156 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
Because BioWare's NEVER sold ANYTHING like what Skyrim sold. No RPG has. And WoW is FAR more entrenched and established than EQ ever was. People will always play WoW, and they will continue playing it regardless of what other games they play. Are there TOR players that still play WoW? Absolutely, the days of exclusivity in games is long LONG over.

Pokemon. Outsold Skyrim just in Japan.Think it was 7 million or there about in a week.

Is not was. EQ was very established at the time. WoW took all the disatisfaction of those playing EQ and addressed it. TOR failed not only to do that, but to completely ignore the "end game" where any idiot with too much free time will be within a month.

It's how willing people are to still leave the monthly charge on the CC when not actively playing. This is why Diablo 3 is a threat. TORs numbers are not high enough to avoid influence from it.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 17 avril 2012 - 08:01 .

[SalsaDMA]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

If you asked me if I'd LIKE a unicorn that ****s diamonds, I'm going to say yes too. But that's not exactly realistic. Expecting those numbers would be expecting UNPRECEDENTED success, things that no MMO has ever done before, and 4 times the amount of games that ME2 sold in the same period. That's not exactly realistic, is it?

Dunno ask the Doc (don't know which one) who said Bioware should be shifting 10 million units in an interview.

If Skyrim can shift 3.4 million in two days why can't Biowares flag title shift that in a month?

If TOR was everything they made it out to be why could it not steal WoW's user base like WoW stole EverQuests?

You can't claim to be premier league and expect to be judged by league 1 standards.
 

Because BioWare's NEVER sold ANYTHING like what Skyrim sold. No RPG has. And WoW is FAR more entrenched and established than EQ ever was. People will always play WoW, and they will continue playing it regardless of what other games they play. Are there TOR players that still play WoW? Absolutely, the days of exclusivity in games is long LONG over.

That doesn't change the fact that they made those statements

That aside, I'm really surprised WoW is sitting pretty as it is by now. Considered how long it's been since their last big update and how long till the next one (the next expansion), now is pretty much the most opportune moment to "strike".

That we only see blows in the wind from the competition is more telling of the competition than it is of WoW.

[Father_Jerusalem]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
Because BioWare's NEVER sold ANYTHING like what Skyrim sold. No RPG has. And WoW is FAR more entrenched and established than EQ ever was. People will always play WoW, and they will continue playing it regardless of what other games they play. Are there TOR players that still play WoW? Absolutely, the days of exclusivity in games is long LONG over.

Pokemon. Outsold Skyrim just in Japan.Think it was 7 million or there about in a week.

Is not was. EQ was very established at the time. WoW took all the disatisfaction of those playing EQ and addressed it. TOR failed not only to do that, but to completely ignore the "end game" where any idiot with too much free time will be within a month.

It's how willing people are to still leave the monthly charge on the CC when not actively playing. This is why Diablo 3 is a threat. TORs numbers are not high enough to avoid influence from it.

Pokemon is not what I would call an RPG, and Japan is just effing crazy ANYWAY. If you go just by Japan's numbers, the Wii is the greatest console of all time, and the Xbox and Playstation might as well not exist.

TOR launched with more endgame content than WoW did, more than Rift did, more than any MMO that I can think of did. It added more endgame content in 1.1 and added MORE endgame content in 1.2. There is stuff to do. If people are saying there's nothing to do at endgame, that's on them, not TOR.

[thunderhawk862002]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
Because BioWare's NEVER sold ANYTHING like what Skyrim sold. No RPG has. And WoW is FAR more entrenched and established than EQ ever was. People will always play WoW, and they will continue playing it regardless of what other games they play. Are there TOR players that still play WoW? Absolutely, the days of exclusivity in games is long LONG over.

Pokemon. Outsold Skyrim just in Japan.Think it was 7 million or there about in a week.

Is not was. EQ was very established at the time. WoW took all the disatisfaction of those playing EQ and addressed it. TOR failed not only to do that, but to completely ignore the "end game" where any idiot with too much free time will be within a month.

It's how willing people are to still leave the monthly charge on the CC when not actively playing. This is why Diablo 3 is a threat. TORs numbers are not high enough to avoid influence from it.

Pokemon is not what I would call an RPG, and Japan is just effing crazy ANYWAY. If you go just by Japan's numbers, the Wii is the greatest console of all time, and the Xbox and Playstation might as well not exist.

TOR launched with more endgame content than WoW did, more than Rift did, more than any MMO that I can think of did. It added more endgame content in 1.1 and added MORE endgame content in 1.2. There is stuff to do. If people are saying there's nothing to do at endgame, that's on them, not TOR.

Actually I'd consider Pokemon to be one of the few non hybrid RPG's left.  It's ridiculously deep if you really get into it.  Ev's, IV's, movesets, pokemon types, etc.  I played about 320 hours of Pokemon Pearl trying to make my team really good.  The one knock about it is there's usually a few staple Pokemon that everyone uses.

[kbct]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Dunno ask the Doc (don't know which one) who said Bioware should be shifting 10 million units in an interview. 
 

A little tongue-in-cheek but there is some truth behind it too:

"Well, we need to sell 10 million units. That's actually the new target, right? We do Top 10 games, our stuff is quite successful. I know Mass [Effect 2] is number eight so far this year, in North America. Sometimes I'm facetious when I say some of those things, knowing that we can sell a few million but seeing that someone else can sell 25. You're kinda like, 'Well, that's a hit!' We always joke that if we only do half as well as Blizzard on Star Wars: The Old Republic, we'll be quite satisfied. We've been very fortunate. I always joke about that, but..."

http://www.videogame...eg_zeschuk.html

[kbct]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

If it's "enough" of a profit for EA, that's what matters, and THEY'RE the ones who said that it only needs between 500,000-1,000,000 subscribers to be profitable. So no offense, but I'll go with what they're saying.

Those sound like breakeven numbers. Do you have a link?

Production costs alone are estimated between $200 million and $500 million. You're gonna need some serious profit to get a decent return on capital. Breakeven numbers don't cut it.

"Three days after analyst Doug Creutz of Cowen & Co speculated that the “total all-in investment” in Star Wars: The Old Republic “is probably approaching half a billion dollars”, a story in the LA Times blog Hero Complex put a sticker price of “nearly $200 million” to Electronic Arts’ massively multiplayer online game. However, that number refers to the development cost and doesn’t factor in marketing expenses or royalty payments to Star Wars license holder LucasArts."

http://venturebeat.c...e-old-republic/

I think the next release of subscriber data will be very telling.

[thunderhawk862002]

kbct wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

If it's "enough" of a profit for EA, that's what matters, and THEY'RE the ones who said that it only needs between 500,000-1,000,000 subscribers to be profitable. So no offense, but I'll go with what they're saying.

Those sound like breakeven numbers. Do you have a link?

Production costs alone are estimated between $200 million and $500 million. You're gonna need some serious profit to get a decent return on capital. Breakeven numbers don't cut it.

"Three days after analyst Doug Creutz of Cowen & Co speculated that the “total all-in investment” in Star Wars: The Old Republic “is probably approaching half a billion dollars”, a story in the LA Times blog Hero Complex put a sticker price of “nearly $200 million” to Electronic Arts’ massively multiplayer online game. However, that number refers to the development cost and doesn’t factor in marketing expenses or royalty payments to Star Wars license holder LucasArts."

http://venturebeat.c...e-old-republic/

I think the next release of subscriber data will be very telling.

It's here www.gamespot.com/news/star-wars-the-old-republic-needs-only-500k-subscribers-ea-6297338

It's been posted on other sites as well.  I don't think EA would be lying about that kind of stuff.

Modifié par thunderhawk862002, 17 avril 2012 - 08:40 .

[kbct]

thunderhawk862002 wrote...

It's here www.gamespot.com/news/star-wars-the-old-republic-needs-only-500k-subscribers-ea-6297338

It's been posted on other sites as well.  I don't think EA would be lying about that kind of stuff.

Thanks.

"We previously described to folks that 500,000 subscribers saw the game as substantially profitable, but it's not the kind of thing that we would write home about,"

That's CEO-speak for close to breakeven.

If EA keeps their 1.7 million subscribers or grows it, they should be happy. However, let's hope we don't see a downtrend in subscribers.

By the way, what's the word on the street? Are players generally happy with game or are they tired of it?

[SalsaDMA]

kbct wrote...

thunderhawk862002 wrote...

It's here www.gamespot.com/news/star-wars-the-old-republic-needs-only-500k-subscribers-ea-6297338

It's been posted on other sites as well.  I don't think EA would be lying about that kind of stuff.

Thanks.

"We previously described to folks that 500,000 subscribers saw the game as substantially profitable, but it's not the kind of thing that we would write home about,"

That's CEO-speak for close to breakeven.

If EA keeps their 1.7 million subscribers or grows it, they should be happy. However, let's hope we don't see a downtrend in subscribers.

By the way, what's the word on the street? Are players generally happy with game or are they tired of it?

People I knew of got tired of it. That's as far as my street goes.

[thunderhawk862002]

kbct wrote...

thunderhawk862002 wrote...

It's here www.gamespot.com/news/star-wars-the-old-republic-needs-only-500k-subscribers-ea-6297338

It's been posted on other sites as well.  I don't think EA would be lying about that kind of stuff.

Thanks.

"We previously described to folks that 500,000 subscribers saw the game as substantially profitable, but it's not the kind of thing that we would write home about,"

That's CEO-speak for close to breakeven.

If EA keeps their 1.7 million subscribers or grows it, they should be happy. However, let's hope we don't see a downtrend in subscribers.

By the way, what's the word on the street? Are players generally happy with game or are they tired of it?

I'm not sure.  I just look up facts to see if people are bs'ing or not.  I know I've seen people complaining about losing guild  members from the ME3 fallout but no official numbers beyond the 1.2 million monthly subscribers data released in Feb.  Although I did find this.
www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/entertainment/games/120323-blizzard-admits-star-wars-the-old-republic-is-cutting-into-warcraft-playerbase

techland.time.com/2012/02/02/star-wars-the-old-republic-nears-two-million-active-subscriber-mark/

Modifié par thunderhawk862002, 17 avril 2012 - 08:59 .

[SalsaDMA]

Btw, following that link provided for  number, there was also this section, which is far more telling about their actual goals:

"Riccitiello went on to say that as EA sees it, its "leading competitor"--a thinly veiled reference to World of Warcraft--has 6 million of 12 million MMOG subscribers in Western markets. He believes that gives The Old Republic plenty of room to expand without even toppling WOW's dominance.

"So it's our view that we can be very successful without fundamentally challenging the market leader because we think we'll probably hit the smaller competitors harder when we get out there," he said. "Of course, we have no particular ambition to be a distant number two. Our ambitions are higher than that." "

That would put their goal as anything between 3+ million, I would asume, if their desire not to be a 'distant' number 2 is to have any credit.

Current numbers are quite a bit off for that, in my assesment.

[kbct]

thunderhawk862002 wrote...

Although I did find this.
www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/entertainment/games/120323-blizzard-admits-star-wars-the-old-republic-is-cutting-into-warcraft-playerbase

Doesn't sound like the WoW developers are playing it anymore:

"Of course people are trying Star Wars - our development team are trying Star Wars! I'm one of the few people who's still playing it actually, but yeah we've seen a dip in subs.”

[kbct]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Btw, following that link provided for  number, there was also this section, which is far more telling about their actual goals:

"Riccitiello went on to say that as EA sees it, its "leading competitor"--a thinly veiled reference to World of Warcraft--has 6 million of 12 million MMOG subscribers in Western markets. He believes that gives The Old Republic plenty of room to expand without even toppling WOW's dominance.

"So it's our view that we can be very successful without fundamentally challenging the market leader because we think we'll probably hit the smaller competitors harder when we get out there," he said. "Of course, we have no particular ambition to be a distant number two. Our ambitions are higher than that." "

That would put their goal as anything between 3+ million, I would asume, if their desire not to be a 'distant' number 2 is to have any credit.

Current numbers are quite a bit off for that, in my assesment.

Good point. Sounds like he is looking for numbers well north of 3 million.

[-Spartan]

For the record, I really dislike the ending of MEIII - artistic integrity be damned. It is supposed to be MY story - pure and simple. I also think the link to multiplayer was another misstep regarding the single player experience.

I have been a very strong supporter of BW pretty much since it started but it seems like a new company since the merger. Sad really...

On a side note, I did the TOR beta for a long time and even preordered the deluxe but elected not to sub due to the overall toonish (aka artistic vision) of the game as well as the "teen" orientation of it in general.

Maybe I'm just getting to old for gaming products from a company which such a heavy focus on the X-box crowd.

[InvincibleHero]

charmingcharlie wrote...

The main character in Fallout 3 dies, he/she is as dead as a dodo.  The fans did not like that and demanded changed.  Bethesda changed the ending from the one they intended and absolutely nothing disasterous happened to the software industry whatsoever.  All that happened was a game got a changed ending and those that enjoy the game got to enjoy it even more.

You should know what you argue about first. I only had the original vanilla FO3 never bought Broken Steel and my character lived. It was a lore error where a rad immune super mutant could not survive and to a lesser degree the ghoul ought to have survived as well. You could force the one woman party member form the Brotherhood(forgot her name) to sacrifice herself instead. It made you feel like a heel but my character survived.

I never wanted to replay it as I spent 300 or so hours scouring every inch of the wasteland and doing every quest I could and finding everything.  Even if it ended as you say in absolute PC death, one could alwys you know start a new game. The player is the one with the ultimate choice. if you think everything is great but the end the only one stopping yourself from enjoying it is yourself. In life you don't always get your way and you have to learn to deal constructively with things you cannot change. Trying to force a change is not a healthy way IMHO.

[Mylia Stenetch]

SalsaDMA wrote...

That doesn't change the fact that they made those statements

That aside, I'm really surprised WoW is sitting pretty as it is by now. Considered how long it's been since their last big update and how long till the next one (the next expansion), now is pretty much the most opportune moment to "strike".

That we only see blows in the wind from the competition is more telling of the competition than it is of WoW.

For this the problems with MMOs is saturation and game fatigue. There are a handful of AAA titles that came and gone and have stuck around in the MMO world for the small amount that there is to take.

WoW is feeling the effects of this now and they know it. That is why there is speculation of a new MMO being made from Blizzard. Also with people that could be playing for several years you will be burned out from MMOs cause of this. 

I know a lot of people who left various MMOs cause there was nothing for them anymore or they were just done of it, this is the life of MMOs. So the splash ToR did was good the retention is great, but in the legivity of it to claim it a success or not, we will need to wait a full year while the year subs lapse.

[The_Shootist]

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'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite quote on the forum.

[LegionMan]

Tesclo wrote...
 You'd rather spend money on promotion than actually making a quality product

Promotion?  WHAT FOR?!

Okay, now that I've got that burst of immaturity out of the way...yes, what happened with ME3 is upsetting.  If I may ask, what is your plan of action should the 'Extended Cut' not be what you expect it to be?

[The Love Runner]

@Tesclo: HEAR, HEAR!!

[xsdob]

Name me 1 way that broken steel retconed the endings and didn't just act as an expansion and continuation.

[thunderhawk862002]

xsdob wrote...

Name me 1 way that broken steel retconed the endings and didn't just act as an expansion and continuation.

The main character doesn't die.

[xsdob]

thunderhawk862002 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Name me 1 way that broken steel retconed the endings and didn't just act as an expansion and continuation.

The main character doesn't die.

So after your character passes out, and the continuation and expansion part occurs, is when the change takes place. Cause I was thinking that when one changed the endings, it didn't just entail keeping all the cinematics and gameplay exactly the same, and than just adding additional gameplay and cinematics after the original ending is finished.

Or you know, exactly what bioware has proposed, making additiona scenes that add to the exsisting ending. In fact, I cannot recall any game ever flat out replacing the ending with something new instead of just expanding on the preexsisting ones.

[The Spamming Troll]

Tesclo wrote...

How about I request a refund for my "Mass Effect" 3 purchase?

i like how you quoted mass effect when talking about ME3. as if its not really a mass effect game at all.

because i agree.