Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Replace the responsibles Asap....500k+ lost subs and counting ? Bye Zoeller..



  • Trol1Trol1 Kissimmee, FLPosts: 175Member
    Originally posted by Loke666

    Exactly how many players are around you does not make a MMO, MMOs are also about the social aspect and the important thing is that you see other players, not that they are in the same zone, hiding in guildhalls and houses.¨ 

    Sure, those games are good examples of MMOs but so are M59, EQ and AC.  And frankly GW2 as well, you get a lot of people around you there with the same goal as you, or the opposite. 300 players in a massive PvP battle is more than I seen in many sandboxes. Saying that a MMO must be sandboxy just isn't fair, themeparks can be as massive as a sandbox. I like both types of games, but the important things for me is the social interactions between players. I don't hate instances but when you use to many it takes away the massive feeling of the game. TORs problem as I see it is that it isn´t social enough. You rarely share goals with a bunch of people and work together, you mainly soloplay with an occasional flashpoint. TOR needs to change that or the game will keep dropping. MMOs used to be driven by cooperation, instead of being just about you. I don't say that MMOs shouldn't have solocontent, but I say it needs a lot of content that makes the players work together, no matter if it is PvE or PvP. Think about the best point you guys have had in a MMO, all mine are together with other players.

    But isn't that a general problem these days?

    In TSW I didn't feel any real motivation to team up, actually, from what I've seen very few did.

    Despite the game actually being well suited for it...

    maybe it's just because the Kingsmouth beta was constructed to be a less group-y experience?

    On the other hand, GW2 is even worse: they completely take out the need to do any social interaction as their system is a simple "be there and you're part of the group" setup in PvE.

    In PvP... well... I'm afraid that also may still need to go a long way: most EBers will just go where the action is, unless they are part of a group that has a specific task in mind e.g. stop caravan.

    And these large "hordes", well, I don't know why the word "clusterfuck" comes to mind...?

    Now, united as an army i.e. really organizing the attack, having a strategy, yeah... but I don't think most PUGs can be bothered with that or even the concept of asking other people to join together... 

    But see, the thing is that you don't really need special content to get people to play together, well, I mean it helps... but I mean there is no reason why players shouldn't be able to generate their own "RvR" match somewhere in some contested territory on some planet. Just make sure it doesn't potentially bother any gamers not interested in sharing in the event, maybe spice thing up by setting the whole thing up straight on top of a world boss, and Bob's your Auntie, you have combat socializing.

    Now, of course non-combat sozializing is different... but can also be done: out of all the cantinas and other clubs, try to establish one as the "in" place where all the players can meet. Maybe even try to use a neutral place.

    If cross faction channels or just at least one open channel was possible (as well as inter-faction money/item transfer) you can bet on it that over short or long you may find any number of shady dealings and usual bar fun going on: bit of brawling, bit of putting out a contract on the head of that one guy from your own faction that has been ninjaing your stuff for a week now, etc.

    Of course, the classic socializing of the grand old days i.e. getting together for a wedding or a party under the stars, well, not really sure if you can interest today's gamers in such a "waste of time", afterall they only have 1.25 hrs that night to play and with queuing for PvP, well, time is tight and can't be lost on such social stuff... ;-)

  • FennrisFennris White Plains, NYPosts: 273Member Uncommon

    Some people get very angry if an MMORPG has solo quests or stories (nevermind that it is absolutely possible to bring others into any of them).  They get furious if it is possible to level to cap solo; all they see is red.  They are blinded by their rage and can't register the quests, areas in the game, instances and numerous rewards that are multi-player only.  PVP is also a solo activity because no one ever stops to talk about the weather or their favorite color schemes for patio furniture in them.  LFG tools kill communities because they make it too easy to access too many strangers without having to share facebook profiles first.

    The part I'm lost on: if they got their wishes and the only things that could be accomplished other than raiding required groups of 2-5... how would that be a MMO?  Groups of 2-5 for most activities is massive?

  • GoromhirGoromhir portland, ORPosts: 417Member Uncommon

    Bye Bye Georg Zoeller......   i hope some importand people read my post before acting :)

    throw them all out and start over..


  • VirgoThreeVirgoThree Tarzana, CAPosts: 1,197Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by mindw0rk
    Originally posted by Chrome1980
    Originally posted by mindw0rk

    Full loot pvp..lolz

    Lol or not but full loot was always big part of TES series. But nooo, they cant do it since its too risky and WoW doesnt have one. Better to play safe...

    TES is a single player games so how the hell full loot was only exclusively big part of TES? every single player game has full loot.


    In Skyrim from any humanoid you loot everything he wears, weapons that he actually used and other stuff that he could carry. 

    Remind me how many single player games have this kind of loot system

    Many of my friends who are huge elder scroll fans would rage quit in an instant if they were fully looted. It is a totally different beast when you are asking a single player open world RPG to fully translate into a MMORPG. Most people who play elder scrolls I'd imagine would not be interested in hardcore PvP considering majority of their fans enjoy a solo PvE experience over a decade now.

    Obviously I'm not talking for all TES fans but I'd imagine a sizeable chunk wouldn't like the feature.

  • VirgoThreeVirgoThree Tarzana, CAPosts: 1,197Member Uncommon

    Blah back on subject.

    As for people you feel responsible I'd imagine it's ultimately the investors not the lead developers. If they truly feel that the current people employed are no good they should be putting a squeeze on the higher ups to make drastic changes to correct said issues.

    However, the investors could have been the root of the problem in the first place. More then likely they hamstrung the devs into a very narrow mode of thinking to mitigate as much risk as they could in their minds.

    Personally I like TOR it just doesn't have longevity but I knew that going in.

  • sketocafesketocafe StoupaPosts: 948Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by lizardbones
      Originally posted by MosesZD
    Originally posted by Portland Yes, thats what i want, the main  $cash$ investors of SWTOR should replace the complete lead staff of SWTOR´s marketing and design team. The "money givers" should do that as fast as possible because with the current marketing, design and developement responsibles they have people that all go into the wrong direction and in addition dont even see that. These responsibles fail completly  to accept reality and that they have already lost more than 500k++ sub´s. This game needs fresh meat on the top of the leading positions, they current leading persons are already burned out and blind, not realizing the reality and that they better take part in the team some stairs lower. This game is good and can be turned into a cash cow, even an 18 year old student would know better what to do to safe this game..   My guess is that the current loss isnt 400k anymore its more like 600k-800k+ considering that BW already fires some persons. In the company i work for , the consquences would be 100% clear... i would dare to say that our lead employees would take their hats and leave by themselfs....


    Sigh....   You guys are so not accountants...     And it's kind of cute...   But then it's the war of correcting perceptions...


    'Decline in subs -- EA's soft sell of the their huge contraction:'  

    Prior-period ending subs - current period ending subs = delcine in subs.   1.7 million - 1.3 million = 400K.


    This is what they want you to see.  Because it hides the truth of the churn.   What is actually going on:


    Total quarterly loss in subscriptions:  Prior-period ending subs + new subs - current period ending subs = total quarterly loss in subs.    1.7 million + 500K new units - 1.3 million = 900K.


    They lost 900K of 2.2 million accounts.     But no manager or executive wants to go the board and say we lost 900k customers, which was 43% of our total base, in 70 days.    So they manipulate the perceptions...    400K sounds a crap-load better than losing 900K.   And having smaller drop (400k/1700k (24%))  looks a lot better than a big drop (900k/2200k (43%)).


    Sadly, most of the people on the board of directors will be fooled by that.   Most of the public will be fooled by that.  Most of the analysts will be fooled by that.  And to the embarrasment of my profession, most of the CPAs will be fooled by that as well even though we spent years in college learning and applying the second way....   People just do not dig into the details like they should.    And this lack of curiosity...    Well, that's how get Ponzi schemes, Enron and all the rest.   The information is there, but you have to look...   And people don't...





    I'm not a CPA or even trained as one. I did sleep in a Holiday Inn a few times. I've mentioned in a couple of posts that they've lost 50% of their players since they've launched. It didn't seem all that relevant when they lost the players. The point was that the 6 month mark seems to be the 50% point for a lot of games. There are a couple notable exceptions but overall...6 months = 50% of the people who bought the game aren't playing any longer. That's not exceptional, that's pretty normal.


    It has to be last night. The Holiday Inn effect only lasts for the next day. Now be honest, did you stay at one last night?

Sign In or Register to comment.