156 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

EA CAN'T lie about that stuff because they announced it in a conference call with stockholders. If they lie, it's fraud, and that's a felony.

And you can't compare it to WoW. You just can't. WoW is the elephant in the room, the big bad mamajama. It's established, it has a ton of players, and it's going to keep steamrolling everything. Except... fully half its players are based in Korea, where TOR isn't available (internet rules there are different than in America or Canada or Europe so they only charge a few cents per hour of game time, allowing vast hordes of people to play for very cheap) and has dropped over two million users since the last expansion (Wrath of the Lich King, not Cataclysm, just to clarify what I mean by "last") and are continuing to drop users.

Is TOR ever going to have the numbers WoW has? No, but that was NEVER the goal. EA has said that TOR will continue to be profitable even at under a million players playing, THAT is the goal.

But they can readjust their projections.. Which ammounts to the same thing.

Seriously think you spend that ammount of money to get less than 2 million subscribers ? Lucas Arts gets a chunk of that too of course.

While you could probably safely bet that TOR was never going to displace WoW. A gap that big is not a success. Whatever way EA would like to spin it.

I'd expect Diablo 3 to take a sizable chunk out of TOR short term and possibly long term too.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 17 avril 2012 - 05:32 .

[Degs29]

charmingcharlie wrote...

matthewmi wrote...

Exactly Broken steel allowed you to continue playing the game, and wasn't a complete rewrite of the end. It also wasn't free.

Yes it was at the end of Fallout 3 your character is DEAD that is how the game ends.  After an outcry about it they changed the ending from being dead to just being "unconcious" and mysteriously being rescued.  Now if you say rewriting a character from dead to unconcious "isn't a complete rewrite" then I would hate to see what you consider is a rewrite.

Wow, that's the rewrite everyone's been talking about from Bethesda?  Judging by that, Bioware definitely should rewrite the ending, as they have issues way bigger than "wtf, my character's dead?".  

[M920CAIN]

Tesclo wrote...

Just give in already. FIX YOUR GAME! Bethesda did and I bet they're considered more respectable than you are right about now. Bioware no longer holds the title. Those days are long gone. You are a shell of what you once were. You sold out. Your customers don't respect you. Infact, by selling out and rushing garbage out the door you've become the joke of the industry. You'd rather spend money on promotion than actually making a quality product. You cater to big wigs and button mashers. I can really go on all day... but I'm sure questioning the business practice (if that's what you want to call it) of our almighty gods is enough to, at the very least, temp ban my account. How dare I share an opinion?! It's not enough that I'm greeted by an open threat at the top of the site everytime I log in. It's not like this site was created so that "the devs could speak with their fans" or anything, right?

Regardless, I hate big business. It ruins quality. It makes the entire industry garbage by forcing smaller talent out of the market. Fueled by greed it does nothing but defend it's own and screw over the consumer. We are sheep, cattle and, dare I say, "meat bags" placed on this planet with no other purpose but to hand you money. Truly the scum of the Earth.

How about I request a refund for my "Mass Effect" 3 purchase? I wonder how long I'd have to talk to Peggy over there in "customer support" (more than likely paid less than a dollar day to answer the phone in some Asian country because God knows an American company can't actually hire American employees and pay them a fair wage) to get that processed?

I do not know you. But I like you.

[Father_Jerusalem]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

EA CAN'T lie about that stuff because they announced it in a conference call with stockholders. If they lie, it's fraud, and that's a felony.

And you can't compare it to WoW. You just can't. WoW is the elephant in the room, the big bad mamajama. It's established, it has a ton of players, and it's going to keep steamrolling everything. Except... fully half its players are based in Korea, where TOR isn't available (internet rules there are different than in America or Canada or Europe so they only charge a few cents per hour of game time, allowing vast hordes of people to play for very cheap) and has dropped over two million users since the last expansion (Wrath of the Lich King, not Cataclysm, just to clarify what I mean by "last") and are continuing to drop users.

Is TOR ever going to have the numbers WoW has? No, but that was NEVER the goal. EA has said that TOR will continue to be profitable even at under a million players playing, THAT is the goal.

But they can readjust their projections.. Which ammounts to the same thing.

Seriously think you spend that ammount of money to get less than 2 million subscribers ? Lucas Arts gets a chunk of that too of course.

While you could probably safely bet that TOR was never going to displace WoW. A gap that big is not a success. Whatever way EA would like to spin it.

I'd expect Diablo 3 to take a sizable chunk out of TOR short term and possibly long term too.

Yes, I fully think that you spend that amount of money to get less than 2 million subscribers, because EA themselves said that that was WAY above what they were expecting right out of the gate. WoW didn't launch with 10 million subscribers. They built up over the years. No game has launched with the amount of subscribers, and the amount of retention, that TOR launched with. That's a fact. A gap that big in a field where only ONE game has ever had the success WoW's had, and where MOST games do quite well with aroud 1-1.5 million subscribers is, in fact, normal.

And from everything I've heard from people in Beta, Diablo 3 is terrible. I honestly don't know details, I personally don't care for Diablo, but people who have been in the beta keep talking about how bad it is. So... take that for whatever it's worth.

[thunderhawk862002]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

EA CAN'T lie about that stuff because they announced it in a conference call with stockholders. If they lie, it's fraud, and that's a felony.

And you can't compare it to WoW. You just can't. WoW is the elephant in the room, the big bad mamajama. It's established, it has a ton of players, and it's going to keep steamrolling everything. Except... fully half its players are based in Korea, where TOR isn't available (internet rules there are different than in America or Canada or Europe so they only charge a few cents per hour of game time, allowing vast hordes of people to play for very cheap) and has dropped over two million users since the last expansion (Wrath of the Lich King, not Cataclysm, just to clarify what I mean by "last") and are continuing to drop users.

Is TOR ever going to have the numbers WoW has? No, but that was NEVER the goal. EA has said that TOR will continue to be profitable even at under a million players playing, THAT is the goal.

But they can readjust their projections.. Which ammounts to the same thing.

Seriously think you spend that ammount of money to get less than 2 million subscribers ? Lucas Arts gets a chunk of that too of course.

While you could probably safely bet that TOR was never going to displace WoW. A gap that big is not a success. Whatever way EA would like to spin it.

I'd expect Diablo 3 to take a sizable chunk out of TOR short term and possibly long term too.

I don't know anything about TOR or MMO's but EA has said it would be profitable with 500,000 subscribers.  They may have expected to retain more but it can be profitable at that level.   You can have a wide gap but still be considered succesful.  Look at the IMac and apple computers.    To go up against a giant and expect to close by any significant amount is foolhardy.  EA tried it when they took Battlefield head to head with Modern Warfare and they lost big time.

Modifié par thunderhawk862002, 17 avril 2012 - 05:36 .

[Pee Jae]

Well, as has been said before, Fallout 3 had an actual ending. The Lone Wanderer "passed into history" or whatever and either changed things for the good or bad. There was resolution. Broken Steel said, "Whoa, hold up, you didn't die!" and gave everyone more playtime.

Mass Effect 3 has no resolution. It does have lots of speculation about what happens to Shep, the characters, the armada, the Reapers themselves, and so on and so on. Ending dlc may bring it to a satisfying conclusion, but I have serious doubts about comparing it to Broken Steel, with the exception that it in no way set some kind of "dangerous precedent".

[kbct]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

EA CAN'T lie about that stuff because they announced it in a conference call with stockholders. If they lie, it's fraud, and that's a felony.

And you can't compare it to WoW. You just can't. WoW is the elephant in the room, the big bad mamajama. It's established, it has a ton of players, and it's going to keep steamrolling everything. Except... fully half its players are based in Korea, where TOR isn't available (internet rules there are different than in America or Canada or Europe so they only charge a few cents per hour of game time, allowing vast hordes of people to play for very cheap) and has dropped over two million users since the last expansion (Wrath of the Lich King, not Cataclysm, just to clarify what I mean by "last") and are continuing to drop users.

Is TOR ever going to have the numbers WoW has? No, but that was NEVER the goal. EA has said that TOR will continue to be profitable even at under a million players playing, THAT is the goal.

But they can readjust their projections.. Which ammounts to the same thing.

Seriously think you spend that ammount of money to get less than 2 million subscribers ? Lucas Arts gets a chunk of that too of course.

While you could probably safely bet that TOR was never going to displace WoW. A gap that big is not a success. Whatever way EA would like to spin it.

I'd expect Diablo 3 to take a sizable chunk out of TOR short term and possibly long term too.

TOR was released on 12/22/11 and the game came with a 30 day free subscription. The investor conference call was 2/1/12. I wonder how many still had a free subscription at that time?

We definitely need current subscriber numbers now that the customers have paid subscriptions and had time to evaluate the game.

[Arsenic Touch]

I'm still waiting for this dangerous precedent that took place years ago to fracture the gaming industry.

[AkiKishi]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
Yes, I fully think that you spend that amount of money to get less than 2 million subscribers, because EA themselves said that that was WAY above what they were expecting right out of the gate. WoW didn't launch with 10 million subscribers. They built up over the years. No game has launched with the amount of subscribers, and the amount of retention, that TOR launched with. That's a fact. A gap that big in a field where only ONE game has ever had the success WoW's had, and where MOST games do quite well with aroud 1-1.5 million subscribers is, in fact, normal.

And from everything I've heard from people in Beta, Diablo 3 is terrible. I honestly don't know details, I personally don't care for Diablo, but people who have been in the beta keep talking about how bad it is. So... take that for whatever it's worth.

They could have spent a fraction of that and got the same result with the Star Wars name..

WoW started with much higher numbers and pretty much killed EverQuest along the way. TOR can beat MMOs that have a fraction of the budget, running costs and no Star Wars name to carry them.. Nah I'm not impressed by that.

Diablo 3 will be huge. The release of a Diablo is not a game it's an event. TOR's numbers are low so even a 500k drop is going to hurt badly and be noticed.Diablo 3 could drop it more than that quite easily because the "hardcore" gamers will go with the current game even if they return later.

[Father_Jerusalem]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
Yes, I fully think that you spend that amount of money to get less than 2 million subscribers, because EA themselves said that that was WAY above what they were expecting right out of the gate. WoW didn't launch with 10 million subscribers. They built up over the years. No game has launched with the amount of subscribers, and the amount of retention, that TOR launched with. That's a fact. A gap that big in a field where only ONE game has ever had the success WoW's had, and where MOST games do quite well with aroud 1-1.5 million subscribers is, in fact, normal.

And from everything I've heard from people in Beta, Diablo 3 is terrible. I honestly don't know details, I personally don't care for Diablo, but people who have been in the beta keep talking about how bad it is. So... take that for whatever it's worth.

They could have spent a fraction of that and got the same result with the Star Wars name..

WoW started with much higher numbers and pretty much killed EverQuest along the way. TOR can beat MMOs that have a fraction of the budget, running costs and no Star Wars name to carry them.. Nah I'm not impressed by that.

Diablo 3 will be huge. The release of a Diablo is not a game it's an event. TOR's numbers are low so even a 500k drop is going to hurt badly and be noticed.Diablo 3 could drop it more than that quite easily because the "hardcore" gamers will go with the current game even if they return later.

Just to refute the point that WoW launched with much higher numbers:

"World of Warcraft breaks the records
Within the first day, over 200,000 players created World of Warcraft accounts. By 5:00 p.m. PST, over 100,000 were playing the game concurrently. These two record-breaking numbers made World of Warcraft the fastest-growing MMORPG in history. Within a single day, all original 40+ World of Warcraft servers were filled to capacity, and by the end of the Thanksgiving weekend, more than 40 additional servers were deployed to meet the rapidly growing player base, as the number of new accounts and concurrent users continued to grow.

"We were all extremely pleased with the success of World of Warcraft on its first day of launch," said Mike Morhaime, president of Blizzard Entertainment. "Once we saw the numbers for the first day, we knew that we had to immediately increase capacity to accommodate the huge numbers of players joining our game. We're glad so many people are enjoying World of Warcraft, and we are dedicated to supporting a fun and smooth game experience for everyone.""

They had less than 10% of what TOR launched with. It took WoW three months to reach a million subscribers.

People will go to play Diablo 3, that doesn't mean they'll leave TOR. You CAN play more than one game at a time. People will go play Guild Wars 2, that doesn't mean they'll leave TOR. You CAN play more than one game at a time. TORs numbers will not drop by anything near what you're claiming, and even if they DID... it would still be over the cap of what EA wants in order for TOR to be profitable, so it'd still be good for EA and BioWare.

WoW didn't happen overnight. It took time. TOR is off to a better start, and will get better as time goes on as well. Please, for the love of all that's holy, accept this.

ETA: I wrote "Three years to reach" instead of "Three months to reach" by accident.

Modifié par Father_Jerusalem, 17 avril 2012 - 06:28 .

[thunderhawk862002]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
Yes, I fully think that you spend that amount of money to get less than 2 million subscribers, because EA themselves said that that was WAY above what they were expecting right out of the gate. WoW didn't launch with 10 million subscribers. They built up over the years. No game has launched with the amount of subscribers, and the amount of retention, that TOR launched with. That's a fact. A gap that big in a field where only ONE game has ever had the success WoW's had, and where MOST games do quite well with aroud 1-1.5 million subscribers is, in fact, normal.

And from everything I've heard from people in Beta, Diablo 3 is terrible. I honestly don't know details, I personally don't care for Diablo, but people who have been in the beta keep talking about how bad it is. So... take that for whatever it's worth.

They could have spent a fraction of that and got the same result with the Star Wars name..

WoW started with much higher numbers and pretty much killed EverQuest along the way. TOR can beat MMOs that have a fraction of the budget, running costs and no Star Wars name to carry them.. Nah I'm not impressed by that.

Diablo 3 will be huge. The release of a Diablo is not a game it's an event. TOR's numbers are low so even a 500k drop is going to hurt badly and be noticed.Diablo 3 could drop it more than that quite easily because the "hardcore" gamers will go with the current game even if they return later.

Just to refute the point that WoW launched with much higher numbers:

"World of Warcraft breaks the records
Within the first day, over 200,000 players created World of Warcraft accounts. By 5:00 p.m. PST, over 100,000 were playing the game concurrently. These two record-breaking numbers made World of Warcraft the fastest-growing MMORPG in history. Within a single day, all original 40+ World of Warcraft servers were filled to capacity, and by the end of the Thanksgiving weekend, more than 40 additional servers were deployed to meet the rapidly growing player base, as the number of new accounts and concurrent users continued to grow.

"We were all extremely pleased with the success of World of Warcraft on its first day of launch," said Mike Morhaime, president of Blizzard Entertainment. "Once we saw the numbers for the first day, we knew that we had to immediately increase capacity to accommodate the huge numbers of players joining our game. We're glad so many people are enjoying World of Warcraft, and we are dedicated to supporting a fun and smooth game experience for everyone.""

They had less than 10% of what TOR launched with. It took WoW three years to reach a million subscribers.

People will go to play Diablo 3, that doesn't mean they'll leave TOR. You CAN play more than one game at a time. People will go play Guild Wars 2, that doesn't mean they'll leave TOR. You CAN play more than one game at a time. TORs numbers will not drop by anything near what you're claiming, and even if they DID... it would still be over the cap of what EA wants in order for TOR to be profitable, so it'd still be good for EA and BioWare.

WoW didn't happen overnight. It took time. TOR is off to a better start, and will get better as time goes on as well. Please, for the love of all that's holy, accept this.

Yeah I'm going to have to agree here.   A loss of those subscribers is a disappointment to them, but if they said they only need 500k to be profitable then they only need 500k.  Whether it's enough to release expansions or a sequel down the line is anyone's guess.

[thunderhawk862002]

L00p wrote...

Arsenic Touch wrote...

I'm still waiting for this dangerous precedent that took place years ago to fracture the gaming industry.

We're actually in the middle of that happening, right now.

I think he meant that Broken Steel didn't drastically change the video game industry in a bad way.  Which is what they are saying about BioWare if they listen to the fans and change the endings.

Modifié par thunderhawk862002, 17 avril 2012 - 06:24 .

[hoorayforicecream]

BobSmith101 wrote...

EA are never going to be honest about predictions. It's like governments that way.

False. You can lie to the public, but you can't lie about your financials or earnings calls.

How is it a flop ? Well what is the gap between it and WoW a 12 year old game that has been stable at between 8-12 million since release.

Also false. World of Warcraft debuted in November of 2004, and reached 2 million subscribers approximately 8 months later. They reached 6 million in 2006, when they launched in asia. They hit 8 million approximately two years and three months after release.

To be honest, the MMO market has changed a lot since wow first debuted. How many F2P MMOGs were there in 2005? Nowadays the market is significantly different. There are lots and lots of options for MMO players to choose from. Everyone is constantly fighting for new users. Believing that the market hasn't changed in 7 years is extremely short-sighted.

[kbct]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

WoW didn't happen overnight. It took time. TOR is off to a better start, and will get better as time goes on as well. Please, for the love of all that's holy, accept this.

Why do we assume TOR will get better and not worse? Do most MMOs keep adding subscribers over the years? Or do most fail?

The jury is still out on TOR. I would like to see current subscriber numbers to help determine if there is an up-trend or down-trend.

[Mole267]

Tesclo wrote...

Just give in already. FIX YOUR GAME! Bethesda did and I bet they're considered more respectable than you are right about now. Bioware no longer holds the title. Those days are long gone. You are a shell of what you once were. You sold out. Your customers don't respect you. Infact, by selling out and rushing garbage out the door you've become the joke of the industry. You'd rather spend money on promotion than actually making a quality product. You cater to big wigs and button mashers. I can really go on all day... but I'm sure questioning the business practice (if that's what you want to call it) of our almighty gods is enough to, at the very least, temp ban my account. How dare I share an opinion?! It's not enough that I'm greeted by an open threat at the top of the site everytime I log in. It's not like this site was created so that "the devs could speak with their fans" or anything, right?

Regardless, I hate big business. It ruins quality. It makes the entire industry garbage by forcing smaller talent out of the market. Fueled by greed it does nothing but defend it's own and screw over the consumer. We are sheep, cattle and, dare I say, "meat bags" placed on this planet with no other purpose but to hand you money. Truly the scum of the Earth.

How about I request a refund for my "Mass Effect" 3 purchase? I wonder how long I'd have to talk to Peggy over there in "customer support" (more than likely paid less than a dollar day to answer the phone in some Asian country because God knows an American company can't actually hire American employees and pay them a fair wage) to get that processed?

Great post... Brings up many great and valid points.

Yes, big business is ruining the gaming industry. Not just the gaming industry, everything is being ruined by big business. They want to keep drilling for oil, so they don't try to actively search for alternative means of energy. The next place they'll drill for oil is the northern coast of Alaska, and it will put many animal species (namely polar bears) that are already endangered at even greater risk. They don't even care. They just want more oil, so they can keep cashing big oil checks, and buying nice expensive private jets and luxury yachts.

Even the hospital I work at, I have seen the impact big business has had there. The place cares more about turning profits, than the quality of the care the people recieve, and more than the quality of the food that the kitchen serves.

This corporate machine has infested EVERYTHING. And things are just gonna get worse as time goes on. That's probably why the government moved retirement age up, and is trying to abolish social security. They want us all to work to death, so we can't collect social security.

Modifié par Mole267, 17 avril 2012 - 06:34 .

[hoorayforicecream]

kbct wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

WoW didn't happen overnight. It took time. TOR is off to a better start, and will get better as time goes on as well. Please, for the love of all that's holy, accept this.

Why do we assume TOR will get better and not worse? Do most MMOs keep adding subscribers over the years? Or do most fail?

The jury is still out on TOR. I would like to see current subscriber numbers to help determine if there is an up-trend or down-trend.

Correct. Calling SWTOR a flop or TORtanic would be disingenuous and premature at best.

[Mole267]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

kbct wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

WoW didn't happen overnight. It took time. TOR is off to a better start, and will get better as time goes on as well. Please, for the love of all that's holy, accept this.

Why do we assume TOR will get better and not worse? Do most MMOs keep adding subscribers over the years? Or do most fail?

The jury is still out on TOR. I would like to see current subscriber numbers to help determine if there is an up-trend or down-trend.

Correct. Calling SWTOR a flop or TORtanic would be disingenuous and premature at best.

I played the ToR beta, and I enjoyed it for a time, until one day I realized what was going on in the game... It's just a bunch of people running around doing singleplayer missions. All standing around the same NPC getting missions. It's like they took the basis for KotOR III, toned down the graphics to save money, and just worked it into an MMO format they could charge $15 a month for.

I give ToR a personal "no thanks".

Modifié par Mole267, 17 avril 2012 - 06:36 .

[kbct]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

EA are never going to be honest about predictions. It's like governments that way.

False. You can lie to the public, but you can't lie about your financials or earnings calls.

Companies can't lie about a number of things including their financials. However, predictions are guesses about the future. Everyone makes predictions, but they aren't lies if they turn out wrong.

Modifié par kbct, 17 avril 2012 - 06:37 .

[hoorayforicecream]

kbct wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

EA are never going to be honest about predictions. It's like governments that way.

False. You can lie to the public, but you can't lie about your financials or earnings calls.

Companies can't lie about a number of things including their financials. However, predictions are guesses about the future. Everyone makes predictions, but they aren't lies if they turn out wrong.

How nice that we both agree that BobSmith101 is wrong.

[kbct]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

kbct wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

EA are never going to be honest about predictions. It's like governments that way.

False. You can lie to the public, but you can't lie about your financials or earnings calls.

Companies can't lie about a number of things including their financials. However, predictions are guesses about the future. Everyone makes predictions, but they aren't lies if they turn out wrong.

How nice that we both agree that BobSmith101 is wrong.

No, I agree with BobSmith101. EA doesn't have to be honest with their predictions. No one has to be honest with their predictions. They are unknowns.

If EA predicts 3 million subscribers in a year and they turn out to be wrong, they made a bad prediction.

[Father_Jerusalem]

kbct wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

EA are never going to be honest about predictions. It's like governments that way.

False. You can lie to the public, but you can't lie about your financials or earnings calls.

Companies can't lie about a number of things including their financials. However, predictions are guesses about the future. Everyone makes predictions, but they aren't lies if they turn out wrong.

And in the conference call, they stated that they had 2 million games sold, and 1.7 million subscribers. That's not a prediction, that's a statement of fact at the time. Lying about that WOULD be fraud.

Now, making a predictive statement about where the game will be in 6 months is just a guess and they can overestimate that and be covered by the "not a lie, just a guess" clause.

[hoorayforicecream]

kbct wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

kbct wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

EA are never going to be honest about predictions. It's like governments that way.

False. You can lie to the public, but you can't lie about your financials or earnings calls.

Companies can't lie about a number of things including their financials. However, predictions are guesses about the future. Everyone makes predictions, but they aren't lies if they turn out wrong.

How nice that we both agree that BobSmith101 is wrong.

No, I agree with BobSmith101. EA doesn't have to be honest with their predictions. No one has to be honest with their predictions. They are unknowns.

If EA predicts 3 million subscribers in a year and they turn out to be wrong, they made a bad prediction.

As you said, predictions aren't lies if they turn out wrong. You'd have to prove that their predictions are dishonest (i.e. lies) for BobSmith to be correct. Good luck with that.