Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Could releasing FFXIV on PS3 in March backfire in SE face?Follow

#52 Jul 06 2010 at 10:48 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,218 posts
Orsnoire wrote:
Quote:
None of that have anything to do with money. If SE was a new company then yes you would have a point, but SE makes enough money. They don't do any of that because they don't want too, and because FFXI has peaked. The amount of player shave no direct correlation on any unless the game didn't have enough players and was considered dieing. SE still makes a profit on FFXI, and what they decide to add to not add is there decision. Only thing that changes if SE was more successful is the amount of money in SE's pocket. Blizzard and SE are too[sic] very different companies.


I respectfully disagree. You may think that FF XI makes SE enough money, but the simple truth is ~200,000-500,000 subscribers for a game as expensive to develop as FF XI is an abject failure in the MMO market. SE knows this. The only reason they continue to "profit" is because the developers have backed off from serious new development for the game.

.


I'd really like to see you back up that assertion with some numbers. By that standard, every MMO, ever, has been an abject failure, with the exception of WoW.

Obviously that can't be the case, considering how many MMOs are still being made and how much money is being poured into them. I'm also wondering where you got the idea that FFXI was expensive to develop or maintain.

By pretty much any objective standard, FFXI has been a huge success (which is why S-E is making a sequel), maintaining around half a million subs for most of its lifetime. Compared to WoW that might be small, but when you consider that the revenue is almost pure profit, it's a major financial windfall.

That's not to say that FFXIV isn't aiming higher, or doesn't cost more than FFXI, or any of that. I'm sure S-E would love to duplicate WoW's numbers, but hopefully they also realize that without radically changing the land scape of how MMOs are played, they're not going to accomplish that. If FFXIV winds up with even a million long terms subs, I think it has to be considered a great success.

Edited, Jul 6th 2010 12:55pm by KarlHungis
#53Orsnoire, Posted: Jul 06 2010 at 11:02 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Do you know how much it costs to develop an MMO, particularly one like WoW, EQ 2 or FF XI? Hmm...didn't think so.
#54 Jul 06 2010 at 11:26 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
I don't think anyone is suggesting that FFXI failed to generate profits for SE. All I think that needs to be said is that SE could of done a lot more with FFXI if they had more income(subscribers) to off set their costs of running it. For FFXIV to par well with other MMO's currently on the market, it will have to take a piece of their collective pie to do so. That means FFXI, WoW, Aion, etc.
#55 Jul 06 2010 at 11:29 AM Rating: Decent
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I don't think anyone is suggesting that FFXI failed to generate profits for SE. All I think that needs to be said is that SE could of done a lot more with FFXI if they had more income(subscribers) to off set their costs of running it. For FFXIV to par well with other MMO's currently on the market, it will have to take a piece of their collective pie to do so. That means FFXI, WoW, Aion, etc.


Exactly. Games that fail to generate new and lasting subscribers are generally games that start failing to produce new engaging content. It's no coincidence that FF XI hasn't had a real expansion to the game in years (AKA before WotG).
____________________________
WoW:
80 Druid/Warrior/Priest/Shaman/Death Knight/Paladin/Mage/Hunter, 60 Warlock
Final Fantasy XI:
75 DRG, 60 PLD, 43 SCH Rank 10 Windurst, Rank 9 Sandoria, Rank 10 Bastok
Owned and completed:
FF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12
#56 Jul 06 2010 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
Orsnoire wrote:
Do you know how much it costs to develop an MMO, particularly one like WoW, EQ 2 or FF XI? Hmm...didn't think so.

When you start talking about development time, uptime, and server loads, you have to look at it in terms of business. It's not about whether 100,000 hard core people are paying and playing the game anymore. It's about maintaining server load and ensuring that development dollars are well spent in the sense that they're attracting new subscribers.

tl;dr: if a game's servers are merging/closing, the game is failing. It really is that simple.


MMOs have a wide range of costs. The most expensive MMO of all time is WoW. By the time The Old Rebublic is launched it will probably surpass WoW by a wide margin. We have no information about what FFXIV has cost to develop.

From start of development to launch, WoW cost about 63 million dollars, according to Vivendi (Blizzard's parent company at the time). Since then they've spent some thing like 200 million (this number was floated last year) but most of that was in support and maintenance rather than ongoing development costs (in other words, that number would be much lower for a smaller user base).

Let's just assume that FFXI spent half as much in each category (likely it's much less than this). Over the first 5 years of the game that would be a total cost of 131.5 million dollars. In that same time, ignoring box sales, they took in around $90 million a year in revenue (assuming 15 dollars a month, no idea how many alts the average player has). 450 million dollars minus 131.5 in costs, and you're looking at over 300 million dollars in pre tax profit from an initial investment of around 30 million. Even if you assume that their total development budget matched WoW's dollar for dollar you're still looking at a nice tidy profit of around 200 million off an initial cost of 60ish (and I guarantee you they were a lot closer to half of that).

Now, throw in all of the money that they'e made selling expansions and mini expansions (whose costs are already included in the development budget) and maybe you can start to imagine just how much money they're making.

MMOs are a great business to be in, as long as you can keep a steady user base. It's not about reaching millions of customers, it's about keeping hundreds of thousands for years at a time. If you can keep millions of course, then you can make literally billions of dollars, and every one wants to make billions, but a small money tree is still a money tree, for as long as you can keep it alive.



Edited, Jul 6th 2010 1:38pm by KarlHungis
#57 Jul 06 2010 at 11:38 AM Rating: Default
Sage
*
188 posts
Let me tell you, SE is really putting the screws to me with this.

I was planning on just getting it for PS3, but then they go ahead and announce the delay, and I don't wanna miss out on the first freaking six months of the game, so of course I need to buy parts for a new computer because my average one won't play such a ridiculously demanding game. So of course now I'm frantically trying to get a job just because SE can't release the god **** game simultaneously like they promised, or at least have the god damned courtesy to announce it sooner than 3 months before the release date.
#58 Jul 06 2010 at 11:40 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that FFXI failed to generate profits for SE. All I think that needs to be said is that SE could of done a lot more with FFXI if they had more income(subscribers) to off set their costs of running it. For FFXIV to par well with other MMO's currently on the market, it will have to take a piece of their collective pie to do so. That means FFXI, WoW, Aion, etc.


Correct. Here's what I'm worried will happen - they are rushing this to market with extremely high requirements and no real platform options and the only people who are going to play this are the die hard FF folks from XI. The casual market they claimed they were trying to aim for isn't going to be able to (or will want to) upgrade their hardware just to play this mmo. Ps3 is delayed and Xbox 360 probably isn't going to happen at all. They already have to combat the stigma of XI and I'm sure that the 18 hour marathon battle will be fresh in everyone's mind when this hits the shelves (in fact, I would be very surprised if the reviews of this game don't mention that legendary fight).

They are only going to get a fraction of the XI people, because they don't want to move, and they will only get a fraction of the pc people, because they don't want to (or can't) upgrade\leave their current mmo, and they won't be getting any console people at all.

The end result - this launch isn't going to go well at all for them. If the game isn't ready, they should just release it next year. This whole staggering of this and that just sounds like they are testing waters - *Hmm, can we drop the consoles altogether and just release on PC? Let's see what kind of numbers we get and then decide on the Ps3 next year*.

Shady.
#59 Jul 06 2010 at 11:57 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Correct. Here's what I'm worried will happen - they are rushing this to market with extremely high requirements and no real platform options and the only people who are going to play this are the die hard FF folks from XI. The casual market they claimed they were trying to aim for isn't going to be able to (or will want to) upgrade their hardware just to play this mmo. Ps3 is delayed and Xbox 360 probably isn't going to happen at all. They already have to combat the stigma of XI and I'm sure that the 18 hour marathon battle will be fresh in everyone's mind when this hits the shelves (in fact, I would be very surprised if the reviews of this game don't mention that legendary fight).

They are only going to get a fraction of the XI people, because they don't want to move, and they will only get a fraction of the pc people, because they don't want to (or can't) upgrade\leave their current mmo, and they won't be getting any console people at all.

The end result - this launch isn't going to go well at all for them. If the game isn't ready, they should just release it next year. This whole staggering of this and that just sounds like they are testing waters - *Hmm, can we drop the consoles altogether and just release on PC? Let's see what kind of numbers we get and then decide on the Ps3 next year*.


I couldn't agree more, and this is what is concerning me about FF XIV already also. I mean, ****, I've been watching this game develop since last year when it was announced with first exhilaration, then excitement, then anticipation, and finally trepidation. SE just seems to be up to its "old tricks" with too much going into this game. Granted, they reduced the absurd PC requirements recently, but then they went and made it worse by closing off the route of consoles for those who don't want to upgrade their REALLY old machines. To make it worse, their design philosophy is ambiguous at best, and smacks too much of FF XI clone at worst. This appeals to the rabid base of XI players, but face it guys, the paltry subscriptions FF XI currently has are nowhere near what's needed to maintain a great game and produce top of the line content.

If SE keeps on the road they're currently travelling, I'm just going to hold my nose and go play Cataclysm this fall, with great disappointment. The initial interviews and design philosophy they were hinting at last year was engaging and exciting. Everything we're getting now ranges from /sigh to /meh. I just hope that the actual game is better.
____________________________
WoW:
80 Druid/Warrior/Priest/Shaman/Death Knight/Paladin/Mage/Hunter, 60 Warlock
Final Fantasy XI:
75 DRG, 60 PLD, 43 SCH Rank 10 Windurst, Rank 9 Sandoria, Rank 10 Bastok
Owned and completed:
FF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12
#60 Jul 06 2010 at 12:05 PM Rating: Decent
*
73 posts
Hey Cesnoire you're so far off the mark

I FF11 wasnt a success you really think they are going to release another mmo with similar/identical races , classes, art design etc
If FF11 wasnt a success SE would have either not made another mmo or switched it up completely.


Do you want to tell us how much it costs to develop an mmo? And then count up and estimate SE's earnings over the last 8 years of many of those years where FF11 had close to 500,000 subscribers then calculate how much SE lost and then enlighten us?
Because until then me and everyone else are going to assume games like EQ and FF11 were financially successful because they devoloped sequels and expansions . Because nobody is buying your scary secret number about how much mmo 's cost to develop.

By the way there is an old devoloper diary / interview on Everquest and the dev team on youtube and they go on and on about how successful the game was.
____________________________
BLM-75 NIN 75 WAR 70
Odin
#61 Jul 06 2010 at 12:09 PM Rating: Default
12 posts
If the game is good PS3 owners will buy it, plain and simple. Doesn't matter how much whining goes on. If the game is gets bad feedback and loses 50% of it's playerbase then it's destined for failure anyway and it doesn't matter. And really, there are plenty of people out there with good enough computers. I built my budget gaming computer 2 years ago and it easily meets the requirements. How many people went out and bought games like WAR and AoC and those games also had high requirements at the time of release. Granted those games failed, but it wasn't because not enough people purchased the game.
#62 Jul 06 2010 at 12:17 PM Rating: Decent
*
73 posts
And now you come around and admit that FF11 and EQ and a host of other games made money , but you know what? You just said those type of games cant be successful .
Well if they turned a profit they were successful.

Your other argument about they cant afford to release new content.

Really? I played ff11 for years . I never found it lacking for new content but now all of a sudden ff14 will lack new content because they wont be able to afford it or something..... yeh ..ok

Edited, Jul 6th 2010 2:23pm by piglato
____________________________
BLM-75 NIN 75 WAR 70
Odin
#63 Jul 06 2010 at 12:22 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Hey Cesnoire you're so far off the mark

I FF11 wasnt a success you really think they are going to release another mmo with similar/identical races , classes, art design etc
If FF11 wasnt a success SE would have either not made another mmo or switched it up completely.


Do you want to tell us how much it costs to develop an mmo? And then count up and estimate SE's earnings over the last 8 years of many of those years where FF11 had close to 500,000 subscribers then calculate how much SE lost and then enlighten us?
Because until then me and everyone else are going to assume games like EQ and FF11 were financially successful because they devoloped sequels and expansions . Because nobody is buying your scary secret number about how much mmo 's cost to develop.

By the way there is an old devoloper diary / interview on Everquest and the dev team on youtube and they go on and on about how successful the game was.


/sigh is all I can say. So, according to your own reasoning, the recent "addons" that FF XI has done are quality development?

Yeah.

Oh, and the closing/merging servers all over the place on EQ and other games don't indicate problems with subscribers/profitability either, do they?

/facepalm
____________________________
WoW:
80 Druid/Warrior/Priest/Shaman/Death Knight/Paladin/Mage/Hunter, 60 Warlock
Final Fantasy XI:
75 DRG, 60 PLD, 43 SCH Rank 10 Windurst, Rank 9 Sandoria, Rank 10 Bastok
Owned and completed:
FF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12
#64 Jul 06 2010 at 12:22 PM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
Okay, rather than simply guess at what FFXI cost to develop, I went and did some quick research. Cost was between 16 and 24 million dollars which included the cost of PlayOnline, which was originally supposed to act as infrastructure for other online titles, but has only ever been used for FFXI and Tetra Master.

Source:
http://ps2.ign.com/articles/359/359081p1.html

Note also that they didn't expect the game to be nearly as successful as it was, hoping to become profitable after five years time (a goal which they obviously destroyed as soon as they expanded to PC and North America).

Even if we assume they blew another 10 million on localization and the PC port, the game was still cheap to make compared to what they made from it.
#65 Jul 06 2010 at 12:25 PM Rating: Decent
@KarlHungis

You forget the enormous costs of ongoing development time, server uptime, marketing, billing, etc. that all go into the game as well. It doesn't JUST cost the initial development budget, which ultimately is just a drop in the bucket of the overall cost to maintain and run a good MMO.

Now, I get it. You guys are huge FF XI fans. Well, so am I. But that doesn't prevent me from having a realistic view of how much of the MMO market that FF XI DIDN'T get. The game is struggling, and has been struggling for years. I wish it were not the case, and I wish that they had more money to spend on real FF XI development, but it is what it is.
____________________________
WoW:
80 Druid/Warrior/Priest/Shaman/Death Knight/Paladin/Mage/Hunter, 60 Warlock
Final Fantasy XI:
75 DRG, 60 PLD, 43 SCH Rank 10 Windurst, Rank 9 Sandoria, Rank 10 Bastok
Owned and completed:
FF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12
#66 Jul 06 2010 at 12:27 PM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
Orsnoire wrote:
Quote:
Hey Cesnoire you're so far off the mark

I FF11 wasnt a success you really think they are going to release another mmo with similar/identical races , classes, art design etc
If FF11 wasnt a success SE would have either not made another mmo or switched it up completely.


Do you want to tell us how much it costs to develop an mmo? And then count up and estimate SE's earnings over the last 8 years of many of those years where FF11 had close to 500,000 subscribers then calculate how much SE lost and then enlighten us?
Because until then me and everyone else are going to assume games like EQ and FF11 were financially successful because they devoloped sequels and expansions . Because nobody is buying your scary secret number about how much mmo 's cost to develop.

By the way there is an old devoloper diary / interview on Everquest and the dev team on youtube and they go on and on about how successful the game was.


/sigh is all I can say. So, according to your own reasoning, the recent "addons" that FF XI has done are quality development?

Yeah.

Oh, and the closing/merging servers all over the place on EQ and other games don't indicate problems with subscribers/profitability either, do they?

/facepalm


Obviously, fewer subscribers = fewer profits, but beyond that I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The fact that Everquest still exists gives you some insight into how few subscribers you need in order to keep making a profit. At no point past initial development has EQ ever done anything except turn a high profit margin. Server mergers typically have more to do with giving the remaining players a satisfying social experience than minimizing maintenance costs (which tend to be quite small to begin with). Again, if you want to say that Everquest is much less lucrative today than it was 5 years ago, that's a no brainer, but that doesn't mean that because it's only making a modest profit now that it is an "abject failure."
#68 Jul 06 2010 at 12:35 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Obviously, fewer subscribers = fewer profits, but beyond that I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The fact that Everquest still exists gives you some insight into how few subscribers you need in order to keep making a profit. At no point past initial development has EQ ever done anything except turn a high profit margin. Server mergers typically have more to do with giving the remaining players a satisfying social experience than minimizing maintenance costs (which tend to be quite small to begin with). Again, if you want to say that Everquest is much less lucrative today than it was 5 years ago, that's a no brainer, but that doesn't mean that because it's only making a modest profit now that it is an "abject failure."


What I'm saying, and I realize that this is a fine point (which is a lost cause in forum chatter, isn't it?), is that EQ, like FF XI, had their day of decent development, but because of low profit margins both games suffered from poor continuing development which further hurt the games' longevity. We're discussing apples and oranges. Profit isn't the only measure of success, as much as you and your friend Piglato want to believe. Market share, and profit MARGIN are far better measures of success than simple profitability. If a game isn't at least maintaining subscribership then it's failing, pure and simple. It's not good enough just to keep servers open. You have to be able to produce new and engaging content too.

Face it, FF XI hasn't done that in years.
____________________________
WoW:
80 Druid/Warrior/Priest/Shaman/Death Knight/Paladin/Mage/Hunter, 60 Warlock
Final Fantasy XI:
75 DRG, 60 PLD, 43 SCH Rank 10 Windurst, Rank 9 Sandoria, Rank 10 Bastok
Owned and completed:
FF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12
#69 Jul 06 2010 at 12:37 PM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
Orsnoire wrote:
@KarlHungis

You forget the enormous costs of ongoing development time, server uptime, marketing, billing, etc. that all go into the game as well. It doesn't JUST cost the initial development budget, which ultimately is just a drop in the bucket of the overall cost to maintain and run a good MMO.




Blizzard has stated that the entire cost to run WoW (including development, marketing, servers, bandwidth, customer service, development of additional services like the Armory, expansions, etc) is between 200 and 300 million over the entire 5 1/2 year lifetime of the game. I hope we can agree that the overhead on a game with 10 million users is significantly higher than the overhead on a game with 500k users, so my estimate that S-E has spent half of what Blizzard has spent is extremely pessimistic (in reality they've probably spent much less than half). Even assuming the worst case numbers, they still pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars on an initial investment of less than 30 million, which is a staggeringly high Return on Investment over 5 years.

Quote:

Now, I get it. You guys are huge FF XI fans. Well, so am I. But that doesn't prevent me from having a realistic view of how much of the MMO market that FF XI DIDN'T get. The game is struggling, and has been struggling for years. I wish it were not the case, and I wish that they had more money to spend on real FF XI development, but it is what it is.


Between the two of us I'm the only one who's made any effort to provide real proof and reasoning behind what I'm saying. I've provided numbers and I've walked you through what those numbers mean. If you choose to ignore all of the evidence, that's your choice but don't try to play it off like the ranting of a "fan." That's a non sequitur any way, because all I've said from the start is that you don't need millions of subs to be successful. You can arrive at that conclusion by looking at the numbers, as I've done, or just demonstrating a little common sense and realizing that no one would be trying to make MMOs if they actually needed that many subs, because only a single MMO has ever had those kinds of numbers for more than a few years.

#70 Jul 06 2010 at 12:42 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
Wow you must be @#%^ing stupid, of course the numbers on FF11 and EQ are going to eventually dwindle away the games are 10 years old, moron , they had their time and they were a success .


Now, I realize that you're struggling to stay civil due to no adult supervision, but let me help you out with something:

EQ is over 10 years old.

FF XI came out in NA in October 2003. 2010 - 2003 = 7. 7 =| 10.

Not sure if anywhere in your diatribe you decided to use actual logic, reason, or math. Just to put it in perspective, WoW was released nearly 1 year to the day from FF XI, and hasn't suffered the same fate in terms of dwindling subscriptions. ( Source: http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html) These are old numbers, and by their own admission SE has been hemorrhaging subscriptions recently.

Now, you can live in your dream world of FF XI fanboiery if you want to Piglato, but the simple truth is that FF XIV will have to appeal to a wider audience if they're serious about having a game that can continually produce good content.
____________________________
WoW:
80 Druid/Warrior/Priest/Shaman/Death Knight/Paladin/Mage/Hunter, 60 Warlock
Final Fantasy XI:
75 DRG, 60 PLD, 43 SCH Rank 10 Windurst, Rank 9 Sandoria, Rank 10 Bastok
Owned and completed:
FF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12
#71 Jul 06 2010 at 12:44 PM Rating: Decent
@KarlHungis

You're aruging, again, about profit, not profit margin. They're two WHOLLY different things.

And are you seriously suggesting that FF XI's development hasn't suffered, especially in the past 2-3 years?
____________________________
WoW:
80 Druid/Warrior/Priest/Shaman/Death Knight/Paladin/Mage/Hunter, 60 Warlock
Final Fantasy XI:
75 DRG, 60 PLD, 43 SCH Rank 10 Windurst, Rank 9 Sandoria, Rank 10 Bastok
Owned and completed:
FF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12
#72 Jul 06 2010 at 12:45 PM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
Orsnoire wrote:
Quote:
Obviously, fewer subscribers = fewer profits, but beyond that I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The fact that Everquest still exists gives you some insight into how few subscribers you need in order to keep making a profit. At no point past initial development has EQ ever done anything except turn a high profit margin. Server mergers typically have more to do with giving the remaining players a satisfying social experience than minimizing maintenance costs (which tend to be quite small to begin with). Again, if you want to say that Everquest is much less lucrative today than it was 5 years ago, that's a no brainer, but that doesn't mean that because it's only making a modest profit now that it is an "abject failure."


What I'm saying, and I realize that this is a fine point (which is a lost cause in forum chatter, isn't it?), is that EQ, like FF XI, had their day of decent development, but because of low profit margins both games suffered from poor continuing development which further hurt the games' longevity. We're discussing apples and oranges. Profit isn't the only measure of success, as much as you and your friend Piglato want to believe. Market share, and profit MARGIN are far better measures of success than simple profitability. If a game isn't at least maintaining subscribership then it's failing, pure and simple. It's not good enough just to keep servers open. You have to be able to produce new and engaging content too.

Face it, FF XI hasn't done that in years.


We can agree that FFXI has been in decline for several years now, but it doesn't negate all that came before that. If WoW starts to decline in the next year or two does that mean that it wasn't a sensational success? No, it just means that every thing runs its course in time. I enjoyed WoW immensely for 5 years, but now I don't. It doesn't mean I never enjoyed it.

The bottom line is that whatever failures FFXI has had over the years have not really been the result of financial limitations. Even with "only" half a million subscribers they could have afforded to out spend what Blizzard spent on WoW. All that extra money that Blizzard took in went to line the pockets of their parent company or to fund non WoW development. Very little of it (as a %)has actually been put back into WoW.
#73 Jul 06 2010 at 12:47 PM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
Orsnoire wrote:
@KarlHungis

You're aruging, again, about profit, not profit margin. They're two WHOLLY different things.

And are you seriously suggesting that FF XI's development hasn't suffered, especially in the past 2-3 years?


I'm saying that if it's suffered, it hasn't been because the couldn't afford further development, but because they decided they'd rather put that money in FFXIV or other games instead.

Remember that this all started with you declaring that games with 200k-500k subscribers are "abject failures." By any rational standard (total profits, profit margin, longevity, etc) that's clearly NOT the case.

Where I live, in Chicago, we have this restaurant called Portillos. Now Portillos started out as a single hot dog stand, turned into a restaurant, and then a chain of restaurants, and now the owner **** Portillo owns other restaurant chains. Portillos is, by any objective standard, a massive success, even though if you were to compare it to McDonalds, it wouldn't seem like very much.

FFXIV does not need to be WoW, any more than Portillos needs to be McDonalds. You can be a huge success even when you're not even on the same scale as the biggest success. FFXI, EQ, Ultima Online, EVE, Guild Wars, etc have all been successful MMOs without even approaching the level of WoW, because in the MMO sphere, it's not about the max numbers, it's about having a steady user base that will play for years. FFXIV can be a success with half a million or a million.

Edited, Jul 6th 2010 2:53pm by KarlHungis
#74 Jul 06 2010 at 12:48 PM Rating: Good
*
209 posts
Have any of you been following FFXI? The last 3 expansions have been hack and slash of old zones and quest updates for gear. Why? Because SE doesn't have or doesn't want to put the money into FFXI. If they release ****** add ons for FFXIV instead of a full expansion with new zones I will quit on the spot! Like it or not if FFXIV doesn't have a high subscriber rate then the game will not be successful!

And I also think FFXIV is taking a HUGE risk with releasing early. Sure the will keep the hard core FF fans no matter how bad the bugs are. But the people who are borderline will be quitting in droves. And when they do quit they are going to bad mouth ffxiv like no tomorrow! Which is going to hurt future sales.

A lot of you have been saying FFXIV is going to be like FFXI, but it cant be or its going to fail! The days of getting people to spend 4~8 a day doing leveling, events, and missions are over! I still play FFXI and my server has around 2700+ people on it. But at any given time you will see around 1,200 people on except a few hrs in the am when in JP prime time. And even the JP prime time only lasts a few hrs. A good portion of the MMOROG player base are older now and have jobs and families. And can no longer sit on a game for hrs on end.
#75 Jul 06 2010 at 12:51 PM Rating: Default
Quote:

The bottom line is that whatever failures FFXI has had over the years have not really been the result of financial limitations. Even with "only" half a million subscribers they could have afforded to out spend what Blizzard spent on WoW. All that extra money that Blizzard took in went to line the pockets of their parent company or to fund non WoW development. Very little of it (as a %)has actually been put back into WoW.


Don't you see that you're making my point for me? The higher the profit margin, the more the company is able to use the proceeds for the MMO to fund their other stand-alone projects that don't have the luxury of subscriptions to pay for the development costs. SE produces TONS more games than Blizzard does. These games sap what little profits that FF XI produces, leaving very little for ongoing development.

You can look at it as lining pockets, or you can look at it as a good business model. Either way, however, game companies who refuse to develop games that take advantage of the "real" MMO gamer market, and not just a niche, are hurting their profit margin and ultimately ******* off their shareholders. If you don't think the shareholders are putting pressure on the developers to take more advantage of the overall market, then you're seriously wearing rose-colored glasses.

How well SE pulls that off remains to be seen, but we can all hope. The upshot for the players is that a game company that accomplishes the task of maintaining a good marketshare and increasing subs over time is a game company that continues to produce good content. We can debate all day long about the design decisions of WoW, but one thing isn't debatable: the new content is good content. The only real complaint people who play WoW regularly have about the new stuff is that it's "too easy".
____________________________
WoW:
80 Druid/Warrior/Priest/Shaman/Death Knight/Paladin/Mage/Hunter, 60 Warlock
Final Fantasy XI:
75 DRG, 60 PLD, 43 SCH Rank 10 Windurst, Rank 9 Sandoria, Rank 10 Bastok
Owned and completed:
FF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12
#76 Jul 06 2010 at 12:56 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,218 posts
Orsnoire wrote:
Quote:

The bottom line is that whatever failures FFXI has had over the years have not really been the result of financial limitations. Even with "only" half a million subscribers they could have afforded to out spend what Blizzard spent on WoW. All that extra money that Blizzard took in went to line the pockets of their parent company or to fund non WoW development. Very little of it (as a %)has actually been put back into WoW.


Don't you see that you're making my point for me?


Your point originally was that games with modest user bases are failures, or at least that's the point that I took issue with, because it's so far removed from reality. Whatever direction you've decided to go in since then, I'm still waiting for you to concede that yes, these modestly sized games are still hugely profitable and have the capability to sustain themselves for as long as players don't leave to play some thing else.

Actually I don't really care if you concede the point because it's virtually undeniable. I'd just like for you to re examine your personal assumptions about what MMOS cost and how that relates to the number of users they need in order to succeed. Having a more realistic view will make for better discussion in the future.



Edited, Jul 6th 2010 3:07pm by KarlHungis
#77 Jul 06 2010 at 1:06 PM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
If you don't think the shareholders are putting pressure on the developers to take more advantage of the overall market, then you're seriously wearing rose-colored glasses.

How well SE pulls that off remains to be seen, but we can all hope.


Well you can already say they have one foot in the grave sort to speak. The insane PC requirements is going to take away Tons of would be subscribers. Part of the reason WOW is so successful is that it will run well on a dinosaur PC. I highly doubt FFXIV will be playable on anything more then a 2 year old PC!

And if you think that the PS3 crowed is going to save the day. You have another thing coming, have a look at the PS forums. And look and at how many people are complaining about paying for PSN Plus. Do you really think they are going to fork over $12.95 a month to play a game?

I just hope with the combination of PC and PS3 players that the game does well enough to get frequent updates and real expansions!
#78 Jul 06 2010 at 1:16 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
Your point originally was that games with modest user bases are failures, or at least that's the point that I took issue with, because it's so far removed from reality. Whatever direction you've decided to go in since then, I'm still waiting for you to concede that yes, these modestly sized games as still hugely profitable and have the capability to sustain themselves for as long as players don't leave to play some thing else.

Actually I don't really care if you concede the point because it's virtually undeniable. I'd just like for you to re examine your personal assumptions about what MMOS cost and how that relates to the number of users they need in order to succeed. Having a more realistic view will make for better discussion in the future.


The point is undeniable that "successful" (in quotes because it's your terminology) games that can't continually produce subscription-generating content are not failures? The logic of that statement is silly, and unfortunately that's the assertion you're making. A game is only successful to the degree it continues to attract people to pay for the subscription, and that is done through developing new content that attracts those subscriptions. What's so hard for you to understand about that?

Oh, and as for the how much MMOs cost thing, I'm not the one with his head in the clouds about development costs. You have no idea about how much the overhead on MMOs is, and how much companies EXPECT in terms of profit margin. I could tell you that I've done the profit analysis of games and extensive business modeling of MMOs for startup companies with my MBA/Business training. I could, but then you'd just /laugh and pretend like I'm making it up to make yourself feel better. See, there's no point discussing the actual numbers because everything you've stated betrays an inability to look beyond the basic profitable/unprofitable barrier into the numbers that companies really look at to determine if a project is worthwhile.

Let me distil it into the most oversimplified formula to try and help you understand: when a company devotes resources (be they developers, server space, time, marketing, or money) to a project, they have to determine if those resources are devoted to the most profitable (not just profitable, most profitable) enterprise. If those resources are misallocated, not only does the company lose money, but the shareholders (or those who own the company and have rights to the profits of the company) are losing their assets. The truth is an MMO that is not holding subscribers at the very least, and actually increasing over time, is an unsuccessful enterprise and one that the company is foolish to continue allocating development and other resources to promote.

You can pretend like I don't know what I'm talking about. You can even pretend like I'm making up credentials, but the proof is in the pudding: FF XI development has been poor at best for years, which is evidence enough that SE's opportunity cost analysis has shown that the low subscription numbers and negative subscription growth don't merit the allocation of more resources to that project.
____________________________
WoW:
80 Druid/Warrior/Priest/Shaman/Death Knight/Paladin/Mage/Hunter, 60 Warlock
Final Fantasy XI:
75 DRG, 60 PLD, 43 SCH Rank 10 Windurst, Rank 9 Sandoria, Rank 10 Bastok
Owned and completed:
FF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12
#79 Jul 06 2010 at 1:19 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,587 posts
I don't see it as an issue in the least. What other great MMO alternatives are there for PS3 players? Free Realms?

Anyone who has the capabilities to play other MMO's like WoW, Star Wars, Guild Wars, whatever will just buy the PC version since you need a PC to play practically all of them. SE is targeting a completely different market with the PS3 release and pretty much has ZERO competition to deal with in it.

Edited, Jul 6th 2010 2:22pm by Harri
____________________________
Harri
80BLU/80BST/76RNG/75THF/75WHM/60SCH
100+3 Bonecraft
#80 Jul 06 2010 at 1:21 PM Rating: Default
*
209 posts
Quote:
You can even pretend like I'm making up credentials, but the proof is in the pudding: FF XI development has been poor at best for years, which is evidence enough that SE's opportunity cost analysis has shown that the low subscription numbers and negative subscription growth don't merit the allocation of more resources to that project.
I totally agree the last 2 years of mini updates are lack luster a best. Quests for gear and hack and slash of a few old zones. What a joke!

Edited, Jul 6th 2010 3:21pm by TheBSTGuy
#81 Jul 06 2010 at 1:24 PM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
What other great MMO alternatives are there for PS3 players?
Look at history, look at how many PS2 there were when FFXI was released on PS2. And how many of the bought and played FFXI? Not many! Console gamers are not interested in paying a monthly fee for a game. Plain and simple!
#82 Jul 06 2010 at 1:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Orsnoire wrote:
Quote:
None of that have anything to do with money. If SE was a new company then yes you would have a point, but SE makes enough money. They don't do any of that because they don't want too, and because FFXI has peaked. The amount of player shave no direct correlation on any unless the game didn't have enough players and was considered dieing. SE still makes a profit on FFXI, and what they decide to add to not add is there decision. Only thing that changes if SE was more successful is the amount of money in SE's pocket. Blizzard and SE are too[sic] very different companies.


I respectfully disagree. You may think that FF XI makes SE enough money, but the simple truth is ~200,000-500,000 subscribers for a game as expensive to develop as FF XI is an abject failure in the MMO market. SE knows this. The only reason they continue to "profit" is because the developers have backed off from serious new development for the game.

The simple truth is that for FF XIV to be successful, SE will need to have a much larger target market, and engage in development practices and game production that not only engages that market but keeps them playing the game for a long period of time. I realize that many of the rabid FF XI fanbase doesn't want to hear this, but SE is aiming in the millions of subs for FF XIV, and as such, if they make FF XIV a niche game the way that FF XI was a niche game, you can expect to see more of the same in terms of second-rate development for addons/expansions.



Can you provide any data to back that up? How expensive exactly was FFXI to develop? How much have they profited from the game? How has, as you claim "backed off from serious new development" affect their profits? How do you know it's affected their profits at all?

It's fun to make up facts, isn't it?
#83 Jul 06 2010 at 1:26 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
Can you provide any data to back that up? How expensive exactly was FFXI to develop? How much have they profited from the game? How has, as you claim "backed off from serious new development" affect their profits? How do you know it's affected their profits at all?

It's fun to make up facts, isn't it?


Because SE intended to lose subscriptions over the past 2-3 years, right? They WANTED to have a game that has fewer subscriptions, and hurt their profit margin, correct?

It's fun to make up new logic rules, isn't it?

Also, way to post without bothering to read the thread! ;thumbsup;

Edited, Jul 6th 2010 3:28pm by Orsnoire
____________________________
WoW:
80 Druid/Warrior/Priest/Shaman/Death Knight/Paladin/Mage/Hunter, 60 Warlock
Final Fantasy XI:
75 DRG, 60 PLD, 43 SCH Rank 10 Windurst, Rank 9 Sandoria, Rank 10 Bastok
Owned and completed:
FF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12
#84 Jul 06 2010 at 1:26 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,587 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
What other great MMO alternatives are there for PS3 players?
Look at history, look at how many PS2 there were when FFXI was released on PS2. And how many of the bought and played FFXI? Not many! Console gamers are not interested in paying a monthly fee for a game. Plain and simple!
Then why the thread and the big concern over the late release on the PS3? Hardly any PS3 players want to play an MMO anyway according to you. Seems pretty clear that SE knows that they are going go get the majority of their player base from the PC community if they are focusing on getting that done first.
____________________________
Harri
80BLU/80BST/76RNG/75THF/75WHM/60SCH
100+3 Bonecraft
#85 Jul 06 2010 at 1:27 PM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
Can you provide any data to back that up? How expensive exactly was FFXI to develop? How much have they profited from the game? How has, as you claim "backed off from serious new development" affect their profits? How do you know it's affected their profits at all?


FFXI is still making profits or SE would have closed down the servers long ago. But the game is suffering form lack of new content.
#86 Jul 06 2010 at 1:31 PM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
Then why the thread and the big concern over the late release on the PS3? Hardly any PS3 players want to play an MMO anyway according to you. Seems pretty clear that SE knows that they are going go get the majority of their player base from the PC community if they are focusing on getting that done first.


Because this isn't 2004 when there were just a few mmorpgs out there. There are many now and FFXIV is going to have stiff competition from WOW and even worse from Bioware. Anything Bioware touches is golden! FFXIV has a high chance to fail, and I do not want to see the game fail!

Edited, Jul 6th 2010 3:32pm by TheBSTGuy
#87 Jul 06 2010 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,587 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
Then why the thread and the big concern over the late release on the PS3? Hardly any PS3 players want to play an MMO anyway according to you. Seems pretty clear that SE knows that they are going go get the majority of their player base from the PC community if they are focusing on getting that done first.


Because this isn't 2004 when there were just a few mmorpgs out there. There are many now and FFXIV is going to have stiff competition from WOW and even worse from Bioware. Anything Bioware touches is golden! FFXIV has a high chance to fail, and I do not want to see the game fail!

Edited, Jul 6th 2010 3:32pm by TheBSTGuy
How does any of that affect the PS3 release? You can't play WoW or Star Wars Old Republic on the PS3. If ANYTHING outside of gameplay is going to hurt FFXIV, it's the ridiculous PC requirements for the game. Someone who only has a PS3 has exactly one option if they want to play an MMO, FFXIV. They can't play another MMO without buying a decent PC.

It's the PC crowd that SE has to go after hard and heavy, and when they force people to have super rigs in order to even play the game, even though their current mediocre system will play WoW or Star Wars without any problems, they are specing themselves right out of a large section of the gaming market.
____________________________
Harri
80BLU/80BST/76RNG/75THF/75WHM/60SCH
100+3 Bonecraft
#88xthunderblazex, Posted: Jul 06 2010 at 1:44 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The PC requirements are low. Stop raging already.
#89 Jul 06 2010 at 1:45 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Success is subjective.

Did XI make SE a boatload of money? Yep. It continues to, despite their arrogance and general hostility toward their subscribers.

Is XI a household name? Not so much. There's a lot of people who don't know what I'm talking about when I say I play Final Fantasy Online, until I say "It's like WoW". Then they understand that it's an MMO.

Does XI get good media coverage regularly? *chuckle* No - the negative ones outweigh the positive ones to the point that XI is the laughing stock of the mmo world. People don't understand why we punish ourselves (Sometimes I wonder, as well). You may not want to hear it, but it's the reality of the situation.

I don't really care how much money they have made over the years. They have more or less stopped meaningful development on XI, and I've more or less stopped playing. A lot of my friends have stopped playing. A lot of people I started with years ago, got frustrated and stopped playing. They didn't even make it to mid levels before jumping ship.

The measure of success for a game shouldn't be how much money a company made - it should be how was the game remembered. Sadly, this game will be remembered for things like Pandemonium Warden and the buffs to Absolute Virtue every time a way to kill it was found (because it wasn't the way SE thought it should be played? Dictate much?). XI's legacy isn't exactly positive, and that's the true measure of a game's success.
#90 Jul 06 2010 at 1:47 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
The PC requirements are low. Stop raging already.


2ghz 2core processor is old.

512mb gpu? Nothing special, they've been out for a long time, I had a 256 one when FFXI came out 8 years ago ffs.

2gb RAM? That's been on every PC for a long time.

If you don't have all of the above, it's pretty sad.


I'm a poor unemployed college grad and I still managed to put enough together to have a 3.41ghz quadcore, 16gb ram, 1.8gb gpu PC.


1) yes, the NEW PC requirements are low. Problem is, they haven't gotten the word out very well and people (particularly on these forums) are still trying to assert you have to buy a completely new rig. In all fairness, most people who play MMOs WILL have to buy a new rig.

2) the people who struggle with the decission to buy a new rig are the ones who have 1+ kids and a wife to support...
____________________________
WoW:
80 Druid/Warrior/Priest/Shaman/Death Knight/Paladin/Mage/Hunter, 60 Warlock
Final Fantasy XI:
75 DRG, 60 PLD, 43 SCH Rank 10 Windurst, Rank 9 Sandoria, Rank 10 Bastok
Owned and completed:
FF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12
#91 Jul 06 2010 at 1:49 PM Rating: Default
*
209 posts
Quote:
It's the PC crowd that SE has to go after hard and heavy, and when they force people to have super rigs in order to even play the game, even though their current mediocre system will play WoW or Star Wars without any problems, they are specing themselves right out of a large section of the gaming market.


I said that in a earlier post. Look at any MMORPG post WOW. By the 90 day mark after release 50% or more of the player base has quit. Just because of the nature of the MMORPG market I wouldn't expect FFXIV to be any different, unless SE has something really magical.

So if 50% of the PC player base has quit by the 90 day mark, we are going to need what ever PS3 players we can pick up. And you have to remember the PS3 players will be no different if not worse quitting wise. So if half of the PS3 crowed quits by the 90 day mark. Then we should have the player base for the long haul.

You can take this to the bank, if FFXIV bombs on PC. It will attract less PS3 players and most likely bomb on PS3 as well. If the game was release on PC and PS3 at the same time then it would make the player base seem much larger even if 50% of the population quit after 90 days!
#92 Jul 06 2010 at 1:49 PM Rating: Default
**
322 posts
I bought a crappy laptop over a year ago, and it is capable of playing FFXIV, albeit slowly, and it was like 400-500 dollars.

No excuses, really.
#93 Jul 06 2010 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
Orsnoire wrote:
Quote:
Your point originally was that games with modest user bases are failures, or at least that's the point that I took issue with, because it's so far removed from reality. Whatever direction you've decided to go in since then, I'm still waiting for you to concede that yes, these modestly sized games as still hugely profitable and have the capability to sustain themselves for as long as players don't leave to play some thing else.

Actually I don't really care if you concede the point because it's virtually undeniable. I'd just like for you to re examine your personal assumptions about what MMOS cost and how that relates to the number of users they need in order to succeed. Having a more realistic view will make for better discussion in the future.


The point is undeniable that "successful" (in quotes because it's your terminology) games that can't continually produce subscription-generating content are not failures? The logic of that statement is silly, and unfortunately that's the assertion you're making. A game is only successful to the degree it continues to attract people to pay for the subscription, and that is done through developing new content that attracts those subscriptions. What's so hard for you to understand about that?



Now I'm really starting to have a laugh at your expense, because you're talking yourself around in circles. FFXI, EQ, etc are successful as long as they're making a profit. That's the purpose of a business, to make money. It's undeniable that FFXI, EQ have been around a long time and it's undeniable that they're still making money. If they weren't making money they'd be shut down. If you understand business half as well as you think then you know that no one runs a business at a loss unless they anticipate a future profit, and no one would reasonably expect an old MMO to rebound and suddenly start to make a profit. Obviously these games are still making money. Whether or not they continue to grow, they cost virtually nothing to maintain, which is what makes maintaining them such a worthwhile enterprise.
Quote:

Oh, and as for the how much MMOs cost thing, I'm not the one with his head in the clouds about development costs. You have no idea about how much the overhead on MMOs is, and how much companies EXPECT in terms of profit margin.


I've given you actual ubiased third party numbers, you've given me nothing in return. When I say that WoW cost 63 million to develop, and less than 40 million a year to maintain and continue development, those are numbers that came from Blizzard, not from me. If you're not able to accept those numbers or apply a little but of common sense in applying them, then that's just obstinance on your part. If development costs are so much higher, then show me that. Show me some one who says that those numbers should be higher, and we can have a discussion about it. Go on, I'm waiting.

Quote:
I could tell you that I've done the profit analysis of games and extensive business modeling of MMOs for startup companies with my MBA/Business training. I could, but then you'd just /laugh and pretend like I'm making it up to make yourself feel better. See, there's no point discussing the actual numbers because everything you've stated betrays an inability to look beyond the basic profitable/unprofitable barrier into the numbers that companies really look at to determine if a project is worthwhile.


Still waiting for evidence, still waiting for numbers.

Quote:
Let me distil it into the most oversimplified formula to try and help you understand: when a company devotes resources (be they developers, server space, time, marketing, or money) to a project, they have to determine if those resources are devoted to the most profitable (not just profitable, most profitable) enterprise. If those resources are misallocated, not only does the company lose money, but the shareholders (or those who own the company and have rights to the profits of the company) are losing their assets. The truth is an MMO that is not holding subscribers at the very least, and actually increasing over time, is an unsuccessful enterprise and one that the company is foolish to continue allocating development and other resources to promote.


FFXI was holding subscribers until they cut back on development, so you may have your cause and effect confused here. On the other hand, it hardly matters, because FFXI doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's reasonable to assume that S-E cut back on FFXI development so that they could put those resources into FFXIV. That doesn't mean that FFXI became less profitable or less successful, it just means that their long term forecast was that they'd get a better return from the new game than the old one. Whether or not that's a good decision depends on whether or not their forecast and conclusions were accurate. There's no evidence to suggest that FFXI suddenly became unable to sustain itself.

Quote:
You can pretend like I don't know what I'm talking about. You can even pretend like I'm making up credentials, but the proof is in the pudding: FF XI development has been poor at best for years, which is evidence enough that SE's opportunity cost analysis has shown that the low subscription numbers and negative subscription growth don't merit the allocation of more resources to that project.


You haven't demonstrated any knowledge of what you're talking about, at any time. I don't know if you have an MBA or don't have an MBA, but I know that you haven't shared any knowledge or insight other than "MMOs cost a lot of money," which, without specific numbers and a context that also includes revenue/profits, is meaningless.

Edited, Jul 6th 2010 3:50pm by KarlHungis
#94 Jul 06 2010 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
*
209 posts
Quote:
The PC requirements are low. Stop raging already.


2ghz 2core processor is old.

512mb gpu? Nothing special, they've been out for a long time, I had a 256 one when FFXI came out 8 years ago ffs.

2gb RAM? That's been on every PC for a long time.

If you don't have all of the above, it's pretty sad.


Most likely those are minimum requirements. Have you ever tried to play a game with minimum its not fun!
#95 Jul 06 2010 at 1:59 PM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:

Send PM Add to address book

80 posts
Score: Default I bought a crappy laptop over a year ago, and it is capable of playing FFXIV, albeit slowly, and it was like 400-500 dollars.

No excuses, really.
\No offense but lets see how well that laptop runs when your in a city and there are a 100 people around you.
#96 Jul 06 2010 at 2:00 PM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
Orsnoire wrote:
Quote:
Can you provide any data to back that up? How expensive exactly was FFXI to develop? How much have they profited from the game? How has, as you claim "backed off from serious new development" affect their profits? How do you know it's affected their profits at all?

It's fun to make up facts, isn't it?


Because SE intended to lose subscriptions over the past 2-3 years, right? They WANTED to have a game that has fewer subscriptions, and hurt their profit margin, correct?


You're assuming they actually did hurt their overall profit margin. Maybe the decision was based on the projection that they'd make more money by investing in FFXIV than FFXI, so they did that.

Your entire argument seems to be based on the concept that if an MMO or other business stops growing or even shrinks at some point, that it's a failure. But every business stops growing or shrinks, eventually. FFXI lasted a lot longer than most, and still isn't dead.

In any case, you've yet to provide even estimates, let alone actual numbers, to support points that are based entirely on (imaginary) numbers.
#97 Jul 06 2010 at 2:12 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,587 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
You can take this to the bank, if FFXIV bombs on PC. It will attract less PS3 players and most likely bomb on PS3 as well. If the game was release on PC and PS3 at the same time then it would make the player base seem much larger even if 50% of the population quit after 90 days!
If it bombs on PC, it's fate has been sealed regardless of the PS3 players since there wouldn't be enough of them to save it anyway. I highly doubt it will actually fail. In North America maybe, but I have a hard time seeing it bomb in Japan and other Asian countries.
____________________________
Harri
80BLU/80BST/76RNG/75THF/75WHM/60SCH
100+3 Bonecraft
#98 Jul 06 2010 at 2:39 PM Rating: Default
***
3,178 posts
you've got no kids~
to hold you down~
doo~doo~doo

Perhaps you will turn into a donkey soon - too late. HA!

Next time I meet a talking grasshopper I'll wish upon a star and delay the PC version and you can go out and buy a PS3 by September. >;)

You are actually too young to get the reference, huh?

Really, there's just nothing else to talk about. Complaining about the PS3 release is all the FFXIV action I got, k?
#99 Jul 06 2010 at 5:10 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:

Send PM Add to address book

80 posts
Score: Default I bought a crappy laptop over a year ago, and it is capable of playing FFXIV, albeit slowly, and it was like 400-500 dollars.

No excuses, really.
\No offense but lets see how well that laptop runs when your in a city and there are a 100 people around you.


Oh God, Thunder and BST Guy are disagreeing and I'm going to have to pick a side here. Based on my experience though, "crappy laptop" that costs "like 400-500 dollars" = You got over a 500 on the benchmark -how-? Never mind 1500.

Why don't you go ahead and screenshot your 1500+ benchmark on your crappy laptop. Pics or it didn't happen.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#100 Jul 06 2010 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
Torrence wrote:
Success is subjective.


This. What would be "successful" for one game would be only "mediocre" for another and "abject failure" for a third.

Yes, FFXI's subscriber base was large enough to turn a large profit - large enough to cover losses in every other branch of the company - but that doesn't mean the game, in SE's eyes, was considered particularly successful.

500,000 subscribers is huge for a game like EQ that is based on an original IP that has no name recognition. For a game in a franchise of consistently multi-million-selling titles with huge name recognition, not so much. Forget WoW; the fact that FFXI couldn't significantly outperform frickin' EverQuest has got to gall SE's execs every time they think about it.
#101 Jul 06 2010 at 6:20 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:

Send PM Add to address book

80 posts
Score: Default I bought a crappy laptop over a year ago, and it is capable of playing FFXIV, albeit slowly, and it was like 400-500 dollars.

No excuses, really.
\No offense but lets see how well that laptop runs when your in a city and there are a 100 people around you.


Oh God, Thunder and BST Guy are disagreeing and I'm going to have to pick a side here.

It's like AIDS and cancer are fighting each other.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 17 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (17)