Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

A few thoughts regarding 2.0 and beyondFollow

#52 Feb 15 2012 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
***
2,202 posts
BlynkTheSneak wrote:
Terrible source. Check your facts.

Here's a quote straight from EA, at their very recent financial meeting. These are official.

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/1670728299x0x539144/d895626f-e715-4f00-bd50-31bf095027fd/Q3_Script_-_20_2112_1251pm.pdf

Quote:
Q: Are these 1.7 subscribers paying?
A: Active subscribers means anyone paying or in their trial period. Most of those 1.7m are paying at this point


Nice try, though.



What the actual EA financial meeting say's about Swotor and it's subscribers:

Quote:
Let me offer some metrics on purchase and subscription that will help you understand this
business. As John stated, we have sold through two million units of the game since December.
We currently have a little over 1.7 million active subscribers. The rest have either not started
playing yet or have opted out.

This is an outstanding start for an MMO and the metrics on engagement suggests players are
loving this game: unique log-ins are averaging about one million per day and their average play
time is approximately four hours per day.


Nice try, though.

Edited, Feb 15th 2012 5:15pm by Ostia
____________________________
MUTED
#53 Feb 15 2012 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
**
542 posts
Fair enough. If that's true then it would seem the article I referenced was incorrect on that point. I guess that means "only" one million+ have begun paying for the game then.

I'm not sure what else I can add because for the most part this discussion is going in circles. You think SWTOR is going to end up in the same position as games like Age or Conan or FFXIV? Maybe you're right. I am saying that there's a good chance you won't be, because the game is still in a position where it has quite a few players and how many of them are satisfied or unsatisfied enough to stay/leave is not yet determined. Either way, time will tell.
#54 Feb 15 2012 at 4:31 PM Rating: Default
*
124 posts
Ostia, that was just a dumb quote. Do you know what "opted out" means? It means quit.

Quote:
Fair enough. If that's true then it would seem the article I referenced was incorrect on that point. I guess that means "only" one million+ have begun paying for the game then.

I'm not sure what else I can add because for the most part this discussion is going in circles. You think SWTOR is going to end up in the same position as games like Age or Conan or FFXIV? Maybe you're right. I am saying that there's a good chance you won't be, because the game is still in a position where it has quite a few players and how many of them are satisfied or unsatisfied enough to stay/leave is not yet determined. Either way, time will tell.


I agree, this conversation got dumb a long time ago. We all clearly believe different things. I was doing my best to avoid hijacking the thread for some dumb SWTOR argument by relating it to FFXIV 2.0 but that just got too difficult.
____________________________
Blynk [Gilgamesh] Blynk [Bodhum]
#55 Feb 15 2012 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
***
2,202 posts
BlynkTheSneak wrote:
Ostia, that was just a dumb quote. Do you know what "opted out" means? It means quit.


People that have opted out are irrelevant, wish first it was not my even my point, and secondly the entire report you quoted, supports my argument all along, the game is a success as of right now, just for release is one if not the most successful MMO'S launch to date, perhaps in the history of MMO'S, and you have yet to even point to a shred of evidence on the contrary, all you been saying is "Swotor is a failure because mysterious reasons" what reasons ? name me 1 MMO with a better launch, with a better retention rate in the last 5 years, with a good combination of box sales and retention rates around the 90%, name me one MMO right now other than WOW, that's doing better, just one.

Also that quote that said: "Active subscribers are people who are currently paying or on their free trial" where did you get that from ? i read the entire report, and never saw it, since you quoted it right under it, i deduced it was from the report, if not can please put a link to it ?
____________________________
MUTED
#56 Feb 16 2012 at 8:08 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
24 posts
Just wanted to reiterate, popularity =/= quality. From all the people i talk to, swtor is an alternative to WoW, nothing else. It's the rinse and repeat process of WoW. I think that they just failed to bring something new to the genre considering the ressources available to them. Now, go on telling me the game isn't a failure, cause i never said it was you fanboys. :D
#57 Feb 16 2012 at 8:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
tr3p wrote:
Just wanted to reiterate, popularity =/= quality. From all the people i talk to, swtor is an alternative to WoW, nothing else. It's the rinse and repeat process of WoW. I think that they just failed to bring something new to the genre considering the ressources available to them. Now, go on telling me the game isn't a failure, cause i never said it was you fanboys. :D


You are correct that popularity doesn't mean quality, but like the way money doesn't buy happiness, it sure does help.

If out of some warped reality from Wada's brain, FFXIV actually managed to rival WoW's 12 million subscribers, it would not be in the sorry state it's in now, no matter how badly it started off. With that kind of money they'd be putting in the effort of four numbered Final Fantasy teams with room to spare.

#58 Feb 16 2012 at 6:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
49 posts
It is true that quantity =/= quality. And no one, I think, is expecting that you need 12 million or 6 million or 2 million to be able to succeed. But for large companies to make a profit (especially for a P2P model) they do need a fairly decent amount of people and more importantly the stability of the game's population as well as possibly increasing it slowly over time, instead of it constantly decaying. (I will break up this post in 3 parts):


www.videogamer.com/pc/ff14/news/how_final_fantasy_xiv_plans_to_win_back_its_audience.html


Granted I am sure they are double and triple timing on Version 2.0. But I think (at least their financial division) have already started doing some extensive forecasting in case Version 2.0 does not survive the fallout. Remember there are many critical components/areas that are needed for the version to succeed. I will cover only on 2.


I. Version 2.0 has to be released in an immaculate/pristine state and has to be well received overall. This isn't 2002 where it only came out in Japan (in reference to XI) when news traveled much slower. These days with the various forms of communication and how things are translated within 48 hours or less (regardless if it is German, Korean, Japanese, etc.) news will get out quickly on how well or how poorly it did. Average will not cut it. Above average will not cut it.


II. The community. This is a key component on why almost every MMORPG fails to almost never been able to gather a substantial amount of returning players and keep them for the long run (directly connected to a bad release/launch). Remember on all the fan sites as well as when the official forums opened its doors and how many frustrated players were told to go back to WOW or told to go back to FFXI. Well guess what even if the white knights consider them as "undesirables" or "mouth breathers" etc. the company needs them and they (those players that left) are heavily centralized as to why this Version was done. In part to be able to sustain the P2P model: there is no other way. The die hard fans alone cannot sustain this flagship title. As unforgiving the MMO community is even amongst the fans, there will have to be substantial evidence that Square Enix can show that this is the game you want to play and eventually pay.


III. The 2 questions (referring to the free to play comment)


Q: We're seeing so many free-to-play titles do well after adopting the model. What is the incentive behind returning to the subscription model?


"I do think creating a hybrid from different business models is an interesting proposition, and this may be something we investigate further down the line."


Q: Would you ever consider embracing a non-subscription model in the future or is that not feasible now?


"Of course I am very interested in F2P as an alternative business plan, and I will continue to look into it. However adopting a F2P model means changing certain aspects of the game design in order to fit to the model since the prices customers have to pay for F2P are different to those they pay for subscription-based games. Therefore, if we do decide to change the business model in the future, it will also be necessary for us to adjust the game design so that it works accordingly."


Chances are if Version 2.0 only ends up being average or above average it probably won't make the cut. According to Wada for FFXI they had over "200,000 subscribers to Final Fantasy XI, allowing the company to break even and start making a profit." Chances are FFXIV will need 250k or 300k minimum to break that even point. They may end up using various degrees of the F2P model if things don't pan out 6 months after Version 2.0's release.


Funny how from the April 2011 interview with Gama Sutra Yoshida said "And when the money stops flowing, the development teams have to make their development team sizes smaller, which means they can't get enough content for the fixes, or they have to go to a different payment model like free-to-play." This was in regards to the question on why western developers cannot recover from a bad launch.


If Version 2.0 fails there is no 1. Time traveling device 2. There will be no expansion pack 3. There will be no "Do not pass Go! Do not collect 200 dollars!" card 4. There will be no Version 3.0.


The ball is in your court Square Enix. And from the recent population numbers from all 3 major peak times, they have quite a few people to convince to come back.

Edited, Feb 16th 2012 7:09pm by AmbrosiaAmor
____________________________
Howdy


#59 Feb 16 2012 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,530 posts
AmbrosiaAmor wrote:
The ball is in your court Square Enix.


Yoshida wrote:
"I do think creating a hybrid from different business models is an interesting proposition, and this may be something we investigate further down the line."

"Of course I am very interested in F2P as an alternative business plan, and I will continue to look into it."


And the ball has been dropped.

As much as I want FFXIV to succeed, nothing could turn me against it any more than introducing the sale of in-game items. Seeing what they're doing with FFXIII-2, though, it's pretty clear that SE is getting ready to nickle and dime with the best of them, as though they won't be happy until people groan whenever yet another DLC or Final Fantasy comes out, steadily, month after month, year after year.
____________________________
"... he called to himself a wizard, named Gallery, hoping by this means to escape the paying of the fifteen hundred crowns..." (Machen 15)

"Thus opium is pleasing... on account of the agreeable delirium it produces." (Burke para.6)

"I could only read so much for this paper and the syphilis poem had to go."
#60 Feb 16 2012 at 7:16 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,535 posts
BlynkTheSneak wrote:
Ostia wrote:
Ok let's try this one last time <.< You say that FFXIV could have had the SAME retention rate that swotor had, wish is 1.7mil subscribers, now FFXIV only shipped 860k units(Dunno if they sold them all) so lets say that they only had to retain 600k subs to be on the same page as swotor. Now here is where our problem starts, because one has been free for an entire year, and the other one has not, also one lost 95% of its subscriptions in the first 3 months and the other one has held 85-90% of it's in 1-2 months, so how hypothetically would the table's turn ? here is my question, how one game that is charge to play get's to maintain it's subs, and one that was free for over a year, had people not touch it with stick, yet would end up with the same success rate than the first.


The moment I said that, I was speaking entirely as-if they had charged the second month, instead of continuing the free trial for 2 years. That's how bad XIV was, and that's how bad SWTOR is. It wasn't a very big point that I was making, and it wasn't based on any evidence. It was just to tell you my impression of the differences between community attitudes of the games near release. both of which I was very active. I made a small JPG just to sum up how I feel (based upon the community response) about it.


Except that the initial plan for FFXI was to start charging people on their second month. The extended free trial only happened in the first place because the game was already shedding players before they could even bill them.

In other words: if FFXIV had retained players as well as SWTOR seems to be, they never would have extended the free trial period to begin with.
#61 Feb 16 2012 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
**
542 posts
I wouldn't be surprised if FFXIV did go free to play. Subscription MMOs like DC Universe Online and Lord of the Rings Online switched to a f2p model and IIRC both reported revenue increases. Everquest just announced it's switching to f2p, I believe Aion is too. Guild Wars 2 may be one of the most hyped MMOs coming out and it, just like the original Guild Wars, will have no subscription from the beginning (though you do have to buy the game initially).

These articles say LOTRO tripled their revenue, DCUO was up 700%.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/01/06/turbine-lotro-revenue-tripled-since-going-f2p/

http://www.geek.com/articles/games/dc-universe-online-goes-free-to-play-increases-revenue-700-percent-20111122/

It seems like the current trend for less popular MMOs is to go f2p and either offer an online shop or premium subscription (or both). There's likely room for some p2p games going forward, but considering that there's getting to be quite a bit of free competition, and that games that do go f2p with other services are reporting greatly increased revenue, I wouldn't be surprised to see the number of subscription based get smaller and smaller. If FFXIV does switch to f2p, it'll just be one in a line of many.

Edited, Feb 16th 2012 10:01pm by Susanoh
#62 Feb 16 2012 at 9:34 PM Rating: Default
*
124 posts
Not too sure if there's been a F2p game on the same scale of FFXIV ever released.
____________________________
Blynk [Gilgamesh] Blynk [Bodhum]
#63 Feb 16 2012 at 9:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
852 posts
BlynkTheSneak wrote:
Not too sure if there's been a F2p game on the same scale of FFXIV ever released.


I don't mean to burst your bubble, but... this isn't a big game.
____________________________
#64 Feb 16 2012 at 9:44 PM Rating: Good
***
2,202 posts
BlynkTheSneak wrote:
Not too sure if there's been a F2p game on the same scale of FFXIV ever released.


Lord of the rings online, DC Universe, GW2, EQ2. All triple A MMO'S.
____________________________
MUTED
#65 Feb 16 2012 at 10:12 PM Rating: Excellent
**
542 posts
I'm not sure what you mean by scale (maybe production cost?), but games that are just as well known among MMO players, with several times more subscribers, have adopted a f2p or no subscription model in the past and seen more success than they were before. Even Blizzard's discussed it as a possibility if they weren't doing as well as they are.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/06/30/blizzard-discuss-making-world-of-warcraft-free/

Quote:
Yet Tom doesn’t think those games have gone free just to compete with World of Warcraft. “I feel like they’re doing that to compete with other games that are on a similar subscriber level to what they were at. I imagine that when one of them went free to play it cannibalized some of the other subscribers. I can definitely imagine that being the case with World of Warcraft. If another game comes along and blows us away it may not make sense for us to have a subscription fee. Or even further down the line, when we have another MMO out.”


Edited, Feb 16th 2012 11:16pm by Susanoh
#66 Feb 16 2012 at 11:04 PM Rating: Default
*
124 posts
Ostia wrote:
BlynkTheSneak wrote:
Not too sure if there's been a F2p game on the same scale of FFXIV ever released.


Lord of the rings online, DC Universe, GW2, EQ2. All triple A MMO'S.


DC universe isn't big. It's FAR from "AAA".

LOTRO + EQ2 went F2p after years. 5, 6, or 7 years each?

GW never "went" F2p. It's entire business model is based around F2p.


Quote:
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but... this isn't a big game.


This game has almost bankrupted SE. It is a big & expensive game, despite how terrible their marketing is right now (there isn't one).

Quote:
among MMO players, with several times more subscribers, have adopted a f2p or no subscription model in the past and seen more success than they were before.


This game is aimed to have 1 million subscribers by the end of the year. What F2P games are you talking about?

Quote:
Even Blizzard's discussed it as a possibility if they weren't doing as well as they are.


Of course they would. WoW is already nearing the F2P stage. The majority of WoW players don't pay a subscription anyways.

FFXI isn't even in F2P yet. That response from Yoshi is a big NO. Nobody leaves options off the table, but in PR speak, that's total rejection of F2P.

Edited, Feb 17th 2012 12:50am by BlynkTheSneak
____________________________
Blynk [Gilgamesh] Blynk [Bodhum]
#67 Feb 17 2012 at 12:13 AM Rating: Excellent
**
542 posts
BlynkTheSneak wrote:
This game is aimed to have 1 million subscribers by the end of the year. What F2P games are you talking about?


The ones I mentioned, for starters, though I certainly wasn't using one million users as my benchmark. Aion had a few million last year, I'm not sure how many they have now but it's going free to play.

More importantly, who on Earth predicted that FFXIV would end up with one million users by the end of the year? I'm thinking that has to have come directly from SE themselves, and if it did, I would imagine that's what they've told us to make us think it will be a success, not what they actually believe.
#68 Feb 17 2012 at 12:27 AM Rating: Default
*
124 posts
Susanoh wrote:
BlynkTheSneak wrote:
This game is aimed to have 1 million subscribers by the end of the year. What F2P games are you talking about?


The ones I mentioned, for starters, though I certainly wasn't using one million users as my benchmark. Aion had a few million last year, I'm not sure how many they have now but it's going free to play.

More importantly, who on Earth predicted that FFXIV would end up with one million users by the end of the year? I'm thinking that has to have come directly from SE themselves, and if it did, I would imagine that's what they've told us to make us think it will be a success, not what they actually believe.


It was told at their latest financial/investor meeting. Predicted subs were 1000K for XIV and 500k for XI throughout the year. Information like that is told to inform the owners of SE about how they are doing, not to convince cynic forum-goers that their game will "really be a success. I promise". Information at those kinds of meetings are usually pretty accurate, unless there's a severe disconnect like what happened with the first launch. I'm usually surprised at how accurate they are.

You have no idea what they're planning on doing for the release of XIV, so stop pretending like you do.
____________________________
Blynk [Gilgamesh] Blynk [Bodhum]
#69 Feb 17 2012 at 12:50 AM Rating: Excellent
**
542 posts
BlynkTheSneak wrote:
Susanoh wrote:
BlynkTheSneak wrote:
This game is aimed to have 1 million subscribers by the end of the year. What F2P games are you talking about?


The ones I mentioned, for starters, though I certainly wasn't using one million users as my benchmark. Aion had a few million last year, I'm not sure how many they have now but it's going free to play.

More importantly, who on Earth predicted that FFXIV would end up with one million users by the end of the year? I'm thinking that has to have come directly from SE themselves, and if it did, I would imagine that's what they've told us to make us think it will be a success, not what they actually believe.


It was told at their latest financial/investor meeting. Predicted subs were 1000K for XIV and 500k for XI throughout the year. Information like that is told to inform the owners of SE about how they are doing, not to convince cynic forum-goers that their game will "really be a success. I promise". Information at those kinds of meetings are usually pretty accurate, unless there's a severe disconnect like what happened with the first launch. I'm usually surprised at how accurate they are.

You have no idea what they're planning on doing for the release of XIV, so stop pretending like you do.


Wait a minute, where did I pretend that I knew what SE was planning to do for the release of XIV?

I don't think that a game that came out two years ago that has a very low number of users is going to hit one million. I don't think FFXI ever hit one million (I could be wrong on that, but I believe it had 500k around the beginning and middle of its life), I didn't think FFXIV was going to hit one million when it was my most anticipated game in existence. Does that make me a "cynic forumer-goer?"

Heck, weren't you arguing earlier in this thread that there's an "MMO apocalypse" coming that the likes of SWTOR wouldn't be able to make itself through? Yet you believe that a revision of a game that's hit rock bottom is going to hit one million subscribers amidst this "apocalypse" because the company that makes it said it would? Ay-yi-yi, I don't know where you get this stuff.

Edited, Feb 17th 2012 1:51am by Susanoh
#70BlynkTheSneak, Posted: Feb 17 2012 at 1:06 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It doesn't matter that XIV hit rock bottom. That's completely moot at this point. Products fail and get rebranded all of the time.
#71 Feb 17 2012 at 1:25 AM Rating: Excellent
**
542 posts
Quote:
I don't think you have any super insider information. You're under this false assumptions that the product that is out right now is the same one that's going to be out at the end of the year, and that's just insane.

XI did hit 1 million subscribers.


I don't think it will be exactly the same as it is now. But I also don't think they'll go from rock bottom to triple A classic with one million users.

I can't find anything saying FFXI hit one million. I found articles that said they hit 500k in 2004, and then in 2008. Not completely doubting that it's a possibility, do you have a link?

Quote:
It doesn't matter that XIV hit rock bottom. That's completely moot at this point. Products fail and get rebranded all of the time.

SWTOR has nothing to do with this, and it's going to fail for entirely different reasons. I don't think they're going to survive because they're the worst tasting fish in a big ocean.

You can't talk about a single thing at a time. You have to rip apart and re-build several different unrelated arguments into one. Do you read what you type?


I don't think it's a non-factor that FFXIV has failed once. It's now off the radar for a lot of people and no longer a hyped product outside of its core fan base. I don't doubt that if 2.0 is amazing, it could get some of the FF fan base back, but I think one million is strongly pushing it.

I found it ironic that you would predict failure for a game that just successfully launched and success for a game that's currently failing, that's all. It's not like I've been saving arguments for weeks to use against you, it happened in this exact same thread.
#72 Feb 17 2012 at 2:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Anyone have a link for SE's prediction of 1 mil players? That is pretty interesting.

Here's something worth thinking about... does SE say the game will have a million subscribers or a million players? Because Yoshi-P has said he hasn't ruled out a return to a F2P business model later on. If SE's shareholders were told "1 million players" and not subscribers, then I wonder if this is taking a lack of a subscription fee into consideration?

If Version 2 is amazing, then I could see FFXIV rebounding and maybe even hitting 1 mil subscribers. The high hardware requirements of this game turned out to be a blessing in disguise. With the new scalable graphics engine, the game will be available to a slew of Final Fantasy fans who lacked the computer to try the game the first time around. That, and even people who bought the game, played and left are still likely to have their client software handy, so all SE needs to do is convince those people to reinstall.

Marketing in the USA has never been SE's strong suit though, so we'll see what happens. Getting 1 mil seems like a stretch, but I suppose it would be doable... but only if Version 2.0 is unbelievably amazing.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#73 Feb 17 2012 at 3:20 AM Rating: Decent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
KaneKitty wrote:
As much as I want FFXIV to succeed, nothing could turn me against it any more than introducing the sale of in-game items. Seeing what they're doing with FFXIII-2, though, it's pretty clear that SE is getting ready to nickle and dime with the best of them, as though they won't be happy until people groan whenever yet another DLC or Final Fantasy comes out, steadily, month after month, year after year.


I'm torn on the issue of DLC.

It's not all that different from the concept of an expansion, so in that sense it's nothing new, and in some ways it's more convenient and less expensive. It's much simpler to expand a la carte and only purchase the things important to you while leaving out the rest.

But on the other hand, is this an easy excuse to whittle off pieces a complete game and charge extra for what should have been in the original purchase?

It's probably a little bit of both, and unfortunately, it appears to be the future of gaming. It's really up to the consumers to vote with their wallets as to whether or not this is really worth it. And in that sense, I think it will work out in the end.
#74 Feb 17 2012 at 4:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
*
196 posts
Susanoh wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if FFXIV did go free to play. Subscription MMOs like DC Universe Online and Lord of the Rings Online switched to a f2p model and IIRC both reported revenue increases. Everquest just announced it's switching to f2p, I believe Aion is too. Guild Wars 2 may be one of the most hyped MMOs coming out and it, just like the original Guild Wars, will have no subscription from the beginning (though you do have to buy the game initially).

These articles say LOTRO tripled their revenue, DCUO was up 700%.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/01/06/turbine-lotro-revenue-tripled-since-going-f2p/

http://www.geek.com/articles/games/dc-universe-online-goes-free-to-play-increases-revenue-700-percent-20111122/

It seems like the current trend for less popular MMOs is to go f2p and either offer an online shop or premium subscription (or both). There's likely room for some p2p games going forward, but considering that there's getting to be quite a bit of free competition, and that games that do go f2p with other services are reporting greatly increased revenue, I wouldn't be surprised to see the number of subscription based get smaller and smaller. If FFXIV does switch to f2p, it'll just be one in a line of many.

Edited, Feb 16th 2012 10:01pm by Susanoh



While what you said is true, FFXIV is so horrifically bad that it won't even survive as a F2P game..
____________________________
WoW: we want to give players a more fun time with less grinding and generic quests
GW2: we want the player to feel like they are leveling while doing something fun
Final Fantasy XIV: we want less fun and more grinding
#75 Feb 17 2012 at 4:14 AM Rating: Good
**
542 posts
I think DLC's going to be here to stay. I still remember the uproar about Oblivion's "horse armor" for $2.50. Man, how far we've come since then. Today nobody would even bat an eye.
#76 Feb 17 2012 at 4:25 AM Rating: Excellent
**
542 posts
nick2412 wrote:
While what you said is true, FFXIV is so horrifically bad that it won't even survive as a F2P game..


Yeah, I'd agree right now, considering the game was free and still lost most of its users. I'm mainly talking about if the game is passable when 2.0 releases. I think a lot of people are more willing to take a chance on a free game than one you actually have to buy and subscribe to, and considering there's not really much hype for 2.0 outside of the FF fan base, giving people a reason to take a chance could potentially work for them.

Not saying they should do this, by the way, but considering that it's unknown right now whether they'll be able to dig this game out of the hole they created I think it's an option that's at least worth looking at.
#77 Feb 17 2012 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,530 posts
Xoie wrote:
I'm torn on the issue of DLC.

It's not all that different from the concept of an expansion, so in that sense it's nothing new, and in some ways it's more convenient and less expensive.


I went through this same dilemma myself long ago. It was with FFXI's so-called "mini-expansions:" small pieces of content for $10 that basically amounted to a few hours of questing and fancy equipment at the end. We would know them now, of course, as DLC - they look the same and they're priced the same; but this was years ago.

It became apparent to me then that there's no such thing as a "mini-expansion," not in the sense that a couple of them amounted to a "real expansion," at least. They are DLC. And the problem with DLC is that it is not like a true expansion at all, once examined.

FFXI released three of these DLCs in a row; all total, they cost around the same price as SE's previous expansion. And yet the amount of content in them amounted to three short questlines and three powerful sets of equipment. You buy the DLC, plow through it, grab your "super epic loot," and you're done with it. Compared to, say, Treasures of Aht Urhgan, a $30 expansion - and not a DLC - you get hundreds of new items, at least 50 quests, three new jobs, dozens of new zones, around four or five new endgame events, a huge main storyline, all sorts of equipment, and even around 20 new music tracks to boot!

In short, DLC is a way to make more money by giving you less than ever before. Companies have found that, so long as the price dips just under your radar of an "expensive product," your expectations are disproportionately lower. It's reached the point at which people will pay anywhere from $3 to $10 just to get a single vanity item, when before customers expected dozens, if not up to a hundred hours of content for their money. It's $5 here, 9$ there, and, by the end, you've paid more than you would have for a massive addition to your game, but you've only received a stupid area add-on, a new weapon, and a simple, six-hour quest manufactured only to give you a gun better than anything else in the game!

When all is done, and all the money paid, DLCs aren't really an expansion, even though they cost as much - or more - than one all together. At best, they take the form of slightly underwhelming missions, ones that seem formulaic and linear, built to last just long enough to have people not complain too much; at their worst, DLCs are slivers of content - mere pennies-worth, things that would need to grow a hundredfold to have formed an expansion in the past - that should never have been sold in the first place.
____________________________
"... he called to himself a wizard, named Gallery, hoping by this means to escape the paying of the fifteen hundred crowns..." (Machen 15)

"Thus opium is pleasing... on account of the agreeable delirium it produces." (Burke para.6)

"I could only read so much for this paper and the syphilis poem had to go."
#78 Feb 17 2012 at 1:40 PM Rating: Default
*
124 posts
Susanoh wrote:
I think a lot of people are more willing to take a chance on a free game than one you actually have to buy and subscribe to, and considering there's not really much hype for 2.0 outside of the FF fan base, giving people a reason to take a chance could potentially work for them.

Not saying they should do this, by the way, but considering that it's unknown right now whether they'll be able to dig this game out of the hole they created I think it's an option that's at least worth looking at.


Keep in mind that they haven't even began marketing this game yet. They're set to start that after this next patch, so it doesn't really matter who cares about this game right now.

Susanoh wrote:
I found it ironic that you would predict failure for a game that just successfully launched and success for a game that's currently failing, that's all. It's not like I've been saving arguments for weeks to use against you, it happened in this exact same thread.


FFXIV 2.0 is being rebranded as a completely different game. SWTOR is a game that was just released and failed to impress their user base, and is getting constant complaints. If SWTOR decided to go free-to-play for 2 years, and was rebranded under the name SWTOR 2.0, I would not say they're going to fail because of their past mistakes. They're almost completely unrelated in the mind of the consumer. There is nothing ironic here, they're conceptually different scenarios.

KaneKitty wrote:

When all is done, and all the money paid, DLCs aren't really an expansion, even though they cost as much - or more - than one all together. At best, they take the form of slightly underwhelming missions, ones that seem formulaic and linear, built to last just long enough to have people not complain too much; at their worst, DLCs are slivers of content - mere pennies-worth, things that would need to grow a hundredfold to have formed an expansion in the past - that should never have been sold in the first place.


I agree with what you're saying. DLC isn't an expansion pack at all, they're short-term cash grabs. I don't think there should be any worry about these things becoming too frequent, especially for non-cosmetic upgrades. They need the buzz that expansion packs generate to sustain their subscribers. It has to happen if this game is going to stay P2P, which it will under the most probable of circumstances.


Thayos wrote:
Anyone have a link for SE's prediction of 1 mil players? That is pretty interesting.
No, I don't. It was a no-media allowed live-blogged event, so it's buried deep within the internet. I'll look for it, though.

Thayos wrote:
Marketing in the USA has never been SE's strong suit though, so we'll see what happens. Getting 1 mil seems like a stretch, but I suppose it would be doable... but only if Version 2.0 is unbelievably amazing.
The entire backstory being built in this game right now is an insane marketing tool. One of the worst mistakes in video gaming ever made is literally being destroyed right in front of us, and is set to be replaced with an (almost) all-new version. There's going to be massive interest in this game to see how it all works out.
____________________________
Blynk [Gilgamesh] Blynk [Bodhum]
#79 Feb 17 2012 at 3:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
KaneKitty wrote:
FFXI released three of these DLCs in a row; all total, they cost around the same price as SE's previous expansion. And yet the amount of content in them amounted to three short questlines and three powerful sets of equipment. You buy the DLC, plow through it, grab your "super epic loot," and you're done with it. Compared to, say, Treasures of Aht Urhgan, a $30 expansion - and not a DLC - you get hundreds of new items, at least 50 quests, three new jobs, dozens of new zones, around four or five new endgame events, a huge main storyline, all sorts of equipment, and even around 20 new music tracks to boot!


I agree that the Crystalline Prophecy was bad. Really bad. IIRC 1up gave it a 0 when it came out and stopped reviewing FFXI thereafter. It, and its two ilk, were clearly overpriced DLC quests that weren't worth the value. Even SE admitted they sucked.

I think Abyssea turned out much, much better, but it's still not as good as the full expansions were.
#80 Feb 17 2012 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
***
2,202 posts
Here is how the mind of a white knight works:

A) Swotor failed to impress it's users. Yet every evidence and fact, implies it's the inverse, for out of 2 million boxes, 1.7 users decided to subscribe, they get 1 million unique log ins daily..... But they have failed to impress their users...... makes sense.

B) FFXIV 2.0 will be the greatest MMO release of all time.... Because of "REASONS."

Makes Sense ?
____________________________
MUTED
#81 Feb 17 2012 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
588 posts
My dilemma... Here I sit with no desire to play any other MMO on the market, mostly out of lack of interest. And yet I continue to find myself in Eorzea playing this of all games. Trust me it isn't because of my friends. Most of them have been absent since week two. Yet I find myself reading the forums over at SE, devouring posts on ZAM forums and talking about it in my linkshell and asking the question, "Why?" Why do I obsess about this game?

  • Am I a fanboy of the genre and series? Yes.
  • Did I play FFXI for nearly 7 years (off and on)? Yes.
  • Have I played other MMOs and found them lacking? For the most part, Yes.


I've tried many times to document and explain why I was so captivated by SE's first attempt at an MMO. I think someone at gamespot.com said it best. I paraphrase somewhat but the essence was that XI managed to break the mold even if only a little for the MMO genre. It may not have been the highest grossing game ever made but I played for 7 years and I still look back on my time in Vanadiel fondly. I've experimented many times with other MMO titles and in every instance they failed to exceed my expectations. I looked for SE to do the same or better than XI with XIV and I think I am still looking, waiting and hoping.

Perhaps it isn't rational for me to stay but I look at the alternatives (in some cases I have even played) and find myself thinking, "Meh... I'll wait and see if Yoshi can turn this into the game I was expecting".
____________________________



#82 Feb 17 2012 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
kainsilv wrote:
Yet I find myself reading the forums over at SE, devouring posts on ZAM forums and talking about it in my linkshell and asking the question, "Why?" Why do I obsess about this game?

  • Am I a fanboy of the genre and series? Yes.
  • Did I play FFXI for nearly 7 years (off and on)? Yes.
  • Have I played other MMOs and found them lacking? For the most part, Yes.


"Each reunion is like a twist of the knife. The joy is ephemeral; it leaves fear in its wake...A fear that all too soon the time will come when you must bid farewell again. Yet you cannot help but long for the next encounter. Humanity's great frailty...We prefer past happiness to future uncertainty." - Lightning, FF13-2
#83 Feb 17 2012 at 8:10 PM Rating: Default
*
124 posts
Ostia wrote:
Here is how the mind of a white knight works:

A) Swotor failed to impress it's users. Yet every evidence and fact, implies it's the inverse, for out of 2 million boxes, 1.7 users decided to subscribe, they get 1 million unique log ins daily..... But they have failed to impress their users...... makes sense.

B) FFXIV 2.0 will be the greatest MMO release of all time.... Because of "REASONS."

Makes Sense ?


I didn't say any of those things at all. I've never claimed that FFXIV will be anything better than it is right now, which is a very average game. The only thing that I'm saying is that it will be both a completely different game, and that the developers are planning to gain 1 million subscribers between now and Q1 2013.

I've also said that the evidence out there for SWTOR being a success is inadequate. Initial numbers just do not make a game a success. Look at FFXIV for example: it sold 2/3rds of a million copies and yet it's down to about 20,000 tops now. Why do you think SWTOR is exempt from this fate, even though the game is getting terrible user feedback?

Why are you getting so offended by my hopefulness of FFXIV? If you don't want to hear people biased towards FFXIV, why are you even on this board?

kainsilv wrote:
Perhaps it isn't rational for me to stay but I look at the alternatives (in some cases I have even played) and find myself thinking, "Meh... I'll wait and see if Yoshi can turn this into the game I was expecting".


Same here. Looking at all the work they've done & ambitious ideas they have really gets me hopeful. It's looking (from what we've heard, not seen) like it's the game XI would've been if it had a better engine and no limitations, and that gets me excited.
____________________________
Blynk [Gilgamesh] Blynk [Bodhum]
#84 Feb 17 2012 at 9:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
852 posts
Honestly, I think a lot of people conflate their like and respect for Yoshi P and the experience they have in FFXIV. They want to like a game that is incredibly broken still because they have admiration for Yoshi doing the best job he can to unsink a sunken ship.

I have the utmost respect for Yoshi P, but as much as I would like to, at present, I have absolutely no interesting in buyin what he's currently selling.
____________________________
#85 Feb 17 2012 at 9:28 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,144 posts
BlynkTheSneak wrote:
I've also said that the evidence out there for SWTOR being a success is inadequate. Initial numbers just do not make a game a success.


SWtoR has been out for a matter of months. Initial numbers is pretty much all you have to go on. For comparison's sake SWtoR has sold nearly 3 times the number of units that XIV has and it hasn't been out for two months yet. XIV has been out for a year and a half.

BlynkTheSneak wrote:
Look at FFXIV for example: it sold 2/3rds of a million copies and yet it's down to about 20,000 tops now. Why do you think SWTOR is exempt from this fate, even though the game is getting terrible user feedback?

XIV was down in the tens of thousands of regular users a few months after launch. SWtoR would have to shed almost 1.5M of their current users to match that feat. I won't say it's impossible, but it's highly unlikely. Of those 'about 20,000 tops' players, most of if not all of them are die hard FF fans. Assuming SWtoR did something that chased off all but the die hard fans of SW, they'd still outnumber FF fans by a longshot.

The only problem I really have with any of your posts are the fictitious numbers you produce. XI never had a million subs. The largest report I recall seeing from them was that they had broken the 600k mark and that those 600k players were responsible for about 1.5 million characters. That said, it took XI which is considered a successful game several years to reach that mark. SWtoR did it in a matter of days...
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#86 Feb 17 2012 at 10:10 PM Rating: Good
***
1,726 posts
Quote:
I don't think FFXI ever hit one million (I could be wrong on that, but I believe it had 500k around the beginning and middle of its life), I didn't think FFXIV was going to hit one million when it was my most anticipated game in existence.


No, it never did. It only hit over 1 million characters, I think active too (everyone and their mule), but the peak population was something around 750k in late 2004/early 2005. FFXI was the #1 MMO for that interim in part of 2004 and early 2005 before WoW took off. It took WoW a little time after it launched to hit 1M and soar from there. After that spike, it went down to 500k and held steady for years. Only in 2009 did it really go down to where it's at now. Before that peak, it was a steady rise up.


Quote:
That said, it took XI which is considered a successful game several years to reach that mark. SWtoR did it in a matter of days...

The MMO player-base has grown considerably since FFXI's launch. Before WoW, MMOs were a small niche. Making direct numerical comparisons seems laughable, like how every Superbowl is the "most watched ever" just because the viewership percentage is good and the nation's population is growing, thus more viewers each year. The rating (percentage watching that program out of the percentage of households with tvs) is where the proper comparison can be made. Likewise, it would be at percent of subscribers, though an issue appears when factoring in sub vs. f2p, what constitutes active in f2p (whereas with a sub, if they're paying, they're 'active').


And those mini-expansions, the reception was
- A Crystalline Prophecy: sucked badly. Recycled a lot of CoP elements and tried to shoehorn in new elements into the tight story crafted by original/RotZ/CoP. Strangely, it was written by the original scenario writer. Very dull too.
- Moogle Kupo d'Etat: received better, was more light in tone, but overall seemed mixed or meh.
- A Shantotto Ascension: best-received of the 2009 trio, people actually liked this one.
- Abyssea scrapped the story element (lol it's clear they weren't even thinking about it, just making stuff up heedless of how it might fit or not fit into the existing lore. Of course, WotG has the same carelessness. When a writer doesn't care about a story, usually that carelessness will show and the fans will express similar apathy) and went all out on the gameplay. The game had been stagnating since the end of ToAU with the exception of Campaign & Zeni NMs. Everything til Abyssea was a dud practically: Moblin Maze Mongers, Walk of Echoes, Hunt Registries, augmentable weapons/armor, Fields of Valor NMs. Only the pre-Abyssea update was full of win, with the Trial of the Magians and the feeling of fresh content, a new direction.
____________________________
=================================================
Somewhere out there, there is a road with 2 signs on it. One says "No Trespassing". The sign right next to it says "FREE KITTENS".
=================================================
#87 Feb 17 2012 at 10:16 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,202 posts
Blynk i was being sarcastic and exaggerating, but you have pretty much said that really, you said "We are paying to have a voice in one of the largest MMO releases of all time." wish first is false, and second is very very very optimistic, now i have no problem with you being optimistic, but bashing one game with fictitious accounts and defending another with unrealistic hope is annoying.

Also i own the game, have been playing since beta, and only stopped when Swotor came out :/
____________________________
MUTED
#88 Feb 17 2012 at 10:59 PM Rating: Default
*
124 posts
Ostia wrote:
Blynk i was being sarcastic and exaggerating, but you have pretty much said that really, you said "We are paying to have a voice in one of the largest MMO releases of all time." wish first is false, and second is very very very optimistic, now i have no problem with you being optimistic, but bashing one game with fictitious accounts and defending another with unrealistic hope is annoying.

Also i own the game, have been playing since beta, and only stopped when Swotor came out :/


It is one of the largest MMO releases of all time, regardless of how terrible you think the game is. Bad consumer reaction to something doesn't mean it was cheap to build.

Quote:
The only problem I really have with any of your posts are the fictitious numbers you produce. XI never had a million subs. The largest report I recall seeing from them was that they had broken the 600k mark and that those 600k players were responsible for about 1.5 million characters. That said, it took XI which is considered a successful game several years to reach that mark. SWtoR did it in a matter of days...


It looks like I'm wrong on that one. I did manage to find half a dozen websites that said they did, but I couldn't find any actual sources for those.

As for SWTOR, your conclusion that it's a success because it sold a lot of copies is incredibly naive. Something isn't a success because it sold more than it's competitors, money just doesn't work like that. Even if you're a loyal Bioware customer, you should be able to agree that the SWTOR failure is a very popular opinion. ****, look at what investors think about it.


Edited, Feb 17th 2012 11:59pm by BlynkTheSneak
____________________________
Blynk [Gilgamesh] Blynk [Bodhum]
#89 Feb 18 2012 at 1:00 AM Rating: Excellent
**
542 posts
BlynkTheSneak wrote:
Keep in mind that they haven't even began marketing this game yet. They're set to start that after this next patch, so it doesn't really matter who cares about this game right now.

FFXIV 2.0 is being rebranded as a completely different game. SWTOR is a game that was just released and failed to impress their user base, and is getting constant complaints. If SWTOR decided to go free-to-play for 2 years, and was rebranded under the name SWTOR 2.0, I would not say they're going to fail because of their past mistakes. They're almost completely unrelated in the mind of the consumer. There is nothing ironic here, they're conceptually different scenarios.


And this is where we disagree. I'm very curious about whether 2.0 could make an impact on the market even if it does turn out pretty good. I think it will be incredibly difficult to market a revision of a game that for most, came and went two years prior. If Warhammer Online 2.0 were to come out, I wouldn't expect it to gain heavy interest. If SWTOR really did lose its entire user base and two years later they market a revision of the same game and tell people it's really good now, I'd expect that most people would be more interested in either games that are either already big at the time, or games that are completely new or coming out in the future.

The same goes for this game. They most likely will not come close to the hype of a truly new game release. The general public may very well see 2.0 as a patch that's attempting to salvage a failing game. 2.0 is huge for FF fans who want to see this game become what they thought it could be originally. I just have a hard time believing that an older game can release a revision of itself and reach out beyond its own fan base to make a significant amount of people take interest.

Edited, Feb 18th 2012 2:10am by Susanoh
#90BlynkTheSneak, Posted: Feb 18 2012 at 1:26 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The scars in FFXIV don't run deep. The music is brilliant, the models are brilliant, the coding is functional (probably brilliant- I've yet to see any bugs whatsoever). The problem with this game wasn't that it was just a bad game, it was that it was a mismanaged mess. Why would you throw away all of this amazing work? You don't.
#91 Feb 18 2012 at 1:48 AM Rating: Excellent
**
542 posts
BlynkTheSneak wrote:
No. Have you been to any gaming news sites (or even the forums of another gaming site)? They absolutely dig this kinda sh*t. The story of the total disaster & the story of the underdog are some of the best viral content that money can buy, if not the best.


I hardly ever see the game brought up on forums that aren't FFXIV related. Granted, maybe I'm not looking on the right forums. If this underdog story is really enough to rally all these people you think it will, that's cool, though that sounds incredibly optimistic to me and I still have a difficult time believing it's that interesting that it's going to attract all these new fans. I guess I'll just say that I'll believe it when I see it.

Edit: About the second point, I don't think everything about the game is terrible and deserves to be thrown out. I just think that they'll have a tough time selling it at this point.

Btw, you know any general game forums where there's a lot of FFXIV support? Any decent threads anywhere? Just curious to give them a read if they're out there.

Edited, Feb 18th 2012 3:07am by Susanoh
#92BlynkTheSneak, Posted: Feb 18 2012 at 2:18 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) SomethingAwful
#93 Feb 18 2012 at 2:28 AM Rating: Excellent
**
542 posts
Oh, I know they're going to try to appeal to a lot more than their current players, but whether it'll actually catch on is another story. I can only speculate at this point so if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. We'll find out soon enough.

edit: I do believe there's at least a few hundred thousand who would seriously look into 2.0 if it's awesome, by the way. Not saying it can't attract any more players if it's good, just skeptical as to whether it can break into a more mainstream market at this point.

Thanks for the links, I'll take a look.

Edited, Feb 18th 2012 3:32am by Susanoh
#94 Feb 18 2012 at 3:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
2,153 posts
Quote:
It is one of the largest MMO releases of all time, regardless of how terrible you think the game is


Just like Final Fantasy / Spirits within was one of the largest CG movies of all time. And we know where that went.

Quote:
The scars in FFXIV don't run deep. The music is brilliant, the models are brilliant, the coding is functional (probably brilliant- I've yet to see any bugs whatsoever).


Music: On the whole, it's average at best, even compared to it's immediate predecessor, FFXI. But of course, that's opinion.
Models: Definitely unusually good for a MMO. SWTOR doesn't even come close.
Coding functional (probably brilliant): If your main argument for "good coding" is the absence of bugs, I think you smoke too much glue paste. It may be true that there's a comparatively low number few glitches; to describe this abomination of latency, user-unfriendlyness and clip-a-holism as "good coding" by artificially limiting the range of elements taken into consideration to CTDs and floor-drops, however, borders on deception. Or derangement. Probably a bit of both.
#95 Feb 18 2012 at 6:55 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,825 posts
The Official PS Mag has had XIV in the top 3 of the most wanted games for the last 5 or 6 issues, so there's definately alot of people out there that want it at least.
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#96 Feb 18 2012 at 10:35 AM Rating: Default
*
124 posts
Rinsui wrote:
Quote:
It is one of the largest MMO releases of all time, regardless of how terrible you think the game is


Just like Final Fantasy / Spirits within was one of the largest CG movies of all time. And we know where that went.

Quote:
The scars in FFXIV don't run deep. The music is brilliant, the models are brilliant, the coding is functional (probably brilliant- I've yet to see any bugs whatsoever).


Music: On the whole, it's average at best, even compared to it's immediate predecessor, FFXI. But of course, that's opinion.
Models: Definitely unusually good for a MMO. SWTOR doesn't even come close.
Coding functional (probably brilliant): If your main argument for "good coding" is the absence of bugs, I think you smoke too much glue paste. It may be true that there's a comparatively low number few glitches; to describe this abomination of latency, user-unfriendlyness and clip-a-holism as "good coding" by artificially limiting the range of elements taken into consideration to CTDs and floor-drops, however, borders on deception. Or derangement. Probably a bit of both.


I thought the music was absolutely amazing. I think your feelings of it might be clouded by bad memories.

None of your arguments for coding have anything to do with what I'm talking about. Latency is a network issue. User-unfriendliness is a management and design issue. "Clip-a-holism" is an engine problem. When you look at how all of the parts behind FFXIV work together, it's all very functional. My game doesn't glitch while using teleports. It doesn't fail to record dead monsters while I'm doing leves. Everything works, it just doesn't work together to make a good game.

Edited, Feb 18th 2012 11:36am by BlynkTheSneak
____________________________
Blynk [Gilgamesh] Blynk [Bodhum]
#97 Feb 18 2012 at 4:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
BlynkTheSneak wrote:
None of your arguments for coding have anything to do with what I'm talking about. Latency is a network issue. User-unfriendliness is a management and design issue. "Clip-a-holism" is an engine problem. When you look at how all of the parts behind FFXIV work together, it's all very functional. My game doesn't glitch while using teleports. It doesn't fail to record dead monsters while I'm doing leves. Everything works, it just doesn't work together to make a good game.


1. The latency was said to be, by Yoshi himself, a coding problem. The positional algorithm is buggy and requires a change in the engine to fix.

2. User-unfriendliness is a design issue, but good design is required for good code.

3. The clipping issues are because of the engine, and guess what, the engine runs on code.

4. I've actually had my game glitch while using teleports. On several occasions.

5. I've actually had my game glitch while doing leves where it didn't place all the mobs needed for the mission. Or it just crashes at random. Good times.

6. "Working" is a relative term. Skyrim "works" but it's full of bugs. FFXIV is also functional, but with problems going as deep as the engine that prevent it from having the features you'd expect in a modern MMO, it's also fundamentally flawed. They aren't making a 2.0 for their health. An engine overhaul is the only way the game stands a chance; it's in that sorry a state.
#98 Feb 18 2012 at 5:22 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,609 posts
We still debating this?
____________________________


"I've never watched a nuclear explosion myself. That's a couple of degrees of stupid above my limit"- Old Man Harris
#99BlynkTheSneak, Posted: Feb 18 2012 at 6:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I don't know what you're trying to prove here, but yes, FFXIV does have a flawed engine. That is a design problem. You can still port over all of the working coding and build from there.
#100 Feb 18 2012 at 6:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
852 posts
BlynkTheSneak wrote:
Xoie wrote:
1. The latency was said to be, by Yoshi himself, a coding problem. The positional algorithm is buggy and requires a change in the engine to fix.
Maybe it is, source?

Xoie wrote:
2. User-unfriendliness is a design issue, but good design is required for good code.
It just doesn't work like that. This is like saying a good driver is needed for a good car. Yes, that certainly helps, but they're not mutually exclusive.

Xoie wrote:
3. The clipping issues are because of the engine, and guess what, the engine runs on code.
No sh*t. If you watch a movie, it's also running on code. That doesn't mean the movie being bad is a coding issue.

Xoie wrote:
4. I've actually had my game glitch while using teleports. On several occasions.

5. I've actually had my game glitch while doing leves where it didn't place all the mobs needed for the mission. Or it just crashes at random. Good times.
No idea man. I've never seen this happen outside of lag related issues that were happening very close to launch. I would bet that was your problem.

Quote:
6. "Working" is a relative term. Skyrim "works" but it's full of bugs. FFXIV is also functional, but with problems going as deep as the engine that prevent it from having the features you'd expect in a modern MMO, it's also fundamentally flawed. They aren't making a 2.0 for their health. An engine overhaul is the only way the game stands a chance; it's in that sorry a state.
I don't know what you're trying to prove here, but yes, FFXIV does have a flawed engine. That is a design problem. You can still port over all of the working coding and build from there.

Edited, Feb 18th 2012 7:20pm by BlynkTheSneak


I don't believe you are familiar with coding so much at this level if you're saying this. Assets can be ported. Not a fundamentally redesigned engine.
____________________________
#101 Feb 18 2012 at 7:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
BlynkTheSneak wrote:
Xoie wrote:
1. The latency was said to be, by Yoshi himself, a coding problem. The positional algorithm is buggy and requires a change in the engine to fix.
Maybe it is, source?

Xoie wrote:
2. User-unfriendliness is a design issue, but good design is required for good code.
It just doesn't work like that. This is like saying a good driver is needed for a good car. Yes, that certainly helps, but they're not mutually exclusive.

Xoie wrote:
3. The clipping issues are because of the engine, and guess what, the engine runs on code.
No sh*t. If you watch a movie, it's also running on code. That doesn't mean the movie being bad is a coding issue.

Xoie wrote:
4. I've actually had my game glitch while using teleports. On several occasions.

5. I've actually had my game glitch while doing leves where it didn't place all the mobs needed for the mission. Or it just crashes at random. Good times.
No idea man. I've never seen this happen outside of lag related issues that were happening very close to launch. I would bet that was your problem.

Quote:
6. "Working" is a relative term. Skyrim "works" but it's full of bugs. FFXIV is also functional, but with problems going as deep as the engine that prevent it from having the features you'd expect in a modern MMO, it's also fundamentally flawed. They aren't making a 2.0 for their health. An engine overhaul is the only way the game stands a chance; it's in that sorry a state.
I don't know what you're trying to prove here, but yes, FFXIV does have a flawed engine. That is a design problem. You can still port over all of the working coding and build from there.


Listen.

I am not someone who has the immense kindness and patience of Susanoh to debate this with you. I did not say what I did for your benefit.

If I thought for a second you had any interest in being reasonable or learning something new from the input you received, we could talk. But it's clear that this is some sort of testing ground for you to constantly practice being "right" when you're oh so ************************ wrong. It is not wrong to say the game has coding issues even if the problem is traced back to design, the engine, or what's built on the engine.

And I'm not going to play your game. You want to be right so bad? Fine.

You are absolutely correct, Blynk. You sure got me good there. I've have disproved at every turn by your cunning use of twisted language and illogical undermining. I will never go up against your superior intellect again.

Happy now?
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 18 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (18)