It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I think all the negativity is a good thing for the game. The hype needs to be low for this game for it to succeed. High expectations lead to failure in the eyes of many regardless of the actual state of the game.
The more players that just buy the game and expect to only play the first month is a good thing. They may end up getting surprised by something along the leveling path or with the PvP and may actually like the game and stay. TOR is an example of expectations so high that anything less than WoW numbers was a failure. The failed end game had something to do with it, but it was made worse because of the hype. So bash this game before it is released I say, it can only help in the long run.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them? R.A.Salvatore
Originally posted by Vayman It sounds like the point he's making is that SWTOR was a "failure". Gamers seem to be redefining the term "failure" to now contain many levels of granularity. Many gamers, especially around here, love to redefine any word to mean whatever they want/need it to to make their argument. They'll call GW2 "F2P", even though you clearly have to buy it in order to play it at all. It doesn't have a sub, but it's still not F2P. Generally, the definition of "failure" used by many is "It wasn't designed specifically for me", with the follow-up often being some argument that it should be taken offline. Doesn't matter that there are others for whom it "hits that spot". They don't like it, so it shouldn't exist. Gamers can tend to be extremely ego-centric in their thinking (kinda similar to music fans, when I think about it). Put it this way... People have been calling WoW a failure for years. That should tell anyone all they need to know about how players' perceive "failure" when it comes to MMOs. For myself, a MMO fails as a sub-based MMO if it has to switch to F2P. It does not fail as a game/product, however, unless it has to be taken offline long before its time due to poor performance. To be more specific: 1. LoTRO failed as a sub-based MMO. It has not failed as a Product/Game, as it is still running. Same with TOR. 2. When it's taken offline, FFXI will not have failed as a sub-based MMO, or as a Game/Product because it will have been running at least 12 years. 3. Auto Assault, failed as a Game/Product because it was taken offline only months into its service, well before its developers had intended, due to poor performance. Same with Tabula Rasa.
Originally posted by killahh Originally posted by NobleNerd Originally posted by Chewychomp Its a EA game of course its going to fail badly, they haven't released a finished descent product in years.
Do you even know what game we are talking about here? EA is SWTOR... we are talking about ESO which is Zenimax/Bethesda.
You obviously have no clue! I have stated a few times in the post that I am a fan of ESO. That is the game in subject here. It is not being developed by EA. I am not trying to bash a game... I am asking for peoples thoughts and opinions on someone else's article about ESO's survivability.
Originally posted by Rzep In the first week they will sell enough copies to get back the money they spent on development. After that pure profit.
They need to sell 3 million copies of the game for 60$ , if they want ONLY to break even.
This would mean ESO will be most sucessful western MMO in history.
Faring better at launch even than WOW or SWTOR with all Star Wars fans.
So yes... LOL
Originally posted by NobleNerd Originally posted by killahh Originally posted by NobleNerd Originally posted by Chewychomp Its a EA game of course its going to fail badly, they haven't released a finished descent product in years.
ESO's survivability is irrelevant until we see the product launch in April. All the talk in the world about beta, end game, PvP, story and so on doesn't mean anything to those that haven't played them selves. A money guy trying to tell games what they will or won't like doesn't make any sense. I don't think he would like an article from me stating how those with all the money and corporations are destroying the world and there is nothing any of us can do about it.
P2P, F2P and B2P also don't mean anything. Any of those models will survive based on the game play. If you have a good game that players enjoy logging into every day. How they pay for it will not make a difference IMO. Personally, I would rather have a set amount, $15 a month, that gives me everything. I don't want to have to shop in a F2P or B2P to make my gaming experience better.
To give feedback on moderation, contact email@example.com