allowed in that beta.
/shrug
Two things ... this is Mythic Entertainment we are talking about. Dark Age of Camelot was released well, but they didn't react well to bad expansions or bad patches. They are very slow to change, however, they are very much into the community and wanting to get good feedback, they are just so slow to react.
Then, they get bought by Electronic Arts, which in my opinion wasn't the greatest idea, but it was an essential one to support Warhammer Online and help get the latest DAoC expansion out. However, it's no secret, EA doesn't care for quality, they like money, they like it a lot.
On the side with a company like Blizzard. Mythic won't have their fortune.. Blizzard is the most powerful gaming company in the world, with such titles as Diablo II, StarCraft, Warcraft III and World of Warcraft. These are all household names and they are owned by Vivendi Universal. Vivendi is a very benelovent company and allows Blizzard to do what they want and take their time because they know for a fact-- when they release a game, it's not going to produce a ton of money at release.. no it'll do that, but it won't stop for a long time. StarCraft Battlechest is 20 dollars, Diablo II Battlechest is 30 dollars and Warcraft II Battlechest is 40 dollars! It's insane.
Mythic won't have this power, even if they make the game with the best PvP or some super unique feature. EA isn't a company that's designed for that, it's hard to get your feet in the water, especially in an expensive market like MMOs.
"The most recent info on Warhammer Online puts the game's dedicated player base at 300,000."
hmm, what does "dedicated player base" even mean. Do they have a description of what that includes or did I miss something? Why does the tiltle of this thread use "subs" in it when we don't even know if this includes trials and so on.
Mind you, it was predicted before hand that EA would use something like that rather than saying "subscriptions" so doesn;t surprise me. Considering they've released WAR in 2 new territories and are still at 300k, they are still bleeding subs in the Western markets.
Originally posted by Raztor "The most recent info on Warhammer Online puts the game's dedicated player base at 300,000."
hmm, what does "dedicated player base" even mean. Do they have a description of what that includes or did I miss something? Why does the tiltle of this thread use "subs" in it when we don't even know if this includes trials and so on.
Mind you, it was predicted before hand that EA would use something like that rather than saying "subscriptions" so doesn;t surprise me. Considering they've released WAR in 2 new territories and are still at 300k, they are still bleeding subs in the Western markets.
I agree with this sentiment of Mythic's use of the word "dedicated" as simply meant for misleading opinion.
A game has 300K subs. They then release into new areas/markets where they claim the game is well received with thousands in beta. They then say that the game on release in those markets have been successful in adding tens of thousands of subscriptions of "NEW" players playing. Then when they release new totals, but they are still at 300K subscriptions total. It's obvious that those 300k subscriptions are not all "dedicated" because many of them by Mythic's own admission are "new" in new markets. Apparently, if thousands joined and the number is exactly the same, it means that all those subs were not "dedicated".
Classic case of lawyering and misleading, without having to actually prove it. It's like them saying WAR is the most popular game on the market. Even though WoW can say they have 12 million subscriptions worldwide, Mythic can simply claim "Yeah, but those people don't really like WoW, but our 300k love WAR so we are the most popular." Crazy for sure, but they really don't have to prove that and can claim it all day long legally.
Dedicated, to me, seems like those subs that have been around for at least two months, meaning they have either bought the retail box, played the first free month, and enjoyed it enough to continue playing, OR a returning player who has paid for at least two consecutive months while these stats were being tabulated.
Then again, maybe I'm just too optimistic about sub numbers. :P
Comments
Actually ppl also say the same about WoW, that the instanced BG's are killing the game, yet I see no dip in subscribers to back that up.
I thoroughly enjoy doing SC's, I can do them all day and still enjoy them, however I do mix it up a bit and participate in all aspects of the game.
However I really want Mythic to do something about PQ's, too many, not enough interest for the harder ones, rewards can be a tad weak for the risk and effort, and the rolling system used to allocate the loot can be too random at times to ensure ppl feel they are adequately rewarded for their efforts.
The difference is that the majority of WoW content is instanced PvE. Prior to WoTLK open world pvp had little to no effect on the way the game was played. I didn't play into WoTLK so I'm not certain on the benefits the new PvP areas brought. Open world pvp in WAR makes a huge difference.
One of the problems besides scenarios taking a chunk of players, is that it's not treated as a minigame. BGs in WoW are minigames, and affect the mingame aspects of the overall game. You play arena and BGs, get the welfare epics so you can pvp without dying immediately. While the overall focus is still mostly PvE, and that's why people play WoW. I don't think I've heard a big promotion of the great pvp WoW has to offer. WARs bread and butter is pvp, which unless they address the severe performance issues will continue to hamper the heavily pushed army on army conflicts. I think that issue must be address over all other concerns at this time.
Although i can understand what you are saying, in that particular interview he also says Lets just say north of half a million ""would mean were successful. Now how a far north? I wouldnt mind being a little bit cold. after having said "I want us to be no less than number two".
That part is already in doubt with Eve just having reached 300k users as well.
Again this comes down to the previous argumen tthough. He didn't say it was "needed to be a success" but he did say he would consider themselves "succesful" if they got at least 500k.
In all honestly though, does any of us really believe they were aiming that low? I sure wasn't with them having polls in the company on how long it would take them to reach 1 million etc etc.
You are right again, Pheace. What, you have an elephant memory or something? Everytime I check out something you say, it's backable.
Creative Director Paul Barnett in September interview talking about bets to Eurogamer Magazine:
----------------------------
Eurogamer: Do you have a number of players in mind that you'd consider a success?
Paul Barnett: I don't know what the business people have - they have all sorts of crazy numbers, and things to do with shareholders, and things that would probably get me fired. But we're having a staff pool. I put down my bet: a million within the year, and then three million.
Eurogamer: That's a confident bet.
Paul Barnett: But that's just me, personally. That's not Mythic or EA.
Finished that for you.
Yep, good job. You just finished Pheace's point for him that you argued against.
That's how the #2 or #3 man at Mythic felt about WAR's future subscriptions.
"TO MICHAEL!"
The SC is why the game is failing. Number 1 its splitting the games population in thirds. 1. PVE 2. SC 3. OPVP. You eliminate it you have more pve for opvp. Secondly you can use the same "boring"/zerging arguement for SC's. Hell I would argue it applies more TO SC, as you can easily play a few games real fast. The more people you have bunched together the more likely you are going to be to steamroll the map. Not to mention as fast as you do the maps it can get boring fast. Thirdly it splits the cames content focus up more. It's just better to do away with it and focus on fun stuff for pve and opvp.
Like I said. This isnt wow. We don't need bg's. Thanks.
That is a load of crap, and purely a personal opinion which has no value, apart from to yourself.
I carried on playing War for a lot longer than I would have done, if it hadn't had scenarios. The rest of the game is utter bullshit devised by people with the imagination of a goldfish.
With better mmos ahead of us like Champions Online and Aion, do some of you really think that WAR will actually survive another year ? It might but only because they will be reluctant to shutdown the servers because they still want to squeeze whatever money they can from the game.
Although i can understand what you are saying, in that particular interview he also says “Let’s just say north of half a million ""would mean we’re successful. Now how a far north? I wouldn’t mind being a little bit cold.” after having said "I want us to be no less than number two".
That part is already in doubt with Eve just having reached 300k users as well.
Again this comes down to the previous argumen tthough. He didn't say it was "needed to be a success" but he did say he would consider themselves "succesful" if they got at least 500k.
In all honestly though, does any of us really believe they were aiming that low? I sure wasn't with them having polls in the company on how long it would take them to reach 1 million etc etc.
You are right again, Pheace. What, you have an elephant memory or something? Everytime I check out something you say, it's backable.
Creative Director Paul Barnett in September interview talking about bets to Eurogamer Magazine:
----------------------------
Eurogamer: Do you have a number of players in mind that you'd consider a success?
Paul Barnett: I don't know what the business people have - they have all sorts of crazy numbers, and things to do with shareholders, and things that would probably get me fired. But we're having a staff pool. I put down my bet: a million within the year, and then three million.
Eurogamer: That's a confident bet.
Paul Barnett: But that's just me, personally. That's not Mythic or EA.
Finished that for you.
I'd like to see what his revised guesstimate is now.
I think he has a problem with decimal points - this game will be lucky to have 30k subs in 3 yrs time. Unless of course, they completely redesign the game and engine and employ someone who has a modicum of creativity.
1. As long as you make a PvP based game with hampered game play as in unresponsive control of your clunky avatars in War, you run into problems. A PvP based game MUST have the best fluid, fastest responsive controls. Period.
2. There are actually more PvP options in Wow than in War. Arena ? BG's are bigger and more themed. Daily open world PvP quests eliminate the RvR zones (which most players avoid) and Lake Wintergrasp is even too massively played in Wow (on every server every 2.5 hours multiple raid fights). Of course the fast, frantic and very responsive controls are the basis for this.
3. EA speaks now of "300K dedicated WAR "players", no longer of subscriptions. It clearly means they include the free trial accounts and no longer the subscribers only. And at under 3000K Xfire players it means that the game has (again) lost its 5500 Xfire number of players around Christmas 2008 (and the 15.000 Xfire daily players at launch in Sep 2008).
------
Mythic used a wrong engine for mmorpg pvp play.
The game is designed to be a pvp game but it doesn't have its fluid mechanics. Both in controls and in animation (ever saw a dwarf taking 5 steps at a time on a stair ???).
Pure PvP players demand FULL and utterly unhampered controls of their avatars.
PvP players are mostly the individual type of players. They want to compare, have a competition and talk about stats and tactics. War gives no stats (no duels/arenas), has no competition and no data to compare.
PvP zerg fests with the bigger group that gets healed "wins", are not very attractive for most PvP players in the long run.
Perhaps it is a deformation of PvP due to games like Wow and GW's, but is a reality because games are still being played individually...
That's a load of crap. I don't care how well WoW runs it still doesn't have better pvp. I don't care if they have "arenas" to go along with BGs and Lake Wintergrasp. There's no comparison to the amount of pvp in the two games.
And I do not find arena ratings attractive. I do not feel the need for those individual statistics you speak of. I RvR/PvP to have fun and hopefully accomplish something (and I consider taking a keep or something ten times the accomplishment of having an XXXX arena rating). And guess what - if they do desire those individual stats to compare - go farm some RPs so you can stroke your epeen when your name shows up on the most RP earned that week or whatever.
PvP players are the most individual type of player? What about the epeen stroking DPS chart watchers in WoW? The ones who go psycho over a piece of meaningless gear so they can achieve 10 more deeps to beat out that mage on the charts. Same with healing.
And - No - they don't include free trial accounts into that number.
I'm glad you're enjoying WoW - because that was WoW slurpfest in your post.
Sorry to break it to you but they won't be makeing anywhere near that much.
Edit: The recession has nothing to do with falling subs if anything most mmorpgs are seeing increased subs because of it.
Yeah I think people have more time for MMOs if anything......If nothing else people may give games like WAR a shot because it offers a free trial.......Also even unemployed 15 bucks a month isnt bad........
[quote][i]Originally posted by Zorndorf[/i] [quote][i]Originally posted by Plaidpants[/i] [quote][i]Originally posted by Zorndorf[/i] [quote][i]Originally posted by joswij[/i] The difference is that the majority of WoW content is instanced PvE. Prior to WoTLK open world pvp had little to no effect on the way the game was played. I didn't play into WoTLK so I'm not certain on the benefits the new PvP areas brought. Open world pvp in WAR makes a huge difference. One of the problems besides scenarios taking a chunk of players, is that it's not treated as a minigame. BGs in WoW are minigames, and affect the mingame aspects of the overall game. You play arena and BGs, get the welfare epics so you can pvp without dying immediately. While the overall focus is still mostly PvE, and that's why people play WoW. I don't think I've heard a big promotion of the great pvp WoW has to offer. WARs bread and butter is pvp, which unless they address the severe performance issues will continue to hamper the heavily pushed army on army conflicts. I think that issue must be address over all other concerns at this time. [/quote] 1. As long as you make a PvP based game with hampered game play as in unresponsive control of your clunky avatars in War, you run into problems. A PvP based game MUST have the best fluid, fastest responsive controls. Period. 2. There are actually more PvP options in Wow than in War. Arena ? BG's are bigger and more themed. Daily open world PvP quests eliminate the RvR zones (which most players avoid) and Lake Wintergrasp is even too massively played in Wow (on every server every 2.5 hours multiple raid fights). Of course the fast, frantic and very responsive controls are the basis for this. 3. EA speaks now of "300K dedicated WAR "players", [u]no longer of subscriptions[/u]. It clearly means they include the free trial accounts and no longer the subscribers only. And at under 3000K Xfire players it means that the game has (again) lost its 5500 Xfire number of players around Christmas 2008 (and the 15.000 Xfire daily players at launch in Sep 2008). ------ Mythic used a wrong engine for mmorpg pvp play. The game is designed to be a pvp game but it doesn't have its fluid mechanics. Both in controls and in animation (ever saw a dwarf taking 5 steps at a time on a stair ???). Pure PvP players demand FULL and utterly unhampered controls of their avatars. PvP players are mostly the individual type of players. They want to compare, have a competition and talk about stats and tactics. War gives no stats (no duels/arenas), has no competition and no data to compare. PvP zerg fests with the bigger group that gets healed "wins", are not very attractive for most PvP players in the long run. Perhaps it is a deformation of PvP due to games like Wow and GW's, but is a reality because games are still being played individually... [/quote] That's a load of crap. I don't care how well WoW runs it still doesn't have better pvp. I don't care if they have "arenas" to go along with BGs and Lake Wintergrasp. There's no comparison to the amount of pvp in the two games. And I do not find arena ratings attractive. I do not feel the need for those individual statistics you speak of. I RvR/PvP to have fun and hopefully accomplish something (and I consider taking a keep or something ten times the accomplishment of having an XXXX arena rating). And guess what - if they do desire those individual stats to compare - go farm some RPs so you can stroke your epeen when your name shows up on the most RP earned that week or whatever. PvP players are the most individual type of player? What about the epeen stroking DPS chart watchers in WoW? The ones who go psycho over a piece of meaningless gear so they can achieve 10 more deeps to beat out that mage on the charts. Same with healing. And - No - they don't include free trial accounts into that number. I'm glad you're enjoying WoW - because that was WoW slurpfest in your post. [/quote] [u]Well opinions do vary[/u]. I respect your opinion. But the vast majority "could" think otherwise ... or people would still be playing Warhammer massively (as in 800K subs or above like they did at launch). I just pointed out some very obvious shortcomings when I played War (to me that is). It made the game not "fun" to play to me. No one is right, no one is wrong, but I only wanted to point out the views of some excellent PvP players I know in real life and who happened to play the two games. They play to be "up there" not "down there in some grey mass". As for the DPS chart watchers... they are mostly pure PVE players (and bad ones I may say), because every good pvp player knows it is more about CC, counter spells, fast reactions, LOS and positioning (as in attacking from the back ignores dodge ratings). ----- And .. where are the data to discuss over in War? No results pages, no data of class interactions in a competitive form at all. So HOW even to discuss class balances or imbalances ? The competition in War is only in a very limited RvR form, but ... most people don't give shit about RvR. Most people play to advance their avatars. That kind of lack of competition sucks big for a lot of PvP players. It is like constantly running 100 meters without ever declaring a winner or classification. It is clearly not adressed to all PvP players and the hampered controls did the rest: result is less and less players are interested in the long run. You conquer a fortress (knocking on a door to enter) and so what. You look back an hour later and it is being reconquered. Exactly the same thing as Wintergrasp, but at least in that game you can have a competition in pvp in another branche of the game... with stats and results to play for like titles. You may have ALL the fun in the world (re)conquering that Keep a "zillion" times. But eventually it will wear you down by simply lack of options and competition. [/quote]
discuss this
realmwar.warhammeronline.com/realmwar/CharacterLeaderboards.war
1. As long as you make a PvP based game with hampered game play as in unresponsive control of your clunky avatars in War, you run into problems. A PvP based game MUST have the best fluid, fastest responsive controls. Period.
2. There are actually more PvP options in Wow than in War. Arena ? BG's are bigger and more themed. Daily open world PvP quests eliminate the RvR zones (which most players avoid) and Lake Wintergrasp is even too massively played in Wow (on every server every 2.5 hours multiple raid fights). Of course the fast, frantic and very responsive controls are the basis for this.
3. EA speaks now of "300K dedicated WAR "players", no longer of subscriptions. It clearly means they include the free trial accounts and no longer the subscribers only. And at under 3000K Xfire players it means that the game has (again) lost its 5500 Xfire number of players around Christmas 2008 (and the 15.000 Xfire daily players at launch in Sep 2008).
------
Mythic used a wrong engine for mmorpg pvp play.
The game is designed to be a pvp game but it doesn't have its fluid mechanics. Both in controls and in animation (ever saw a dwarf taking 5 steps at a time on a stair ???).
Pure PvP players demand FULL and utterly unhampered controls of their avatars.
PvP players are mostly the individual type of players. They want to compare, have a competition and talk about stats and tactics. War gives no stats (no duels/arenas), has no competition and no data to compare.
PvP zerg fests with the bigger group that gets healed "wins", are not very attractive for most PvP players in the long run.
Perhaps it is a deformation of PvP due to games like Wow and GW's, but is a reality because games are still being played individually...
That's a load of crap. I don't care how well WoW runs it still doesn't have better pvp. I don't care if they have "arenas" to go along with BGs and Lake Wintergrasp. There's no comparison to the amount of pvp in the two games.
And I do not find arena ratings attractive. I do not feel the need for those individual statistics you speak of. I RvR/PvP to have fun and hopefully accomplish something (and I consider taking a keep or something ten times the accomplishment of having an XXXX arena rating). And guess what - if they do desire those individual stats to compare - go farm some RPs so you can stroke your epeen when your name shows up on the most RP earned that week or whatever.
PvP players are the most individual type of player? What about the epeen stroking DPS chart watchers in WoW? The ones who go psycho over a piece of meaningless gear so they can achieve 10 more deeps to beat out that mage on the charts. Same with healing.
And - No - they don't include free trial accounts into that number.
I'm glad you're enjoying WoW - because that was WoW slurpfest in your post.
Well opinions do vary. I respect your opinion.
But the vast majority "could" think otherwise ... or people would still be playing Warhammer massively (as in 800K subs or above like they did at launch).
I just pointed out some very obvious shortcomings when I played War (to me that is). It made the game not "fun" to play to me.
No one is right, no one is wrong, but I only wanted to point out the views of some excellent PvP players I know in real life and who happened to play the two games. They play to be "up there" not "down there in some grey mass".
As for the DPS chart watchers... they are mostly pure PVE players (and bad ones I may say), because every good pvp player knows it is more about CC, counter spells, fast reactions, LOS and positioning (as in attacking from the back ignores dodge ratings).
-----
And .. where are the data to discuss over in War? No results pages, no data of class interactions in a competitive form at all. So HOW even to discuss class balances or imbalances ?
The competition in War is only in a very limited RvR form, but ... most people don't give shit about RvR. Most people play to advance their avatars. That kind of lack of competition sucks big for a lot of PvP players.
It is like constantly running 100 meters without ever declaring a winner or classification.
It is clearly not adressed to all PvP players and the hampered controls did the rest: result is less and less players are interested in the long run. You conquer a fortress (knocking on a door to enter) and so what. You look back an hour later and it is being reconquered.
Exactly the same thing as Wintergrasp, but at least in that game you can have a competition in pvp in another branche of the game... with stats and results to play for like titles.
You may have ALL the fun in the world (re)conquering that Keep a "zillion" times. But eventually it will wear you down by simply lack of options and competition.
I know the dps watchers are purely PvE people. That's why I brought it up - because PvE players are just as much or more about stats and their individual player than PvP players.
And the fortress/keep taking needs some changes - but it managed to occupy and satisfy tons and tons of people for quite awhile in DAoC - including me and those keeps were conquered a zillion times as well. (and yes - I'm aware the RvR/keep sieges and stuff isn't up to DAoC's standards but the game is new at this point)
Server mergers will keep the game alive!
They really need a couple more. I play on Vortex and it is one of the lower core ones left - not much at all in t2 or t3. I really hope they don't hold out too long though - because it will cause even more to quit if it gets any worse on some of the lower pop servers.
Poor Mythic,
Bet Mark is rather livid getting beat by a lil ole niche game.
Poor Mythic,
Bet Mark is rather livid getting beat by a lil ole niche game.
How about we wait a few more years to judge. And to call EvE a lil ole niche game is dumb. It's one of the most successful mmorpgs on the market right now.
Think WAR is gonna dip some more in the playerbase, but something will come and get the numbers back up again I think
No doubt the expansion is going to make the playerbase spike again, that happens with all MMO's, even complainers tend to give it another try "just in case".
I'd be more worried about new MMO releases in the future, i think those could hurt WAR the most.
WAR could grab a decent steady 500k subs probably if they manage to do a turnaround and fix up their game, kind of like AoC "apparently" has done(minus the boost in subs, lol).
Seems to be the rule nowdays to release a MMO before it's ready for release. I cannot figure out the reasons myself, sure, you get a lot of paying "beta testers". But you also ensure that you will leave a poor taste in the consumers mouth with your half completed product. And that taste is hard to remove, and we see many games now that will never reach any high numbers due to releasing a beta product and scaring off the customers or just making them angry to pay to beta test their game and thereby not continuing to subscribe.
The tank that is born to tank!
Well some of that is because Corporate doesn't understand it.. or at least not the investors. What they see is money they invested and money spent over a period of time with no money coming back in (yet). This is the major advantage a privately owned and financed company has over any corporate or company that uses outside investors.
On the other hand I got into WAR beta at the start of Phase 2 I guess.. I think it was the end of Phase 1 because there was a pretty big down time while they revamped things.. but anyway...
I really liked how the beta was run.. by that I mean they removed testers who were just being obstacles. There was very little Ahat ratio until Phase 3. Altho I will admit I saw the most post asking to be removed from beta for WAR than any beta I've been in (beta'd most MMO's since UO). I'm not sure why that is.
The bad side of beta was... things were how they were going to be. You were not allowed to say "this is not fun.. if you changed it to this.. it would be fun."
If you did that James gave you a nice warning to provide feedback on the system as it was or that you would be removed from beta... *edit for clarification* This isn't talking about some form of nerd rage and forum spam resulting in warnings... I do mean entirely you were not allowed to suggest any alternative other than feedback on the system as it was... no matter how bad you or everyone (most everyone) thought it was.
So in that sense... my feeling was.. if you give me a pile of crap.. no matter how much sugar I sprinkle on it.. its still crap.
Translate that to: If your customers are telling you a paticular mechanic, system or even the entire core game.. is not fun. You might want to listen to that and figure out what it means... other wise you will have these systems YOU wanted and very few customers.
I honestly have no idea why it was like that.. I've never seen any other beta like that. In the past I've seen many concepts actually incorporated or things changed in pretty radical ways that really did improve things. Just wasn't allowed in that beta.
/shrug
I think a lot of people fail to realize that ISP's charge unbelievable amounts of money for bandwitdth. I remember a developer for EQ I stating that they spent more than a million a month for bandwitdth back in 2000 or so and I'm sure it's much more expensive now.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
--The most recent info on Warhammer Online puts the game's dedicated player base at 300,000.
Well, if the number is from the last month that is true, but this sounds kinda unclear to me, they can also mean the numbers from this winter that we already knows about which was the same.
Still, if the launch would have been a succes we would have heard about it. Mythic needs to make sure that players stay longer, make T3 & 4 funnier and make RvR more rewarding are my suggestions. They also need to iron out the remaining buggs.
This is not a disaster however since the need over 250K to make a profit but if players quit after a shorter period of subbing that is bad in the long run. Mythic needs to work very hard to turn things around now, the Warhammer IP deservers nothing less.
Well some of that is because Corporate doesn't understand it.. or at least not the investors. What they see is money they invested and money spent over a period of time with no money coming back in (yet). This is the major advantage a privately owned and financed company has over any corporate or company that uses outside investors.
On the other hand I got into WAR beta at the start of Phase 2 I guess.. I think it was the end of Phase 1 because there was a pretty big down time while they revamped things.. but anyway...
I really liked how the beta was run.. by that I mean they removed testers who were just being obstacles. There was very little Ahat ratio until Phase 3. Altho I will admit I saw the most post asking to be removed from beta for WAR than any beta I've been in (beta'd most MMO's since UO). I'm not sure why that is.
The bad side of beta was... things were how they were going to be. You were not allowed to say "this is not fun.. if you changed it to this.. it would be fun."
If you did that James gave you a nice warning to provide feedback on the system as it was or that you would be removed from beta... *edit for clarification* This isn't talking about some form of nerd rage and forum spam resulting in warnings... I do mean entirely you were not allowed to suggest any alternative other than feedback on the system as it was... no matter how bad you or everyone (most everyone) thought it was.
So in that sense... my feeling was.. if you give me a pile of crap.. no matter how much sugar I sprinkle on it.. its still crap.
Translate that to: If your customers are telling you a paticular mechanic, system or even the entire core game.. is not fun. You might want to listen to that and figure out what it means... other wise you will have these systems YOU wanted and very few customers.
I honestly have no idea why it was like that.. I've never seen any other beta like that. In the past I've seen many concepts actually incorporated or things changed in pretty radical ways that really did improve things. Just wasn't allowed in that beta.
/shrug
Two things ... this is Mythic Entertainment we are talking about. Dark Age of Camelot was released well, but they didn't react well to bad expansions or bad patches. They are very slow to change, however, they are very much into the community and wanting to get good feedback, they are just so slow to react.
Then, they get bought by Electronic Arts, which in my opinion wasn't the greatest idea, but it was an essential one to support Warhammer Online and help get the latest DAoC expansion out. However, it's no secret, EA doesn't care for quality, they like money, they like it a lot.
On the side with a company like Blizzard. Mythic won't have their fortune.. Blizzard is the most powerful gaming company in the world, with such titles as Diablo II, StarCraft, Warcraft III and World of Warcraft. These are all household names and they are owned by Vivendi Universal. Vivendi is a very benelovent company and allows Blizzard to do what they want and take their time because they know for a fact-- when they release a game, it's not going to produce a ton of money at release.. no it'll do that, but it won't stop for a long time. StarCraft Battlechest is 20 dollars, Diablo II Battlechest is 30 dollars and Warcraft II Battlechest is 40 dollars! It's insane.
Mythic won't have this power, even if they make the game with the best PvP or some super unique feature. EA isn't a company that's designed for that, it's hard to get your feet in the water, especially in an expensive market like MMOs.
im happy if we just got one server that is fully populated
The tank that is born to tank!
Did i hear server merge?
"The most recent info on Warhammer Online puts the game's dedicated player base at 300,000."
hmm, what does "dedicated player base" even mean. Do they have a description of what that includes or did I miss something? Why does the tiltle of this thread use "subs" in it when we don't even know if this includes trials and so on.
Mind you, it was predicted before hand that EA would use something like that rather than saying "subscriptions" so doesn;t surprise me. Considering they've released WAR in 2 new territories and are still at 300k, they are still bleeding subs in the Western markets.
I agree with this sentiment of Mythic's use of the word "dedicated" as simply meant for misleading opinion.
A game has 300K subs. They then release into new areas/markets where they claim the game is well received with thousands in beta. They then say that the game on release in those markets have been successful in adding tens of thousands of subscriptions of "NEW" players playing. Then when they release new totals, but they are still at 300K subscriptions total. It's obvious that those 300k subscriptions are not all "dedicated" because many of them by Mythic's own admission are "new" in new markets. Apparently, if thousands joined and the number is exactly the same, it means that all those subs were not "dedicated".
Classic case of lawyering and misleading, without having to actually prove it. It's like them saying WAR is the most popular game on the market. Even though WoW can say they have 12 million subscriptions worldwide, Mythic can simply claim "Yeah, but those people don't really like WoW, but our 300k love WAR so we are the most popular." Crazy for sure, but they really don't have to prove that and can claim it all day long legally.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Dedicated, to me, seems like those subs that have been around for at least two months, meaning they have either bought the retail box, played the first free month, and enjoyed it enough to continue playing, OR a returning player who has paid for at least two consecutive months while these stats were being tabulated.
Then again, maybe I'm just too optimistic about sub numbers. :P