Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

PA comic: Wednesday December 21, 2011 - Inevitability

13»

Posts

  • DarlanDarlan Registered User regular
    It's a "straight up fact" that the prequels were critical successes? Are you kidding me?

    http://www.metacritic.com/movie/star-wars-episode-i---the-phantom-menace

  • BusterKBusterK Negativity is Boring Cynicism is Cowardice Registered User regular
    Darlan wrote:
    It's a "straight up fact" that the prequels were critical successes? Are you kidding me?

    http://www.metacritic.com/movie/star-wars-episode-i---the-phantom-menace

    15 positive
    15 mixed
    5 negative
    Thank you for proving my point

    Visit http://www.cruzflores.com for all your Cruz Flores needs. Also listen to the podcast I do with Penguin Incarnate http://wgsgshow.podomatic.com
    Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
  • jwalkjwalk Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    Interesting but as they say time will tell if the starting areas become ghost towns in 3 weeks I doubt they will be able to keep up the quality of content all the way thru the endgame and beyond. I know of another game that started out with really interesting quests, with voice over acting for all of it, and up to about level 20 it was an amazing experience, then thru the 30s it was about half that good.. but after level 40 there were literally no quests, or at least none of the same quality with voice overs etc... that shit is expensive to produce, and gamers just tear thru it in days... hours even. That game didn't have quite the budget of SWTOR though... but time will tell.

    jwalk on
  • BroloBrolo Broseidon Lord of the BroceanRegistered User regular
    52 out of 100 is not my definition of a 'critical success'

    52 out of 100 is a "d- see me after class"

  • Piggy ChimpPiggy Chimp Registered User regular
    This strip broadened my knowledge by teaching me about a new song - who says comics are frivolous? However, even better than that...the artwork completely matched the colour scheme of the jumper I'm wearing today! You guys are the best!!!

    J6ke3.jpg
  • fortyforty Registered User regular
    vsove wrote:
    forty wrote:
    So the question is: if F2P/freemium/whatever is the better model for so many of these games, why did most of these recent MMOs release as a normal subscription model and then only later go F2P?

    Consistency and predictability of revenue. F2P offers the opportunity to make more money, but it's not a definite. Whereas if you have 1 million subscribers, you know you're getting 15 million dollars per month.
    In that case, it would imply switching to F2P from subscription is an admission that the game is not performing adequately enough.

    The best card in Hearthstone is your credit card.
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    BusterK wrote:
    If the people who hated the prequels were the majority opinion
    The movies themselves wouldn't have been commercial or critical successes
    Sorry, but it's just a straight fact that they were

    This is an interesting comment because I can't remember any critic who had anything but bad things to say about the prequels. At best there were critics making excuses for some of the more egregious plot contrivances, but I don't think you can say with a straight face that the prequels were critical successes.

    They probably were commercial successes, though I couldn't really find any analysis on the web as to whether the films made as much money as was hoped, but the films were just there to sell toys anyway, and I'm quite sure that the toys have made George a truckload of money.

    I hated the prequels, simply because they were bad filmmaking. And even before the prequels I was not a huge Star Wars fan (though I loved the originals as a child, but my family was always more into Star Trek). But The Old Republic does have some of that old magic that made the original films appealing to me.

  • FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    North wrote:
    Did you read the article? It's literally saying that some analysts think The Old Republic has already surpassed its goals.

    I'm not going to the analyst who doesn't understand the difference between a pre-order player and a subscriber for financial advice. It is impossible for The Old Republic to have reached a subscriber based goal when no one is out of the free month yet... Read the whole article not just the hopeful gem planted at the end.

    Look, just stop. It's been pretty clear for a while now you're not arguing in good faith. You have an objective. Your objective is to discredit F2P not relating to failure. You have been disregarding all evidence to the contrary and cherry picking anything that might make failure and F2P correlate, however vague.

    It's been amply proven that F2P is a better model than the subscription fee even in the context of already making a profit, in many cases. You're done. Move along.

    Fiaryn on
    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
  • SyphyreSyphyre A Dangerous Pastime Registered User regular
    Critically, no, the films were not a success.

    Commercially? The films were a resounding success. Kids who were 5-10 or whatever when Ep1 came out LOVED the movie. It sold tons of toys. They're the same ones who watched and enjoyed Ep2 and 3.

    Guess who's coming into college/teenager years for the SWTOR MMO?

    Steam ID - Syphyreal --- 3DS Friend Code: 2723-9387-1002
  • fortyforty Registered User regular
    It depends how you define "critical success," but the first two prequels had an overall positive reception, and episode 3 actually scored fairly well overall. All this was, of course, at the time of release and in a tidal wave of hype. I would say that retrospective critical reviews have been more negative overall compared to the original reviews.

    The best card in Hearthstone is your credit card.
  • AurichAurich Registered User regular
    jwalk wrote:
    Interesting but as they say time will tell if the starting areas become ghost towns in 3 weeks I doubt they will be able to keep up the quality of content all the way thru the endgame and beyond. I know of another game that started out with really interesting quests, with voice over acting for all of it, and up to about level 20 it was an amazing experience, then thru the 30s it was about half that good.. but after level 40 there were literally no quests, or at least none of the same quality with voice overs etc... that shit is expensive to produce, and gamers just tear thru it in days... hours even. That game didn't have quite the budget of SWTOR though... but time will tell.

    Yeah, I remember getting to the end of the trial area in Age of Conan, and finding out that the rest of the game wasn't voice acted. I've played TOR up to level 30, and found the content to be very consistent. Generally, you'd arrive at an area and get one unique class quest for every ~3 general quests shared by all classes, not counting the passive "kill x baddies" quests that pop up while you're killing baddies. Compared to WoW's launch, TOR has plenty of content. I'm just worried about whether or not they'll be able to generate new, interesting content quickly enough to really get folks invested in the game.

  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    edited December 2011
    forty wrote:
    It depends how you define "critical success," but the first two prequels had an overall positive reception, and episode 3 actually scored fairly well overall. All this was, of course, at the time of release and in a tidal wave of hype. I would say that retrospective critical reviews have been more negative overall compared to the original reviews.

    I'm not sure where you're getting this information. The first film was almost universally panned when it first came out. There were notable exceptions - Roger Ebert, for example, liked the film and blamed the broken air conditioning for the bad reviews of the other critics - but for the most part, no, it did not recieve critical acclaim. No sir.

    The second movie was given more positive reviews, but not by much. Only the third movie recieved what might be called critical acclaim, and that was partly from a sense of relief that the film wasn't as utterly wretched as the other two, so lets give it some cheers for that.

    Cambiata on
  • AurichAurich Registered User regular
    Every positive review I've seen gives Episode 1 the "kids movie" handicap. Even at 11 years old, I found parts of that movie hard to watch.

  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    North and some other people need to do some research into the concept of "the long tail." Most MMO's are profitable from box sales alone, thus not a failure. The challenge and immense successes after come from taking advantage of the long tail to maximize profit over a long period of time. So far, charging a subscription initially nets you a certain amount, followed by a trail of less, then "relaunching" the brand as f2p brings another large burst of cash, followed by a long tail of profits.

    What is this I don't even.
  • JohanFlickJohanFlick Registered User regular
    Re: F2P MMO

    When LOTRO went freemium, the very first expansion released (for which you have to pay 60$) sold more copies than expansion released while the game was subscription only. Not sure if you can argue that going F2P brought more players and more revenue for Turbine.

    As for SW:TOR I don't think they could have gone F2P from the beginning. Reading the SW:TOR thread in MMO subforum it seems that the game is swamped with players, and they can barely keep enough servers for all the players who bought the game. I am not sure if there is good enough tech to support all the players who would try the game if it started F2P. It would end in a horrible launch, lack of stability and overall poor experience for everyone involved.

  • NorthNorth Registered User regular
    Fiaryn wrote:
    North wrote:
    Your objective is to discredit F2P not relating to failure. You have been disregarding all evidence to the contrary and cherry picking anything that might make failure and F2P correlate, however vague.

    F2P has been shown to resurrect failed games and works great at that. It even works great when games are built around that model from that start such as the hugely successful League of Legends.

    That does not change that a game has to be failing before the business decision is made to switch over. There is a reason that a game like Everquest can still get away with charging a subscription while while it's floundering sequel had to switch to F2P. Previously when an MMO was failing to make a profit it would get its plug pulled now they switch to F2P and the marketing department rolls out the balloons and confetti.

    You can call that reason or line in the sand where a game is no longer sustainable on the model it was built around whatever you want. I'm calling that line failure. So yes, F2P does correlate to failure in an MMO.

  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu ___________PIGEON _________San Diego, CA Registered User regular
    Aurich wrote:
    It's a VERY fine distinction, but TOR trades less on the greater Star Wars vibe (movies, EU) than it does on KOTOR specifically. Really, that's the only reason I was interested in the game in the first place; I wanted to go back to that setting that Bioware made with the XBOX games. Again, it's a fine distinction, but I see loads of older fans of the movies saying TOR doesn't look like Star Wars to them. I doubt Bioware would be silly enough to rely on the name to sell copies anyway.
    It's not the setting that BioWare made with the XBOX games. It's the setting BioWare and Obsidian made with the XBOX games. KOTOR 2 was not BioWare.

    Sorry, I go around correcting people on this point. It's my hobby.

  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    Aurich wrote:
    It's a VERY fine distinction, but TOR trades less on the greater Star Wars vibe (movies, EU) than it does on KOTOR specifically. Really, that's the only reason I was interested in the game in the first place; I wanted to go back to that setting that Bioware made with the XBOX games. Again, it's a fine distinction, but I see loads of older fans of the movies saying TOR doesn't look like Star Wars to them. I doubt Bioware would be silly enough to rely on the name to sell copies anyway.
    It's not the setting that BioWare made with the XBOX games. It's the setting BioWare and Obsidian made with the XBOX games. KOTOR 2 was not BioWare.

    Sorry, I go around correcting people on this point. It's my hobby.

    It does kinda go to show that BioWare is classy in honoring Obsidian's efforts. Or, they would have, if it wasn't for Lucas overriding the events of KOTOR2 because he's a worse writer than I am.

    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • AurichAurich Registered User regular
    Aurich wrote:
    It's a VERY fine distinction, but TOR trades less on the greater Star Wars vibe (movies, EU) than it does on KOTOR specifically. Really, that's the only reason I was interested in the game in the first place; I wanted to go back to that setting that Bioware made with the XBOX games. Again, it's a fine distinction, but I see loads of older fans of the movies saying TOR doesn't look like Star Wars to them. I doubt Bioware would be silly enough to rely on the name to sell copies anyway.
    It's not the setting that BioWare made with the XBOX games. It's the setting BioWare and Obsidian made with the XBOX games. KOTOR 2 was not BioWare.

    Sorry, I go around correcting people on this point. It's my hobby.

    Entering the deep end: Obsidian (or their writers) went to some very controversial places in KOTOR 2. While Kreia is probably the most interesting character in Star Wars off the top of my head, like everything she teaches the player about the Force really fucks with it canonically. The Old Republic is dramatically less Gray in its interpretation of which actions are light and dark. While KOTOR 2 is easily my favourite of all KOTORs, the writing in The Old Republic is definitely back in KOTOR 1 land.

  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    I haven't been to MMO Champion in a long time but they referred The Daily Blink via this image and I feel it's worth sharing here, given the comic's focus:

    2011-12-16-244.jpg

    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • DJ EebsDJ Eebs Moderator mod
    I'm not sure why it matters if a game "failed" by going free-to-play, is the thing. Even if you accept that moving from a subscription model to a freemium, or free-to-play model is a failure on some level, if a company ends up making more money off of more people playing their game, then it seems like that company, if nothing else, overcame their previous "failure" and turned their shit around.

    I don't know. I don't really see why it matters if one business plan failed and was replaced by a better one. Especially since many of the people that use that to demonstrate why you shouldn't play that game were unlikely to play that game under any scenario anyways.

  • DJ EebsDJ Eebs Moderator mod
    And yeah, it's probably better for everyone if The Old Republic can carve out a sizable share of the MMO market. Blizzard really hasn't been challenged at all since World of Warcraft opened up, and with The Old Republic out now, and Guild Wars 2 on the horizon, it'd be nice to see Blizzard get pushed a little bit. I mean, obviously World of Warcraft isn't gonna drop off the face of the earth or anything, but healthy competition benefits just about everyone.

  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    It's like Intel and AMD or something.

    steam_sig.png
  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    Honestly, with the level of investment these companies put into a top end MMO, it wouldn't surprise me if the switch to F2P wasn't in the business plan all along. Start out subscription based at launch, netting a nice chunk of money while insuring that the player base doesn't completely explode and ruin perception during the launch. Then after things settle down, start adding in micro transactions, and finally dropping the subscription to drive up the number of people playing.

    If F2P truly generates more revenue, I can see someone crunching the numbers and coming up with a plan like that. In which case, the switch could never be construed as failure.

    Sticks on
  • fortyforty Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote:
    forty wrote:
    It depends how you define "critical success," but the first two prequels had an overall positive reception, and episode 3 actually scored fairly well overall. All this was, of course, at the time of release and in a tidal wave of hype. I would say that retrospective critical reviews have been more negative overall compared to the original reviews.

    I'm not sure where you're getting this information. The first film was almost universally panned when it first came out. There were notable exceptions - Roger Ebert, for example, liked the film and blamed the broken air conditioning for the bad reviews of the other critics - but for the most part, no, it did not recieve critical acclaim. No sir.

    The second movie was given more positive reviews, but not by much. Only the third movie recieved what might be called critical acclaim, and that was partly from a sense of relief that the film wasn't as utterly wretched as the other two, so lets give it some cheers for that.
    1, 2, and 3.

    The best card in Hearthstone is your credit card.
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    forty wrote:
    1, 2, and 3.

    If you click on "Top Critics" It's exactly as I said, except that 1 & 2 got equally terrible reviews.

    I think "top critics" is a more honest appraisal on the critical acclaim of the films anyway, since in their 'all critics' choice they're not really going to include ALL critics. Otherwise redlettermedia would be counted.

  • FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    North wrote:
    Fiaryn wrote:
    North wrote:
    Your objective is to discredit F2P not relating to failure. You have been disregarding all evidence to the contrary and cherry picking anything that might make failure and F2P correlate, however vague.

    F2P has been shown to resurrect failed games and works great at that. It even works great when games are built around that model from that start such as the hugely successful League of Legends.

    That does not change that a game has to be failing before the business decision is made to switch over. There is a reason that a game like Everquest can still get away with charging a subscription while while it's floundering sequel had to switch to F2P. Previously when an MMO was failing to make a profit it would get its plug pulled now they switch to F2P and the marketing department rolls out the balloons and confetti.

    You can call that reason or line in the sand where a game is no longer sustainable on the model it was built around whatever you want. I'm calling that line failure. So yes, F2P does correlate to failure in an MMO.

    Why is it a failing of the game as opposed to a failing of the business model? Sorry bro but F2P has legs whether you like it or not. It's been proven with MMORPGs that were profitable before and after the switch, it's been proven like hell with League.

    I'm sorry you're so emotionally invested in this subscription based model thing though, it sounds pretty shitty.



    Fiaryn on
    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
  • AurichAurich Registered User regular
    Fiaryn wrote:
    I'm sorry you're so emotionally invested in this subscription based model thing though, it sounds pretty shitty.

    Man, just don't. How about we talk about the comic?

  • NorthNorth Registered User regular
    I'm sorry that the words I'm saying string together a completely different thought in your head then what they mean in English.

    Here it is again piece by piece.

    There is nothing wrong with the F2P model.

    MMO's that launch as subscription based do not switch models 'just cause'.

    MMO's switch payment models when their player base shrinks to levels where the businesses that run them aren't making enough money for it to be worth their time to keep running them.

    An MMO with a shrinking player base is failing because it can't keep itself relevant to it's intended audience through changes to the game itself.

    Switching to F2P brings in a new audience of players that otherwise wouldn't care about that game.

  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    North wrote:
    I'm sorry that the words I'm saying string together a completely different thought in your head then what they mean in English.

    Here it is again piece by piece.

    There is nothing wrong with the F2P model.

    MMO's that launch as subscription based do not switch models 'just cause'.

    MMO's switch payment models when their player base shrinks to levels where the businesses that run them aren't making enough money for it to be worth their time to keep running them.

    An MMO with a shrinking player base is failing because it can't keep itself relevant to it's intended audience through changes to the game itself.

    Switching to F2P brings in a new audience of players that otherwise wouldn't care about that game.

    This making it an ongoing success.

    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    The problem is that we need to agree on what defines success for an MMO. Defining success as continued growth is not a proper parameter. You can't expect people to play an MMO forever. And that parameter would mean that WoW has failed several times over, as people leave part way into expansions. But then some come back, or new people join.

    An MMO's success is merely measured in it being up and running. Changing business plans breathes new life into an MMO. Does it genuinely add to the experience? Partially yes, partially no. But if you consider it a fault, then you should look on expansion packs as a sign of failure. Or sequels to a series as a sign of failure. Or have you caught on to how that would be dumb?

    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • NorthNorth Registered User regular
    Expansion packs are new content which is a change in the game itself.
    Sequels are "This game has so many players we can split the audience".

    Measuring an MMO's success in it being up and running seems just as silly. MMO's hardly ever go offline anymore. Now MMO's that would break that would have broken the up and running line and become failures just go F2P instead. Does that mean that every game is a success because they can not fail in today's MMO market?

    Inability to keep your game relevant without giving it away for free seems like a fair marker for failure.

  • IvarIvar Registered User regular
    North wrote:
    Expansion packs are new content which is a change in the game itself.
    Sequels are "This game has so many players we can split the audience".

    Measuring an MMO's success in it being up and running seems just as silly. MMO's hardly ever go offline anymore. Now MMO's that would break that would have broken the up and running line and become failures just go F2P instead. Does that mean that every game is a success because they can not fail in today's MMO market?

    Inability to keep your game relevant without giving it away for free seems like a fair marker for failure.

    Only if their goal is to keep it running with subscriptions only forever.

  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    North wrote:
    Expansion packs are new content which is a change in the game itself.
    Sequels are "This game has so many players we can split the audience".

    Measuring an MMO's success in it being up and running seems just as silly. MMO's hardly ever go offline anymore. Now MMO's that would break that would have broken the up and running line and become failures just go F2P instead. Does that mean that every game is a success because they can not fail in today's MMO market?

    Inability to keep your game relevant without giving it away for free seems like a fair marker for failure.

    But they're generating some amount of revenue, because it takes time and money to at least keep the games up and running. I think you're underestimating a lot of things that go into this. MMO's hardly go offline anymore because the business is more easily understood. And the development of the "freemium" access is helping that.

    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • fortyforty Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote:
    forty wrote:
    1, 2, and 3.

    If you click on "Top Critics" It's exactly as I said, except that 1 & 2 got equally terrible reviews.

    I think "top critics" is a more honest appraisal on the critical acclaim of the films anyway, since in their 'all critics' choice they're not really going to include ALL critics. Otherwise redlettermedia would be counted.
    Just like it depends how you define "critical success," I guess it's going to depend how you define "almost universally panned." 4 out of 10 "top critics" liking it doesn't really seem like "almost universally panned" to me, but whatever.

    The best card in Hearthstone is your credit card.
  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    forty wrote:
    Radius wrote:
    Oh see, here's the problem, I love No Doubt, but hate Gwen Stefani.
    "To this day I have no idea what that woman was singing about, like literally no idea. I don't know what a hollaback girl is, but I have to imagine it's a foul, disease-ridden thing that wears too much makeup to cover up the fact that it's a forty-seven-year-old fish dog." -Cleveland Brown
    Construction workers and other men at times will call out or "holla" at attractive women who pass by, a woman who responds in a positie manner to these calls is sometimes denigrated as being of loose morals/ill repute and sometimes consequently referred to as a "hollaback girl". Gwen Stefani does not consider herself to be such a woman, and wants to make sure that you are aware of this.

  • AurichAurich Registered User regular
    Several comments on the link'd video also suggest that sometimes a person will "holla" (here meaning talk trash) at a girl, and the girl will holla back in retaliation. Rather than hollaing back, Gwen Stefani is said to just beat them up.

  • fortyforty Registered User regular
    I thought the Baader-Meinhof moment was good enough for me to come back and note it in this thread:
    forty wrote:
    Radius wrote:
    Oh see, here's the problem, I love No Doubt, but hate Gwen Stefani.
    "To this day I have no idea what that woman was singing about, like literally no idea. I don't know what a hollaback girl is, but I have to imagine it's a foul, disease-ridden thing that wears too much makeup to cover up the fact that it's a forty-seven-year-old fish dog." -Cleveland Brown
    The Family Guy episode with this line aired on Adult Swim literally a day or two after this discussion (I forget when exactly I saw it). Thanks, Universe!

    The best card in Hearthstone is your credit card.
13»
Sign In or Register to comment.