Originally posted by cutthecrap Ah, you changed your thread title. Good, the former one made you look like you were some dumb ass who can't count and probably failed at math, this one is slightly better.
Originally posted by pierthThis is precisely what happens when a Massively Solo Online Role-Playing Game (with optional multiplayer) is created. Those players that insist MMORPGs cater to solo playstyles are actively telling Pubs/Devs to shoot themselves in the foot. Proof that solo content-locust playstyles kill MMOs.
Not really. Try to implement enforced grouping for leveling, and you'll have people leaving in droves. It wasn't for nothing that after EQ, Blizzard introduced solo-capable leveling in their MMO. And they were hugely successful with it, far more people prefer to be able to level solo when wanted than having to look for group all the time in order to progress in a game. In the end, it's all about fun.
It's only such that you need to have a lot of other features too that is regarded as fun, besides the quest based leveling.
Source? Metrics/Statistics? Any proof whatsoever? Because the last two "forced grouping" games that I played were FFXI and EQ1 both of which have run with profitable amounts of players for years.
Certainly, if MMO Pubs are only seeking players for less than six months they should focus on soloers- however if they are looking to profit on more than box sales then it shows that it's a stupid, stupid thing to do.
Unless the stats have changed, most players, solo or not, only stick around for 6 or so months before moving on. And, yes, EQ1 and FFXI found plenty of flagellates to masochistically enjoy their gameplay. I don't see how this disproves his point that far more people want to have solo play available to them when they want to venture out solo. That you reply with "Any proof whatsoever?" right after he just gave you the behemoth of the industry as an example kinda indicates you're probably too polarized in the group/solo thing to spend more time discussing it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by cutthecrap Ah, you changed your thread title. Good, the former one made you look like you were some dumb ass who can't count and probably failed at math, this one is slightly better.
Originally posted by pierthThis is precisely what happens when a Massively Solo Online Role-Playing Game (with optional multiplayer) is created. Those players that insist MMORPGs cater to solo playstyles are actively telling Pubs/Devs to shoot themselves in the foot. Proof that solo content-locust playstyles kill MMOs.
Not really. Try to implement enforced grouping for leveling, and you'll have people leaving in droves. It wasn't for nothing that after EQ, Blizzard introduced solo-capable leveling in their MMO. And they were hugely successful with it, far more people prefer to be able to level solo when wanted than having to look for group all the time in order to progress in a game. In the end, it's all about fun.
It's only such that you need to have a lot of other features too that is regarded as fun, besides the quest based leveling.
Source? Metrics/Statistics? Any proof whatsoever? Because the last two "forced grouping" games that I played were FFXI and EQ1 both of which have run with profitable amounts of players for years.
Certainly, if MMO Pubs are only seeking players for less than six months they should focus on soloers- however if they are looking to profit on more than box sales then it shows that it's a stupid, stupid thing to do.
Dude. Do I really have to convince you of the simple given that a lot more people enjoy it when they're able to solo level and questing more than there are people that prefer enforced grouping and/or mob grinding? I mean, seriously?
I'd bet 100 dollars that enforced grouping just isn't as popular and accepted as being able to level solo, and that people hate mob grinding more than they dislike solo quest leveling. WoW's success is enough proof of that.
And EQ and FFXI ran with profitable numbers because there was hardly any choice of MMO. When WoW came however, players left for WoW in droves.
Originally posted by Loktofeit
That you reply with "Any proof whatsoever?" right after he just gave you the behemoth of the industry as an example kinda indicates you're probably too polarized in the group/solo thing to spend more time discussing it.
And this.
I had a great time in EQ, but I'm also aware what its flaws were, what players complaints ingame often were about, and why follow up MMO's focused more on providing a larger amount of quests and the option to easier level solo, and with success.
The linked numbers have nothing to do with mergers, no mergers have occured.
They are only showing the destinations for the free transfers. Very misleading thread title and content, seems intentionally misleading to be honest.
They ARE doing mergers, and the destination for the free transfers from the closed servers are listed. What i posted was correct.
Nope, it wasn't. You can't even count, which is purely lame and hilarious. I'd laugh at your OP and the misinformation in it, but I'm too bored with it all right now. Try better next time, entertainment value was imo an F, I'm sure you can do better.
"Star Wars: The Old Republic's server merges are continuing at a steady pace, and today Bioware has sent another round of servers up to bat. If you've been waiting patiently for your chance to hop to a more populated server, now's your opportunity."
You do realise that the quote is from the Massively article writer & not BioWare right?
on december 26 when on official forums you got a thread thats " OMGAD SKILL DELAY PEW PEW PEW" and theres 1000 comments and its been viewed 100k times and devs actually commentate saying that everything was working as intented (who saw it knows the comment im talking about, was left only a few hours untill removed from mods but I saw it) insulting the players telling them they are at fault....really explains everything.
"Mythic's MMO Warhammer Online is closing 63 low-population servers: 43 in the North American and Oceanic regions run by Mythic itself, and 20 of the European servers operated by GOA."
That is why I cannot understand how they never learnt from that mistake.
i know that the people who hate this game see this as a sign that its dead but it really makes me want to resub and see if I can use the more populated server and the new dungeon queue to actually see what the end game stuff is like.
I unsubbed 2 days after hitting 50 because i was one of 4 people on my fleet one night (this was 4 weeks after launch too) and waited 5 hours in a WZ queue and was like "Yeah... no. fuck this." I mean a few weeks after launch and there isnt even 5 pubs in the main fucking game hub?
Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by pierthOriginally posted by cutthecrapAh, you changed your thread title. Good, the former one made you look like you were some dumb ass who can't count and probably failed at math, this one is slightly better.Originally posted by pierthThis is precisely what happens when a Massively Solo Online Role-Playing Game (with optional multiplayer) is created. Those players that insist MMORPGs cater to solo playstyles are actively telling Pubs/Devs to shoot themselves in the foot. Proof that solo content-locust playstyles kill MMOs.
Not really. Try to implement enforced grouping for leveling, and you'll have people leaving in droves. It wasn't for nothing that after EQ, Blizzard introduced solo-capable leveling in their MMO. And they were hugely successful with it, far more people prefer to be able to level solo when wanted than having to look for group all the time in order to progress in a game. In the end, it's all about fun.It's only such that you need to have a lot of other features too that is regarded as fun, besides the quest based leveling.Source? Metrics/Statistics? Any proof whatsoever? Because the last two "forced grouping" games that I played were FFXI and EQ1 both of which have run with profitable amounts of players for years.Certainly, if MMO Pubs are only seeking players for less than six months they should focus on soloers- however if they are looking to profit on more than box sales then it shows that it's a stupid, stupid thing to do.Unless the stats have changed, most players, solo or not, only stick around for 6 or so months before moving on. And, yes, EQ1 and FFXI found plenty of flagellates to masochistically enjoy their gameplay. I don't see how this disproves his point that far more people want to have solo play available to them when they want to venture out solo. That you reply with "Any proof whatsoever?" right after he just gave you the behemoth of the industry as an example kinda indicates you're probably too polarized in the group/solo thing to spend more time discussing it.
And yet he didn't, all he asserted was an opinion. I can say the industry is massively misinformed, and it's obvious that the majority of players want a MMORPG that focuses and revolves around meaningful progression via grouping. Prove me wrong. It's the same thing, just because I say it doesn't make it immediately true.
No amount of logical fallacies (ad hominem such as calling those that prefer gameplay you do not as masochistic flagellates, etc) prove anything you're saying.
What I'm saying is SWTOR is a MMO (and I use that term loosely) that came directly from the lineage of single player games and made the majority of its gameplay accessible and comfortable for solo players- moreso than any of it's predecessors and this is the result. And pointing out WoW as an example is laughably ridiculous- if WoW's success was based solely from being able to solo (and I'll even add having a successful IP) then why is SWTOR in the crapper? Why weren't all the other WoW-clones more successful?
I can see you disagree with me, but opinions prove nothing.
@pierth: if you think that enforced grouping will be warmly embraced by the majority of MMO gamers, and that quest content isn't liked and preferred above mob grinding, then there's very little left to say. Enjoy your long wait for MMO's that offer just that, I'm sure there will be some, but the majority of MMO gamers just don't enjoy stuff like enforced grouping.
Heck, you can hold a poll on this site, other sites, and it should become equally clear.
But hey, whatever, looks like it's your wet dream to play in MMO's like that, and you have a thorough, black&white kind of dislike for MMO's that offer solo friendly, quest based leveling, MMO's that you despise. Can't say I'm really surprised, after all this is the site where many disgruntled ex-MMO gamers go to who want to complain that they can't enjoy the MMO genre anymore. I wish you luck with your search for MMO's with enforced grouping and lack of quest leveling content.
I barely have words for this. I've never EVER seen a game launch with such large numbers only to go as far as reducing their total server count to a small fraction of its original count. 10 or 20 servers sure, but 100s?!
Simply, wow...... O_o;
Can't even compare to WAR, the huge drop came just after 2 months in WAR and SWTOR has been out for 6 months. Even though they lost a lot of players the honor of sharpest decline in player base after release still goes to WAR and AOC.
SWTOR opened with too many serveres and even when they were claiming to have 1.3 million players a lot of serveres were still on light. As of now SWTOR still has second highest player base in P2P category with Rift being third.
Originally posted by cutthecrapAh, you changed your thread title. Good, the former one made you look like you were some dumb ass who can't count and probably failed at math, this one is slightly better.
Originally posted by pierthThis is precisely what happens when a Massively Solo Online Role-Playing Game (with optional multiplayer) is created. Those players that insist MMORPGs cater to solo playstyles are actively telling Pubs/Devs to shoot themselves in the foot. Proof that solo content-locust playstyles kill MMOs.Not really. Try to implement enforced grouping for leveling, and you'll have people leaving in droves. It wasn't for nothing that after EQ, Blizzard introduced solo-capable leveling in their MMO. And they were hugely successful with it, far more people prefer to be able to level solo when wanted than having to look for group all the time in order to progress in a game. In the end, it's all about fun.It's only such that you need to have a lot of other features too that is regarded as fun, besides the quest based leveling.Source? Metrics/Statistics? Any proof whatsoever? Because the last two "forced grouping" games that I played were FFXI and EQ1 both of which have run with profitable amounts of players for years.Certainly, if MMO Pubs are only seeking players for less than six months they should focus on soloers- however if they are looking to profit on more than box sales then it shows that it's a stupid, stupid thing to do.
Dude. Do I really have to convince you of the simple given that a lot more people enjoy it when they're able to solo level and questing more than there are people that prefer enforced grouping and/or mob grinding? I mean, seriously?
I'd bet 100 dollars that enforced grouping just isn't as popular and accepted as being able to level solo, and that people hate mob grinding more than they dislike solo quest leveling. WoW's success is enough proof of that.
And EQ and FFXI ran with profitable numbers because there was hardly any choice of MMO. When WoW came however, players left for WoW in droves.
Originally posted by Loktofeit
That you reply with "Any proof whatsoever?" right after he just gave you the behemoth of the industry as an example kinda indicates you're probably too polarized in the group/solo thing to spend more time discussing it.
And this.
I had a great time in EQ, but I'm also aware what its flaws were, what players complaints ingame often were about, and why follow up MMO's focused more on providing a larger amount of quests and the option to easier level solo, and with success.
You can bet a billion dollars if you like, we'll never know until there's a AAA group-centric MMO with modern graphics and the polish of WoW to base that from. I'm not saying soloing shouldn't be possible. Soloing was definitely possible in EQ1 (even moreso over time) but they didn't make content specifically so everyone could solo it alone.
As for the rest of your reply, just because it's repeated that most players prefer to solo doesn't make it true.
Again I'll say, if Devs/Pubs want to make money solely on box sales then continue making games that cater to soloers- they'll buy them, play them as single player games, and leave.
I'd posit that this is one of the reasons that F2P/freemium (even B2P) models are taking over the industry- if players won't accept grindy games, and they are to continue catering to solo players that leave within six months anyway, then there's no reason to go the P2P route because there won't be enough players to stay around for it to be more profitable than a cash shop instead.
Edit: forgot a needed word, also- I'm still happily playing MMOs, there are a few titles I enjoy including one that hasn't been released yet. Has nothing to do with what I want. I have what I want- I'm showing that there's clear evidence in SWTOR- a hugely hyped, big IP, solotastic faux-MMO will fail when they make the game all about soloing. I'm sorry that doesn't fit some people's preferred playstyles, but the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
I'd posit that this is one of the reasons that F2P/freemium (even B2P) models are taking over the industry- if players won't accept grindy games, and they are to continue catering to solo players that leave within six months anyway, then there's no reason to go the P2P route because there won't be enough players to stay around for it to be more profitable than a cash shop instead.
WHat? how many B2P MMO have released that proved to be so successful that you are claiming they are taking over the industry? moreover F2P is nothing but a gimmick. Most of the players end up subscribing anyways to regular monthly fee for unilimited access to all the features of game because otherwise you end up forking a lot more cash if you stick to F2P model.
F2P model is nothign more thana glorious trial, best deal is still to pay a monthly sub. Companies sure now how to fool people don't they? F2P/B2P taking over industry..yeah right.
Just goes to show the importance of having a quality, compelling endgame.
Not really. TOR is just putting all the focus on soloing so people enjoy the game for 1-3 months and then feel done with it like a singleplayer game.
If you want people to play a long time you need to focus on multiplayer instead or at least have 50/50.
That is a bit contradictory. You first off disagree with "Not really", and then agree with the rest of your post
I guess it depends on your point of view, but I find most other MMOs endgame revoives around multiplayer, as mainly because they are multiplayer experiences more than single player, due to them being Massively Muitiiplayer Online games!
Lol, if a game has 700K players, what diffirence does it make whether they are spread over 214 servers or 20 servers ? As long as the servers can handle the player numbers.
So having many servers with a few players on each is the same as having fewer much more populated servers?
I think your logic has gone stale...
[mod edit]
Perhaps my logic has "gone stale"
So can you please explain to me how subscriber numbers are irrelevant, but server numbers are important ?
Originally posted by Sameer1979 Originally posted by pierth I'd posit that this is one of the reasons that F2P/freemium (even B2P) models are taking over the industry- if players won't accept grindy games, and they are to continue catering to solo players that leave within six months anyway, then there's no reason to go the P2P route because there won't be enough players to stay around for it to be more profitable than a cash shop instead.
WHat? how many B2P MMO have released that proved to be so successful that you are claiming they are taking over the industry? moreover F2P is nothing but a gimmick. Most of the players end up subscribing anyways to regular monthly fee for unilimited access to all the features of game because otherwise you end up forking a lot more cash if you stick to F2P model.
F2P model is nothign more thana glorious trial, best deal is still to pay a monthly sub. Companies sure now how to fool people don't they? F2P/B2P taking over industry..yeah right.
I extended the logic of the F2P/freemium pricing to B2P because essentially it'll be the same thing- monetizing after the fact via DLC/RMT as opposed to a subscription.
As I argued earlier in the thread, do you have any proof that the majority of players sub for the majority of their played time in a F2P (if possible) or freemium game? I know I haven't but anecdotal evidence is just that.
What about Aion's F2P? Is that a scam?
The only freemium game I've played where it was very necessary to subscribe was EQ2 and that's only if you're interested in its endgame due to gear limitations playing free.
I'd posit that this is one of the reasons that F2P/freemium (even B2P) models are taking over the industry- if players won't accept grindy games, and they are to continue catering to solo players that leave within six months anyway, then there's no reason to go the P2P route because there won't be enough players to stay around for it to be more profitable than a cash shop instead.
WHat? how many B2P MMO have released that proved to be so successful that you are claiming they are taking over the industry? moreover F2P is nothing but a gimmick. Most of the players end up subscribing anyways to regular monthly fee for unilimited access to all the features of game because otherwise you end up forking a lot more cash if you stick to F2P model.
F2P model is nothign more thana glorious trial, best deal is still to pay a monthly sub. Companies sure now how to fool people don't they? F2P/B2P taking over industry..yeah right.
Subbing in Freemium game - yeah devs want that. It is "having cake and eating it" attitude. Sub + big cash shop = corporations dream.
Most retarded model from my point of view. Tried it (was VIP in Lotro amongst others) - still it was one of worst deals in my life and I won't do it again.
STILL that kind of model is Freemium model (some ppl put it together with F2P) and it is not P2P.
There are only few P2P mmorpg's left.
Design and gameplay of current mmorpg's just does not made them to be games for long-term gameplay.
I am myself tired of trying new mmorg's every months - so I don't do this anymore and just simply not play any.(well there is one I will play in close future, but I doubt that it will be long-term).
Originally posted by pierth I'd posit that this is one of the reasons that F2P/freemium (even B2P) models are taking over the industry- if players won't accept grindy games, and they are to continue catering to solo players that leave within six months anyway, then there's no reason to go the P2P route because there won't be enough players to stay around for it to be more profitable than a cash shop instead.
WHat? how many B2P MMO have released that proved to be so successful that you are claiming they are taking over the industry? moreover F2P is nothing but a gimmick. Most of the players end up subscribing anyways to regular monthly fee for unilimited access to all the features of game because otherwise you end up forking a lot more cash if you stick to F2P model.
F2P model is nothign more thana glorious trial, best deal is still to pay a monthly sub. Companies sure now how to fool people don't they? F2P/B2P taking over industry..yeah right.
I extended the logic of the F2P/freemium pricing to B2P because essentially it'll be the same thing- monetizing after the fact via DLC/RMT as opposed to a subscription.
As I argued earlier in the thread, do you have any proof that the majority of players sub for the majority of their played time in a F2P (if possible) or freemium game? I know I haven't but anecdotal evidence is just that.
What about Aion's F2P? Is that a scam?
The only freemium game I've played where it was very necessary to subscribe was EQ2 and that's only if you're interested in its endgame due to gear limitations playing free.
There was survey done on EQ2 forums some time back and majority voted for sticking to sub model. Considering how expensive it can be otherwise to pay for feature unlocks, it makes sense doesn't it? Why not pay 15 bucks a month and unlock entire game instead of paying for almost everything from character slots to acces to dungeons and what not?
All so called F2P games come with heavy restrictions including Aion or DCUO or AOC etc. And in general a lot more expensive if you want to pay for unlocking specific features or items.
Lol, if a game has 700K players, what diffirence does it make whether they are spread over 214 servers or 20 servers ? As long as the servers can handle the player numbers.
So having many servers with a few players on each is the same as having fewer much more populated servers?
I think your logic has gone stale... b
[mod edit]
Perhaps my logic has "gone stale"
So can you please explain to me how subscriber numbers are irrelevant, but server numbers are important ?
Server numbers dictate the average "spread" of a population. If they're moving from triple digit down to double digit servers (ie: 200 -> 30) it means that they spread their population too thin, or the population itself has left leaving a massive empty void that needs to be filled by merging servers.
It shows a drastic shift in population retention with respect to SWTOR & it's overall growth. When your product has "Negative Growth" it means your product has fallen in popularity thus making the listed Subscriber Numbers almost unbelieveable to begin with.
I don't believe they have 700k anymore, and think that due to the server merging it's most likely around 500k or less.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity: Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
I'd posit that this is one of the reasons that F2P/freemium (even B2P) models are taking over the industry- if players won't accept grindy games, and they are to continue catering to solo players that leave within six months anyway, then there's no reason to go the P2P route because there won't be enough players to stay around for it to be more profitable than a cash shop instead.
WHat? how many B2P MMO have released that proved to be so successful that you are claiming they are taking over the industry? moreover F2P is nothing but a gimmick. Most of the players end up subscribing anyways to regular monthly fee for unilimited access to all the features of game because otherwise you end up forking a lot more cash if you stick to F2P model.
F2P model is nothign more thana glorious trial, best deal is still to pay a monthly sub. Companies sure now how to fool people don't they? F2P/B2P taking over industry..yeah right.
LOL- Sadly it worked. Sadly the entire market market has bought this crap-
I see the server merges as just the beginning to block the financial blood cut wound from spurting out anymore. I would not be surprised if a F2P announcement is made in the near future to try and save more monetary leakage and to run as cheaply as possible to recover or gain some stability, as well as bring in more masses to populate the servers.
It's true the overall population is nothing compared to the inital hype, however they upgraded the Destination Servers (remaining servers in the future).
While i agree the remaining* server are not capable to hold 1Million players _at least_ the size is now 4x as big as it was in December 2011. My Server has over 400 people on each faction online in the fleet and 100+ each faction on the startet planets, 50 - 100 on mid level planets and 20 - 40 on corellia / illum). The server used to have only 150+ on the fleet and up to 10 on corellia, while having 50~ on the mid zone planets at best and was _FULL_ during release.
And let's be honest, forthose still playing it's the best move they could have done. Despite the initial Server count, each server was too small always. These changes to the server software and database handling for more people in a "server" should have been there at launch.
Only downside is, Server started to slightly to lag yesterday (database / cluster communications lag, not latency of your connection to the gameservers).
I dont think anyones surprised. This game had a good story line. Everything else was so ugly and boring. I really don't see how anyone but a hardcore Star Wars junkie could play this for more then a few weeks. I hit lvl 42, went to the beach and 3 days later my girlfriend asked how my game was. I forgot i even owned the game!!!!!!
Hero Evermore Guild Master of Dragonspine since 1982. Playing Path of Exile and deeply in love with it.
I see the server merges as just the beginning to block the financial blood cut wound from spurting out anymore. I would not be surprised if a F2P announcement is made in the near future to try and save more monetary leakage and to run as cheaply as possible to recover or gain some stability, as well as bring in more masses to populate the servers.
I predict two things, either:
-A) Dramatic shift towards F2P in 3 to 6 months for the entire game.
Or
-B) Dramatic change of gameplay similar to SWG's NGE in order to shift in newer blood to the product to recover developement costs.
Either way, I really don't see a return in SWTOR's subscriber base. They realized what the rest of us have been saying for months now. The problem is that it took them so long to realize it .
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity: Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
"We have 216 servers in total. If they wanted the population to be at around full or very heavy (around 3k per) during evening primetime blocks, they would have to drop the servers down to 22 servers from 216. If they wanted the population to be around heavy and have around 2k per, they would have to drop the servers down to 33 from 216.
They did talk about the mega servers, but what is the actual capacity? For the sake of this discussion, if that means 3X the amount of what is currently labeled as full, then that means around 9k per. That would mean they would have to drop the servers down to 7 from 216.
And that is if they do the merge today… at this very moment in time."
Not going by the mega servers, 20-30 servers was pretty much the ballpark figure.
Lol, if a game has 700K players, what diffirence does it make whether they are spread over 214 servers or 20 servers ? As long as the servers can handle the player numbers.
So having many servers with a few players on each is the same as having fewer much more populated servers?
I think your logic has gone stale [mod edit]
Perhaps my logic has "gone stale"
So can you please explain to me how subscriber numbers are irrelevant, but server numbers are important ?
I bet he means that you will never agree that the actual subscribers of SWTOR are [mod edit]and you will keep on stating that they are infact 900k or whatever.
Since neither can be proven the numbers are irrelevant when noone can deny that servers are only going to be X very soon.
Just goes to show the importance of having a quality, compelling endgame.
^
Rift lost servers too but it didnt start with that many and certainly has more the Swtor does now.
Why? Because Rift has an endgame.
People here made a big deal about Rifts questing saying it was shallow but guess what Swtor gave you quite a bit of leveling options and people still left.
Comments
Unless the stats have changed, most players, solo or not, only stick around for 6 or so months before moving on. And, yes, EQ1 and FFXI found plenty of flagellates to masochistically enjoy their gameplay. I don't see how this disproves his point that far more people want to have solo play available to them when they want to venture out solo. That you reply with "Any proof whatsoever?" right after he just gave you the behemoth of the industry as an example kinda indicates you're probably too polarized in the group/solo thing to spend more time discussing it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Dude. Do I really have to convince you of the simple given that a lot more people enjoy it when they're able to solo level and questing more than there are people that prefer enforced grouping and/or mob grinding? I mean, seriously?
I'd bet 100 dollars that enforced grouping just isn't as popular and accepted as being able to level solo, and that people hate mob grinding more than they dislike solo quest leveling. WoW's success is enough proof of that.
And EQ and FFXI ran with profitable numbers because there was hardly any choice of MMO. When WoW came however, players left for WoW in droves.
And this.
I had a great time in EQ, but I'm also aware what its flaws were, what players complaints ingame often were about, and why follow up MMO's focused more on providing a larger amount of quests and the option to easier level solo, and with success.
You do realise that the quote is from the Massively article writer & not BioWare right?
[mod edit]
on december 26 when on official forums you got a thread thats " OMGAD SKILL DELAY PEW PEW PEW" and theres 1000 comments and its been viewed 100k times and devs actually commentate saying that everything was working as intented (who saw it knows the comment im talking about, was left only a few hours untill removed from mods but I saw it) insulting the players telling them they are at fault....really explains everything.
http://www.furians.it/firme/signature.php
Warhammer had more than 40 in US more like 98 I think from what I recall. I mean here they closed 63 servers in this article.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/warhammer-online-closing-63-servers
"Mythic's MMO Warhammer Online is closing 63 low-population servers: 43 in the North American and Oceanic regions run by Mythic itself, and 20 of the European servers operated by GOA."
That is why I cannot understand how they never learnt from that mistake.
i know that the people who hate this game see this as a sign that its dead but it really makes me want to resub and see if I can use the more populated server and the new dungeon queue to actually see what the end game stuff is like.
I unsubbed 2 days after hitting 50 because i was one of 4 people on my fleet one night (this was 4 weeks after launch too) and waited 5 hours in a WZ queue and was like "Yeah... no. fuck this." I mean a few weeks after launch and there isnt even 5 pubs in the main fucking game hub?
Source? Metrics/Statistics? Any proof whatsoever? Because the last two "forced grouping" games that I played were FFXI and EQ1 both of which have run with profitable amounts of players for years. Certainly, if MMO Pubs are only seeking players for less than six months they should focus on soloers- however if they are looking to profit on more than box sales then it shows that it's a stupid, stupid thing to do.
Unless the stats have changed, most players, solo or not, only stick around for 6 or so months before moving on. And, yes, EQ1 and FFXI found plenty of flagellates to masochistically enjoy their gameplay. I don't see how this disproves his point that far more people want to have solo play available to them when they want to venture out solo. That you reply with "Any proof whatsoever?" right after he just gave you the behemoth of the industry as an example kinda indicates you're probably too polarized in the group/solo thing to spend more time discussing it.
And yet he didn't, all he asserted was an opinion. I can say the industry is massively misinformed, and it's obvious that the majority of players want a MMORPG that focuses and revolves around meaningful progression via grouping. Prove me wrong. It's the same thing, just because I say it doesn't make it immediately true.
No amount of logical fallacies (ad hominem such as calling those that prefer gameplay you do not as masochistic flagellates, etc) prove anything you're saying.
What I'm saying is SWTOR is a MMO (and I use that term loosely) that came directly from the lineage of single player games and made the majority of its gameplay accessible and comfortable for solo players- moreso than any of it's predecessors and this is the result. And pointing out WoW as an example is laughably ridiculous- if WoW's success was based solely from being able to solo (and I'll even add having a successful IP) then why is SWTOR in the crapper? Why weren't all the other WoW-clones more successful?
I can see you disagree with me, but opinions prove nothing.
@pierth: if you think that enforced grouping will be warmly embraced by the majority of MMO gamers, and that quest content isn't liked and preferred above mob grinding, then there's very little left to say. Enjoy your long wait for MMO's that offer just that, I'm sure there will be some, but the majority of MMO gamers just don't enjoy stuff like enforced grouping.
Heck, you can hold a poll on this site, other sites, and it should become equally clear.
But hey, whatever, looks like it's your wet dream to play in MMO's like that, and you have a thorough, black&white kind of dislike for MMO's that offer solo friendly, quest based leveling, MMO's that you despise. Can't say I'm really surprised, after all this is the site where many disgruntled ex-MMO gamers go to who want to complain that they can't enjoy the MMO genre anymore. I wish you luck with your search for MMO's with enforced grouping and lack of quest leveling content.
Can't even compare to WAR, the huge drop came just after 2 months in WAR and SWTOR has been out for 6 months. Even though they lost a lot of players the honor of sharpest decline in player base after release still goes to WAR and AOC.
SWTOR opened with too many serveres and even when they were claiming to have 1.3 million players a lot of serveres were still on light. As of now SWTOR still has second highest player base in P2P category with Rift being third.
You can bet a billion dollars if you like, we'll never know until there's a AAA group-centric MMO with modern graphics and the polish of WoW to base that from. I'm not saying soloing shouldn't be possible. Soloing was definitely possible in EQ1 (even moreso over time) but they didn't make content specifically so everyone could solo it alone.
As for the rest of your reply, just because it's repeated that most players prefer to solo doesn't make it true.
Again I'll say, if Devs/Pubs want to make money solely on box sales then continue making games that cater to soloers- they'll buy them, play them as single player games, and leave.
I'd posit that this is one of the reasons that F2P/freemium (even B2P) models are taking over the industry- if players won't accept grindy games, and they are to continue catering to solo players that leave within six months anyway, then there's no reason to go the P2P route because there won't be enough players to stay around for it to be more profitable than a cash shop instead.
Edit: forgot a needed word, also- I'm still happily playing MMOs, there are a few titles I enjoy including one that hasn't been released yet. Has nothing to do with what I want. I have what I want- I'm showing that there's clear evidence in SWTOR- a hugely hyped, big IP, solotastic faux-MMO will fail when they make the game all about soloing. I'm sorry that doesn't fit some people's preferred playstyles, but the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
WHat? how many B2P MMO have released that proved to be so successful that you are claiming they are taking over the industry? moreover F2P is nothing but a gimmick. Most of the players end up subscribing anyways to regular monthly fee for unilimited access to all the features of game because otherwise you end up forking a lot more cash if you stick to F2P model.
F2P model is nothign more thana glorious trial, best deal is still to pay a monthly sub. Companies sure now how to fool people don't they? F2P/B2P taking over industry..yeah right.
That is a bit contradictory. You first off disagree with "Not really", and then agree with the rest of your post
I guess it depends on your point of view, but I find most other MMOs endgame revoives around multiplayer, as mainly because they are multiplayer experiences more than single player, due to them being Massively Muitiiplayer Online games!
Star Trek Online - Best Free MMORPG of 2012
Perhaps my logic has "gone stale"
So can you please explain to me how subscriber numbers are irrelevant, but server numbers are important ?
F2P model is nothign more thana glorious trial, best deal is still to pay a monthly sub. Companies sure now how to fool people don't they? F2P/B2P taking over industry..yeah right.
I extended the logic of the F2P/freemium pricing to B2P because essentially it'll be the same thing- monetizing after the fact via DLC/RMT as opposed to a subscription.
As I argued earlier in the thread, do you have any proof that the majority of players sub for the majority of their played time in a F2P (if possible) or freemium game? I know I haven't but anecdotal evidence is just that.
What about Aion's F2P? Is that a scam?
The only freemium game I've played where it was very necessary to subscribe was EQ2 and that's only if you're interested in its endgame due to gear limitations playing free.
Subbing in Freemium game - yeah devs want that. It is "having cake and eating it" attitude. Sub + big cash shop = corporations dream.
Most retarded model from my point of view. Tried it (was VIP in Lotro amongst others) - still it was one of worst deals in my life and I won't do it again.
STILL that kind of model is Freemium model (some ppl put it together with F2P) and it is not P2P.
There are only few P2P mmorpg's left.
Design and gameplay of current mmorpg's just does not made them to be games for long-term gameplay.
I am myself tired of trying new mmorg's every months - so I don't do this anymore and just simply not play any.(well there is one I will play in close future, but I doubt that it will be long-term).
There was survey done on EQ2 forums some time back and majority voted for sticking to sub model. Considering how expensive it can be otherwise to pay for feature unlocks, it makes sense doesn't it? Why not pay 15 bucks a month and unlock entire game instead of paying for almost everything from character slots to acces to dungeons and what not?
All so called F2P games come with heavy restrictions including Aion or DCUO or AOC etc. And in general a lot more expensive if you want to pay for unlocking specific features or items.
Server numbers dictate the average "spread" of a population. If they're moving from triple digit down to double digit servers (ie: 200 -> 30) it means that they spread their population too thin, or the population itself has left leaving a massive empty void that needs to be filled by merging servers.
It shows a drastic shift in population retention with respect to SWTOR & it's overall growth. When your product has "Negative Growth" it means your product has fallen in popularity thus making the listed Subscriber Numbers almost unbelieveable to begin with.
I don't believe they have 700k anymore, and think that due to the server merging it's most likely around 500k or less.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
LOL- Sadly it worked. Sadly the entire market market has bought this crap-
F2P has taken over. =(
I see the server merges as just the beginning to block the financial blood cut wound from spurting out anymore. I would not be surprised if a F2P announcement is made in the near future to try and save more monetary leakage and to run as cheaply as possible to recover or gain some stability, as well as bring in more masses to populate the servers.
It's true the overall population is nothing compared to the inital hype, however they upgraded the Destination Servers (remaining servers in the future).
While i agree the remaining* server are not capable to hold 1Million players _at least_ the size is now 4x as big as it was in December 2011. My Server has over 400 people on each faction online in the fleet and 100+ each faction on the startet planets, 50 - 100 on mid level planets and 20 - 40 on corellia / illum). The server used to have only 150+ on the fleet and up to 10 on corellia, while having 50~ on the mid zone planets at best and was _FULL_ during release.
And let's be honest, forthose still playing it's the best move they could have done. Despite the initial Server count, each server was too small always. These changes to the server software and database handling for more people in a "server" should have been there at launch.
Only downside is, Server started to slightly to lag yesterday (database / cluster communications lag, not latency of your connection to the gameservers).
I dont think anyones surprised. This game had a good story line. Everything else was so ugly and boring. I really don't see how anyone but a hardcore Star Wars junkie could play this for more then a few weeks. I hit lvl 42, went to the beach and 3 days later my girlfriend asked how my game was. I forgot i even owned the game!!!!!!
Hero Evermore
Guild Master of Dragonspine since 1982.
Playing Path of Exile and deeply in love with it.
I predict two things, either:
-A) Dramatic shift towards F2P in 3 to 6 months for the entire game.
Or
-B) Dramatic change of gameplay similar to SWG's NGE in order to shift in newer blood to the product to recover developement costs.
Either way, I really don't see a return in SWTOR's subscriber base. They realized what the rest of us have been saying for months now. The problem is that it took them so long to realize it
.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
I am not shocked at all if these server numbers are finalized. Going by this thread:
http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=449144
I stated the following on the 2nd of this month:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/353010/page/2
"We have 216 servers in total. If they wanted the population to be at around full or very heavy (around 3k per) during evening primetime blocks, they would have to drop the servers down to 22 servers from 216. If they wanted the population to be around heavy and have around 2k per, they would have to drop the servers down to 33 from 216.
I bet he means that you will never agree that the actual subscribers of SWTOR are [mod edit]and you will keep on stating that they are infact 900k or whatever.
Since neither can be proven the numbers are irrelevant when noone can deny that servers are only going to be X very soon.
^
Rift lost servers too but it didnt start with that many and certainly has more the Swtor does now.
Why? Because Rift has an endgame.
People here made a big deal about Rifts questing saying it was shallow but guess what Swtor gave you quite a bit of leveling options and people still left.
Playing: Nothing
Looking forward to: Nothing