Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Article Series: Can FFXIV: ARR create “A Genre Reborn”?Follow

#77 Jul 19 2013 at 7:50 PM Rating: Good
***
2,232 posts
Wint wrote:
We look at more than just IP Smiley: wink


Ahhhh. So there's behind the scenes magic AAANNNNDD IP magic. Lol
____________________________
Character: Urzol Thrush
Server: Ultros
FC: The Kraken Club

Outshined

Teneleven wrote:
We secretly replaced your tank wemelchor with Foldgers Crystal's. Let's see what happens.

#78 Jul 19 2013 at 10:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
4,779 posts
It's not the first time my sock detector went off in that case.

For instance, it seems just as one particular individual managed to get das boot, another one of a similar disposition just happened to show up. So either the detection magic isn't working or these guys like to take shifts or something.

Anyways, it's my opinion that saying you like the game is meaningless if the majority of your time spent within its communities is spent chastising it, and those that praise it.
#79 Jul 20 2013 at 12:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
Wint wrote:
As has been stated before, they tried to redefine everything and we got 1.0. I'd rather they take what works for other MMOs, then tweak it over the months to make it their own. I know "WoW Clone" gets tossed around a lot, but there really are a lot of similarities that can't be ignored. It doesn't have to be a negative thing through, I like the idea of their taking the best of every MMO and including it.

What it boils down to is "are people having fun?" and I know I, and a lot of others are. Hell even my wife, who's never played an MMO in her life (had no idea how to WASD) was starting to get antsy between tests during Phase 3. That's my own personal indicator of how good the game is Smiley: thumbsup



It's exactly this. Innovation is only good if it solves a problem the genre has (or didn't know it had). But difference for the sake of difference and expecting that will produce a WoW-killer is like throwing a dart blindfolded while going for a bullseye surrounded by killer beehives. FFXIV 1.0 lost its way because it simply forgot about the player experience being the most important aspect. The industry has evolved tremendously since the days of EQ, so offering a game that completely ignored the last decade of MMOdom was pure madness.

If they could only see how far UIs and gameplay had come, they'd never have thought FFXIV was even close to release–worthy in 2010. But even worse is that without knowing where the MMO industry was in the present day meant that they had no idea where to begin with a smart idea players would find useful.

The approach to simply make FFXIV a modern MMO with a Final Fantasy theme is really the only place for SE to go at this point. They do have a huge fan base in their offline games who would be prefect to get sucked into a casual MMO, and enough hardcore fans to glue the community together.

Is it playing it safe? Undoubtedly. But it's a safe bet and they're running low on camomile lotion for all the bee stings they got from their last innovative release.


#80 Jul 20 2013 at 6:32 AM Rating: Good
****
4,175 posts
Xoie wrote:
Wint wrote:
As has been stated before, they tried to redefine everything and we got 1.0. I'd rather they take what works for other MMOs, then tweak it over the months to make it their own. I know "WoW Clone" gets tossed around a lot, but there really are a lot of similarities that can't be ignored. It doesn't have to be a negative thing through, I like the idea of their taking the best of every MMO and including it.

What it boils down to is "are people having fun?" and I know I, and a lot of others are. Hell even my wife, who's never played an MMO in her life (had no idea how to WASD) was starting to get antsy between tests during Phase 3. That's my own personal indicator of how good the game is Smiley: thumbsup



It's exactly this. Innovation is only good if it solves a problem the genre has (or didn't know it had). But difference for the sake of difference and expecting that will produce a WoW-killer is like throwing a dart blindfolded while going for a bullseye surrounded by killer beehives. FFXIV 1.0 lost its way because it simply forgot about the player experience being the most important aspect. The industry has evolved tremendously since the days of EQ, so offering a game that completely ignored the last decade of MMOdom was pure madness.

If they could only see how far UIs and gameplay had come, they'd never have thought FFXIV was even close to release–worthy in 2010. But even worse is that without knowing where the MMO industry was in the present day meant that they had no idea where to begin with a smart idea players would find useful.

The approach to simply make FFXIV a modern MMO with a Final Fantasy theme is really the only place for SE to go at this point. They do have a huge fan base in their offline games who would be prefect to get sucked into a casual MMO, and enough hardcore fans to glue the community together.

Is it playing it safe? Undoubtedly. But it's a safe bet and they're running low on camomile lotion for all the bee stings they got from their last innovative release.


This all makes me wonder why they went away from XI in the first place. They all but abandoned it prior to abyssea, but shortly after; it goes on to become the highest grossing FF game in history. To this day their only real claim to fame when it comes to being innovative or something that set them apart is still the same; the job system.

They may be playing it safe in terms of their unwillingness to stray too far from the beaten path, but I still think they're going into dangerous territory with the subscription fee. While it's true that they may end up switching to a F2P model down the road, games that usually start out as sub based and go F2P carry a stigma of being a failed game whether they continue on or not. The failure of 1.0 and a possible F2P model switch down the road isn't a good look.
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#81 Jul 20 2013 at 6:35 AM Rating: Good
*
138 posts
I hope you don't live in the States, sir, cause making such a post at 08:30 AM Zam time would mean you've woken up way too early =)
#82 Jul 20 2013 at 8:25 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
972 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Xoie wrote:
Wint wrote:
As has been stated before, they tried to redefine everything and we got 1.0. I'd rather they take what works for other MMOs, then tweak it over the months to make it their own. I know "WoW Clone" gets tossed around a lot, but there really are a lot of similarities that can't be ignored. It doesn't have to be a negative thing through, I like the idea of their taking the best of every MMO and including it.

What it boils down to is "are people having fun?" and I know I, and a lot of others are. Hell even my wife, who's never played an MMO in her life (had no idea how to WASD) was starting to get antsy between tests during Phase 3. That's my own personal indicator of how good the game is Smiley: thumbsup



It's exactly this. Innovation is only good if it solves a problem the genre has (or didn't know it had). But difference for the sake of difference and expecting that will produce a WoW-killer is like throwing a dart blindfolded while going for a bullseye surrounded by killer beehives. FFXIV 1.0 lost its way because it simply forgot about the player experience being the most important aspect. The industry has evolved tremendously since the days of EQ, so offering a game that completely ignored the last decade of MMOdom was pure madness.

If they could only see how far UIs and gameplay had come, they'd never have thought FFXIV was even close to release–worthy in 2010. But even worse is that without knowing where the MMO industry was in the present day meant that they had no idea where to begin with a smart idea players would find useful.

The approach to simply make FFXIV a modern MMO with a Final Fantasy theme is really the only place for SE to go at this point. They do have a huge fan base in their offline games who would be prefect to get sucked into a casual MMO, and enough hardcore fans to glue the community together.

Is it playing it safe? Undoubtedly. But it's a safe bet and they're running low on camomile lotion for all the bee stings they got from their last innovative release.


This all makes me wonder why they went away from XI in the first place. They all but abandoned it prior to abyssea, but shortly after; it goes on to become the highest grossing FF game in history. To this day their only real claim to fame when it comes to being innovative or something that set them apart is still the same; the job system.

They may be playing it safe in terms of their unwillingness to stray too far from the beaten path, but I still think they're going into dangerous territory with the subscription fee. While it's true that they may end up switching to a F2P model down the road, games that usually start out as sub based and go F2P carry a stigma of being a failed game whether they continue on or not. The failure of 1.0 and a possible F2P model switch down the road isn't a good look.

This game won't ever goes FTP if SE keeps their word about content and being a higher quality game compared to the other models.

I see three types of content in the shape of a line.

1.Amount of content__________________

2.Time taken to experience content_____________

3.Quality/Polish of content__________________

If you want to maintain let's say a million subs. You have to have a steady dose of all three lines. A development company can be master orators and make everything sound magnificent. But at the end of the day, actions speak louder than words. The truth will come out whether good or bad and that will determine how successful a game is or isn't.

Alot of different model games do the free promise badly but some do it pretty good. SE has to show that they do everything those games do plus a level better. If you look around you have seen some P2P games even attempt to double dip and add cost on top of the subscription model. I think TSW tried to launch like that and WoW is doing the dip unless I misread the article about that.

TLDR: SE meets the three criteria of content and they can avoid the notion of F2P regardless of all the prophecies the mmo players have foreseen.
#83 Jul 20 2013 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
The only F2P approach I could tolerate would be Eve Online's PLEX system. Basically, subscribers get an extra month for every month they pay for. They can either use that extra month for themselves or they can put it up for sale in exchange for in game currency. So players can play the game free if they buy up those extra months subscribers put up for sale, and to come up with the in game currency, they'll have to take up activities not unlike those that RMT rely on.

So it's an effective curb against RMT since they want to exchange game currency for money, not more time to play the game, and this cuts a swath right out of their market.
#84 Jul 20 2013 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
Avatar
*****
11,150 posts
Xoie wrote:
So it's an effective curb against RMT since they want to exchange game currency for money, not more time to play the game, and this cuts a swath right out of their market.

That may be true for the people who buy the subs, but I find it a bit worrisome those who want to play for "free" have to imitate RMT to do it. To me, that sounds like grinding something 24/7 and basically not enjoying the game because the cost of upkeep is fairly steep. As well, there's nothing stopping the RMT from using the free months on themselves to potentially multiply the production of resources they exploit, in turn making it harder for the little guy to make ends meet. Honestly, though, I have some other philosophical issues with that game, so I should probably just cut myself off now.
____________________________
Violence good. Sexy bad. Yay America.
#85 Jul 20 2013 at 8:22 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,175 posts
sandpark wrote:
This game won't ever goes FTP if SE keeps their word about content and being a higher quality game compared to the other models.

TLDR: SE meets the three criteria of content and they can avoid the notion of F2P regardless of all the prophecies the mmo players have foreseen.

You don't have to avoid F2P to be able to support adding large amounts of quality content and planning that content to be relevant for a long time. A game being F2P is completely independent of those factors. The only caveat to that is that the content that you do intend to introduce via cash shop needs to be attractive enough that people feel it's worth their dime so that enough people are interested in it and you earn enough to cover the costs and turn a profit.

The main issue I find with what you have stated here is that there is very little in FFXIV that separates it from other games. The FATE system and the duty finder, their two most recent additions to the game, are ripped directly from other games that are F2P. I'm not saying that those are the only things XIV has going for it, but the question to ask here; a question I have asked on these boards before is: What is it that sets FFXIV apart from the other, free options?

Most people looked at the question and put their shields up immediately saying things like "We don't need the game to be innovative, that's how we got the miserable 1.0 in the first place". While I agree for the most part, it still doesn't satisfy the question. What is it about FFXIV: ARR that is going to keep people paying a subscription fee when the majority of the same features are offered elsewhere?

I think I understand why Yoshi wants to go with the sub model, but his reasons don't all line up with what is actually happening with games that are successful in F2P.
Xoie wrote:
The only F2P approach I could tolerate would be Eve Online's PLEX system. Basically, subscribers get an extra month for every month they pay for. They can either use that extra month for themselves or they can put it up for sale in exchange for in game currency. So players can play the game free if they buy up those extra months subscribers put up for sale, and to come up with the in game currency, they'll have to take up activities not unlike those that RMT rely on.


That isn't F2P, though I do understand what you're getting at. F2P means that people can play the game without paying at all. There might be certain perks like vanity items or other bonuses(storage space, higher quest limits, ect.) and players can unlock content by either means, but there is no up-front cost associated with being able to access your account.

I see what you're getting at though. In TERA before it went F2P, they offered items that granted your account a month of playtime when used. These scrolls were able to be traded and sold on auction so that you could farm enough in-game currency to buy them without having to spend real money. Players who wanted to make money without farming could spend real money on these scrolls and then sell them on auction for gold(kinda avoiding the need for RMT) and players who didn't want to spend money on the game could farm enough to keep their subscription going without having to pay a dime.
Seriha wrote:
To me, that sounds like grinding something 24/7 and basically not enjoying the game because the cost of upkeep is fairly steep.

I guess that would all depend on what you do for a living...

The grind in TERA for the items to extend your playtime weren't a huge investment in time. It took a little while, but your options are to grind in the game or grind coffee beans at the cafe you work in. I think most players understand that things you want in game will take some time to obtain and that most of these achievements are sometimes a lot of 'work'. Given the opportunity, I think most people would look at the difference between a few hours at work and a few hours doing something in game that they might not necessarily enjoy as much as other options to be a pretty fair exchange.
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#86 Jul 20 2013 at 9:00 PM Rating: Good
*
153 posts
FilthyMcNizzle wrote:
I guess that would all depend on what you do for a living...

The grind in TERA for the items to extend your playtime weren't a huge investment in time. It took a little while, but your options are to grind in the game or grind coffee beans at the cafe you work in. I think most players understand that things you want in game will take some time to obtain and that most of these achievements are sometimes a lot of 'work'. Given the opportunity, I think most people would look at the difference between a few hours at work and a few hours doing something in game that they might not necessarily enjoy as much as other options to be a pretty fair exchange.


I agree with you in principle, but to what extent does this sentiment inhibit the enjoyment of that group of elite hardcore players who want there to be items that take a ton of grind work? While I'm certainly not in that category of gamer by a long shot, I still believe in providing content for those out there who are.

I think so much development goes into appeasing the less "hardcore" player that sometimes the extreme types are forgotten.
#87 Jul 20 2013 at 11:02 PM Rating: Good
****
4,175 posts
ClydesShadow wrote:
FilthyMcNizzle wrote:
I guess that would all depend on what you do for a living...

The grind in TERA for the items to extend your playtime weren't a huge investment in time. It took a little while, but your options are to grind in the game or grind coffee beans at the cafe you work in. I think most players understand that things you want in game will take some time to obtain and that most of these achievements are sometimes a lot of 'work'. Given the opportunity, I think most people would look at the difference between a few hours at work and a few hours doing something in game that they might not necessarily enjoy as much as other options to be a pretty fair exchange.


I agree with you in principle, but to what extent does this sentiment inhibit the enjoyment of that group of elite hardcore players who want there to be items that take a ton of grind work? While I'm certainly not in that category of gamer by a long shot, I still believe in providing content for those out there who are.

I think so much development goes into appeasing the less "hardcore" player that sometimes the extreme types are forgotten.

I don't think it inhibits their enjoyment at all. Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. I was using the example to show that in most games there's a choice between whether you pay real money for vanity items or services or whether you pay in-game currency. One of them requires you to work in real life to pay for and the other requires you to work(or farm) in the game.

As far as the balance between hardcore and casual; I think they can find a balance, but it's not going to be 50/50. Look at FFXI for how many players grinded out relics prior to the changes with dynamis being on solo farm. Look at WoW to see how many players are getting legendary weapons completed prior to the level uncap making prior content easier to complete. The balance will never be a true balance(at least to the outside eye) because the distribution of hardcore vs casual players always skews toward the latter.
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#88 Jul 20 2013 at 11:41 PM Rating: Excellent
*
153 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
ClydesShadow wrote:
FilthyMcNizzle wrote:
I guess that would all depend on what you do for a living...

The grind in TERA for the items to extend your playtime weren't a huge investment in time. It took a little while, but your options are to grind in the game or grind coffee beans at the cafe you work in. I think most players understand that things you want in game will take some time to obtain and that most of these achievements are sometimes a lot of 'work'. Given the opportunity, I think most people would look at the difference between a few hours at work and a few hours doing something in game that they might not necessarily enjoy as much as other options to be a pretty fair exchange.


I agree with you in principle, but to what extent does this sentiment inhibit the enjoyment of that group of elite hardcore players who want there to be items that take a ton of grind work? While I'm certainly not in that category of gamer by a long shot, I still believe in providing content for those out there who are.

I think so much development goes into appeasing the less "hardcore" player that sometimes the extreme types are forgotten.

I don't think it inhibits their enjoyment at all. Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. I was using the example to show that in most games there's a choice between whether you pay real money for vanity items or services or whether you pay in-game currency. One of them requires you to work in real life to pay for and the other requires you to work(or farm) in the game.

As far as the balance between hardcore and casual; I think they can find a balance, but it's not going to be 50/50. Look at FFXI for how many players grinded out relics prior to the changes with dynamis being on solo farm. Look at WoW to see how many players are getting legendary weapons completed prior to the level uncap making prior content easier to complete. The balance will never be a true balance(at least to the outside eye) because the distribution of hardcore vs casual players always skews toward the latter.


Ah I see. Indeed I misinterpreted what you said. Point taken.
#89 Jul 21 2013 at 7:33 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
972 posts
sandpark wrote:
This game won't ever goes FTP if SE keeps their word about content and being a higher quality game compared to the other models.

TLDR: SE meets the three criteria of content and they can avoid the notion of F2P regardless of all the prophecies the mmo players have foreseen.

FilthMcNasty wrote:
You don't have to avoid F2P to be able to support adding large amounts of quality content and planning that content to be relevant for a long time. A game being F2P is completely independent of those factors. The only caveat to that is that the content that you do intend to introduce via cash shop needs to be attractive enough that people feel it's worth their dime so that enough people are interested in it and you earn enough to cover the costs and turn a profit.

The main issue I find with what you have stated here is that there is very little in FFXIV that separates it from other games. The FATE system and the duty finder, their two most recent additions to the game, are ripped directly from other games that are F2P. I'm not saying that those are the only things XIV has going for it, but the question to ask here; a question I have asked on these boards before is: What is it that sets FFXIV apart from the other, free options?

Most people looked at the question and put their shields up immediately saying things like "We don't need the game to be innovative, that's how we got the miserable 1.0 in the first place". While I agree for the most part, it still doesn't satisfy the question. What is it about FFXIV: ARR that is going to keep people paying a subscription fee when the majority of the same features are offered elsewhere?

I think I understand why Yoshi wants to go with the sub model, but his reasons don't all line up with what is actually happening with games that are successful in F2P.

After playing recent well done F2P option I can say nothing sets a P2P game apart out of the gate. It doesn't have a ton more content. It doesn't have more varied content. It's just that most companies don't do the F2P option well. Look no further than SWTOR if you omit the lack of endgame, it had everything a triple A P2P has at launch. When they switched over to the F2P option they did it about as wrong as you can do to lack of experience? I don't think SE would do it very well either. And if you don't do it well, you actually hurt the company reputation more than help it.

What does ARR have that other games don't? Final Fantasy and everything that encompasses that. Final Fantasy style of writing, universe, jobs, spells, characters, etc. You can see that as a negative or a positive. But for anyone who has played final fantasy and liked it. This is enough.

You might ask ok, why didn't that work for 1.0? Regardless of IP, if the game release a complete lag/buggy mess and doesn't kick you in the face with IP things you know. It won't be enough if you can't play it.
#90 Jul 21 2013 at 7:59 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
972 posts
Yo Filth,

Let's come back here in 2 years and then re-visit the question of what a P2P offers over a F2P game.

We will look at number of expansions, patches, new jobs, number of dungeons,new areas, types of content, new gameplay to mmo, and how much it cost to access all non vanity actual content.

TERA(F2P): Release to two year mark.
GW2(B2P): Release to two year mark.
ARR(P2P): Release to two year mark.

#91 Jul 21 2013 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,649 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
You don't have to avoid F2P to be able to support adding large amounts of quality content and planning that content to be relevant for a long time. A game being F2P is completely independent of those factors. The only caveat to that is that the content that you do intend to introduce via cash shop needs to be attractive enough that people feel it's worth their dime so that enough people are interested in it and you earn enough to cover the costs and turn a profit.

The main issue I find with what you have stated here is that there is very little in FFXIV that separates it from other games. The FATE system and the duty finder, their two most recent additions to the game, are ripped directly from other games that are F2P. I'm not saying that those are the only things XIV has going for it, but the question to ask here; a question I have asked on these boards before is: What is it that sets FFXIV apart from the other, free options?

Most people looked at the question and put their shields up immediately saying things like "We don't need the game to be innovative, that's how we got the miserable 1.0 in the first place". While I agree for the most part, it still doesn't satisfy the question. What is it about FFXIV: ARR that is going to keep people paying a subscription fee when the majority of the same features are offered elsewhere?

I think I understand why Yoshi wants to go with the sub model, but his reasons don't all line up with what is actually happening with games that are successful in F2P.


I understand this argument and I can see why it makes people worry. I often have my own worries about longevity as well. Thing is, we're talking about this while XIV is in beta. I know people often say "Well look at 1.0" when people bring up that argument, and I often agree with that, but in this case it's very much applies. People are practically asking for XIV to be the equivalent of 1 or 2 expansions before it's even released, and that's just unreasonable. It took WoW a few years before it became the massive behemoth it is now, and it took FFXI roughly 4 to 5 years to have a hefty amount of endgame content.

When a game is released, developers and players look for two things: Does everything work? And, is it enjoyable to play? Once those two requirements are met, developers can then look towards the future and start releasing content for longtime players and personalizing their game (though XIV already has it's own personality, look at the Armory System and Limit Breaks). No matter what your model is, P2P, F2P, or B2P, every MMO has this as their first goal.

I often find myself looking back to this video when I want to make a point about how important it is for developers to pace themselves and map out their goals on a roadmap. Because if developers try to take on too much it'll often fall flat on it's face. I think Yoshi-P and the Dev Team has a good understanding of this.

Of course this means we'll have to trust Yoshi-P's words and hope for the best, and I know we're already jaded from 1.0 (and life in general). But we also have to realize that there is a lot riding on this for Square Enix as well. Millions of dollars was poured into XIV and failure isn't an option for them. If they do, it's not us that'll take the biggest blow, it's them.
____________________________

#92 Jul 21 2013 at 9:49 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,175 posts
sandpark wrote:
Let's come back here in 2 years and then re-visit the question of what a P2P offers over a F2P game.

It won't even take that long. We'll know by or shortly after the first expansion how it is going to play out.

HeroMystic wrote:
I understand this argument and I can see why it makes people worry. I often have my own worries about longevity as well. Thing is, we're talking about this while XIV is in beta. I know people often say "Well look at 1.0" when people bring up that argument, and I often agree with that, but in this case it's very much applies. People are practically asking for XIV to be the equivalent of 1 or 2 expansions before it's even released, and that's just unreasonable. It took WoW a few years before it became the massive behemoth it is now, and it took FFXI roughly 4 to 5 years to have a hefty amount of endgame content.

This is not a launch or release. It's a re-launch or re-release. I'm completely willing to give ARR a shot to win me over as a game that I will enjoy, but this game was released 3 years ago. It's not at all unreasonable to expect an expansion worth or more of content, especially when Yoshi himself went off on quite a long explanation as to why ARR will still maintain a subscription model specifically because it will allow them to bring in more content than the F2P competition..
Yoshi wrote:
Choosing the model that’s right for your product and being successful with that is what’s important. We believe that the bigger the game, the larger the scale of the MMO, it’s going to be better for the game if it’s on a subscription model.

Translation: "I'm going to charge because I'm going big." I'm not sure where SE keeps their coffers, but I hope for the sake of future Final Fantasy titles; they're somewhere in the vicinity of Yoshi's mouth Smiley: sly

HeroMystic wrote:
I often find myself looking back to this video when I want to make a point about how important it is for developers to pace themselves and map out their goals on a roadmap. Because if developers try to take on too much it'll often fall flat on it's face.


ZAM's own...

Edited, Jul 21st 2013 12:09pm by FilthMcNasty
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#93 Jul 21 2013 at 1:28 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
972 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
sandpark wrote:
Let's come back here in 2 years and then re-visit the question of what a P2P offers over a F2P game.

[quote=FilthMcNasty]It won't even take that long. We'll know by or shortly after the first expansion how it is going to play out.

It might not take that long for people who are not FF fans or are invested in another mmo right now. But to actually see the difference in amount of content will take around two years. Because every game usually front loads heavy on launch. It's the preceding years where the meat is exposed.

Sure it might not be a brand new game through and throughout. But I think I read that players from the original release have a lower cost of entry. So they have nothing to lose to give the game a shot. Please remember that the original game even brought almost high end pcs to their knees. I know like 20 people who bought the original and a $800 pc and still couldn't get the game to play smooth. That has been ironed out now.

I am rooting for ARR and that's not because I'm championing them. I actually don't agree that P2P offers better value just because of the payment model. My point stands be it P2P or F2P. They need to deliver the content and if they do the game will do fine.
#94 Jul 21 2013 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
*
138 posts
Part VII, dabbling with interaction out of the game (and the Lodestone) as well as crafting, originally scheduled for Friday, July 19th, is now up.

The next part will close this series for now, and an epilogue will be incorporated in it, hence it only occupies one topic. It may be up later today depending on its polishing level.

Enjoy!
#95 Jul 21 2013 at 5:20 PM Rating: Good
*
138 posts
HeroMystic wrote:

When a game is released, developers and players look for two things: Does everything work? And, is it enjoyable to play? Once those two requirements are met, developers can then look towards the future and start releasing content for longtime players and personalizing their game (though XIV already has it's own personality, look at the Armory System and Limit Breaks). No matter what your model is, P2P, F2P, or B2P, every MMO has this as their first goal.


FilthMcNasty wrote:

This is not a launch or release. It's a re-launch or re-release. I'm completely willing to give ARR a shot to win me over as a game that I will enjoy, but this game was released 3 years ago. It's not at all unreasonable to expect an expansion worth or more of content, especially when Yoshi himself went off on quite a long explanation as to why ARR will still maintain a subscription model specifically because it will allow them to bring in more content than the F2P competition..


Regarding the points you both raise above - You have equally valid arguments. However, as FATE (Smiley: grin) has had it, practically all the previously released MMORPGs in the past ~5 years or so made critical mistakes. Mistakes of such magnitude, they were unable to sustain their player base for any meaningful amount of time.

More often than not, such mistakes were related to:

Content and lack thereof: When somebody finishes the leveling process, they expect to be able to do something other than staring at the night's sky for 12 months.

Lack of polish / QA: No, releasing a buggy concoction and burying your head in the sands doesn't really cut it. People are (directly or indirectly) paying for your game. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Project management / lack of funds: SWTOR, frequently mentioned by me as a leading -and expensive- failure, was that. We're talking about an MMORPG which cost as much to make as a small country's running costs would be for a year; a game built on a superbly crappy engine, unfit for purpose, forcing the developers to abandon their plans for "mass scale PVP" because the clients of everyone run at 2-10 fps; a game which seemed to have run out of money after its launch, to the point where bugs which broke the game (PvE raids were notorious for this) were left in the client for 30-60 days at a time, before fixing some of them.

Yeah, you know what? No alarms have gone off about these areas in ARR just yet. I know, there are kinks to be found, but so far, even if we played a beta?

I didn't die because the game wanted me to, for no good reason. I didn't get stuck anywhere. I didn't face FATE's which would never end or would never begin. I didn't get instantly killed due to a boss ability being bugged and one-shotting the dungeon group.

There are no signs -yet- that content is either too little or too buggy for people to enjoy at lv. 50.

And project management seems to have done the exact opposite than SWTOR (for example) has: Listen to feedback. Tweak based on feedback and findings. Adjust features.

Will this game hold me -or anyone I know- for a couple of years? Tough to say. We may only stick around for some months. It will largely depend on the patches introduced post-release and whether a steady flow of "things to do, new stuff to discover, content to beat" etc exists.

Has this game the potential, based on existing things we've already seen, to do better than the vast majority of MMORPGs released in the past few years? Sure, but it's up to SE to achieve this, not me, of course. If they seem to offer an overall good / decent experience, people will flock to it. If not...their loss.
#96 Jul 21 2013 at 10:16 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,175 posts
Sovjohn wrote:
Yeah, you know what? No alarms have gone off about these areas in ARR just yet. I know, there are kinks to be found, but so far, even if we played a beta?


Sovjohn wrote:
Will this game hold me -or anyone I know- for a couple of years? Tough to say. We may only stick around for some months. It will largely depend on the patches introduced post-release and whether a steady flow of "things to do, new stuff to discover, content to beat" etc exists.


The loudest alarm is the disparity between the large amount of players coming into the game with many or all classes and jobs at level cap and the influx of new players. As you said, releasing content in a timely manner is a delicate balance that needs to be maintained. I'm curious how or why you think this isn't an alarm when it's an obvious issue facing ARR on re-launch.

Clearly you're optimistic about the game, even overly optimistic I'd say; that is your prerogative. I'm not going to tell you not to be excited about it. However, if you're so willing to ignore easily identified problems such as the one I just mentioned, perhaps it's you who needs to smell the coffee.


____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#97 Jul 22 2013 at 1:17 AM Rating: Good
*
138 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Sovjohn wrote:
Yeah, you know what? No alarms have gone off about these areas in ARR just yet. I know, there are kinks to be found, but so far, even if we played a beta?


Sovjohn wrote:
Will this game hold me -or anyone I know- for a couple of years? Tough to say. We may only stick around for some months. It will largely depend on the patches introduced post-release and whether a steady flow of "things to do, new stuff to discover, content to beat" etc exists.


The loudest alarm is the disparity between the large amount of players coming into the game with many or all classes and jobs at level cap and the influx of new players. As you said, releasing content in a timely manner is a delicate balance that needs to be maintained. I'm curious how or why you think this isn't an alarm when it's an obvious issue facing ARR on re-launch.

Clearly you're optimistic about the game, even overly optimistic I'd say; that is your prerogative. I'm not going to tell you not to be excited about it. However, if you're so willing to ignore easily identified problems such as the one I just mentioned, perhaps it's you who needs to smell the coffee.




I think that judgement regarding content or lack of it should be withheld until someone is able to access all of it. If we enter Phase 4 / Open Beta, and suddenly it becomes blatantly obvious that the high level content is merely what existed in 1.0, with nothing else in place, this would be a good incentive for all hell to break loose.

However, the signs up to now do not point to such a scenario. We'll know soon enough (~15 days?) about what has remained hidden and its status / quality.
#98 Jul 22 2013 at 1:41 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,175 posts
Sovjohn wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Sovjohn wrote:
Yeah, you know what? No alarms have gone off about these areas in ARR just yet. I know, there are kinks to be found, but so far, even if we played a beta?


Sovjohn wrote:
Will this game hold me -or anyone I know- for a couple of years? Tough to say. We may only stick around for some months. It will largely depend on the patches introduced post-release and whether a steady flow of "things to do, new stuff to discover, content to beat" etc exists.


The loudest alarm is the disparity between the large amount of players coming into the game with many or all classes and jobs at level cap and the influx of new players. As you said, releasing content in a timely manner is a delicate balance that needs to be maintained. I'm curious how or why you think this isn't an alarm when it's an obvious issue facing ARR on re-launch.

Clearly you're optimistic about the game, even overly optimistic I'd say; that is your prerogative. I'm not going to tell you not to be excited about it. However, if you're so willing to ignore easily identified problems such as the one I just mentioned, perhaps it's you who needs to smell the coffee.




I think that judgement regarding content or lack of it should be withheld until someone is able to access all of it. If we enter Phase 4 / Open Beta, and suddenly it becomes blatantly obvious that the high level content is merely what existed in 1.0, with nothing else in place, this would be a good incentive for all hell to break loose.

However, the signs up to now do not point to such a scenario. We'll know soon enough (~15 days?) about what has remained hidden and its status / quality.


It's not a judgment, it's an observation. If they're going to be providing massive amounts of content(their own justification for charging a monthly fee), then they're going to have to have much of that available from the get go if a large part of their playerbase is starting ARR having already obtained the level cap. New players will also expect there to be quite a bit of content for them at lower levels. This basically means that instead of having the benefit of re-launching XIV with everyone at level 1, they're going to have to have things for level capped players to do right away.

Other games can almost ignore adding endgame content at least for a little while because the majority of the playerbase will be occupied leveling up. ARR doesn't have that luxury so they essentially need to have both new content and endgame content ready to roll. The bright spot in all of this is that assuming they do come through with that, new players will have an established endgame.

If I were an established player with some or all jobs and classes at level cap for ARR launch, I think it's fair that I be a bit concerned about that.
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#99 Jul 22 2013 at 8:55 AM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
Xoie wrote:
Wint wrote:
As has been stated before, they tried to redefine everything and we got 1.0. I'd rather they take what works for other MMOs, then tweak it over the months to make it their own. I know "WoW Clone" gets tossed around a lot, but there really are a lot of similarities that can't be ignored. It doesn't have to be a negative thing through, I like the idea of their taking the best of every MMO and including it.

What it boils down to is "are people having fun?" and I know I, and a lot of others are. Hell even my wife, who's never played an MMO in her life (had no idea how to WASD) was starting to get antsy between tests during Phase 3. That's my own personal indicator of how good the game is Smiley: thumbsup



It's exactly this. Innovation is only good if it solves a problem the genre has (or didn't know it had). But difference for the sake of difference and expecting that will produce a WoW-killer is like throwing a dart blindfolded while going for a bullseye surrounded by killer beehives. FFXIV 1.0 lost its way because it simply forgot about the player experience being the most important aspect. The industry has evolved tremendously since the days of EQ, so offering a game that completely ignored the last decade of MMOdom was pure madness.




I'd like to point out that there are valid reasons for wanting and seeking innovation. The MMO genre is well established at this point and a lot of the conventions have gotten a bit stale. There are usually good reasons why they have become the conventions, and changing them just for the sake of change is likely to result in a worse game, but a game developer isn't worth much if he or she isn't at least looking for ways to shake things up in ways that are as effective or ideally more effective than the convention.

One example of this is questing. I find myself barely doing side quests in FFXIV, and ignoring guildleves as much as possible because frankly they're the same boring concepts I've come to expect from 5 years of playing WoW specifically and MMOs in general for 15+. Seeing yet another filler quest from an NPC with an exclamation point over his head does not excite or compel me. I really enjoy the story and even the class quests, but that's because I'm generally getting to see a decent narrative with cut scenes and character development, and getting some nice abilities as rewards. They don't feel like filler.

FFXIV had a huge opportunity (and may still have one) with guild leves. The original concept with guild leves seemed to suggest that they would be somewhat modular, that you would sort of earn the ability to customize your goals, group sizes, and rewards more as you went on. You can KIND of do this now by choosing the level of the leve and choosing from a list for each hub, but you're inevitably going to repeat the same leves a lot, and maybe never find the one that fits exactly what you're in the mood for. IF they could ever revisit the leve system and really make it crackle and pop, that's the kind of innovation that would add a lot of value to the genre.

Similarly, I'd love to know if there was an underlying reason for the armory system. What were the imagined advantages of tying class to weapon directly? Is this something they did differently just for the sake of being diferent, or is there some emergent depth or compelling gameplay that's going to justify what otherwise seems like a narrow design decision? I felt like the job system in FFXI was very different than anything that's ever been done in MMOs before or since (although Rift probably comes closest to duplicating it). That's innovation for the sake of better and novel gameplay, and I love it. I don't love the armory system (though I do love being able to play every class on one character). Is this a system they could develop further to differentiate ARR in a very positive way? I'd love to find out.

Bottom line: A lot of the features that can make ARR different in a very positive way already exist in a skeleton fashion, or are promised for the relatively near future (housing, for example) but it all comes down to the execution. Can Yoshi and his team execute systems that haven't been done by any one else before? Can they innovate in ways that move the genre forward, or will they simply forsake innovation, or innovate just to be different?

Edited, Jul 22nd 2013 11:08am by KarlHungis
____________________________
"I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Gen. Jack D. Ripper, General, USAF
#100 Jul 22 2013 at 5:06 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,175 posts
KarlHungis wrote:
FFXIV had a huge opportunity (and may still have one) with guild leves. The original concept with guild leves seemed to suggest that they would be somewhat modular, that you would sort of earn the ability to customize your goals, group sizes, and rewards more as you went on. You can KIND of do this now by choosing the level of the leve and choosing from a list for each hub, but you're inevitably going to repeat the same leves a lot, and maybe never find the one that fits exactly what you're in the mood for.


Agree with this a hundred zillion percent. When I first envisioned guildleves (at least from how they were first described) I pictured the MMM system from FFXI, but tuned to work the way it could and should have. Sort of a mix between picking an underlying branch of storyline and running with it in a way completely unique to your character. This is what I was hoping they had in mind for their whole 'character progression without leveling up traditionally' path they started out on.
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#101 Jul 22 2013 at 5:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
972 posts
KarlHungis wrote:

It's exactly this. Innovation is only good if it solves a problem the genre has (or didn't know it had). But difference for the sake of difference and expecting that will produce a WoW-killer is like throwing a dart blindfolded while going for a bullseye surrounded by killer beehives. FFXIV 1.0 lost its way because it simply forgot about the player experience being the most important aspect. The industry has evolved tremendously since the days of EQ, so offering a game that completely ignored the last decade of MMOdom was pure madness.

I'd like to point out that there are valid reasons for wanting and seeking innovation. The MMO genre is well established at this point and a lot of the conventions have gotten a bit stale. There are usually good reasons why they have become the conventions, and changing them just for the sake of change is likely to result in a worse game, but a game developer isn't worth much if he or she isn't at least looking for ways to shake things up in ways that are as effective or ideally more effective than the convention.

One example of this is questing. I find myself barely doing side quests in FFXIV, and ignoring guildleves as much as possible because frankly they're the same boring concepts I've come to expect from 5 years of playing WoW specifically and MMOs in general for 15+. Seeing yet another filler quest from an NPC with an exclamation point over his head does not excite or compel me. I really enjoy the story and even the class quests, but that's because I'm generally getting to see a decent narrative with cut scenes and character development, and getting some nice abilities as rewards. They don't feel like filler.

FFXIV had a huge opportunity (and may still have one) with guild leves. The original concept with guild leves seemed to suggest that they would be somewhat modular, that you would sort of earn the ability to customize your goals, group sizes, and rewards more as you went on. You can KIND of do this now by choosing the level of the leve and choosing from a list for each hub, but you're inevitably going to repeat the same leves a lot, and maybe never find the one that fits exactly what you're in the mood for. IF they could ever revisit the leve system and really make it crackle and pop, that's the kind of innovation that would add a lot of value to the genre.

Similarly, I'd love to know if there was an underlying reason for the armory system. What were the imagined advantages of tying class to weapon directly? Is this something they did differently just for the sake of being diferent, or is there some emergent depth or compelling gameplay that's going to justify what otherwise seems like a narrow design decision? I felt like the job system in FFXI was very different than anything that's ever been done in MMOs before or since (although Rift probably comes closest to duplicating it). That's innovation for the sake of better and novel gameplay, and I love it. I don't love the armory system (though I do love being able to play every class on one character). Is this a system they could develop further to differentiate ARR in a very positive way? I'd love to find out.

Questing is boring whether it has the exclamation mark or not in just about every mmo. Because the norm is for developers to make 1000s of quests for the sake of content versus making them fun but not as numerous. Here's what I would like to see from quests.
Keep in mind an npc tracker would be needed to let players know their current whereabouts and intricacies.
Note: Quests should be able to be grouped and be scaled appropriately with the number of members.

1.Dynamic npcs(NPCs with changing requirements,objectives,motives, moods, beliefs, and daily activities)
The framework for how to make more dynamic npcs exist already if a developer would just look at other games and sponge up a bit of here and there to form a cohesive package from the whole.

Npc dialogue and player choices- Elder Scrolls and Bioware rpgs
Npc mood and beliefs- Xenoblade Chronicles Heart to hearts and Final Fantasy X jecht spheres
Npc daily activities- Elder Scrolls and Final Fantasy IX active time events
Npc perception of the world- Bioware rpgs and Guild Wars 2
Npc quest interactions/travels with you- Basically any rpg including FFXI Prishe
Npc motives- Instead of just wanting something from the particular quests have that be a work towards something bigger

2.Quest variation
Rather than fall into the trend of kill this, gather this, fed-ex this. Let there be interactions consisting of more than trade or consume.

Cid asks you to gather some things to fix a magitek. You do whatever that entails, but rather than it end there with a cs or text box saying complete. How about actually helping fix it with dynamic hotbars to simulate maintenance activities. Context sensitive dynamic hotbars without resorting to QTE. Why stop there actually pilot one with dynamic controls!

Guildleves:
They had a good concept of having cards with different virtues. The problem was that all the duties were mostly the same regardless of which leves you grabbed. What if the word guildleve meant different content per leve. On the fly access to varied content at by linking them you could weave a story with your party? I am not going to link the pics of guildleves images.

Ambition- Political or financial activities effecting company or city state ranking(National PvP or PvE content)
Benevolence- Helping a player or npc with charity to win affection.(Helping with a quest for npcs or players well being)
Candor- Doing duties for a king or a nation's leader.(Assassination, sabotage, scouting, coercing enemies to your nation's side, PvP or PvE)

I could go on and list activities for every guildleve with different goals and gameplay but that's Se's job if they pursued it.

The gist is guildleves would just be a springboard for jumping to a unique activity.


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 21 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (21)