Actually if those TV Shopping advertisements are far enough from their actual product they get slapped with a big fat fine and all purchases are refunded.
Actually if those TV Shopping advertisements are far enough from their actual product they get slapped with a big fat fine and all purchases are refunded.
Just saying.
Sure, but that's not the case here with Rift. Else Trion would have been slapped with a fine as well for false advertising. Just saying.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Legally you're completely correct. No self-respecting paper-pusher would try to call this false advertising.
But on that same hand. no self-respecting MMO Gamer would try to call it accurate advertising, because at its heart it's directly attempting to fool ill-informed people.
But then again, you can say that about any advertising. There is no advertising in the entire world that isn't false advertising, advertising is evil, and any person who works in Marketing has a nice big special spot in hell.
What this game industry need is a company or website with a strict Michelin type of grading system. This company will grade how good the game just like they did it for Restaurant. Customers / players won't get screwed by forum post, blogs, reviews and dev over the top bs talk. The star rating will tell how good is the game is.
MMO ratings are a subjective beast. What if you like raiding and I don't? What if Bob enjoys crafting, but Suzie thinks it's pointless? What if Jim's a fan of PVP but Jack doesn't want to get ganked? What if all of us happened to be reviewers who determined the ratings? What a mess that would be.
Different people have different ratings for different aspects of MMOs and trying to aggregate them is futile. A game's pvp could be top notch, but at least a quarter of the playerbase doesn't care. A game's raiding could be awe-inspiring, but at least a quarter of the playerbase doesn't care. The game could be the ultimate sandbox with limitless customization, but at least a quarter of the playerbase just might not care.
Also, video game media is notoriously awful at ratings.
Like I said above and before(in my post before the ratings posts), it's about standards. I didn't talk about ratings. Ratings are opinion. Standards are facts. Units of measure if you will. When someone says they have 8 bazillion subs, are they talking about exactly the same thing as someone who says they have 12 bazillion accounts? When one game says their game is HUGE, compared to what? Do most actually even acknowledge a comparison or some unit of measure to actually compare size? If they want to list it as sell feature, shouldn't we have a way to actually compare it to something else they are saying they are better than? While these things sometimes do not matter or matter to different people at different levels, shouldn't they actually be understood and comparable? Are they telling us these things in a way to purposely confuse/awe us or is it actually how they refer to things? If there was an actual standard(definition to adhere to), wouldn't it be easier to understand and better for those with the stats to back up their claims? People are looking for different things in games. Sell points are listed to get the attention of certain consumers. The problem is, are they true and can you really understand their scale in comparison to others.
The only thing I can say to that is... well.. If a game has 1 million accounts (picking numbers out of the air here) and its various fansites, official forums, and sites like these total numbers of 300,000... where do you think the other 700,000 got their information?
The average gamer is not on these forums pre-release for every game.
? You can read the official forums without having a registered account. Beta, trials, forums, guildies and other MMO friends, in this day and age any lack of knowledge or being uninformed is something that can only happen if people have been lacking in informing themselves for whatever reason. Which is fine, but being shocked that a game is totally different than what you expected and complaining after not doing some manner of investigating beforehand is like buying products via tv shopping channels and then complain that it isn't what they thought it would be based on the commercials they saw. A bit silly, imo.
The best way to find the truth is to actually try the game and play it for 1-2 months. If I think a game might be good I do that. I dont trust forums. And there was no way we could know everything about the content and possible ways to continue progress at lv50. Or how balanced and fun PvP would be at 50. IMO, you will need to spend the money and play the game to figure that out. And if you are looking for a new good MMO its no problem to spend some money and some time trying to find one. Everyone that is disapponted can of course explain why after trying a new game. But there is no reason to complain about the money, IMO. Its all normal if you like MMO:s and are looking for a new game. Hopefully everyone will eventually find the right game. And it will not be the same game for everyone...Because players have different taste.
Legally you're completely correct. No self-respecting paper-pusher would try to call this false advertising.
But on that same hand. no self-respecting MMO Gamer would try to call it accurate advertising, because at its heart it's directly attempting to fool ill-informed people.
? Sorry, but I don't see your point. But then again, I had no shred of (over-the-top?) indignation when I saw that commercial, merely a mild offhand chuckle because of the reference to 'We're not in Kansas anymore' and the funny and pretty cleverly found implication that Rift's world wouldn't be as cosy or comfy as Azeroth. But that's it, I don't see what 'fools' ill-informed people if they see an ad that states that they won't be in Azeroth anymore but in a different game world with a different feel to it.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
"The subscription market is not dying, we're clearly seeing that. The MMORPG market is not declining. We believe a quality product is going to continue to be something that gamers are willing to pay for as long as we continue to run the service as we should," said Reid
As long as devs and investors believe this I am a happy gaming pony. ^_^
The entire idea that subscriptions are some how an "outdated" approach has been brought about by the spin of companies promoting their own F2P games. It's as clear as crystal what the tactic is... talk down the current model (subscription) while making your new shiny one (F2P/Cash Shops) look like the White Knight riding in on his white horse to save the day.
Further, there are certainly people posting in message forums - such as this - trying to help propel the myth. You'll see arguments about how "subscriptions make you feel committed". No they don't. You subscribe to a game, and continue subscribing to a game because you feel it's worth the money in the first place. If you are only playing a game because you "feel committed to", after having voluntarily subscribed to it in the first place... then you should be asking yourself if you chose the right game in the first place.
There's the whole "Oh, it's not worth the $15 a month unless you have plenty of time to play". Again, BS. People spend $15 easily on a single meal at a typical restaurant. $15 is a movie ticket a drink and some popcorn these days. At most, those things get you a couple hours of enjoyment (assuming you like the meal or movie). The list of things goes on of what people will freely spend $15 or more on without a second thought. Yet, when it comes to a subscription that affords them potentially 20-30 hours of entertainment - or more - across a month.. suddenly "it's not worth it"? Come on. I don't buy that logic either.
That said... I'm sure I can't be the only one who has noticed that for a long time you never heard a peep about anyone having an issue with subscriptions, or about them being "unjustified" or a "rip-off" or an "outdated payment method", etc. etc. Even while F2P/Cash Shops were in there very, very early stages here in the West (which started longer ago than some may think) and such a thing was mostly unheard of, people were paying subscriptions and playing the games. No one complained about it. If they complained about the sub fee it was only in relation to how the game wasn't good enough to them to warrant it.
Then F2P/Cash Shops start picking up popularity in the West and, almost overnight, people are suddenly deciding subs are bad, outdated and need to go away? Where people would complain about a game being poor and losing players due to its gameplay, now you see people claiming a MMO is poor and losing players due to its payment model. How convenient.
It's obvious as the nose on your face. The entire pro-F2P/cash Shop and anti-subscription routine is pure, unmitigated propaganda and spin. Nothing more.
It's people trying to warm people up to the idea of cash shops/F2P being this wonderful thing.
Common sense, folks... There's a reason why F2P/Cash Shops have had a stigma for as longa s they have. There's a reason why it's taken as long as it has for such a system to catch on.
Loved reading that, and yeah, there is a lot of truth to it in my opinion. Yet there is one company which gets away with taking that stance: Anet. They are pretty unique in their B2P model for quality games without disturbing cash shops. Problem is though that I personally didn't think GW1 was much of a mmorpg, with the lack of an open world, etc. I am curious how GW2 will end up feeling in that sense. They have the ability to dent the reign of the sub model for quality games though.
So we had the 2 mil accounts .. now the 1 mil actual box sales ......
And we have the ... nothing on actual subscription levels ....
No way did TRION retain 60% of players ... not by a long way ....
Maybe they did do 600k in first months and have added more via all the discounting ...
Either way the figures mean little to actuial players and yet again we see a journalist that doesnt probe the interviewee for information that actually enables a reasonable level of analysis.
At least for me, when I see a commercial for a game I haven't played and it looks really cool and different, I secretly hope, as I rush to the interweb, that gameplay will look just like that.
Some people do the same thing only they don't check other sources. Some people surely went and bought rift hoping that there was 50 levels and some kind of aftergame (don't want to call it "endgame" because I don't mean raiding, which is standard now)that looked just like the fantastic commercial.
Much of these people, probably having played WoW, discounted that Blizzard and many game companies do the exact same thing--cinematics that have little/nothing to do with play. Game companies have been doing it for a long time. No harm, no foul, except for the harm to the most naive people.
It's also a fact, evidenced across the internet that most reviewers stayed away from two points. PVP sucked and the heavy PVP'ers were among the first to drop off. I dueled some in beta but only with friends. I am undefeated lol. (I'm a terrible pvp'er but Reaver seemed rather OP, I didn't choose it for op, I chose it for it was the type of tanking I liked).
The other point that they did not touch on, further than to say things like "RIFT may not tread new territory", is that the gear grind is a near clone of WoW. They were making a politely vague statement and did a disservice to many disappointed customers.
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug. 12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
I agree with the OP. Sell-through means nothing if your retention is poor, which it definitly is for Rift. I would say it's as bad if not worse than WAR was which suffered from the same problem: too many servers opened at launch resulting in all but a handful of the server being complete ghost towns only a few months out. Add to that the fact that they still have not merged any servers and you have a recipe for disaster: force people to start completely over on a new server. A lot of people won't bother, they'll just leave.
Anway, I agree it's a good game--just short. It was fun for a few months, but I'm definitely done.
I agree with the OP. Sell-through means nothing if your retention is poor, which it definitly is for Rift. I would say it's as bad if not worse than WAR was which suffered from the same problem: too many servers opened at launch resulting in all but a handful of the server being complete ghost towns only a few months out. Add to that the fact that they still have not merged any servers and you have a recipe for disaster: force people to start completely over on a new server. A lot of people won't bother, they'll just leave.
Anway, I agree it's a good game--just short. It was fun for a few months, but I'm definitely done.
Didn' t they say somewhere that they were going to offer free server transfers? Like, one a month?
The only thing I can say to that is... well.. If a game has 1 million accounts (picking numbers out of the air here) and its various fansites, official forums, and sites like these total numbers of 300,000... where do you think the other 700,000 got their information?
The average gamer is not on these forums pre-release for every game.
? You can read the official forums without having a registered account. Beta, trials, forums, guildies and other MMO friends, in this day and age any lack of knowledge or being uninformed is something that can only happen if people have been lacking in informing themselves for whatever reason. Which is fine, but being shocked that a game is totally different than what you expected and complaining after not doing some manner of investigating beforehand is like buying products via tv shopping channels and then complain that it isn't what they thought it would be based on the commercials they saw. A bit silly, imo.
The best way to find the truth is to actually try the game and play it for 1-2 months. If I think a game might be good I do that. I dont trust forums. And there was no way we could know everything about the content and possible ways to continue progress at lv50. Or how balanced and fun PvP would be at 50. IMO, you will need to spend the money and play the game to figure that out. And if you are looking for a new good MMO its no problem to spend some money and some time trying to find one. Everyone that is disapponted can of course explain why after trying a new game. But there is no reason to complain about the money, IMO. Its all normal if you like MMO:s and are looking for a new game. Hopefully everyone will eventually find the right game. And it will not be the same game for everyone...Because players have different taste.
@Hurvart Got to say thats probable one of the most intelligent things said on these forums. I see trolls who never played the game complain about it because thats what they do. I have seen fanboys defend stuff no matter what. Just play it and figure it out. I have played lots of MMO's and I know whats good for me and whats not.
Originally posted by paroxysm Originally posted by jmhart I agree with the OP. Sell-through means nothing if your retention is poor, which it definitly is for Rift. I would say it's as bad if not worse than WAR was which suffered from the same problem: too many servers opened at launch resulting in all but a handful of the server being complete ghost towns only a few months out. Add to that the fact that they still have not merged any servers and you have a recipe for disaster: force people to start completely over on a new server. A lot of people won't bother, they'll just leave. Anway, I agree it's a good game--just short. It was fun for a few months, but I'm definitely done.
Didn' t they say somewhere that they were going to offer free server transfers? Like, one a month? Jah, but only to selected servers. People might be expecting to get to go to whichever server they want, but they will be dissapointed if they think that.
Aion did that and it was a disaster that almost killed the game. Leaving it up to players to figure out where to go next or what should be done is death for a company.
Comments
Actually if those TV Shopping advertisements are far enough from their actual product they get slapped with a big fat fine and all purchases are refunded.
Just saying.
Sure, but that's not the case here with Rift. Else Trion would have been slapped with a fine as well for false advertising. Just saying.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Legally you're completely correct. No self-respecting paper-pusher would try to call this false advertising.
But on that same hand. no self-respecting MMO Gamer would try to call it accurate advertising, because at its heart it's directly attempting to fool ill-informed people.
But then again, you can say that about any advertising. There is no advertising in the entire world that isn't false advertising, advertising is evil, and any person who works in Marketing has a nice big special spot in hell.
Bill Hicks said it best.
Like I said above and before(in my post before the ratings posts), it's about standards. I didn't talk about ratings. Ratings are opinion. Standards are facts. Units of measure if you will. When someone says they have 8 bazillion subs, are they talking about exactly the same thing as someone who says they have 12 bazillion accounts? When one game says their game is HUGE, compared to what? Do most actually even acknowledge a comparison or some unit of measure to actually compare size? If they want to list it as sell feature, shouldn't we have a way to actually compare it to something else they are saying they are better than? While these things sometimes do not matter or matter to different people at different levels, shouldn't they actually be understood and comparable? Are they telling us these things in a way to purposely confuse/awe us or is it actually how they refer to things? If there was an actual standard(definition to adhere to), wouldn't it be easier to understand and better for those with the stats to back up their claims? People are looking for different things in games. Sell points are listed to get the attention of certain consumers. The problem is, are they true and can you really understand their scale in comparison to others.
[edit] tried to edit for clarity [/edit]
The best way to find the truth is to actually try the game and play it for 1-2 months. If I think a game might be good I do that. I dont trust forums. And there was no way we could know everything about the content and possible ways to continue progress at lv50. Or how balanced and fun PvP would be at 50. IMO, you will need to spend the money and play the game to figure that out. And if you are looking for a new good MMO its no problem to spend some money and some time trying to find one. Everyone that is disapponted can of course explain why after trying a new game. But there is no reason to complain about the money, IMO. Its all normal if you like MMO:s and are looking for a new game. Hopefully everyone will eventually find the right game. And it will not be the same game for everyone...Because players have different taste.
? Sorry, but I don't see your point. But then again, I had no shred of (over-the-top?) indignation when I saw that commercial, merely a mild offhand chuckle because of the reference to 'We're not in Kansas anymore' and the funny and pretty cleverly found implication that Rift's world wouldn't be as cosy or comfy as Azeroth. But that's it, I don't see what 'fools' ill-informed people if they see an ad that states that they won't be in Azeroth anymore but in a different game world with a different feel to it.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Loved reading that, and yeah, there is a lot of truth to it in my opinion. Yet there is one company which gets away with taking that stance: Anet. They are pretty unique in their B2P model for quality games without disturbing cash shops. Problem is though that I personally didn't think GW1 was much of a mmorpg, with the lack of an open world, etc. I am curious how GW2 will end up feeling in that sense. They have the ability to dent the reign of the sub model for quality games though.
My brand new bloggity blog.
Myself and 7 of my friends bought the game digitally, so we skipped box sales.
We all also stopped playing after 2 months, but i don't think it's a stretch to say Rift is probably the #2 mmo right now.
Thise means you do not enjoy the game?
Or what is the point?
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
Having actually READ the article, this thread should be titled "No lies whatsoever".
At least for me, when I see a commercial for a game I haven't played and it looks really cool and different, I secretly hope, as I rush to the interweb, that gameplay will look just like that.
Some people do the same thing only they don't check other sources. Some people surely went and bought rift hoping that there was 50 levels and some kind of aftergame (don't want to call it "endgame" because I don't mean raiding, which is standard now)that looked just like the fantastic commercial.
Much of these people, probably having played WoW, discounted that Blizzard and many game companies do the exact same thing--cinematics that have little/nothing to do with play. Game companies have been doing it for a long time. No harm, no foul, except for the harm to the most naive people.
It's also a fact, evidenced across the internet that most reviewers stayed away from two points. PVP sucked and the heavy PVP'ers were among the first to drop off. I dueled some in beta but only with friends. I am undefeated lol. (I'm a terrible pvp'er but Reaver seemed rather OP, I didn't choose it for op, I chose it for it was the type of tanking I liked).
The other point that they did not touch on, further than to say things like "RIFT may not tread new territory", is that the gear grind is a near clone of WoW. They were making a politely vague statement and did a disservice to many disappointed customers.
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug.
12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
I agree with the OP. Sell-through means nothing if your retention is poor, which it definitly is for Rift. I would say it's as bad if not worse than WAR was which suffered from the same problem: too many servers opened at launch resulting in all but a handful of the server being complete ghost towns only a few months out. Add to that the fact that they still have not merged any servers and you have a recipe for disaster: force people to start completely over on a new server. A lot of people won't bother, they'll just leave.
Anway, I agree it's a good game--just short. It was fun for a few months, but I'm definitely done.
Didn' t they say somewhere that they were going to offer free server transfers? Like, one a month?
@Hurvart Got to say thats probable one of the most intelligent things said on these forums. I see trolls who never played the game complain about it because thats what they do. I have seen fanboys defend stuff no matter what. Just play it and figure it out. I have played lots of MMO's and I know whats good for me and whats not.
Jah, but only to selected servers. People might be expecting to get to go to whichever server they want, but they will be dissapointed if they think that.
Aion did that and it was a disaster that almost killed the game. Leaving it up to players to figure out where to go next or what should be done is death for a company.
"TO MICHAEL!"