Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Why this WON'T (or shouldn't) fail in our eyes Follow

#1 May 13 2013 at 10:22 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
**
374 posts
I preface this with the assumption that there is some truth to the rumors that the Beta is indeed fun, and people are enjoying the new rendition of the game.

Failure is an interesting word. When we analyze the word failure I believe it is prudent to measure success simultaneously...

I said in the topic, the game won't fail in our eyes... so what does that mean? I believe, as a consumer success/failure should be measured by the utility one derives from consuming the product given the alternative of spending one's time performing some other task or presumably, some other form of entertainment i.e. another MMO/Video game for instance. If indeed this game is fun and you are finding enjoyment in playing the game... then from the consumers point of view the game is a success. Regardless of the sales figures.

Now from SEs point of view, they may indeed not reach their projected sales figures at which they determine the investment to be a success. That's not the point though.

I believe too many people are spending time worrying whether or not this game will be a blockbuster hit with millions of subs. Instead they should simply say "I enjoy or dislike this game based on how fun I personally find the game to be." And not on how many other people find the game to be amazing/horrible.

I find that in MMOs particularly there is an odd fascination with how many other people also enjoy the game... and the perceived love/hate for the MMO in the population as a whole often has a direct influence on the individuals own derived utility from the game.

With that long winded explanation I arrive at my point. I believe that this game is going to be amazing, and that many of the XI players and old XIV players will come to the game, however SE is likely not going to reach the stellar number of subs they are hoping for...

What are your thoughts?

Edited, May 13th 2013 12:23pm by je355804
#2 May 13 2013 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
***
3,448 posts
Quote:
With that long winded explanation I arrive at my point. I believe that this game is going to be amazing, and that many of the XI players and old XIV players will come to the game, however SE is likely not going to reach the stellar number of subs they are hoping for...


Has SE stated anywhere what kind of sub numbers they're hoping for?

I agree with your premise above. There's too much importance placed on how many OTHER people are playing a game. For sure there's a minimum number below which a game just can't be played, but any game at that number is going to have shut down long before.

I also think there's a tendency for MMO developers to set unrealistic expectations both for themselves and for the players. I remember before SWTOR launched they announced they intended to compete directly with WoW. Certainly there have been other MMOs that were self-purported "WoW killers" seeking to attain WoW's impossible subscription base.

I do think that attitude is starting to fade from developers finally, but it's very much still present in the player community.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#3 May 13 2013 at 10:51 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Japanese culture also accepts a smaller number of sales for individual units to be "successful" - this applies on the hardware side as well as the software side.

So SE's internals may be smaller than the equivalent numbers expected from a US made game, and that's a good thing. In addition to the 100K+ free games they're giving away, they may be satisfied with as few as 500K additional copies of the game sold (PS3 and PC combined), although they're surely hoping for a million plus since that's a much appreciated, if not needed, infusion of cash to offset development costs.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#4 May 13 2013 at 10:54 AM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
je355844 wrote:
I believe too many people are spending time worrying whether or not this game will be a blockbuster hit with millions of subs. Instead they should simply say "I enjoy or dislike this game based on how fun I personally find the game to be." And not on how many other people find the game to be amazing/horrible.


I think the reason people do this is because they get worried that if there aren't enough people playing the game, it will close down. And in reality, that's not a misguided notion. The game needs to achieve a certain level of success in order to stay afloat. Since SE backed the game themselves, they have far more leeway than most other mmo-makers, but there is still that point of no return just like other games. I'm not very concerned about it, I think the game will be successful enough to sustain itself for quite a while. If there truly were several hundred thousand people in beta phase 2, I think it's a safe bet that there is enough interest in the game to keep it going for quite a while.

I mean, just consider that there are a fairly large amount of players from 1.0 that haven't even gotten a beta invite yet and they still had those numbers. That says a lot to me. The mostly positive responses to the beta say a lot more.
#5 May 13 2013 at 10:56 AM Rating: Good
*
249 posts
Im kinda burned out on waiting and looking for a new MMO to play
____________________________

Osarion = Red Mage
Mikhalia = Black Mage Evilwizardington
FinalFanXIV = Fighter McWarrior
All we are missing is Thief, Clan Khee'Bler and we will have the full Light Warriors party.
#6 May 13 2013 at 11:17 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
530 posts
The game won't succeed or fail on its release date, or even the first week. It will take a few months to gauge public interest and see if subscriptions are retained and if new players are joining or if sales are flat and subscriptions have been cancelled.

Furthermore, those who are hesitant to jump into ARR may wait until the release bugs have been ironed out and fixed before they join so the first month may not be too telling either, in regards to the games success or failure. Upon release, reviews will be important. ARR needs to be well received and build off some momentum.

I would expect old players to play upon release, as well as new players. After the inital 3-6 months there will be a better picture on whether ARR was a success or failure.
____________________________
i'm not saying, i'm just saying
_________________________
Babu Voyvoda - Hyur Midlander
White Mage
#7 May 13 2013 at 11:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
Thing is though, what happens if it fails? Are all these people worried about it failing going to /wrists themselves? No, life will go on.

Predicting whether this game will fail (or succeed) at this point is an activity that has very little merit in my opinion. It might be a better exercise 1-3 months after launch.

For now I'm having fun with the anticipation and really looking forward to everything they're teasing us with Smiley: nod
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#8 May 13 2013 at 11:52 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
818 posts
Wint wrote:
Thing is though, what happens if it fails? Are all these people worried about it failing going to /wrists themselves? No, life will go on.

Predicting whether this game will fail (or succeed) at this point is an activity that has very little merit in my opinion. It might be a better exercise 1-3 months after launch.

For now I'm having fun with the anticipation and really looking forward to everything they're teasing us with Smiley: nod


Yea I don't know it seems like these threads pop up much more frequently than any other single topic. Everyone's definition of "fail" is different, every company's perspective is different, and in the end I rarely think any MMO has flat out "failed." Success for the company ultimately boils down to one thing: Did we have enough subs to pay for the cost of manufacturing and development and make a profit? Yes? Then we succeeded even if the game lasted 6 months and everyone jumped shipped.

In any case I'm with Wint here. Anticipation is much more relevant at this point in time.
____________________________
The entire Universe to the furthest Galaxy, we are told, is no more than a closed electron existing as part of a much bigger Universe we can never see. And that Universe is only an elementary particle in a still grander Universe. An infinite regression, up and down. - Carl Sagan

Check out my Gamer Blog at http://www.baffledgamer.com/
#9 May 13 2013 at 12:11 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
Avatar
**
374 posts
ACLinjury wrote:
The game won't succeed or fail on its release date, or even the first week. It will take a few months to gauge public interest and see if subscriptions are retained and if new players are joining or if sales are flat and subscriptions have been cancelled.

Furthermore, those who are hesitant to jump into ARR may wait until the release bugs have been ironed out and fixed before they join so the first month may not be too telling either, in regards to the games success or failure. Upon release, reviews will be important. ARR needs to be well received and build off some momentum.

I would expect old players to play upon release, as well as new players. After the inital 3-6 months there will be a better picture on whether ARR was a success or failure.


I don't mean to sound abrasive, but this is exactly the point I was trying to steer people away from in my OP.

Success to the consumer should depend on the amount of fun WE the player have... Not on the amount of money SE makes off of it.

EDIT:
~~Reading the remainder of the posts, it seems my original discussion purpose as per usual was lost... the original purpose of the discussion was to say success is determined by the enjoyment the game gives us and not the dollar for SE.

This was more to say we should be happy with a good game (which it appears we may get) and not related to total subs.

Edited, May 13th 2013 2:17pm by je355804
#10 May 13 2013 at 12:13 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
**
587 posts
Archmage Callinon wrote:
[quote]I also think there's a tendency for MMO developers to set unrealistic expectations both for themselves and for the players. I remember before SWTOR launched they announced they intended to compete directly with WoW. Certainly there have been other MMOs that were self-purported "WoW killers" seeking to attain WoW's impossible subscription base.

I do think that attitude is starting to fade from developers finally, but it's very much still present in the player community.


From what we've seen, in my opinion, SE is more concerned about competing with itself, than with other developers.

In other words, they realized they made some grave mistakes, and they know they can do better.
____________________________
FFXIV
Vencedor Solares - 50 PLD

WoW
Vencedor - 85 Protection Paladin - Ner'zhul
Dancingedge - 85 Rogue - Ner'zhul

FFXI
Weran - 75SAM | 75THF | 100+2+3 Woodworking
#11 May 13 2013 at 12:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
456 posts
je355804- it doesnt matter how you want to put it or have it heard people are going to flood this thread with things so far off topic and going very deep down the rabbit hole about things they really have no clue about yet... ive already tried this thread and it didnt go over well... however i had a diff approach than you do here... good luck buddy!

____________________________
Moderator-75thf 75nin 75pld Hume
LS- WanderingTrupaTricks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Diabolos~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mori Oni- 50MNK 20LNC 11GLD Miquote
LS- The Inner Circle
FC- Primal Bane
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ultros~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#12 May 13 2013 at 12:19 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
As a game designer, it's successful if it is received well by your target audience (or in the case of a new franchise, establishes an audience). So if your target audience is millions of Final Fantasy fans, and they don't like it, then you weren't successful. Even if some other audience picks it up and loves it, that's a happy accident--you still missed your target.

There's also the spirit of the MMO to consider: a perpetual virtual world with boundless opportunities for adventure. That's what the MMO was envisioned as, so if your game is shut down or can't keep releasing content, then in that sense it is unsuccessful.

And of course as a business, it's successful if it proves to be a good return on the investment. It's a slim but manageable margin by which the game could make money and still be unsuccessful.

It should go without saying, but there are many different objectives in play with any large scale endeavor. What's successful to some isn't successful to others. I might meet my goal of 80% of my audience liking my work, but that may still leave 20% calling it a failure. That 80% might love my work but not be willing to pay for it. If I had an objective to make money, then I would fail at that aspect. Success and failure are rarely all-or-nothing endeavors. There's always multiple objectives and multiple perspectives, each with some measure of success and failure. So it's generally fair to ask "Fail at what? Succeed at what?" and meaningless if not specified.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#13 May 13 2013 at 12:45 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
Avatar
**
374 posts
Mmoderator wrote:
je355804- it doesnt matter how you want to put it or have it heard people are going to flood this thread with things so far off topic and going very deep down the rabbit hole about things they really have no clue about yet... ive already tried this thread and it didnt go over well... however i had a diff approach than you do here... good luck buddy!



Very true... it's difficult to achieve a particular talking point without cross winds drifting the little ship off to new lands. Perhaps it speaks to my inability to make a coherent and concise topic :)
#14 May 13 2013 at 12:47 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
Avatar
**
374 posts
Kachi wrote:
As a game designer, it's successful if it is received well by your target audience (or in the case of a new franchise, establishes an audience). So if your target audience is millions of Final Fantasy fans, and they don't like it, then you weren't successful. Even if some other audience picks it up and loves it, that's a happy accident--you still missed your target.

There's also the spirit of the MMO to consider: a perpetual virtual world with boundless opportunities for adventure. That's what the MMO was envisioned as, so if your game is shut down or can't keep releasing content, then in that sense it is unsuccessful.

And of course as a business, it's successful if it proves to be a good return on the investment. It's a slim but manageable margin by which the game could make money and still be unsuccessful.

It should go without saying, but there are many different objectives in play with any large scale endeavor. What's successful to some isn't successful to others. I might meet my goal of 80% of my audience liking my work, but that may still leave 20% calling it a failure. That 80% might love my work but not be willing to pay for it. If I had an objective to make money, then I would fail at that aspect. Success and failure are rarely all-or-nothing endeavors. There's always multiple objectives and multiple perspectives, each with some measure of success and failure. So it's generally fair to ask "Fail at what? Succeed at what?" and meaningless if not specified.


Specifically I was hoping to discuss success in so far as it relates to us the consumer, and what that entails. And to avoid success/failure to SE... that one is easy, returning profit and giving to shareholders is success.



Edited, May 13th 2013 2:47pm by je355804
#15 May 13 2013 at 1:14 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
je355804 wrote:
Mmoderator wrote:
je355804- it doesnt matter how you want to put it or have it heard people are going to flood this thread with things so far off topic and going very deep down the rabbit hole about things they really have no clue about yet... ive already tried this thread and it didnt go over well... however i had a diff approach than you do here... good luck buddy!



Very true... it's difficult to achieve a particular talking point without cross winds drifting the little ship off to new lands. Perhaps it speaks to my inability to make a coherent and concise topic :)


Actually, and I mean this with no disrespect, that's exactly what it does. Your OP was somewhat long-winded and often tangential, giving people such as myself the opportunity to dissect aspects of it you probably weren't intending. If you'd really like people to stay on topic, you need to focus your post on the specific topic and be as clear as possible. No digressions, no ambiguity. Unfortunately, it's a lot harder to do than to talk about doing.
#16 May 13 2013 at 2:09 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
je355804 wrote:
Kachi wrote:
As a game designer, it's successful if it is received well by your target audience (or in the case of a new franchise, establishes an audience). So if your target audience is millions of Final Fantasy fans, and they don't like it, then you weren't successful. Even if some other audience picks it up and loves it, that's a happy accident--you still missed your target.

There's also the spirit of the MMO to consider: a perpetual virtual world with boundless opportunities for adventure. That's what the MMO was envisioned as, so if your game is shut down or can't keep releasing content, then in that sense it is unsuccessful.

And of course as a business, it's successful if it proves to be a good return on the investment. It's a slim but manageable margin by which the game could make money and still be unsuccessful.

It should go without saying, but there are many different objectives in play with any large scale endeavor. What's successful to some isn't successful to others. I might meet my goal of 80% of my audience liking my work, but that may still leave 20% calling it a failure. That 80% might love my work but not be willing to pay for it. If I had an objective to make money, then I would fail at that aspect. Success and failure are rarely all-or-nothing endeavors. There's always multiple objectives and multiple perspectives, each with some measure of success and failure. So it's generally fair to ask "Fail at what? Succeed at what?" and meaningless if not specified.


Specifically I was hoping to discuss success in so far as it relates to us the consumer, and what that entails. And to avoid success/failure to SE... that one is easy, returning profit and giving to shareholders is success.



Edited, May 13th 2013 2:47pm by je355804


Well, you could say that if you like it, it's a success, but to what end?

We could say, "It's different for every person," but in a significant way, it's not. Many people will have very similar experiences with the game. They'll stay or quit for the same reasons. Some will initially think it's a success, but by month six, they'll be done with it forever. Is that a "success" for that person? How long do you need to like it for it to be a success? It depends where they put the bar, really.

It's fine to ask, "What will you consider a success?" though. It's just that when you talk about failure or success, the only ones who care about subjective measures of success are those who want to think of it as a success. It becomes a kind of sad way of resolving dissonance, where you're defending the merits of the game because you like it--so it must be good. If you like it, that should be enough. It shouldn't matter how other people subjectively assess the game.

By the way, it's not necessarily that easy to brand a game a financial success. Profit and paying shareholders isn't enough on its own--a game can be profitable and not be a good investment of resources. If your game generates a 110% return on investment, but your average project generates a 300% return on investment, then your game was likely a huge failure and a waste of resources.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#17 May 13 2013 at 2:50 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
Avatar
**
374 posts
BartelX wrote:
je355804 wrote:
Mmoderator wrote:
je355804- it doesnt matter how you want to put it or have it heard people are going to flood this thread with things so far off topic and going very deep down the rabbit hole about things they really have no clue about yet... ive already tried this thread and it didnt go over well... however i had a diff approach than you do here... good luck buddy!



Very true... it's difficult to achieve a particular talking point without cross winds drifting the little ship off to new lands. Perhaps it speaks to my inability to make a coherent and concise topic :)


Actually, and I mean this with no disrespect, that's exactly what it does. Your OP was somewhat long-winded and often tangential, giving people such as myself the opportunity to dissect aspects of it you probably weren't intending. If you'd really like people to stay on topic, you need to focus your post on the specific topic and be as clear as possible. No digressions, no ambiguity. Unfortunately, it's a lot harder to do than to talk about doing.


Perhaps I should enroll in a descriptive writing class.

Kachi wrote:
je355804 wrote:
Kachi wrote:
As a game designer, it's successful if it is received well by your target audience (or in the case of a new franchise, establishes an audience). So if your target audience is millions of Final Fantasy fans, and they don't like it, then you weren't successful. Even if some other audience picks it up and loves it, that's a happy accident--you still missed your target.

There's also the spirit of the MMO to consider: a perpetual virtual world with boundless opportunities for adventure. That's what the MMO was envisioned as, so if your game is shut down or can't keep releasing content, then in that sense it is unsuccessful.

And of course as a business, it's successful if it proves to be a good return on the investment. It's a slim but manageable margin by which the game could make money and still be unsuccessful.

It should go without saying, but there are many different objectives in play with any large scale endeavor. What's successful to some isn't successful to others. I might meet my goal of 80% of my audience liking my work, but that may still leave 20% calling it a failure. That 80% might love my work but not be willing to pay for it. If I had an objective to make money, then I would fail at that aspect. Success and failure are rarely all-or-nothing endeavors. There's always multiple objectives and multiple perspectives, each with some measure of success and failure. So it's generally fair to ask "Fail at what? Succeed at what?" and meaningless if not specified.


Specifically I was hoping to discuss success in so far as it relates to us the consumer, and what that entails. And to avoid success/failure to SE... that one is easy, returning profit and giving to shareholders is success.



Edited, May 13th 2013 2:47pm by je355804


Well, you could say that if you like it, it's a success, but to what end?

We could say, "It's different for every person," but in a significant way, it's not. Many people will have very similar experiences with the game. They'll stay or quit for the same reasons. Some will initially think it's a success, but by month six, they'll be done with it forever. Is that a "success" for that person? How long do you need to like it for it to be a success? It depends where they put the bar, really.

It's fine to ask, "What will you consider a success?" though. It's just that when you talk about failure or success, the only ones who care about subjective measures of success are those who want to think of it as a success. It becomes a kind of sad way of resolving dissonance, where you're defending the merits of the game because you like it--so it must be good. If you like it, that should be enough. It shouldn't matter how other people subjectively assess the game.

By the way, it's not necessarily that easy to brand a game a financial success. Profit and paying shareholders isn't enough on its own--a game can be profitable and not be a good investment of resources. If your game generates a 110% return on investment, but your average project generates a 300% return on investment, then your game was likely a huge failure and a waste of resources.


Simply put, my point is this. We should not base the success of the game based on the profit or lack thereof which it brings to SE. In stead we should base it on the utility we derive from the game itself... Unfortunately I believe too many people directly link their enjoyment to the game based on their perceived "health" of the community, which is inextricably linked to the sales and or reviews which the game is receiving. In other words, individuals are unable to dissociate what they read on forums from their actual experience in the game.

~edit: I found myself often being guilty of this with regards to XI.

Edited, May 13th 2013 4:51pm by je355804

Edited, May 14th 2013 12:54pm by je355804
#18 May 13 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,675 posts
In any creative endeavor there are various notions of success.

The realms of critical success, does the fanbase like it, do others like it (as Kachi stated) and does it do well financially.

As someone who creates, I think there is a certain hierarchy of importance to the above, but sometimes that order changes.

I create because it is (supposed to be) fun and I get enjoyment out of it. The act of creation in itself is a success. But if I place terms or levels of quality, or levels of reception, or levels of intention that is going to be very different. Sometimes I want to be critically known, other times I just want to sell records...

But I am also not a company that demands a return.

---

I honestly think that the devs want ARR to cater primarily to the fans of the series, but also have an obligation to make money. In this case (and this is me just assuming) I think that as long as it's not panned, the critical aspect isn't as important.

What I think doesn't matter though.

I always love a certain show or band and they end up getting canceled or breaking up. My level of care doesn't make those things a success.

A certain level of subs or metric of a minimum number of subs does ultimately. For the company as a whole, nothing more, nothing less.
#19 May 13 2013 at 6:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
530 posts
I don't think it's possible to debate success or failure if we don't have clear definitions of what success or failure is. The definition varies from person to person, which also varies from what SE has in mind for success or failure. At this point, it's pretty much individual opinions based on what we each expect.
____________________________
i'm not saying, i'm just saying
_________________________
Babu Voyvoda - Hyur Midlander
White Mage
#20 May 14 2013 at 10:44 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
630 posts
ACLinjury wrote:
I don't think it's possible to debate success or failure if we don't have clear definitions of what success or failure is. The definition varies from person to person, which also varies from what SE has in mind for success or failure. At this point, it's pretty much individual opinions based on what we each expect.


If we are at this point going to ask if this game will be successful that means we need to take into account all these perspectives from the current available sources.

The success of FFXIV to SE hinges on sales and subscriber numbers. To players it will be in a plethora of areas, from community to monster slaying. One measure of success for both of these parties will be social sites and the media, which there isn't much for us to base our judgement off of yet. That means the anecdotal evidence from testers and the tidbits of info we've seen leaked are the best source of judgement at this time.

Based on the areas of judgement my personal opinion is that FFXIV has the possibility to be very successful. Depending on how end game plays out the base platform is in place and it looks very very nice IMO.
#21Ostia, Posted: May 15 2013 at 1:21 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Basing stuff on something you have no hand on experience is dumb....But Anyways!
#22 May 15 2013 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
The reason 1.0 got 4/10 wasn't because it wasn't "WoW-like" enough. It's because it was ********** unplayable.[/i]
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#23 May 15 2013 at 5:46 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
818 posts
Catwho wrote:
The reason 1.0 got 4/10 wasn't because it wasn't "WoW-like" enough. It's because it was @#%^ing unplayable.



I just fell in love with you now. That's the best statement ever. And so, so true. Although once they polished it up there towards the end I really enjoyed it...I just hated the monotonous repeating terrain that never,ever,ever,ever changed.
____________________________
The entire Universe to the furthest Galaxy, we are told, is no more than a closed electron existing as part of a much bigger Universe we can never see. And that Universe is only an elementary particle in a still grander Universe. An infinite regression, up and down. - Carl Sagan

Check out my Gamer Blog at http://www.baffledgamer.com/
#24 May 15 2013 at 10:09 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,448 posts
Catwho wrote:
The reason 1.0 got 4/10 wasn't because it wasn't "WoW-like" enough. It's because it was @#%^ing unplayable.


Trying to gag reviews until months into the game's release probably sent up a few red flags too.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#25Ostia, Posted: May 16 2013 at 2:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Is that why when they made it "Playable" the population still did not go up ? or why nobody played it when it was F2P ?
#26 May 16 2013 at 2:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
3,599 posts
Ostia wrote:
Catwho wrote:
The reason 1.0 got 4/10 wasn't because it wasn't "WoW-like" enough. It's because it was @#%^ing unplayable.


Is that why when they made it "Playable" the population still did not go up ? or why nobody played it when it was F2P ?


Here we go again with Ostia's official player numbers. Tell us again oh great lord of toilet-paper math, what were the numbers?

I know that I, and 8 other friends returned during the PAID months. I know they removed the ability to know ANY sort of online player numbers. Therefore, I know you are saying unprovable sh*t to win internet arguments.
____________________________


#27 May 16 2013 at 2:33 PM Rating: Excellent
The paid months of 1.x were the best! And it really seems like either some people came back, or inactive players at least became active again.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#28Ostia, Posted: May 16 2013 at 2:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Shhh! You and your made up friends ? Lmao!
#29 May 16 2013 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
When I joined 1.0 it was during paid time. And I paid for it til they stopped billing.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#30 May 16 2013 at 2:45 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,599 posts
Ostia wrote:
Louiscool wrote:
Ostia wrote:
Catwho wrote:
The reason 1.0 got 4/10 wasn't because it wasn't "WoW-like" enough. It's because it was @#%^ing unplayable.


Is that why when they made it "Playable" the population still did not go up ? or why nobody played it when it was F2P ?


Here we go again with Ostia's official player numbers. Tell us again oh great lord of toilet-paper math, what were the numbers?

I know that I, and 8 other friends returned during the PAID months. I know they removed the ability to know ANY sort of online player numbers. Therefore, I know you are saying unprovable sh*t to win internet arguments.


Shhh! You and your made up friends ? Lmao!


PSSSSSHHHHH Imaginary!?

Do these people look imaginarily joyful!?

Look how happy we are! This is actually one of my favorite moments from the end of 1.0. We accidentally formed a Blm vs Whm Line emote-off that lasted over an hour (I've got many more pics of it if you want Ostia.)

Edited, May 16th 2013 4:45pm by Louiscool
____________________________


#31 May 16 2013 at 2:56 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
I quit for a while and came back for about 2 months right before it went P2P. When I came back, the game had already improved tremendously. Unfortunately, I had already become invested in swtor by the time the payment was gonna start and I only pay for 1 mmo at a time, so I went to swtor. But the game was already leaps and bounds better before they even started charging for it.
#32 May 16 2013 at 3:33 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,448 posts
Ostia wrote:
Catwho wrote:
The reason 1.0 got 4/10 wasn't because it wasn't "WoW-like" enough. It's because it was @#%^ing unplayable.


Is that why when they made it "Playable" the population still did not go up ? or why nobody played it when it was F2P ?


It's infinitely more likely that people who saw the game in its 1.0 state (or 1.0 beta state) or read about that state just stopped giving a crap about it and stopped paying attention.

I sure did.

I was only interested in 2.0 because it promised to revamp the game... and that was the part that needed fixing.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#33 May 16 2013 at 6:11 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Louiscool wrote:
Ostia wrote:
Louiscool wrote:
Ostia wrote:
Catwho wrote:
The reason 1.0 got 4/10 wasn't because it wasn't "WoW-like" enough. It's because it was @#%^ing unplayable.


Is that why when they made it "Playable" the population still did not go up ? or why nobody played it when it was F2P ?


Here we go again with Ostia's official player numbers. Tell us again oh great lord of toilet-paper math, what were the numbers?

I know that I, and 8 other friends returned during the PAID months. I know they removed the ability to know ANY sort of online player numbers. Therefore, I know you are saying unprovable sh*t to win internet arguments.


Shhh! You and your made up friends ? Lmao!


PSSSSSHHHHH Imaginary!?

Do these people look imaginarily joyful!?

Look how happy we are! This is actually one of my favorite moments from the end of 1.0. We accidentally formed a Blm vs Whm Line emote-off that lasted over an hour (I've got many more pics of it if you want Ostia.)

Edited, May 16th 2013 4:45pm by Louiscool


You all do look Happy! Smiley: eek
____________________________
MUTED
#34 May 18 2013 at 4:58 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,122 posts
Ostia wrote:
Basing stuff on something you have no hand on experience is dumb....But Anyways!

The game wont fail, as in "FFXIV 1.0" Fail. It has enough warcraft in it to call attention to all the casuals that go from game to game, looking for the next wow killer, now will it be a smashing success, and will SE sell 4 million boxes in the first day ? No! But i believe they will get decent numbers, and since the game has been wowfied, reviewers will not give it a 4 out of 10 etc etc. The game will do good, the question is, is SE gonna be able to retain their customers, and will the game really deliver in content.

I guess once Phase 3 of beta starts, we can answer weather the game will succeed or not, if they do not have as much content as SE has yapped about, well then that will be one sad day for FFXIV.

I don't think trying turn a failed game into a declining game from 2004 is not going to make it "do good". Outside of FFXIV forums, I'm seeing almost no hype for 2.0 anymore nowadays. Hardly anyone talks about it on general western and Japanese message boards it seems... I think people have moved on

Edited, May 18th 2013 7:04am by Dizmo
#35 May 18 2013 at 11:47 AM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Dizmo wrote:
Ostia wrote:
Basing stuff on something you have no hand on experience is dumb....But Anyways!

The game wont fail, as in "FFXIV 1.0" Fail. It has enough warcraft in it to call attention to all the casuals that go from game to game, looking for the next wow killer, now will it be a smashing success, and will SE sell 4 million boxes in the first day ? No! But i believe they will get decent numbers, and since the game has been wowfied, reviewers will not give it a 4 out of 10 etc etc. The game will do good, the question is, is SE gonna be able to retain their customers, and will the game really deliver in content.

I guess once Phase 3 of beta starts, we can answer weather the game will succeed or not, if they do not have as much content as SE has yapped about, well then that will be one sad day for FFXIV.

I don't think trying turn a failed game into a declining game from 2004 is not going to make it "do good". Outside of FFXIV forums, I'm seeing almost no hype for 2.0 anymore nowadays. Hardly anyone talks about it on general western and Japanese message boards it seems... I think people have moved on

Edited, May 18th 2013 7:04am by Dizmo


Over 8 Million! Subscriptions.... Declining.... Yeah! That Logic!
____________________________
MUTED
#36 May 18 2013 at 12:22 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Dizmo wrote:
Ostia wrote:
Basing stuff on something you have no hand on experience is dumb....But Anyways!

The game wont fail, as in "FFXIV 1.0" Fail. It has enough warcraft in it to call attention to all the casuals that go from game to game, looking for the next wow killer, now will it be a smashing success, and will SE sell 4 million boxes in the first day ? No! But i believe they will get decent numbers, and since the game has been wowfied, reviewers will not give it a 4 out of 10 etc etc. The game will do good, the question is, is SE gonna be able to retain their customers, and will the game really deliver in content.

I guess once Phase 3 of beta starts, we can answer weather the game will succeed or not, if they do not have as much content as SE has yapped about, well then that will be one sad day for FFXIV.

I don't think trying turn a failed game into a declining game from 2004 is not going to make it "do good". Outside of FFXIV forums, I'm seeing almost no hype for 2.0 anymore nowadays. Hardly anyone talks about it on general western and Japanese message boards it seems... I think people have moved on


Then don't play it. Then stop talking about it. Also pretty hilarious you compare it to a "declining game" that still destroys all its competition in terms of revenue. They haven't released an expansion in 2 years, of course its declining. They also aren't trying to turn it into a game from 2004. They are trying to turn it into what 1.0 wasn't, a success. If it means using modified elements from other successful games like WoW, GW2, etc, more power to them. I feel like we've had this argument a billion times... and I've only been back on these forums for like 2 months.
#37 May 18 2013 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
660 posts
I have to agree with you about having this argument a billion times... I'm literally counting down to summer so we can stop having each thread turn into the same arguments over and over again. It would be a forum meltdown if everyone just reserved their judgment until the game releases. Oh, no, never that.
____________________________
Nasozan, Midgardsormr Server. R.I.P.
75 BRD, SAM, WHM; 74 THF, BLM; 69 PLD, BST.
Darth Howie wrote:
Woe unto he who tries to be helpful, for upon him shall be lain the burdens of all.
- Squall 15:11
#38 May 18 2013 at 4:01 PM Rating: Excellent
*
130 posts
The reboot made it into the top 10 PC games on the biggest general gaming board on the internet. I think it's getting re-buzz. Whoever bought the old version has no reason to not fire it back up and give it another test drive. It'll be summer. They'll be bored. There's no Diablo III coming out. I think Diablo III was what put the coffin in FFXIV 1. It certainly hurt Rift.

But new people won't be trying it at all unless it gets 8-9/10 reviews. 7/10 is only going to give it a modest number of its old players back.
____________________________
Peregrine Falcon
Rendezvous Zone LS
Mrd/Con/BS/GS/Min
#39 May 18 2013 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
benjjjamin wrote:
There's no Diablo III coming out. I think Diablo III was what put the coffin in FFXIV 1. It certainly hurt Rift.


Really? From everything I read, a lot of people HATED Diablo III. I was super excited about it the first time I saw gameplay footage of it about 5 years ago... but by the time it came out, it just didn't look very impressive. Then after reading reviews about how shallow the gameplay was I didn't even bother trying it. Did it actually do well? I thought it kinda bombed based on what I saw...
#40 May 18 2013 at 6:19 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,202 posts
BartelX wrote:
benjjjamin wrote:
There's no Diablo III coming out. I think Diablo III was what put the coffin in FFXIV 1. It certainly hurt Rift.


Really? From everything I read, a lot of people HATED Diablo III. I was super excited about it the first time I saw gameplay footage of it about 5 years ago... but by the time it came out, it just didn't look very impressive. Then after reading reviews about how shallow the gameplay was I didn't even bother trying it. Did it actually do well? I thought it kinda bombed based on what I saw...


It did not live to the hype, and how could it ? But did it bombed ? It broke record sales etc etc, it was an ok game, i never followed diablo that hard, i was more of a starcraft guy, but diablo III was ok, certainly i see why so many people felt disapointed, the story was not that great, and it was way to short.
____________________________
MUTED
#41 May 18 2013 at 7:01 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Yeah, that's kinda what I heard. Wasn't the main story only like 10 hours or something? I didn't ever really look at the sales numbers I guess. I don't think it had anything to do with why FFXIV 1.0 bombed though, even if it did do well.
#42 May 18 2013 at 7:19 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,202 posts
The story was like 8-10 hours, the game could have been beaten in a day really, and nothing changed in the storyline from easy, normal to hard, to inferno or wathever the last one was, it was a fun game dont get me wrong, but to me the story felt rushed, to kill the first demon king, the story paced you to it, it felt good, the other 2 where like "Ok here are the next to bad guys, kill then because reasons and GG" and i did not like that, but the game and it's mechanics where solid, the story whoever felt short in my book.

And Diablo III had nothing to do with XIV, cataclysm did whoever.
____________________________
MUTED
#43 May 18 2013 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
As did Rift, swtor, and Tera. I remember talking about all those games when 1.0 came out and I know a ton of people left for them. Heck, I left for swtor (though in hindsight I kinda wish I hadn't).
#44 May 18 2013 at 7:46 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
Well i seriously doubt rift and tera had anything to do with it, XIV 1.0 launched directly around the date Cataclysm did, which was a bad bad strategy.
____________________________
MUTED
#45 May 18 2013 at 7:48 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Sorry, should have clarified. I didn't mean specifically at launch, I just meant over the course of like the first 6-9 months of 1.0.
#46 May 18 2013 at 8:03 PM Rating: Good
*
130 posts
Yeah throughout V1, I subsidized my time with rift and did buy diablo (didn't play the other ones, but the shellmates just kept talking about it). Some people did quit for rift, but from what I saw when Diablo III came out that summer, people seemed to just use both games to set up groups to play diablo with. Then all they needed was 3 weeks off from either game to be like why was I playing that?

Might have just naturally found diablo nuts in xiv and rift though. IIRC guild wars 2 came out well after that, but by the end of that summer both rift and xi were shedding players. It wasn't what made both fail. It was just a big sever point from bored summer players and these products. Distance doesn't really make the heart grow fonder.

I think this game will do well, provided that Square Enix doesn't go bankrupt with their new business models this year.

Edited, May 18th 2013 10:09pm by benjjjamin
____________________________
Peregrine Falcon
Rendezvous Zone LS
Mrd/Con/BS/GS/Min
#47 May 18 2013 at 9:41 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,151 posts
Louiscool wrote:
Ostia wrote:
Catwho wrote:
The reason 1.0 got 4/10 wasn't because it wasn't "WoW-like" enough. It's because it was @#%^ing unplayable.


Is that why when they made it "Playable" the population still did not go up ? or why nobody played it when it was F2P ?


Here we go again with Ostia's official player numbers. Tell us again oh great lord of toilet-paper math, what were the numbers?

I know that I, and 8 other friends returned during the PAID months. I know they removed the ability to know ANY sort of online player numbers. Therefore, I know you are saying unprovable sh*t to win internet arguments.


Just an FYI, but it was possible post search count nerf to find out how many people were logging in regularly. It was impossible to tell which characters were alternates on the same account, but even if you assumed that no one had alts and each character was a different player, the numbers were... alarming. Links to the thread with evidence were posted several times already in this forum.

Specific numbers were irrelevant anyway. You don't need to know how many people are logging in to the game to realize that it feels dead.

Hopefully XIV will avoid that feeling and Yoshi will revive it and restore FF, if not to being a solid contender then at least to being viable.
____________________________
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.
#48 May 18 2013 at 10:24 PM Rating: Default
***
2,202 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Louiscool wrote:
Ostia wrote:
Catwho wrote:
The reason 1.0 got 4/10 wasn't because it wasn't "WoW-like" enough. It's because it was @#%^ing unplayable.


Is that why when they made it "Playable" the population still did not go up ? or why nobody played it when it was F2P ?


Here we go again with Ostia's official player numbers. Tell us again oh great lord of toilet-paper math, what were the numbers?

I know that I, and 8 other friends returned during the PAID months. I know they removed the ability to know ANY sort of online player numbers. Therefore, I know you are saying unprovable sh*t to win internet arguments.


Just an FYI, but it was possible post search count nerf to find out how many people were logging in regularly. It was impossible to tell which characters were alternates on the same account, but even if you assumed that no one had alts and each character was a different player, the numbers were... alarming. Links to the thread with evidence were posted several times already in this forum.

Specific numbers were irrelevant anyway. You don't need to know how many people are logging in to the game to realize that it feels dead.

Hopefully XIV will avoid that feeling and Yoshi will revive it and restore FF, if not to being a solid contender then at least to being viable.


I gave them once a link to the post with all the information, but you know how fanboys are lol
____________________________
MUTED
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 90 All times are in CST
BrokenFox, Anonymous Guests (89)