This means that loosing 80%+ of it's playerbase after 6 months wasn't in their plans.
No, not every MMO has the same issues, only bad MMOs have this terrible retention rate, good MMOs like EvE grow instead of declining.
=
The game is a financial failure and the VO was too expensive and time consuming
"Dogs are the leaders of the planet. If you see two life forms, one of them's making a poop, the other one's carrying it for him, who would you assume is in charge."
"The idea behind the tuxedo is the woman's point of view that men are all the same; so we might as well dress them that way. That's why a wedding is like the joining together of a beautiful, glowing bride and some guy" -Seinfeld
See cutscenes can work, however my annoyance with the SWTOR cut scenes was simple. they lacked personality, you have the same 10 personalities stuck togeather and pushed at you. each character feels like a cardboard cutout, all will the same basic nature as the last person you talked to. However done well is TSW, each character is unique. i think this is why i enjoy it so much. from their character that is the worlds revenge on sarcasm to somone making red shirt comments.
soo ill agree they leaned on their Fully Voiced MMO to harshley however they didn't execute nearly as well as they could have.
Because i can. I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out. Logic every gamers worst enemy.
I think with MMORPG, by the time you realize something isn't going to work or is going to be a long term problem, you're five years into the development process and scrapping what you've already got isn't really an option. Maybe if developers advertised what they were doing very early in the design process, before they can get too invested, it would work better, but 'we' don't usually hear about games until they've been in production for years. By the time developers get public feedback it's really too late to scrap any major systems of the games.
I want to say Trion did a better job of this. If something didn't work, they scrapped it. I think Funcom did this to a lesser extent with TSW. It seems like both Rift and TSW were better overall games than SWToR.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The story mode, the voiceover content, the cinematics and generally the questing are not the problem with SWTOR. Neither are the flashpoints: they're quite fun and have plenty of character as far as dungeons go - something you rarely see in MMOs. Plus, the multiplayer dialogue system is pure innovation.
The problem with SWTOR is the other things, the "standard MMO" tropes. Crafting. PVP instances. Even combat and progression systems, woefuly unimaginative.
In my opinion they did the right thing going with voice and cinematics and story. It was not problematic; on the contrary, it was all they had as far as "things that really make this game worth playing" goes. Other stuff, just dump it down the drain, they should have. Space combat? Toss it. PVP battlegrounds? Toss it. Open world PVP planet? Toss it. MMO endgame? Heck, toss it. Filler content? Toss it. It'd be a much batter game.
Everything Bioware did to justify "long term play" for this game actually made the game far worse than it would be. Those players quitting the game? Most of them did so "after" finishing the story content. When they reached the "MMO stuff".
The rundown: Bioware did a good questing experience that most players were happy with. Bioware did a really mediocre "MMO endgame" that very few players were happy with. How the subs went down is a testimony to this. So, which one do you think, they should have gone with? Something they're good at, or something (pure gameplay mechanics) they suck at, even in single player games like Mass Effect?
Thus, needless to say, I'm of the opposite opinion. I think they cracked under "MMO expectation" pressure and hastily and clumsily added "standard MMO features" when they should have stuck to their guns of story + voice + cinematics.
I think they did step back. And these mediocre MMO features are the fruits of that. They shouldn't have stepped back, just pushed forward.
They should just have stuck with "making an online KOTOR" vision.
They should have destroyed the bland MMO formulae, not join them!
When a studio is run by money people instead of gaming people, the games are in trouble. If a game is in development and things just aren't working, do you actually see the devs going to the top brass at EA saying, "Yeah, we're going to start over." Never gonna happen. Those types of studios would rather launch a flawed game and at least recoup the expenses.
I'm not sure there are many (if any) studios that actually put the game ahead of the dollar.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Persistent game world. A game where the world (or parts of the world) reset to a known state in regular intervals is not persistent
Heh. You got it all wrong. World that resets to a known state (mob respawn, resetting dungeons, etc) is precisely a persistent world. As opposed to a nonpersistent (single-player) game world which can never go back to a previous state without scratching all player's progress.
MMORPG genre is dead. Long live MMOCS (Massively Multiplayer Online Cash Shop).
Sorry but SW:TOR just did not feel like an mmo for me.
I was way to linear with nothing to do beside the story/quests.... the game world was to instanced and did not feel like an online world to play in.
The fact they gave you nothing to do in the game beside the quests/chase the carrot for gear/pvp on a few maps just killed it.
If SW:TOR had just some form of this it would not be dying now and in such poor shape.
An open world, not a collection of small maps
A non-instanced game world, no private instances for story mode or private dungeons (zones are okay if technically needed)
Gameplay features other than combat activities, for example: fishing, harvesting, prospecting, crafting, diplomacy, music, trading
Character progression or development outside of combat(see above examples)
Open-ended gameplay, no "game starts at level 50" game design
Player-driven in-game economy, not a loot-driven economy, no bind-on-equip or bind-on acquire items
Character development that can be customised via skills and/or customisations of class roles, not a class system where every level 50 warrior has the exact same skills and attributes
Non-linear character development where characters are not limited to developer-defined roles, for example: free skill trees or multi-classing of characters
In-depth crafting system. A crafting system is considered in-depth if the majority of items in the game is player-made and when crafted items can be at least as good as dropped items
In-depth resource system. A resource system is considered in-depth if items can be made from raw resources that influence the resulting item (either it's stats or it's appearance is okay)
Persistent game world. A game where the world (or parts of the world) reset to a known state in regular intervals is not persistent
Player's ability to change aspects of the game world, either by being able to modify the physical game world or by being able to take ownership of structures in the game world
Some form of customizable player housing/building
He, NeVeRLiFt, this is bad style. You should at least give the author credit when you rip what someone else wrote from another thread on this forum.
When a studio is run by money people instead of gaming people, the games are in trouble.
It is the other way round actually, because you need money to develop the game.
You put the game ahead of dollar and you likely go broke before you even release the game.
That's not what he said.
Gaming people are more likely to successful develop games compared to bean counters.
It does not matter how much money you have, if you are unable to develop a desired product. On the other hand, very limited budget but with a great idea can bring millions, like Minescape.
[quote]Thus, needless to say, I'm of the opposite opinion. I think they cracked under "MMO expectation" pressure and hastily and clumsily added "standard MMO features" when they should have stuck to their guns of story + voice + cinematics. I think they did step back. And these mediocre MMO features are the fruits of that. They shouldn't have stepped back, just pushed forward. They should just have stuck with "making an online KOTOR" vision. They should have destroyed the bland MMO formulae, not join them! [/quote]
+1
I could not agree more. When did the "let players quit" became "keep them grinding endgame stuff" ? I seriously doubt someone of the real bioware has been in control of the game for a very long time.
Originally posted by minime2 Originally posted by GdemamiOriginally posted by Tawn47What exactly would it take for you to regard this game as a poor MMO?
The only qualifier is revenue.In case of SWTOR, it has the largest market share after WoW. There is +500k people who consider the game to be worth paying. That is more than vast majority of the games out there.F2P is currently dominating the market therefore it is no wonder the pressure on P2P models will increase with each year. DDO, LOTRO, AOC, DCUO, etc. each took shorter and shorter time since release to convert to F2P. See the pattern? Some games even release as F2P from the get go.It is about money and nothing else. If there is a believe that different pricing will make more money and it is worthy, they will go for it. LOTRO went F2P with about 200k subs as P2P. RIFT has about same subs as LOTRO had but remains P2P. AOC went F2P with about 100K subs as P2P. WAR has about same subs as AOC had but remains P2P. They are just different business decisions.Well, the bigger the game is, greater will be the "overwhelming" feedback... 500k there are nowhere near 500k playing swtor the server numbers prove that now your talking nonsense .
If anyone knew how many people were on a server, this would be a good argument. As it is, nobody has any real idea how many people play per server, or how much time people with subscriptions play. There could be 500,000 subscriptions, but people just don't play that often. Each server could have over 50,000 subscribers and 25,000 players at the same time.
What we do know is that EA told their investors that there were more than 500,000 subscriptions. This has much more weight than random magic calculated numbers on an internet forum since the investors can sue EA for lying, whereas people on forums just like to see their words in print.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Whatever it may seem to be, there needs to be shown something first.
You my try to spin it and twist as much as you want but until you provide back up to your claims, you are just trolling.
(You're confused.. I am not the one making any claim... it was the OP)
No, that is not how reasonable logic works. If we asked for proof on every single piece of information that comes our way, we'd never get anywhere. We have to make reasonable assumptions for practical purposes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, commonplace statements that accord with common experience do not. What you fail to realise here is that you are the one making a more unlikely claim - and therefore proof from you is required (IMO of course).
I am wondering why you are so hesitant to provide your own information since you indicated that you knew otherwise.
Originally posted by Tawn47If I say I saw a blue sky this morning, it'd be pretty silly to ask me to prove it.
I can go out and look at the sky. But there is nothing to look at here. You provided 0 figures what the costs actually are or could be.
The point is, would you actually bother to look at the sky before believing me? Does it seem unlikely? Is the sky often blue?
Seems straightforward to me that voice actors cost money. I think the claim sounds reasonable and I am not asking for proof. You claim he is wrong. That sounds plausible, but less likely. So, I'd look to you to prove him wrong.
What? Good grief. It must be lame argument day on MMORPG.com.
SWToR had just as many developers as any other game. However, in addition to the developers, they had a bunch of voice actors. SWToR is in the Guinness Book of World Records for having over 200 voice actors. Humans do not generally work for free, so everything else being the same, having over 200 voice actors working over a period of four or five years costs considerably more than not. Especially when many of the voice actors are known actors and not kids just out of acting school.
** edit ** EA had a lot of money, but they don't have infinite money. The money and resources spent on voice acting reduced or removed the money and resources available for other parts of the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
When a studio is run by money people instead of gaming people, the games are in trouble.
It is the other way round actually, because you need money to develop the game.
You put the game ahead of dollar and you likely go broke before you even release the game.
the flaw in that logic is that if the game doesn't come first, the money will eventually dry up
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Originally posted by Tawn47 I am wondering why you are so hesitant to provide your own information since you indicated that you knew otherwise.
Because the ball is not on my side of the court.
You asked me for my reasoning couple posts back regarding SWTOR performance, I did provide what was asked. You cannot do the same...fair enough, no content to discuss tho.
It was not the only factor. There was an "escalation of commitment" on the part of fanboys. I was beta testing the game for the better part of its final year and was in 2 tests more than a year before release and there was a hieghtened effort on the part of a large group of testers to shut down ANYONE that had anything negative to say...they even shut down people giving actual DETAILED information on what the game needed...
It was as if anything said about the game that did not accompany a sucking sound....had to be kept away from the developers eyes.
The game is the way it is not only due to the makers of the game, but the players that made sure the developers did not hear players concerns and wants. And a lot of them had the mentality that either players cannot change a game, or that the game makers would put in everything we wanted...without having to ask for it.
Game development is a business and you need business people to make it successful.
As if there are not enough examples of the mismanagement of funds from big business lead game development. LOL. That's an awfully cheap shot that doesn't stand up to scrutiny of the whole institusion. I am always willing to consider Kickstarter and encourage other people to consider it too. After all, as just one example, it is bringing me Wasteland 2...
Originally posted by Crazy_Stick As if there are not enough examples of the mismanagement of funds from big business lead game development.
Those two are not comparable.
Even experienced professional will make mistakes(way less frequently) but those are of very different nature, and mostly just "bet on the wrong horse".
What Warballoon did tho is a fail on something as basic as calculating their direct costs.
If I say I saw a blue sky this morning, it'd be pretty silly to ask me to prove it.
I can go out and look at the sky.
But there is nothing to look at here. You provided 0 figures what the costs actually are or could be.
Gdemami, you need to come to a realization.
This is a forum. It is for gamers, not accountants, staisticians, economists, and debate teams.
Every post you disagree with, you attack with arguments like:
"Where are your cost figures!"
"You used logical induction to get from point A to B, not valid!"
"Where are your references!"
I'm sorry, but you're not going to find any of that stuff here. This is not a scholary article. If you demand cost figures and references in EVERYTHING, then maybe you should stick to reading journals only.
On this forum, people just think of an idea and throw it out there to...DISCUSS. Hence, DISCUSSION FORUM.
If you disagree with something, then feel free to state why. But don't bother asking for a bibliography and financial figures, because you're not going to get them.
For example, myself, and many others brought up the concern that BW"s strategy of making "fully voiced" a flagship feature of the game was problematic in the long-term because it would make creating additional content very cost prohibitive...
Oh really? Do you even have an idea how much the voice-overs actually cost?
And better not to ask me about my thoughts regarding your post...
Well, let's do the math.
We know that SWTOR was recognized as having the most voice acting in history.
"As reported by Massively, the Guinness Book of World Records has recognized SWTOR as the largest ever voiced over entertainment project. With over 200,000 lines of spoken dialogue and hundreds of actors involved in the project, SWTOR is not only one of the largest video games ever produced, but among one of the largest entertainment titles of any kind."
And by many popular accounts the title cost roughly $200M to create
"According to the Times, The Old Republic cost $200 million to develop, well above the $80 million forecast by Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter last May"
And it's pretty obvious to anyone who's played it that they didn't spend a whole lot of effort creating traditional MMORPG systems and functionality outside of the voice acted bits.
So even though we can't be totally sure, it doesn't take a MBA in Accounting to conclude that voice acting costs a buttload of money.
Besides, plain common sense tells you fully voiced game content is expensive, else everyone would have have been doing it already.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Game development is a business and you need business people to make it successful.
OK, it's becoming obvious that this guy is either a marketer or a foolish zealot.
Same schtick, every thread: Game does not suck it makes money ---> prove to me with a chart that it sucks!
Now he is attacking the movement that is threatening AAA developers and their schism with users. You should go find a church Gdemami, or do some meditating. Maybe even find a beneficial organization to join so that you can find your humanity again. Shame on you. BTW, I don't have a chart to prove that you are nuts, so don't ask.
Comments
Ok, im bored.
Fact 1: EA considers SWTOR a disappointment
EA:
"The disappointing results of Star Wars: The Old Republic were largely offset by a powerful performance from Battlefield 3 Premium service".
http://www.darthhater.com/articles/swtor-news/21141-free-to-play-a-closer-look
Fact 2: Two rounds of massive layoffs
BW said before release that there wouldn't be any layoffs, they would maintain the whole team and develop content every ¿6? weeks
Fact 3: F2P in less than a year.
Fact 4: No more VO content
Fact 5: 5.6 user score on metacritic
Fact 6: 220 servers merged into 12
Fact 7: "SWTOR will more than compete with WoW"
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/306437/bioware-old-republic-will-more-than-compete-with-world-of-warcraft/
This means that loosing 80%+ of it's playerbase after 6 months wasn't in their plans.
No, not every MMO has the same issues, only bad MMOs have this terrible retention rate, good MMOs like EvE grow instead of declining.
=
The game is a financial failure and the VO was too expensive and time consuming
"Dogs are the leaders of the planet. If you see two life forms, one of them's making a poop, the other one's carrying it for him, who would you assume is in charge."
"The idea behind the tuxedo is the woman's point of view that men are all the same; so we might as well dress them that way. That's why a wedding is like the joining together of a beautiful, glowing bride and some guy"
-Seinfeld
See cutscenes can work, however my annoyance with the SWTOR cut scenes was simple. they lacked personality, you have the same 10 personalities stuck togeather and pushed at you. each character feels like a cardboard cutout, all will the same basic nature as the last person you talked to. However done well is TSW, each character is unique. i think this is why i enjoy it so much. from their character that is the worlds revenge on sarcasm to somone making red shirt comments.
soo ill agree they leaned on their Fully Voiced MMO to harshley however they didn't execute nearly as well as they could have.
Because i can.
I'm Hopeful For Every Game, Until the Fan Boys Attack My Games. Then the Knives Come Out.
Logic every gamers worst enemy.
I think with MMORPG, by the time you realize something isn't going to work or is going to be a long term problem, you're five years into the development process and scrapping what you've already got isn't really an option. Maybe if developers advertised what they were doing very early in the design process, before they can get too invested, it would work better, but 'we' don't usually hear about games until they've been in production for years. By the time developers get public feedback it's really too late to scrap any major systems of the games.
I want to say Trion did a better job of this. If something didn't work, they scrapped it. I think Funcom did this to a lesser extent with TSW. It seems like both Rift and TSW were better overall games than SWToR.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The story mode, the voiceover content, the cinematics and generally the questing are not the problem with SWTOR. Neither are the flashpoints: they're quite fun and have plenty of character as far as dungeons go - something you rarely see in MMOs. Plus, the multiplayer dialogue system is pure innovation.
The problem with SWTOR is the other things, the "standard MMO" tropes. Crafting. PVP instances. Even combat and progression systems, woefuly unimaginative.
In my opinion they did the right thing going with voice and cinematics and story. It was not problematic; on the contrary, it was all they had as far as "things that really make this game worth playing" goes. Other stuff, just dump it down the drain, they should have. Space combat? Toss it. PVP battlegrounds? Toss it. Open world PVP planet? Toss it. MMO endgame? Heck, toss it. Filler content? Toss it. It'd be a much batter game.
Everything Bioware did to justify "long term play" for this game actually made the game far worse than it would be. Those players quitting the game? Most of them did so "after" finishing the story content. When they reached the "MMO stuff".
The rundown: Bioware did a good questing experience that most players were happy with. Bioware did a really mediocre "MMO endgame" that very few players were happy with. How the subs went down is a testimony to this. So, which one do you think, they should have gone with? Something they're good at, or something (pure gameplay mechanics) they suck at, even in single player games like Mass Effect?
Thus, needless to say, I'm of the opposite opinion. I think they cracked under "MMO expectation" pressure and hastily and clumsily added "standard MMO features" when they should have stuck to their guns of story + voice + cinematics.
I think they did step back. And these mediocre MMO features are the fruits of that. They shouldn't have stepped back, just pushed forward.
They should just have stuck with "making an online KOTOR" vision.
They should have destroyed the bland MMO formulae, not join them!
I would agree with the OP and add this:
When a studio is run by money people instead of gaming people, the games are in trouble. If a game is in development and things just aren't working, do you actually see the devs going to the top brass at EA saying, "Yeah, we're going to start over." Never gonna happen. Those types of studios would rather launch a flawed game and at least recoup the expenses.
I'm not sure there are many (if any) studios that actually put the game ahead of the dollar.
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Heh. You got it all wrong. World that resets to a known state (mob respawn, resetting dungeons, etc) is precisely a persistent world. As opposed to a nonpersistent (single-player) game world which can never go back to a previous state without scratching all player's progress.
MMORPG genre is dead. Long live MMOCS (Massively Multiplayer Online Cash Shop).
It is the other way round actually, because you need money to develop the game.
You put the game ahead of dollar and you likely go broke before you even release the game.
He, NeVeRLiFt, this is bad style. You should at least give the author credit when you rip what someone else wrote from another thread on this forum.
You copy-pasted the complete above feature list from the List of Sandbox MMORPGs thread at http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/349518/page/1
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
That's not what he said.
Gaming people are more likely to successful develop games compared to bean counters.
It does not matter how much money you have, if you are unable to develop a desired product. On the other hand, very limited budget but with a great idea can bring millions, like Minescape.
That is exactly what he said.
Look what happens when gaming people start dabbing into things they have no clue of and are encouraged by other gaming folk:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/starcommand/star-command-sci-fi-meets-gamedev-story-for-ios-an/posts/208395
Say NO! to Kickstarter!
Game development is a business and you need business people to make it successful.
I think they did step back. And these mediocre MMO features are the fruits of that. They shouldn't have stepped back, just pushed forward.
They should just have stuck with "making an online KOTOR" vision.
They should have destroyed the bland MMO formulae, not join them!
[/quote]
+1
I could not agree more. When did the "let players quit" became "keep them grinding endgame stuff" ? I seriously doubt someone of the real bioware has been in control of the game for a very long time.
500k there are nowhere near 500k playing swtor the server numbers prove that now your talking nonsense .
If anyone knew how many people were on a server, this would be a good argument. As it is, nobody has any real idea how many people play per server, or how much time people with subscriptions play. There could be 500,000 subscriptions, but people just don't play that often. Each server could have over 50,000 subscribers and 25,000 players at the same time.
What we do know is that EA told their investors that there were more than 500,000 subscriptions. This has much more weight than random magic calculated numbers on an internet forum since the investors can sue EA for lying, whereas people on forums just like to see their words in print.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
(You're confused.. I am not the one making any claim... it was the OP)
No, that is not how reasonable logic works. If we asked for proof on every single piece of information that comes our way, we'd never get anywhere. We have to make reasonable assumptions for practical purposes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, commonplace statements that accord with common experience do not. What you fail to realise here is that you are the one making a more unlikely claim - and therefore proof from you is required (IMO of course).
I am wondering why you are so hesitant to provide your own information since you indicated that you knew otherwise.
Nope!
You are talking very shortsighted about the obvious, need of money and business people, as if it is the only thing needed.
Strange, there are a lot more money and business people around than great games. How come if that's all we need?
People with a more open mind realize the need of other skills to succeed, be it games or whatever you do for a living.
What? Good grief. It must be lame argument day on MMORPG.com.
SWToR had just as many developers as any other game. However, in addition to the developers, they had a bunch of voice actors. SWToR is in the Guinness Book of World Records for having over 200 voice actors. Humans do not generally work for free, so everything else being the same, having over 200 voice actors working over a period of four or five years costs considerably more than not. Especially when many of the voice actors are known actors and not kids just out of acting school.
** edit **
EA had a lot of money, but they don't have infinite money. The money and resources spent on voice acting reduced or removed the money and resources available for other parts of the game.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
the flaw in that logic is that if the game doesn't come first, the money will eventually dry up
If in 1982 we played with the current mentality, we would have burned down all the pac man games since the red ghost was clearly OP. Instead we just got better at the game.
Because the ball is not on my side of the court.
You asked me for my reasoning couple posts back regarding SWTOR performance, I did provide what was asked. You cannot do the same...fair enough, no content to discuss tho.
Yes and no.
It was not the only factor. There was an "escalation of commitment" on the part of fanboys. I was beta testing the game for the better part of its final year and was in 2 tests more than a year before release and there was a hieghtened effort on the part of a large group of testers to shut down ANYONE that had anything negative to say...they even shut down people giving actual DETAILED information on what the game needed...
It was as if anything said about the game that did not accompany a sucking sound....had to be kept away from the developers eyes.
The game is the way it is not only due to the makers of the game, but the players that made sure the developers did not hear players concerns and wants. And a lot of them had the mentality that either players cannot change a game, or that the game makers would put in everything we wanted...without having to ask for it.
It is no flaw, business people have still higher chances not only to release but also to make profit - that is what they do, don't they?
Your logic is flawed in assumption that gaming people are capable to make games yielding higher profits than games made by business people.
The definition of "game people" are the people making games.
So by your logic people NOT making games are better on making games. Well, nobody sees the flaws in that.....
Ha ha, are you a member of Monty Phyton, this was hilarious.
As if there are not enough examples of the mismanagement of funds from big business lead game development. LOL. That's an awfully cheap shot that doesn't stand up to scrutiny of the whole institusion. I am always willing to consider Kickstarter and encourage other people to consider it too. After all, as just one example, it is bringing me Wasteland 2...
Those two are not comparable.
Even experienced professional will make mistakes(way less frequently) but those are of very different nature, and mostly just "bet on the wrong horse".
What Warballoon did tho is a fail on something as basic as calculating their direct costs.
It is no cheap shot, it is spot on.
Gdemami, you need to come to a realization.
This is a forum. It is for gamers, not accountants, staisticians, economists, and debate teams.
Every post you disagree with, you attack with arguments like:
"Where are your cost figures!"
"You used logical induction to get from point A to B, not valid!"
"Where are your references!"
I'm sorry, but you're not going to find any of that stuff here. This is not a scholary article. If you demand cost figures and references in EVERYTHING, then maybe you should stick to reading journals only.
On this forum, people just think of an idea and throw it out there to...DISCUSS. Hence, DISCUSSION FORUM.
If you disagree with something, then feel free to state why. But don't bother asking for a bibliography and financial figures, because you're not going to get them.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Well, let's do the math.
We know that SWTOR was recognized as having the most voice acting in history.
"As reported by Massively, the Guinness Book of World Records has recognized SWTOR as the largest ever voiced over entertainment project. With over 200,000 lines of spoken dialogue and hundreds of actors involved in the project, SWTOR is not only one of the largest video games ever produced, but among one of the largest entertainment titles of any kind."
http://www.darthhater.com/articles/swtor-news/19850-swtor-enters-the-guinness-book-of-world-records
And by many popular accounts the title cost roughly $200M to create
"According to the Times, The Old Republic cost $200 million to develop, well above the $80 million forecast by Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter last May"
http://www.gamespot.com/news/star-wars-the-old-republic-cost-200-million-to-develop-6348959
And it's pretty obvious to anyone who's played it that they didn't spend a whole lot of effort creating traditional MMORPG systems and functionality outside of the voice acted bits.
So even though we can't be totally sure, it doesn't take a MBA in Accounting to conclude that voice acting costs a buttload of money.
Besides, plain common sense tells you fully voiced game content is expensive, else everyone would have have been doing it already.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
OK, it's becoming obvious that this guy is either a marketer or a foolish zealot.
Same schtick, every thread: Game does not suck it makes money ---> prove to me with a chart that it sucks!
Now he is attacking the movement that is threatening AAA developers and their schism with users. You should go find a church Gdemami, or do some meditating. Maybe even find a beneficial organization to join so that you can find your humanity again. Shame on you. BTW, I don't have a chart to prove that you are nuts, so don't ask.
Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011