1.5 Million People Begging to Play Old Republic Isn't Good Enough for EA

[RelexCryo]

This whole thing will be hilarious when this game flops like all the other MMOs. A shame, I hate the current MMO market. It's either theme park or gtfo.

Agreed with the theme park comment. I want a world I can get immersed in, not a theme park. Not saying that the Old Republic will be bad, just agreeing with the theme park comment.

That said, I originally was not going to be playing the Old Republic. My reason was simple: Bounty Hunters. As far as I can tell, Bioware thought that Bounty Hunter = Mandalorian. Bounty Hunters are a diverse group of assassins. Realistically speaking, they would wear a wide range of armors/clothing. While it is true that the Mandalorian Empire (Empire? They don't really have an Emperor, though the Mand'alor comes close enough I guess.) was much larger back in the time period this game took place in, Bounty Hunters still had far, far more diversity than The Old Republic originally seemed to plan to portray them as having at launch.

It annoys me deeply when people act as if Bounty Hunter players are all Boba Fett fanboys. It is the act of being a professional hunter of high value targets that is enthralling about Bounty Hunters. Not the ability to pretend you are Boba Fett. Crime Bosses, Evil Emperors, Jedi, Sith Lords....the most powerful people in the Universe are your targets. That is were the fun, the glory, comes from. You don't deal with mere frontline soldiers or pest control problems. You hunt the big names- the people whose names are spoken on a billion lips.

I went to the website, realized they changed their minds and made Mandalorian armor just one of several options. I was impressed. I will probably be buying it. I hope they offer one year subscription plans, because I hate rebuying stuff with a new gift card every month.

 

[Antari]

When more people get a taste of the lame 80's remake railshooter they'll find the numbers they want are impossible to reach. They really should have just removed the space fighting component all together if they were going to do it this badly.

 

[tunderball]

I will be really interested in finding out what the system requirements are for this game. I remember a while back somebody was criticising this game for its 'crappy graphics' but making a game look this good and getting it to run on any computer is a good sign of intelligent design by some very clever artists.......if they pull it of that is.

As for me if it runs on my bog standard computer I will give it a try as soon as it comes out, I've been meaning to upgrade to a better computer anyway for my work so if the reviews are good I'm going to consider this a must buy. Lets just wait and see.

 

[Thyunda]

Meh. At least they're ambitious.

Napoleon was ambitious

Napoleon is also a name known to everybody. Sounds like success to me.

 

[Sabinfrost]

I am one of the increasingly growing minority that thinks that Dragon Age 2 is a fantastic game, and I have very fond memories of Knights of the Old Republic and every Bioware release to date. I am not even a dedicated MMO gamer, or Star Wars fanatic and I'm not signed up for any Beta, but I'll be buying it.

 

[Vrach]

I'm sure Scott's deeply sorry that they haven't invented a [humor]text[/humor] font yet. There wasn't any "calling EA out" in that post at all, just rightly pointing out that EA/Bioware are looking to hit it big. If you're talking about a potential market size of 12+ million, you obviously want to hit as much of that market as you can.

I suggest you dial down the sensitivity.

I'm not the only one pointing out the misinterpretation in this article. Even the title is meant to suggest hubris and ungratefulness on the part of EA and it's currently plastered prominently on the front page. Perhaps you're right and the article was meant to be humorous, but I read it as ill-spirited and judging by other comments, both agreeing and disagreeing, I suspect most everyone else missed the humor as well.

I don't mind a little creative license on the part of the writers here (and it's usually why this is my game news website of choice), but this struck me as particularly inaccurate. So I stand by the message of my post, but apologize for the heavy-handed demeanor.

Yes, well, I've written articles where it's clear that people only read the title and first paragraph too, so forgive me if appealing to popularity doesn't really hold much water

There is no misinterpretation. Everything Scott said is true; a company wouldn't identify a potential market of 12+ million if it didn't have at least hopes of hitting that market. If you think that EA isn't hoping for more than the 1.5 million beta signups it has now, I don't know what to tell you.

EA is dreaming big with this one. That's been obvious from the beginning. You are reading tone and intent in this article that is not there. That's why I suggested people dial the sensitivity down.

No offense John, but as I've written above, this article reeks of misinterpretation and again, Scott just pulled out a few select quotes out of the whole talk, which purposely or not, makes EA look like an overambitious idiot as opposed to just talking business and facts.

Really, I'm quite disappointed because you tend to jump and rip on other magazines/TV programs when they do this to make the industry/gaming look bad, but you're pulling the same thing right here. I'm not an EA fanboi, they have a lot of problems to work through, but fact is, with SWTOR, there's not been a single overstatement to date, which is something a lot of people are quite (positively) surprised to see.

And don't take this as offensive, but I'm not sure if you and/or Scott understand the meaning of the words "addressable market", because if you really don't understand what you're misinterpreting here (and no, the misinterpretation isn't restricted to the title and the subtitle, although as reporters you should know the importance of both of those as well and not make pretend like they're meaningless), that's what it seems to be coming from.

Definition of addressable market, courtesy of the internetz (first hit on Google, http://www.gobignetwork.com/information/go-big-dictionary/addressable-market-definition):
addressable market ? n : the total potential market for a product or service, measured in dollars of revenue per year. In other words, your business?s addressable market can be calculated by identifying the maximum number of customers who could theoretically buy your category of product or service each year, and multiplying that number times your average selling price per unit. Note that the addressable market includes your product sales plus those of all your direct competitors (i.e., 100 percent market share). [NOTE: This is a crucial piece of data that every venture investor will want to know about your business, so it?s worth putting serious analytical thought into it.]

Bolded and underlined for emphasis. And as to your last comment, there is not a trace of indication that EA/BioWare/Brown or anyone related to this is expecting to have their sales in 12 million or to "anyone who owns a computer". Both are really big misinterpretations based on quotes pulled out of context and if I didn't know better, I'd say you're pulling a Fox here (and with the "EA betting bashing WoW will increase TOR sales" article, I'm seeing a pattern here that again, is disappointing to find on the Escapist).

 

[Marmooset]

In all honesty, if you want people just walking in off the street, you set the game in the original trilogy, and not in a prior offshoot gamesetting. It might be a bit limiting, but it'll intrigue a much bigger section of the fanbase.
Star Wars: Galaxies was initially quite popular and gave EQ a run for its money before everyone realized the game was no good.

 

[ImprovizoR]

If I had the time to play MMO's I would play this one. But I avoid them because I'm afraid of them. I'm afraid they will consume me like WoW consumed some of my friends.

You're stronger than that. There is no chemical or substance addiction, it is all you. Play by your rules. And if you really REALLY like it, get consumed by it ;3

I was exaggerating of course. I just don't have enough time because of university and other obligations and commitments I made. I barely find the time to play single player games and those are my favorite.

 

[rsvp42]

Whatever the case, I hope that EA shuts the fuck up about TOR. They're just making enemies of everyone and putting TOR on the spotlight to have all of its flaws picked apart and called bad for it.

People just hear what they want to hear. Someone against EA will see any news of TOR as obnoxious, while people who are indifferent or supportive just see a CFO doing his job and courting investors. Contentious writing aside, this news is actually pretty neutral. The relevant bit is the news of the release date not being in spring, the rest is just a company supporting its product.

 

[John Funk]

I'm sure Scott's deeply sorry that they haven't invented a [humor]text[/humor] font yet. There wasn't any "calling EA out" in that post at all, just rightly pointing out that EA/Bioware are looking to hit it big. If you're talking about a potential market size of 12+ million, you obviously want to hit as much of that market as you can.

I suggest you dial down the sensitivity.

I'm not the only one pointing out the misinterpretation in this article. Even the title is meant to suggest hubris and ungratefulness on the part of EA and it's currently plastered prominently on the front page. Perhaps you're right and the article was meant to be humorous, but I read it as ill-spirited and judging by other comments, both agreeing and disagreeing, I suspect most everyone else missed the humor as well.

I don't mind a little creative license on the part of the writers here (and it's usually why this is my game news website of choice), but this struck me as particularly inaccurate. So I stand by the message of my post, but apologize for the heavy-handed demeanor.

Yes, well, I've written articles where it's clear that people only read the title and first paragraph too, so forgive me if appealing to popularity doesn't really hold much water

There is no misinterpretation. Everything Scott said is true; a company wouldn't identify a potential market of 12+ million if it didn't have at least hopes of hitting that market. If you think that EA isn't hoping for more than the 1.5 million beta signups it has now, I don't know what to tell you.

EA is dreaming big with this one. That's been obvious from the beginning. You are reading tone and intent in this article that is not there. That's why I suggested people dial the sensitivity down.

No offense John, but as I've written above, this article reeks of misinterpretation and again, Scott just pulled out a few select quotes out of the whole talk, which purposely or not, makes EA look like an overambitious idiot as opposed to just talking business and facts.

Really, I'm quite disappointed because you tend to jump and rip on other magazines/TV programs when they do this to make the industry/gaming look bad, but you're pulling the same thing right here. I'm not an EA fanboi, they have a lot of problems to work through, but fact is, with SWTOR, there's not been a single overstatement to date, which is something a lot of people are quite (positively) surprised to see.

And don't take this as offensive, but I'm not sure if you and/or Scott understand the meaning of the words "addressable market", because if you really don't understand what you're misinterpreting here (and no, the misinterpretation isn't restricted to the title and the subtitle, although as reporters you should know the importance of both of those as well and not make pretend like they're meaningless), that's what it seems to be coming from.

Definition of addressable market, courtesy of the internetz (first hit on Google, http://www.gobignetwork.com/information/go-big-dictionary/addressable-market-definition):
addressable market ? n : the total potential market for a product or service, measured in dollars of revenue per year. In other words, your business?s addressable market can be calculated by identifying the maximum number of customers who could theoretically buy your category of product or service each year, and multiplying that number times your average selling price per unit. Note that the addressable market includes your product sales plus those of all your direct competitors (i.e., 100 percent market share). [NOTE: This is a crucial piece of data that every venture investor will want to know about your business, so it?s worth putting serious analytical thought into it.]

Bolded and underlined for emphasis. And as to your last comment, there is not a trace of indication that EA/BioWare/Brown or anyone related to this is expecting to have their sales in 12 million or to "anyone who owns a computer". Both are really big misinterpretations based on quotes pulled out of context and if I didn't know better, I'd say you're pulling a Fox here (and with the "EA betting bashing WoW will increase TOR sales" article, I'm seeing a pattern here that again, is disappointing to find on the Escapist).

Again, the only ones taking it as a slight (purposeful or not) against EA are a handful of readers. This is not an anti-EA/BioWare/SWTOR piece in any shape or form. Saying "EA has ambitious dreams for TOR" is not a bad thing.

 

[HellspawnCandy]

1.5 Million is a lot for a beta on which information of the actual game is barely there.

 

[Citizen Snips]

does that mean its probably gonna be a crappy game with 0 support since it wont steal all blizzard's population?

I don't see how they could believe this would steal anywhere near a sizable chunk of WoW's population. They're two completely different settings; fantasy steam punk vs. futuristic.

Yes and No. Star Wars is not a Sci-Fi movie in any convential terms. It drew such a large crowd in because it WAS another fantasy movie, just set in space. They are both huge fantasy operas with outrageously large amounts of extended cannon. It's going to come down to just how large of a fan base the Fett has against Illidan Stormrage.

 

[rsvp42]

Again, the only ones taking it as a slight (purposeful or not) against EA are a handful of readers. This is not an anti-EA/BioWare/SWTOR piece in any shape or form. Saying "EA has ambitious dreams for TOR" is not a bad thing.

It's not the information, it's the way it's being presented. There's a noticeable difference here compared to past articles.

I won't belabor the point any further because one internet writer's opinion coloring an article is hardly a threat to journalistic integrity as we know it (or anything so dramatic), but it's worth keeping tabs on.

 

[Prince Regent]

Meh I don't care I'm gonna play Guild Wars 2.At least they aren't trying to "beat WoW"

 

[Fujor]

It doesn't look like many people read the post. EA said they have a market on 12 million, it's not said nor implied that 12 million is their aim.

people are so blinded by their anger of EA that they instantly think the worst of the company that's addressing many of it's previous problems (although it has many problems still) and people tar the developers with the same brush.

 

[Vrach]

Again, the only ones taking it as a slight (purposeful or not) against EA are a handful of readers. This is not an anti-EA/BioWare/SWTOR piece in any shape or form. Saying "EA has ambitious dreams for TOR" is not a bad thing.

"1.5 million just isn't enough. But 12 million? Yeah, 12 million sounds about right."
Inference from a partial quote pulled out of context.

"So that's why EA wasn't excited about the 1.5 million beta requests: its only a small part of the global population of computer owners."
Another inference from a partial quote pulled out of context.

"EA just won't be happy with SWTOR's performance unless it is installed on every computer capable of running it."
Are you actually reading the same article I am John? Cause this is not saying "EA is ambitious", at best this is saying "EA is overambitious" and at realistic it's saying "EA are a pile of drunk monkeys". Oh and once again - inference from a partial quote pulled out of context.

There is not a single part of this article (the EuroGamer where you pulled it from isn't much better either) that's anything but pulling quotes out of context and every single statement you've (by you I mean Escapist, specifically Scott in this case) made from that is, subtly or otherwise, displaying EA in unnecessarily bad light as overambitious idiots. Even you yourself have gone on to say above that "EA is dreaming big with this one. That's been obvious from the beginning.".

I'm sorry, at which point did EA infer they're dreaming big with TOR? Their investor conference was talking numbers of 500k subscriptions, saying they'd be happy with anything north of a million. Any clue what amount of lowballing that is for a triple A MMO? They've also held off mentioning WoW, sometimes calling it "the top competitor" and when they did, they always both praised it and said that they don't hope to take it down. For an MMO this size and 'importance' within the genre, that's being pretty bloody modest. At 'worst' they've said they're ready to go toe to toe with them thanks to an experienced studio, different IP, newer engine, story components, etc., always sticking with the facts, never going with the jabs.

Anyway, you've been pointed out by several people what the article looks like and you're just getting those who haven't read the full thing to go on EA rants. So it's up to you, I'm just saying, between this and the other "EA bashing WoW" article, you seem to be trading accurate reporting for bashing EA because it's the new hip thing to do (especially since EC called them out). And I'm just... sad to see that from you guys :\

 

[John Funk]

Again, the only ones taking it as a slight (purposeful or not) against EA are a handful of readers. This is not an anti-EA/BioWare/SWTOR piece in any shape or form. Saying "EA has ambitious dreams for TOR" is not a bad thing.

"1.5 million just isn't enough. But 12 million? Yeah, 12 million sounds about right."
Inference from a partial quote pulled out of context.

"So that's why EA wasn't excited about the 1.5 million beta requests: its only a small part of the global population of computer owners."
Another inference from a partial quote pulled out of context.

"EA just won't be happy with SWTOR's performance unless it is installed on every computer capable of running it."
Are you actually reading the same article I am John? Cause this is not saying "EA is ambitious", at best this is saying "EA is overambitious" and at realistic it's saying "EA are a pile of drunk monkeys". Oh and once again - inference from a partial quote pulled out of context.

There is not a single part of this article (the EuroGamer where you pulled it from isn't much better either) that's anything but pulling quotes out of context and every single statement you've (by you I mean Escapist, specifically Scott in this case) made from that is, subtly or otherwise, displaying EA in unnecessarily bad light as overambitious idiots. Even you yourself have gone on to say above that "EA is dreaming big with this one. That's been obvious from the beginning.".

I'm sorry, at which point did EA infer they're dreaming big with TOR? Their investor conference was talking numbers of 500k subscriptions, saying they'd be happy with anything north of a million. Any clue what amount of lowballing that is for a triple A MMO? They've also held off mentioning WoW, sometimes calling it "the top competitor" and when they did, they always both praised it and said that they don't hope to take it down. For an MMO this size and 'importance' within the genre, that's being pretty bloody modest. At 'worst' they've said they're ready to go toe to toe with them thanks to an experienced studio, different IP, newer engine, story components, etc., always sticking with the facts, never going with the jabs.

Anyway, you've been pointed out by several people what the article looks like and you're just getting those who haven't read the full thing to go on EA rants. So it's up to you, I'm just saying, between this and the other "EA bashing WoW" article, you seem to be trading accurate reporting for bashing EA because it's the new hip thing to do (especially since EC called them out). And I'm just... sad to see that from you guys :\

Well, I don't know what else to say but "you're wrong," because there's been no such directive, no such discussion in our news team about that, and certainly no desire to bash EA or SWTOR. You are seeing intent where there isn't any, and mistaking levity for derision.

 

[rsvp42]

Meh I don't care I'm gonna play Guild Wars 2.At least they aren't trying to "beat WoW"

Yes they are. I just watched the PAX East GW2 Panel video and the comparisons to WoW are just as numerous. Every aspect of GW2 has been designed as a response to a perceived flaw with WoW-type games (and WoW is mentioned specifically several times).

Ultimately it comes down to preference, but both games are competing with WoW here. And actually EA has never said they're going to beat WoW, they just want to be competitive and not be a distant second to it.