Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Blizzard on Console MMOsFollow

#1 Jun 24 2009 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
#2 Jun 24 2009 at 2:03 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
woot, Blizzard gets it's share of PS limitations :)
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#3 Jun 24 2009 at 2:12 PM Rating: Default
**
572 posts
AureliusSir wrote:
Clicky.

Discuss.


This is related to what we are discussing in;

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?game=268;mid=1245338343212063153;num=118;page=1
#4 Jun 24 2009 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Maldavian wrote:
AureliusSir wrote:
Clicky.

Discuss.


This is related to what we are discussing in;

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?game=268;mid=1245338343212063153;num=118;page=1


Only partially. I found the console maker chunk of the subscription fees to be interesting and the article goes beyond simply a UI issue.
#5 Jun 24 2009 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
**
495 posts
This interview kind of confirmed my suspicion of why SE is having 'negotiation' issue with microsoft over FFXIV. Microsoft + Sony combination might be asking for too high a cut in the online revenue that would make it stupid to release on both platforms. They might have gotten a deal with FFXI since its merely a port but with a new game they might be trying to strong arm SE's revenue demand more in line with similar services on live (Think someone said Microsoft gets like 30% cut of revenue from all DLC/online payment stuff over live... if Playstation is the same and the accounts are all tied together (you buy one content ID and it can be used across all platforms like FFXI), SE could be making only 40% reveune when all said and done and STILL need to cover server costs and to pay off development time both before and after the games release). This would also explain why no game really goes multiplatform online, if they do that they have split the revenue across both platforms because there is no other way to discern who is buying what on which platform. They want to control it.
#6 Jun 24 2009 at 3:05 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
43 posts
I'm no expert in how online console games handle monthly subscriptions, but it does not make sense to limit availability because you will make slightly less profit.

Profit is profit. Lets use the Microsoft 30% as an example. Even with a loss of 30% SE will still be making money from more users and more subscriptions.

It seems that increase in subscriptions and sales would outweigh the cut to Microsoft.


So they make 100% of the PC subscriptions and less on the consoles. It makes sense to me to have it available to as many consoles as possible if you're going that route.

You're already willing to share a cut with Sony, why not expand to xbox live?
#7 Jun 24 2009 at 3:09 PM Rating: Decent
*
242 posts
I've always been curious as to why WoW hasn't been released on PS3/XBOX 360. This article somewhat clears it up. I guess we'll have to wait for the next generation of gaming consoles?
Also, I've been a bit concerned about how much GB FFXIV will eat up on my PS3. How much is "safe" to purchase 40...60...80..160...300...500 GB? How about some of that information SE, so we can prepare ourselves?

Edited, Jun 24th 2009 7:16pm by TheJollyjokers
____________________________
Character name: Undecided
Race: Lalafell
Nation: Gridania
Armoury: Desciple of Magic/Land/Hand
PS3 user
PSN: TheJollyJokers
XBOX Live: TheJollyJokers
#8 Jun 24 2009 at 3:10 PM Rating: Default
**
572 posts
gumpman wrote:
I'm no expert in how online console games handle monthly subscriptions, but it does not make sense to limit availability because you will make slightly less profit.

Profit is profit. Lets use the Microsoft 30% as an example. Even with a loss of 30% SE will still be making money from more users and more subscriptions.

It seems that increase in subscriptions and sales would outweigh the cut to Microsoft.


So they make 100% of the PC subscriptions and less on the consoles. It makes sense to me to have it available to as many consoles as possible if you're going that route.

You're already willing to share a cut with Sony, why not expand to xbox live?


If you only share 10% of profit with PS3 it’s understandable and also that they are mainly targeting their Japanese players which have a huge liking towards the PS3. As for xbox360, since Microsoft wants to take a huge chunk from their profit, they can just say, use your PC to play our game. Not a problem really.
#9 Jun 24 2009 at 3:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
gumpman wrote:
I'm no expert in how online console games handle monthly subscriptions, but it does not make sense to limit availability because you will make slightly less profit.

Profit is profit. Lets use the Microsoft 30% as an example. Even with a loss of 30% SE will still be making money from more users and more subscriptions.

Because it's not necessarily profit, it's revenue. There are costs associated with bring the game to consoles. There are both direct costs such as porting and indirect costs such as have to design content around the limitation of consoles which affects the quality of the game for pc users.

Bringing the game to consoles may bring revenue, but there is no guarantee it will bring profit. Sharing part of that revenue with console developers pushes up the revenue required for the MMORPG dev to break even.
#10 Jun 24 2009 at 3:24 PM Rating: Good
**
495 posts
Quote:
I'm no expert in how online console games handle monthly subscriptions, but it does not make sense to limit availability because you will make slightly less profit.

Profit is profit. Lets use the Microsoft 30% as an example. Even with a loss of 30% SE will still be making money from more users and more subscriptions.

It seems that increase in subscriptions and sales would outweigh the cut to Microsoft.


So they make 100% of the PC subscriptions and less on the consoles. It makes sense to me to have it available to as many consoles as possible if you're going that route.

You're already willing to share a cut with Sony, why not expand to xbox live?


You are misunderstanding the fundamental issue. If they want to do it the same way they did FFXI (Cross-plaform, cross region) than Microsoft will essentially be getting a revenue cut from ALL monthly revenue even if certain people are only playing on PS3 or PC. If the revenues were separated (like all multiplatform online stuff usually is) where servers were platform biased, than SE could theoretically have revenue cut between the two platforms but would alienate the people actually playing the game, but by having the servers exist the same no matter the platform and the content ID works on no matter the platform you use, there is no real way to split up the revenue of those with or without Xbox360 versions on a monthly revenue stream.

If both PS3 and Xbox360 have 30% cut of Revenue, that means SE themselves ONLY get 40% of the revenue back, this doesn't include licensing for PC, or the cost to upkeep servers, or development costs. If you only did it PC and PS3, you might lose 30% of the revenue lets say... guess what on a normal monthly basis that means you are getting like 2-3 dollars more a month from every id and if thats say 500k ID's... 14.99 a month, thats 7.5ish million a month revenue normally and 5.26 mil given back to them... you get microsoft into the mix and it becomes 2.99 mil. In order for the Xbox360 release to be actually a good idea, you would need to get at least anotehr 150-300k more subscribers from the microsoft deal to make up for the loss of revenue that Microsoft takes from ALL your monthly subscriptions. It really is not that simple.
#11 Jun 24 2009 at 3:33 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Allegory wrote:
gumpman wrote:
I'm no expert in how online console games handle monthly subscriptions, but it does not make sense to limit availability because you will make slightly less profit.

Profit is profit. Lets use the Microsoft 30% as an example. Even with a loss of 30% SE will still be making money from more users and more subscriptions.

Because it's not necessarily profit, it's revenue. There are costs associated with bring the game to consoles. There are both direct costs such as porting and indirect costs such as have to design content around the limitation of consoles which affects the quality of the game for pc users.

Bringing the game to consoles may bring revenue, but there is no guarantee it will bring profit. Sharing part of that revenue with console developers pushes up the revenue required for the MMORPG dev to break even.


Expanding on that idea, the monthly subscription fee isn't just straight cash into SE's bank account. There are costs associated with maintaining the servers we play on, and there are costs associated with developing content patches. For the sake of example, Let's say that 20% of your subscription fee goes to content development, 30% goes to server maintenance, and 50% goes to profit. If you've got a console manufacturer demanding 30% of the monthly subscription fee, they're basically demanding over half the profit while the game developer carries the cost for keeping the game going. That's just bad business on principle. Since we don't know the specific margins or what exactly Microsoft wants by way of a cut we can't really speculate on the exact nature of the "negotiations", but it stands to reason that SE isn't about to bend over for Mr. Gates just for the sake of adding another platform option for their playerbase.
#12 Jun 24 2009 at 3:36 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
croythegreat wrote:
but by having the servers exist the same no matter the platform and the content ID works on no matter the platform you use, there is no real way to split up the revenue of those with or without Xbox360 versions on a monthly revenue stream.

Of course there is. I'm not sure what method SE would use, but it's a trivial matter to distinguish pc users from console uers. Separating out the revenue streams is not the problem here; not having a large enough console revenue stream to be worth the investment is.

One very simple way to separate pc and console revenues is by tying content IDs/game codes (whatever they use) to the platform. One group of content ids is released with the console disc, so console users create their accounts with those ids, while another group is released for pc users. The tracking is very simple.

Edited, Jun 24th 2009 6:36pm by Allegory
#13 Jun 24 2009 at 3:36 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
croythegreat wrote:
You are misunderstanding the fundamental issue. If they want to do it the same way they did FFXI (Cross-plaform, cross region) than Microsoft will essentially be getting a revenue cut from ALL monthly revenue even if certain people are only playing on PS3 or PC. If the revenues were separated (like all multiplatform online stuff usually is) where servers were platform biased, than SE could theoretically have revenue cut between the two platforms but would alienate the people actually playing the game, but by having the servers exist the same no matter the platform and the content ID works on no matter the platform you use, there is no real way to split up the revenue of those with or without Xbox360 versions on a monthly revenue stream.

If both PS3 and Xbox360 have 30% cut of Revenue, that means SE themselves ONLY get 40% of the revenue back, this doesn't include licensing for PC, or the cost to upkeep servers, or development costs. If you only did it PC and PS3, you might lose 30% of the revenue lets say... guess what on a normal monthly basis that means you are getting like 2-3 dollars more a month from every id and if thats say 500k ID's... 14.99 a month, thats 7.5ish million a month revenue normally and 5.26 mil given back to them... you get microsoft into the mix and it becomes 2.99 mil. In order for the Xbox360 release to be actually a good idea, you would need to get at least anotehr 150-300k more subscribers from the microsoft deal to make up for the loss of revenue that Microsoft takes from ALL your monthly subscriptions. It really is not that simple.


It would be easy enough for SE to keep track of which subscriptions are for which platform with a simple internal client ID. My guess is that Microsoft wants a bigger cut than Sony, either because that's just the way Microsoft works or because Sony cut SE a deal based on their long history as "partners" with the latter half of the Final Fantasy series.
#14 Jun 24 2009 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
**
572 posts
Allegory wrote:
croythegreat wrote:
but by having the servers exist the same no matter the platform and the content ID works on no matter the platform you use, there is no real way to split up the revenue of those with or without Xbox360 versions on a monthly revenue stream.

Of course there is. I'm not sure what method SE would use, but it's a trivial matter to distinguish pc users from console uers. Separating out the revenue streams is not the problem here; not having a large enough console revenue stream to be worth the investment is.

One very simple way to separate pc and console revenues is by tying content IDs/game codes (whatever they use) to the platform. One group of content ids is released with the console disc, so console users create their accounts with those ids, while another group is released for pc users. The tracking is very simple.

Edited, Jun 24th 2009 6:36pm by Allegory


This won’t happen since SE already has stated that the game will be "cross-platform" in a way that you can choose to play your account on PC and PS3.
This is true as well for FFXI since you can play the same account on all 3 platforms.
#15 Jun 24 2009 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
**
495 posts
Quote:
Of course there is. I'm not sure what method SE would use, but it's a trivial matter to distinguish pc users from console uers. Separating out the revenue streams is not the problem here; not having a large enough console revenue stream to be worth the investment is.

One very simple way to separate pc and console revenues is by tying content IDs/game codes (whatever they use) to the platform. One group of content ids is released with the console disc, so console users create their accounts with those ids, while another group is released for pc users. The tracking is very simple.


You are basically saying in order to play your account on both PS3 and PC and Xbox360, you would need a content ID for each platform, each with their own subscription costs, or else have servers with only certain platforms, which won't happen. In FFXI, SE does not discriminate the platform you choose to play on with your content ID, you just need to buy disc stuff from a one time fee, in FFXI for whatever your platform (and what sounds like FFXIV's system) there is absolutely zero way to separate the fees without separating them ahead of time through the subscription fee, which can only be done if you have seperate subscriptions or you CLOSE off access to each different platforms servers which is completely counterintuitive to what they are trying to do. The 30% costs is merely a ball park figure and might be lowered for monthly fees, but that is without doubt probably the main stumbling block with Microsoft at the moment. "Negotiations" is just them trying to lower the revenue fee to make it worthwhile

Quote:
This won’t happen since SE already has stated that the game will be "cross-platform" in a way that you can choose to play your account on PC and PS3.
This is true as well for FFXI since you can play the same account on all 3 platforms.


This^

#16 Jun 24 2009 at 3:53 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
Maldavian wrote:
This won’t happen since SE already has stated that the game will be "cross-platform" in a way that you can choose to play your account on PC and PS3.
This is true as well for FFXI since you can play the same account on all 3 platforms.

Why would they care which medium you chose to play it on, it doesn't cost them anything? They only care which medium you originally purchased the game for.

SE incurs a marginal cost when producing a game for console, so the console developer has to provide value to SE through increased marketability of the game, increasing revenue. It cost them the same to make a console version of the game whether you play it on the console or on the pc, they only care which version of the game you were sold.

Edited, Jun 24th 2009 6:57pm by Allegory
#17 Jun 24 2009 at 3:56 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
777 posts
Allegory wrote:
Maldavian wrote:
This won’t happen since SE already has stated that the game will be "cross-platform" in a way that you can choose to play your account on PC and PS3.
This is true as well for FFXI since you can play the same account on all 3 platforms.

Why would they care which medium you chose to play it on, it doesn't cost them anything? They only care which medium you originally purchased the game for.

They would care if the different console makers demand significantly different portion cuts of the subscription profit.
____________________________
KUMQUATS
#18 Jun 24 2009 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
Karelyn wrote:
They would care if the different console makers demand significantly different portion cuts of the subscription profit.

You're missing the point.

SE doesn't care what I do with my subscription after I purchase it. They don't care if I play on the pc, if I play on the console, or even if I don't play the game at all. All they care about is how much it costs them to produce and how much they are earning. It costs them the same to produce a game for the console that I play on the console as it does to produce a game for the console that I play on the pc. There is no reason to attempt to tie revenue to how the customer uses the product, it only makes sense to tie it to how they purchased the product.
#19 Jun 24 2009 at 4:02 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,576 posts
croythegreat wrote:

You are basically saying in order to play your account on both PS3 and PC and Xbox360, you would need a content ID for each platform, each with their own subscription costs, or else have servers with only certain platforms, which won't happen. In FFXI, SE does not discriminate the platform you choose to play on with your content ID, you just need to buy disc stuff from a one time fee, in FFXI for whatever your platform (and what sounds like FFXIV's system) there is absolutely zero way to separate the fees without separating them ahead of time through the subscription fee, which can only be done if you have seperate subscriptions or you CLOSE off access to each different platforms servers which is completely counterintuitive to what they are trying to do.


Not really. They could implement a very simple system where the client software for each platform transmits a platform ID at each log-in. Each account would track time logged in on each of the different platforms and then provides SE with a breakdown by percentage of how much total login time was on PC, PS3, and Xbox360 for a given account during a specific period of time.

I think the larger issue is that a lot of the costs of maintaining an MMO are fixed. The developer will spend the same amount of money per server per month to maintain it whether that server has 2k players during peak hours or 6k. They'll spend the same amount of time developing content whether they've got 500k subscriptions or 5 million. If you're negotiating a "per subscription" rate, what projection is that rate based on? If you're negotiating a deal based on a sliding scale, what are the projected costs that define the scale?

Example:

SE says they'd be willing to pay 10% to Microsoft, and bases that number on 500k active subscriptions. Microsoft says, "Nononono...our experts estimate that this time around, you're going to be sitting on at least 1 million active subscriptions in your first year, which means you could afford to give us 15%."

Or...

SE says they'd be willing to pay Microsoft 5% on the first 500k subscriptions and 15% on any subscriptions beyond that mark. The reason being that SE can cover their costs on the first 500k subscriptions and the rest is pure profit. Microsoft turns around and says no, you should be able to cover your costs on the first 250k subscriptions.

There are a lot of details that go into those kinds of discussions that go beyond simply haggling over a simple flat %.
#20 Jun 24 2009 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
**
572 posts
Allegory wrote:
Karelyn wrote:
They would care if the different console makers demand significantly different portion cuts of the subscription profit.

You're missing the point.

SE doesn't care what I do with my subscription after I purchase it. They don't care if I play on the pc, if I play on the console, or even if I don't play the game at all. All they care about is how much it costs them to produce and how much they are earning. It costs them the same to produce a game for the console that I play on the console as it does to produce a game for the console that I play on the pc. There is no reason to attempt to tie revenue to how the customer uses the product, it only makes sense to tie it to how they purchased the product.


You can actually increase you profit a lot if you can force people to play on PC instead of xbox360. If the game is good enough then people will get a PC to play it and thus SE can make a much bigger profit from those players, since on PC they don’t need to give any 30% cut to Microsoft.
#21 Jun 24 2009 at 4:05 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
AureliusSir wrote:
They could implement a very simple system where the client software for each platform transmits a platform ID at each log-in.

They could, but why would they bother?

Let's say 1 million subscriptions of FFXI are sold for the pc and 1 subscription is sold for the PS3. Let's say that for some reason every single player chooses to play his game on the PS3.

Why should SE be tying those revenue streams to Sony? The vast majority of players bought the game for the PC. If SE never partnered with Sony, then SE would still have sold 1 million pc subscriptions. Sony hasn't provided any additional value for SE, so why should they get a cut of the profit just because people chose to play on the PS3?

I think you all are looking at this from a player perspective rather than a business perspective.

Edited, Jun 24th 2009 7:09pm by Allegory
#22 Jun 24 2009 at 4:12 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
Maldavian wrote:
You can actually increase you profit a lot if you can force people to play on PC instead of xbox360. If the game is good enough then people will get a PC to play it and thus SE can make a much bigger profit from those players, since on PC they don’t need to give any 30% cut to Microsoft.

Why would Microsoft allow that? If someone purchased a console game and then decided to play it on the pc why would Microsoft want to give up that revenue? In this situation because the 360 exists SE was able to sell 1 more subscription. It was Microsoft who earned SE that extra subscription, so why wouldn't Microsoft want their cut from that?
#23 Jun 24 2009 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
**
572 posts
Allegory wrote:
Maldavian wrote:
You can actually increase you profit a lot if you can force people to play on PC instead of xbox360. If the game is good enough then people will get a PC to play it and thus SE can make a much bigger profit from those players, since on PC they don’t need to give any 30% cut to Microsoft.

Why would Microsoft allow that? If someone purchased a console game and then decided to play it on the pc why would Microsoft want to give up that revenue? In this situation because the 360 exists SE was able to sell 1 more subscription. It was Microsoft who earned SE that extra subscription, so why wouldn't Microsoft want their cut from that?


You misunderstood me, you don’t release the game for xbox360 at all, and by that forcing those "potential" players to play the game on a PC.

You need to ask yourself as well, how many homes that have an Xbox360 have a PC as well? My guess would be 90% if not more.

Edited, Jun 24th 2009 8:16pm by Maldavian
#24 Jun 24 2009 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
Maldavian wrote:
You misunderstood me, you don’t release the game for xbox360 at all, and by that forcing those "potential" players to play the game on a PC.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're discussing how the revenue streams would be divided if the game was released for multiple platforms.

I'm still interested in talking about it, but it just hit me how nothing I say on this topic will in any way affect the final negotiations with Microsoft. I feel a little silly.
#25 Jun 24 2009 at 4:29 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Allegory wrote:
AureliusSir wrote:
They could implement a very simple system where the client software for each platform transmits a platform ID at each log-in.

They could, but why would they bother?

Let's say 1 million subscriptions of FFXI are sold for the pc and 1 subscription is sold for the PS3. Let's say that for some reason every single player chooses to play his game on the PS3.


If you buy a copy of the game for PC, you can't play it on the PS3. You have to buy the PS3 version of the game to play it on the PS3. The platform ID would be for people who buy a copy for the PC and a copy for the PS3 but only have one account. If the vast majority bought the game for the PC, they're not playing it on the PS3, so Sony should receive none of the revenue. If, on the other hand, lots of people are playing one account from two or more platforms, a platform ID would help determine which platform was being used the most so that the revenue distribution would be "fair".

The simple solution is to simply pay a cut of every active subscription to Sony and a cut to Microsoft, even if the person paying that particular subscription doesn't even own one of those consoles. That doesn't really sit well with me.
#26 Jun 24 2009 at 4:31 PM Rating: Good
**
572 posts
Allegory wrote:
Maldavian wrote:
You misunderstood me, you don’t release the game for xbox360 at all, and by that forcing those "potential" players to play the game on a PC.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're discussing how the revenue streams would be divided if the game was released for multiple platforms.

I'm still interested in talking about it, but it just hit me how nothing I say on this topic will in any way affect the final negotiations with Microsoft. I feel a little silly.


Sorry I was replying this;

Quote:
I think you all are looking at this from a player perspective rather than a business perspective.


If you look at it from a business perspective then you should just scrap the idea to release it on consoles :D
#27 Jun 24 2009 at 4:53 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,814 posts
Maldavian wrote:
If you look at it from a business perspective then you should just scrap the idea to release it on consoles :D

Possibly, it depends on whether SE's marketing research points to console development being profitable. You're right that most homes with a console also have a computer (and one probably capable of playing a not incredibly graphic intensive game), but for some reason there are people who prefer playing MMORPGs on a console. It seems strange to me too, but obviously SE saw reason to bring an MMORPG to the console market before.
#28 Jun 24 2009 at 5:38 PM Rating: Decent
**
296 posts
I found it it astonishing how backwards the Blizzard rep came off in that article (read it on another site earlier today.) He wonders if he'd have to ship people KB/Ms to support existing interfaces, when all three current machines out have standard usb ports (ps2 too!) and could use any existing peripherals in the market today. He speaks as though everyone has a teeny HDD though the majority of HDD equipped consoles have plenty of room for a MMO and space to spare. That's his "Bigger Issue" and it's one that has been manuvered successfully for two generations now! He makes a correct statement that not all 360s come with a HDD, but ignores the fact that zero PS2s had one and a sucessful market was found.

He then postulates that because Sony and MS receive a portion of software sales that they would demand a piece of subscription fees as well. He doesn't say this has happened, he says it will happen, and doesn't sound like he's speaking from a position of knowledge on the issue. Perhaps MS has made a demand. Perhaps Sony has as well. But I'm dubious of his claim, especially with the number of MMOs coming in the next 18 months to the PS3.

Making a cross platform MMO has its challenges, to be sure. But He made it sound like a herculean effort when we've already had a top quality console MMO on the market for over 5 years now, on antiquated equipment, and there are many more on the horizon for this generation. He simply came off as whining about limitations his competitors have maneuvered without complaint. A Poor Show.
#29 Jun 24 2009 at 5:48 PM Rating: Decent
**
296 posts
So, from reading through the entire thread, we are just assuming that Pardo's subscription statement was true? No one is questioning it at all. We are taking it as absolute fact?

XI has been around for sometime... in all that time, has anyone ever found evidence Sony, (or Microsoft) has ever received payment for all or part of the XI userbase? I mean I've seen articles through the years dissecting SE's financial statements, but never heard this revelation before. Not one whisper. Pardo never said any had ever asked him for a piece of any subscription, or that he had knowledge of it happening. It seemed pretty clear to me that was his assumption. Perhaps even an educated assumption, but not fact.

I could honestly see this kind of situation being the hurdle that is holding back any progress for a XIV port on the 360. Perhaps, MS now wants a piece of the pie they were willing to pass by to get XI on their new console ASAP. but we have no evidence of that yet, and we have even less reason to believe that's the case with Sony.
#30 Jun 24 2009 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,159 posts
I hope you know you are doing the same thing you are accusing Rob Pardo of doing.
#31 Jun 24 2009 at 6:07 PM Rating: Default
**
555 posts
Coming this Fall..


The Apprentice: Final Fantasy XIV
____________________________
Retired 75PLD
Hades Server
Obsidian Linkshell

WoW Fails.


#32 Jun 24 2009 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
**
296 posts
Yogtheterrible wrote:
I hope you know you are doing the same thing you are accusing Rob Pardo of doing.


The difference between me and Pardo is I'm coming to a forum as an equal (if I'm lucky) and no one would assume my assumptions are anything more. And I never inferred they were more. I also try pretty hard to make clear when I'm writing about facts, and when I'm voicing my opinion.

Pardo. is speaking on MMOs as a person of knowledge on the issue, and using that elevated position to make his assumptions or inferences into fact. And makes no attempt whatsoever to seperate his knowledge of the industry from his assumptions about a portion of the industry he isn't highly involved in.

Now, perhaps you'd like to comment about the meat of my post, instead of stating the obvious. Do you believe Pardo? Do you not?

Edited, Jun 24th 2009 10:55pm by ascorbic
#33 Jun 24 2009 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
ascorbic wrote:
Pardo. is speaking on MMOs as a person of knowledge on the issue, and using that elevated position to make his assumptions or inferences into fact. And makes no attempt whatsoever to seperate his knowledge of the industry from his assumptions about a portion of the industry he isn't highly involved in.

Now, perhaps you'd like to comment about the meat of my post, instead of stating the obvious. Do you believe Pardo? Do you not?


There's no reason not to believe him. He's paid big money by Blizzard to know what he's talking about, or at the very least not to make baseless statements that could land him in hot water with other industry components. He doesn't appear to be yoinking obstacles out of his ***. Do you really think Blizzard hasn't examined the idea of expanding into the console market?
#34 Jun 24 2009 at 8:27 PM Rating: Excellent
I find it extremely interesting that Square Enix has found a profitable way to do something that Blizzard is still struggling to accomplish. Final Fantasy XI has been live now for seven years, cross platform the entire time, and it remains extremely profitable. FFXIV is now on the way, and it's sure to be a next-gen game that blows WOW out of the water, technologically speaking.

To hear the top brass at Blizzard saying they still haven't figured out how to do the same thing with WoW is very interesting indeed...
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#35 Jun 24 2009 at 9:00 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Thayos wrote:
I find it extremely interesting that Square Enix has found a profitable way to do something that Blizzard is still struggling to accomplish. Final Fantasy XI has been live now for seven years, cross platform the entire time, and it remains extremely profitable. FFXIV is now on the way, and it's sure to be a next-gen game that blows WOW out of the water, technologically speaking.

To hear the top brass at Blizzard saying they still haven't figured out how to do the same thing with WoW is very interesting indeed...


I don't think it's an issue of them being unable to port and make it profitable...I think it's an issue of whether or not it would be worth it.
#36 Jun 24 2009 at 9:02 PM Rating: Default
**
555 posts
Quote:
I don't think it's an issue of them being unable to port and make it profitable...I think it's an issue of whether or not it would be worth it.


Why wouldn't it be?
____________________________
Retired 75PLD
Hades Server
Obsidian Linkshell

WoW Fails.


#37 Jun 24 2009 at 9:06 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
ascorbic wrote:
Yogtheterrible wrote:
I hope you know you are doing the same thing you are accusing Rob Pardo of doing.


The difference between me and Pardo is I'm coming to a forum as an equal (if I'm lucky) and no one would assume my assumptions are anything more. And I never inferred they were more. I also try pretty hard to make clear when I'm writing about facts, and when I'm voicing my opinion.

Pardo. is speaking on MMOs as a person of knowledge on the issue, and using that elevated position to make his assumptions or inferences into fact. And makes no attempt whatsoever to seperate his knowledge of the industry from his assumptions about a portion of the industry he isn't highly involved in.

Now, perhaps you'd like to comment about the meat of my post, instead of stating the obvious. Do you believe Pardo? Do you not?


Another difference is he was in an interview, not sitting in front of his computer. Not only did he not have the luxury of bringing his spreadsheets, quarterly reports and transcripts of his negotiations as proof of his worthiness to speak but b) the reporter wouldn't care to see them and c) even if he did they would have been cut out of the article.

He wasn't saying without a doubt THIS IS THE LAW AND WHAT I SAY IS TRUE but simply voiced the problems with porting an MMO onto a console. He never said this happened on this date and this is true about this. There was no need for facts.

Now, if you want me to talk about your posts in detail I will...it seems everyone in this forum wants huge page long point for point arguments.



ascorbic wrote:
I found it it astonishing how backwards the Blizzard rep came off in that article (read it on another site earlier today.) He wonders if he'd have to ship people KB/Ms to support existing interfaces, when all three current machines out have standard usb ports (ps2 too!) and could use any existing peripherals in the market today.


That has little to no impact on what he said. He posed a valid concern.

ascorbic wrote:
He speaks as though everyone has a teeny HDD though the majority of HDD equipped consoles have plenty of room for a MMO and space to spare. That's his "Bigger Issue" and it's one that has been manuvered successfully for two generations now! He makes a correct statement that not all 360s come with a HDD, but ignores the fact that zero PS2s had one and a sucessful market was found.


It's a valid concern. Just because one company managed to get around that problem doesn't mean it was easy and now everyone can do it. The size of the current HDDs are still a concern...something you have to work with...something you have to put people on to think about and pay to develop.

ascorbic wrote:
He then postulates that because Sony and MS receive a portion of software sales that they would demand a piece of subscription fees as well. He doesn't say this has happened, he says it will happen, and doesn't sound like he's speaking from a position of knowledge on the issue. Perhaps MS has made a demand. Perhaps Sony has as well. But I'm dubious of his claim,


Again, it's a valid concern. Does he even need to say that they have done it before? Does he need proof? No, Sony and MS want to milk everything as much as they can asking for a portion of the subscription is only logical and something to worry about if you are going to port a game to a console.

ascorbic wrote:
especially with the number of MMOs coming in the next 18 months to the PS3.


I'm curious, which MMOs are you talking about. I only know of one for sure. The rest are either a possibility or it is a game developed by sony.

ascorbic wrote:
Making a cross platform MMO has its challenges, to be sure.


Yes. This is the point of the whole article.

ascorbic wrote:
But He made it sound like a herculean effort


No, he didn't. He simply listed the challenges and said those are the reasons you don't see a lot of console MMOs.

ascorbic wrote:
when we've already had a top quality console MMO on the market for over 5 years now,


Only one, that doesn't eliminate any challenges.

ascorbic wrote:
on antiquated equipment,


with antiquated graphics

ascorbic wrote:
and there are many more on the horizon for this generation.


That doesn't even matter. You make it sound as if a game can't possibly be made if there aren't any challenges and since there might be some games made in the near future made on a console there can't possibly be any challenges in doing so.

ascorbic wrote:
He simply came off as whining about limitations his competitors have maneuvered without complaint. A Poor Show.


Well, I disgree and, honestly, I don't see how you get that from the little excepts they show us. He's simply answering the question of why there aren't many MMOs on consoles and giving some of the challenges.


ascorbic wrote:
So, from reading through the entire thread, we are just assuming that Pardo's subscription statement was true? No one is questioning it at all. We are taking it as absolute fact?

XI has been around for sometime... in all that time, has anyone ever found evidence Sony, (or Microsoft) has ever received payment for all or part of the XI userbase? I mean I've seen articles through the years dissecting SE's financial statements, but never heard this revelation before. Not one whisper. Pardo never said any had ever asked him for a piece of any subscription, or that he had knowledge of it happening. It seemed pretty clear to me that was his assumption. Perhaps even an educated assumption, but not fact.

I could honestly see this kind of situation being the hurdle that is holding back any progress for a XIV port on the 360. Perhaps, MS now wants a piece of the pie they were willing to pass by to get XI on their new console ASAP. but we have no evidence of that yet, and we have even less reason to believe that's the case with Sony.


I've already gone over this. There's no need for proof of anything. It's simply a very valid concern as you yourself admit in the third paragraph. This is a simple matter of profit over expense. If too many challenges crop up to port a game over to a console it will simply become too expensive to do.


Now, I'm not probably not going to respond to anything you say after this. Not because I think you are too stupid or too smart to give an answer to but because I don't care about you as I'm sure you don't care about me so let's cut the pretenses and just leave it as it is.
#38 Jun 24 2009 at 9:32 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,576 posts
Skeptic wrote:
Quote:
I don't think it's an issue of them being unable to port and make it profitable...I think it's an issue of whether or not it would be worth it.


Why wouldn't it be?


Because it costs big money to port, test, and market a PC game for consoles, and the hardware and software requirements that go along with playing WoW as it currently exists would mean that not everyone who has a basic console would be able to play. Throw in the loss of part of the subscription fee to the console manufacturer and a developer has to wonder if the resources to make the port happen wouldn't be better spent enhancing the existing game for its current platform.
#39 Jun 24 2009 at 9:45 PM Rating: Default
**
555 posts
Quote:
and the hardware and software requirements that go along with playing WoW as it currently exists would mean that not everyone who has a basic console would be able to play.


So you're basically saying a 80GB PS3 would not be able to run WoW if it was brought to console? Just making sure I'm reading this correct. I thought I read that it was at 10GB as we speak ::shrug::. Maybe I'm understanding this wrong.
____________________________
Retired 75PLD
Hades Server
Obsidian Linkshell

WoW Fails.


#40 Jun 24 2009 at 9:51 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,576 posts
Skeptic wrote:
Quote:
and the hardware and software requirements that go along with playing WoW as it currently exists would mean that not everyone who has a basic console would be able to play.


So you're basically saying a 80GB PS3 would not be able to run WoW if it was brought to console? Just making sure I'm reading this correct. I thought I read that it was at 10GB as we speak ::shrug::. Maybe I'm understanding this wrong.


Not everyone has an 80GB PS3. If someone has a PS3 with a smaller HDD, how much of it are they willing to set aside for one game? Not everyone has an Xbox with a hard drive. Not everyone has a keyboard and mouse, or maybe they have a keyboard/mouse for their PC but don't want to tote it back and forth to their console.

Porting addons for WoW would likely be an issue. Managing voice chat would also be an issue; hardly anyone uses the in-game voice chat because Ventrilo offers much better quality. How is that going to work with the console market, and how many console players are going to stick around if they reach end-game and can't get involved in end-game content because nobody wants console players who can't use critical addons or VC?

So ya, you were understanding things wrong.
#41 Jun 24 2009 at 9:53 PM Rating: Good
*
192 posts
It's weird that they cite 10gigs as being too big for a console installation; I know some PS3 games that have installed nearly that much as is.

But it seems like a valid list of concerns. Just...concerns that Square Enix is already pretty experienced at addressing.

I just pray to god Square never goes, "Oops, FFXIV is like 12gigs...guess we shouldn't add anything major to the game because PS3 harddrives sometimes come a bit small."
____________________________
The Other Castle
#42 Jun 24 2009 at 9:54 PM Rating: Default
**
555 posts
I guess we'll see how good things go with FFXIV.
____________________________
Retired 75PLD
Hades Server
Obsidian Linkshell

WoW Fails.


#43 Jun 25 2009 at 12:06 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
AureliusSir wrote:
Clicky.

Discuss.


They gloss over the reason True Fantasy Online was canceled. The game was complete and in late beta but MS and Level 5 just didn't get along partly due to differing corporate cultures and party due to Level 5 wanting to make a Japanese style MMO (read: grinding like FFXI) and Microsoft wanting it to be more "western" (read: easier like WoW) and the whole thing fell apart.

In the end Level 5 said that they would never work with Microsoft again.


Edited, Jun 25th 2009 5:09am by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#44 Jun 25 2009 at 12:06 AM Rating: Good
**
495 posts
Quote:
It's weird that they cite 10gigs as being too big for a console installation; I know some PS3 games that have installed nearly that much as is.

But it seems like a valid list of concerns. Just...concerns that Square Enix is already pretty experienced at addressing.

I just pray to god Square never goes, "Oops, FFXIV is like 12gigs...guess we shouldn't add anything major to the game because PS3 harddrives sometimes come a bit small."


This is actually one of the reasons im secretly hoping it won't come to the 360. The PS3 HDD can be upgraded just as easily if not easier than a normal desktop computer so it would be stupid for them to worry over that... the 360 on the other hand... although it has upgrades for HDD, they are all proprietary and cannot be easily upgraded over time and directly rely on microsoft to keep up support (like was the issue with the PS2 HDD) unlike the PS3 which essentialy has it so any laptop based HDD can switch with the current HDD.

And yeah the complaint over HDD space did seem a bit stupid to me from the blizzard representative but understandable considering the console market has a lot of people that want the game to work ready out of the box and just the 'idea' of another item to buy just to get one game to play on it might make it harder for people to enjoy the experience. Also it seems like Blizzard seems almost scared to venture into uncharted waters if they are worried over control issues. I don't know a single person that plays FFXI without a keyboard and that certainly wasn't included with FFXI when people bought it... than again the actual movement/camera and macro system was designed around an analog controler so I guess I can understand the pressure... I just honestly don't see any realistic hurdles to WoW going to consoles unless it really is them worrying over revenue fees being placed on a monthly subscription fee. And with how big the game is now for membership fee... even a 1-3% fee on their revenue or profit would probably not be worthwhile to send to consoles lol. They are just too big now.
#45 Jun 25 2009 at 12:10 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,218 posts
Allegory wrote:
Karelyn wrote:
They would care if the different console makers demand significantly different portion cuts of the subscription profit.

You're missing the point.

SE doesn't care what I do with my subscription after I purchase it. They don't care if I play on the pc, if I play on the console, or even if I don't play the game at all. All they care about is how much it costs them to produce and how much they are earning. It costs them the same to produce a game for the console that I play on the console as it does to produce a game for the console that I play on the pc. There is no reason to attempt to tie revenue to how the customer uses the product, it only makes sense to tie it to how they purchased the product.


You're confused. It isn't SE that's trying to tie the revenue to a platform. It's Sony or Microsoft. S-E would prefer to just pay the one time platform fee based on the actual box sales, but that's not how Sony and Microsoft are set up.

Apparently they have a palatable agreement with Sony, but either Microsoft wants more money than Sony, or they want to impose some other restrictions, or maybe S-E just feels like Microsoft needs them more than they need MS, so they're playing hard ball with Microsoft.

It doesn't matter what you or I think makes sense. What matters is, S-E thinks that supporting a certain platform would bring in X number of additional users, and if the fees they can collect from those additional users are not greater than the cost of supporting that platform, then they're not going to do it.
#46 Jun 25 2009 at 12:22 AM Rating: Default
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
croythegreat wrote:
Quote:
It's weird that they cite 10gigs as being too big for a console installation; I know some PS3 games that have installed nearly that much as is.

But it seems like a valid list of concerns. Just...concerns that Square Enix is already pretty experienced at addressing.

I just pray to god Square never goes, "Oops, FFXIV is like 12gigs...guess we shouldn't add anything major to the game because PS3 harddrives sometimes come a bit small."


This is actually one of the reasons im secretly hoping it won't come to the 360. The PS3 HDD can be upgraded just as easily if not easier than a normal desktop computer so it would be stupid for them to worry over that... the 360 on the other hand... although it has upgrades for HDD, they are all proprietary and cannot be easily upgraded over time and directly rely on microsoft to keep up support (like was the issue with the PS2 HDD) unlike the PS3 which essentialy has it so any laptop based HDD can switch with the current HDD.

And yeah the complaint over HDD space did seem a bit stupid to me from the blizzard representative but understandable considering the console market has a lot of people that want the game to work ready out of the box and just the 'idea' of another item to buy just to get one game to play on it might make it harder for people to enjoy the experience. Also it seems like Blizzard seems almost scared to venture into uncharted waters if they are worried over control issues. I don't know a single person that plays FFXI without a keyboard and that certainly wasn't included with FFXI when people bought it... than again the actual movement/camera and macro system was designed around an analog controler so I guess I can understand the pressure... I just honestly don't see any realistic hurdles to WoW going to consoles unless it really is them worrying over revenue fees being placed on a monthly subscription fee. And with how big the game is now for membership fee... even a 1-3% fee on their revenue or profit would probably not be worthwhile to send to consoles lol. They are just too big now.


Blizzard is made up of die hard PC gamers. They Do Not Like Consoles.
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#47 Jun 25 2009 at 12:37 AM Rating: Good
*
192 posts
Lobivopis wrote:

Blizzard is made up of die hard PC gamers. They Do Not Like Consoles.


Now that you mention it, they haven't actually put any of their major games on consoles since, say, a Warcraft port for the PSX, have they?
____________________________
The Other Castle
#48 Jun 25 2009 at 9:44 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,159 posts
I think the biggest problem isn't so much that MMO users don't like consoles but the majority of console users don't like MMOs. That was especially the case several years ago and is still a slight problem we have now. The biggest advantage FFXI had was the fact that the past several FF games had been on the playstation. Hardcore FF fans all have playstations as that is the only way to play their games now (that still ****** me off btw...they really need to port them to pc again). That is an automatic fan base built into a console that they cannot ignore. Other games can't say as much. There is no guarantee any other MMO will sell on a console and so they are not willing to take the risk of porting it. It's really as simple as that.
#49 Jun 25 2009 at 9:48 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
777 posts
Skeptic wrote:
Quote:
I don't think it's an issue of them being unable to port and make it profitable...I think it's an issue of whether or not it would be worth it.


Why wouldn't it be?

I'll put it in plain English.

Microsoft would demand a fairly significant cut of subscription profits. Likely a number significant enough that it would not be worth the additional development and support costs.

People forget that when Blizzard has 11 million subscribers, that isn't a flat $165 million a month profit. There is significant costs in maintaining the game, providing customer support, producing new content, yada yada. Upkeep costs are very significant.

And it's very well possible that the upkeep costs of moving onto a console, would cost Blizzard more than the additional gross profit that it would bring in... Or be so little net profit, as it would be silly to bother with.
____________________________
KUMQUATS
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 15 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (15)