Analyst Says EA Investors "Betting Against" Old Republic
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Exactly, MMO's are always competing with WOW due the WOW's large player base and in msot cases both games requiring a subscription fee. The only way that you don't need to compete with WOW is if you either don't have a subscription fee (ie Guild Wars, aka the only MMO I play) or your budget just doesn't require you to come close to beating WOW for subscribers (like COX which is in a more nitch area, Superheroes, and has long since recouped it's development costs).The_root_of_all_evil said:
Also, @Woodsey, Conan MMO also was supposed to have a fairly decent single player campaign (I was looking into it at the time, pre-launch, for that very reason) but look where that ended up.
TOR, like DC online has a fairly nitch market (and by this I mean there are few Sci-Fi MMos out there right now, not that it won't atteack many people) but with the budget it's rumored to have it has to at least compete fairly well for WOW's player base and keep them for I would guess at least 6 months or more to even come close to making that money back. Otherwise it's a failure sicne an MMO that won't make profit is a failure (can't afford to develop new stuff, can't afford the maintence costs, etc).
Some games just don't work, no matter how good they are.Woodsey said:
This is due to poor advertising, poor take-up or plain bad luck.
I don't see how that's so difficult to understand?
BECAUSE YOU AREN'T SAYING THE FUCKING WORDS.The_root_of_all_evil said:
And this a Star Wars game from BioWare.
It doesn't have poor advertising (you'd be hard pressed to find a gamer that hasn't heard of it), has a great deal of interest, and given BioWare's track-record, is unlikely to suffer bad luck.
You're also comparing completely different games, and ones that aren't STAR WARS. Do you not see the difference between STAR WARS and Psychonauts or the Vampire games?
As everyone's said, and indeed Bioware themselves have said, it won't beat WoW.
But to say it won't be successful is... wrong. TOR has everything going for it: Great developer, great narrative approach, established franchise with massive fan base, powerful publisher behind it to fund future expansions. I could go on.
I'd bet money (and arguably will be when I buy it) on TOR being one of the most successful non-WoW MMOs out when it's released.
Also, you cannot judge opinions based on a forum, or even a survey. If soemone doesn't like something, they complain about it, but if they like it, they don't bother saying anything.
But to say it won't be successful is... wrong. TOR has everything going for it: Great developer, great narrative approach, established franchise with massive fan base, powerful publisher behind it to fund future expansions. I could go on.
I'd bet money (and arguably will be when I buy it) on TOR being one of the most successful non-WoW MMOs out when it's released.
Also, you cannot judge opinions based on a forum, or even a survey. If soemone doesn't like something, they complain about it, but if they like it, they don't bother saying anything.
I've never understood the problem people have with subscription fees. You want a good game? People have to be paid to create/update it. You want decent servers? Those people have to be paid too, as well as power bills. Buildings have to be paid for. A hundred other things have to be paid for. Nothing good is free.
If it was a hybrid between Guild Wars and LoTRO cost wise I would buy it in a heart beat. I can't (and likely never) bring myself to buy a sub based game. Have the initial buy unlock the majority of features while additional dungeons, cosmetic changes, a class or two, and some (non-OP) gear be a additional cost.
People would flock to a Star Wars MMO similar to KotOR that they didn't pay monthly to pay. The actual game purchase helps subsidize the cost and so long as new content keeps streaming out they'll make money off it. Not as much as WoW, but enough for the game to be sustainable and profitable. Heck, expansions would just be larger player options that they could buy in store or through digital distribution.
People would flock to a Star Wars MMO similar to KotOR that they didn't pay monthly to pay. The actual game purchase helps subsidize the cost and so long as new content keeps streaming out they'll make money off it. Not as much as WoW, but enough for the game to be sustainable and profitable. Heck, expansions would just be larger player options that they could buy in store or through digital distribution.
I think that even in the best case scenario, TOR will be kind of awkwardly stuck between WoW and F2P games. They don't have a chance of beating WoW, but I don't think any game ever will (other than maybe a WoW 2 or a good Call of Duty MMOFPS).
Even if the launch is incredibly successful and bug-free, I can't imagine the game maintaining a very large player base for long. TOR's emphasis seems to be on story, which is great for Bioware's single-player games but probably won't keep people paying for month after month after they've experienced it all. Players who want and are willing to pay for an active community, balanced PvP, or challenging raids will mostly return to WoW soon enough. The rest probably will probably run out of reasons to keep playing (and paying), and go back to F2P or non-MMO games after a few months.
I'm rooting for TOR as much as anyone, but realistically I don't think it will achieve long-term success outside of a niche demographic. Hopefully Bioware will emerge unscathed and continue making excellent single-player games after the the whole affair is over.
Even if the launch is incredibly successful and bug-free, I can't imagine the game maintaining a very large player base for long. TOR's emphasis seems to be on story, which is great for Bioware's single-player games but probably won't keep people paying for month after month after they've experienced it all. Players who want and are willing to pay for an active community, balanced PvP, or challenging raids will mostly return to WoW soon enough. The rest probably will probably run out of reasons to keep playing (and paying), and go back to F2P or non-MMO games after a few months.
I'm rooting for TOR as much as anyone, but realistically I don't think it will achieve long-term success outside of a niche demographic. Hopefully Bioware will emerge unscathed and continue making excellent single-player games after the the whole affair is over.
Can I just point out that it's not Bioware who want to dethrone WoW, it's their stupid investors who are unable to see the value of a game just being launched and doing well for itself. Investors, shareholders and publishers are the kind of people who are never happy with success unless you sell the same number of units as the best game on the market. Bioware themselves have said in interviews that 'dethroning' WoW is not their ambition.Gralian said:
In regards to your predictions of doom: it's true that sinking so much money into an MMO which fails to take off is a death sentence for a lot of companies. However, you have to look at the individual circumstances behind those games. Most of the time, the game is unfinished, buggy and broken and no one enjoys themselves enough to sit it out for a smoother ride. In a few cases, like with Warhammer, the game is good but they're not fast enough with new content to stop people from creeping back to WoW everytime Blizzard does the 'But she's got a new hat!' trick. Personally, I don't think this will happen with Bioware, because half of their damn games these days have DLC ready to go at launch. Bioware are smart: they'll prepare enough content to continue releasing after the first crucial month or so, and they'll advertise the bejesus out of it so that even if it is just an instance where you pick beans for xp it will be lauded as the place that truly separates the men from the boys.
I think "Old Republic Online" is going to do just fine honestly. I have few doubts it will make a profit despite it's huge development costs, even if it doesn't take WoW down, it's liable to be a solid product. It's like saying a console that has sold 20 million units is a failure because another one sold 50 million units or whatever, your still dealing with a successful and profitable product and a solid market to sell to.
With "Warhammer" the franchise was pretty much high nerdism. Sure to nerds "Warhammer" is a big liscence, but if you don't follow minature wargamming or read the novels spun off of it, the liscence is liable to be meaningless to you. It's not "Star Wars" which is part of popular meta-consciousness at least in the first world.
On top of this "Warhammer" was fundementally broken, the game had some neat ideas, but it was based largely off of PVP, and the two factions were substantially unbalanced. It pretty much continued the trend that the "bad" or ugly faction is going to be favored by the developers, for whatever reason. Simply put they put more work into the "destruction" side
to make it cool, and the abillities the characters had were just flat out better, especially in PVP. This was REALLY obvious in the hype leading up to the game, and people looking at promotions like the "Road to WAR" game should have noticed a massive population imbalance as well, with FAR more people going to the Destruction side. Add to this very limited character customization (everyone pretty much looks the same as far as armor styles and such... your White Lion is unlikely to look much differant from a White Lion of the same level, or even one several levels above or below you), and limited PVE content, and you can see why the game saw a mass exodus. Few people want to dedicate themselves to unbalanced PVP for months on end with little else to do.
The big question with "Old Republic Online" is whether or not anything was learned from "Warhammer". Truthfully I think the liscence and developer cred is going to prevent this one from dying out after a month, but at the same token I *DO* see a definate focus on the entire "Sith" side of things both in terms of "cool factor" and the time they are putting into it, and actual in-game abillities. I also get the impression from various forums that for all the vocal Jedi players, that there are going to be far more people rolling "Dark Side" like we saw with Destruction. On the other hand, even if they are going to destroy PVP right from the outset, it seems like a game that is liable to have more in the way of PVE content to keep people interested.
Looking at DCUO (DC Universe Online) Sony has promised substantial montly content additions which if they can deliver might be a sign of a company having found a way to solve the limited content problem (I could say more on my theories about how they are doing it, if they succeed in fulfilling that promise but we'll see). I'm guessing that like SoE, Bioware/EA probably put some thought into the content issue themselves and how to solve the problem of having enough material to hold interest, or at least deep enough material for people to want to keep playing and replaying it.
I can understand the wariness, we usually start to see this a few months before presumed release. Then we'll see a major hype blitz as all the game journalists are given money to talk about how awesome the game looks, how much they are looking forward to it, and saying nice things about it. This is also the point where you'll usually see the beta NDA dropped, or at least Beta Testers willing to break silence anonymously, and allowing for general gamer negativity you can find out quite a bit about the game itself and how much effort the company put into releasing it as a quality product. A big question is will we see Beta testers saying that they are burned out after a couple months of beta? Another will of course be about bugs, and if we've seen noticible ones going untreated for months. After this period we'll start to see a lot of "buyers guilt" from people who spent $60, and start to get a feel on whether or not purchusers thought it was worthwhile (one way or another). This is also the point where you start to see more balanced criticism from the gaming media about a game, rather than "OMG, it's wonderful".
Not a totally accurate synopsis I suppose, but that's how the chain of events moves. I wouldn't be too concerned about things now. Honestly, one of the other things to consider is that investors have a right to be wary, but should also keep in mind that this is the first attmpt to properly budget an MMORPG on the scale that would be needed to compete with WoW. A big problem with failed MMORPGs is that they launch in a state that would have been competitive content-wise with what WoW had when it first started... the problem with that is that they are not competing with WoW when it first started. All those expansions and such are out there now, and a game needs to consider that in the amount of material it has. With $300 million dollars "Old Republic" has a chance of being that content rich, while the "EA Louse" has made be wary, I can't believe that they literally wasted it all on sound design.
With "Warhammer" the franchise was pretty much high nerdism. Sure to nerds "Warhammer" is a big liscence, but if you don't follow minature wargamming or read the novels spun off of it, the liscence is liable to be meaningless to you. It's not "Star Wars" which is part of popular meta-consciousness at least in the first world.
On top of this "Warhammer" was fundementally broken, the game had some neat ideas, but it was based largely off of PVP, and the two factions were substantially unbalanced. It pretty much continued the trend that the "bad" or ugly faction is going to be favored by the developers, for whatever reason. Simply put they put more work into the "destruction" side
to make it cool, and the abillities the characters had were just flat out better, especially in PVP. This was REALLY obvious in the hype leading up to the game, and people looking at promotions like the "Road to WAR" game should have noticed a massive population imbalance as well, with FAR more people going to the Destruction side. Add to this very limited character customization (everyone pretty much looks the same as far as armor styles and such... your White Lion is unlikely to look much differant from a White Lion of the same level, or even one several levels above or below you), and limited PVE content, and you can see why the game saw a mass exodus. Few people want to dedicate themselves to unbalanced PVP for months on end with little else to do.
The big question with "Old Republic Online" is whether or not anything was learned from "Warhammer". Truthfully I think the liscence and developer cred is going to prevent this one from dying out after a month, but at the same token I *DO* see a definate focus on the entire "Sith" side of things both in terms of "cool factor" and the time they are putting into it, and actual in-game abillities. I also get the impression from various forums that for all the vocal Jedi players, that there are going to be far more people rolling "Dark Side" like we saw with Destruction. On the other hand, even if they are going to destroy PVP right from the outset, it seems like a game that is liable to have more in the way of PVE content to keep people interested.
Looking at DCUO (DC Universe Online) Sony has promised substantial montly content additions which if they can deliver might be a sign of a company having found a way to solve the limited content problem (I could say more on my theories about how they are doing it, if they succeed in fulfilling that promise but we'll see). I'm guessing that like SoE, Bioware/EA probably put some thought into the content issue themselves and how to solve the problem of having enough material to hold interest, or at least deep enough material for people to want to keep playing and replaying it.
I can understand the wariness, we usually start to see this a few months before presumed release. Then we'll see a major hype blitz as all the game journalists are given money to talk about how awesome the game looks, how much they are looking forward to it, and saying nice things about it. This is also the point where you'll usually see the beta NDA dropped, or at least Beta Testers willing to break silence anonymously, and allowing for general gamer negativity you can find out quite a bit about the game itself and how much effort the company put into releasing it as a quality product. A big question is will we see Beta testers saying that they are burned out after a couple months of beta? Another will of course be about bugs, and if we've seen noticible ones going untreated for months. After this period we'll start to see a lot of "buyers guilt" from people who spent $60, and start to get a feel on whether or not purchusers thought it was worthwhile (one way or another). This is also the point where you start to see more balanced criticism from the gaming media about a game, rather than "OMG, it's wonderful".
Not a totally accurate synopsis I suppose, but that's how the chain of events moves. I wouldn't be too concerned about things now. Honestly, one of the other things to consider is that investors have a right to be wary, but should also keep in mind that this is the first attmpt to properly budget an MMORPG on the scale that would be needed to compete with WoW. A big problem with failed MMORPGs is that they launch in a state that would have been competitive content-wise with what WoW had when it first started... the problem with that is that they are not competing with WoW when it first started. All those expansions and such are out there now, and a game needs to consider that in the amount of material it has. With $300 million dollars "Old Republic" has a chance of being that content rich, while the "EA Louse" has made be wary, I can't believe that they literally wasted it all on sound design.
I don't think at this point that any MMO following WoW's basic design can hope to co-exist with, nevermind unseat, the game.
I really believe that for an MMO to succeed it has to break out of the fetch quest level up and endgame Tank, DPS, Healer mold that has the whole genre in a vice grip. Am I wrong or is that the elephant in the room that no developer with an eye towards a subscription based MMO, save Realtime Worlds and CCP, is willing to address? I mean it's gotten to the point where new MMO's don't even bother to tweak the formula. To me this basically means that there's no difference between these games, save visual content.
I really believe that for an MMO to succeed it has to break out of the fetch quest level up and endgame Tank, DPS, Healer mold that has the whole genre in a vice grip. Am I wrong or is that the elephant in the room that no developer with an eye towards a subscription based MMO, save Realtime Worlds and CCP, is willing to address? I mean it's gotten to the point where new MMO's don't even bother to tweak the formula. To me this basically means that there's no difference between these games, save visual content.
That has already been done. It was called Galaxies. No surprise that nobody remembers that one, though.DTWolfwood said:
Promptly landing a couple million subs is one thing. The real gold is keeping them for 6 months. That will be make or break time.John Funk said:
Taken the words out of my mouth.Woodsey said:
Even granted people won't want to pay for two subs per month, trading off between them is still a win for both. If and when I can afford to get DC Universe I will be doing 3 months on there, then switching to WoW or EVE for a bit of difference.
I am still on the fence on TOR here. My money is on good combat, but I haven't heard much about the spaceflight to get me excited. And to me that's what Star Wars is about.
I used to be a big Star Wars fan but Lucas has slowly ground that out of me, as well as all the really crappy SW games that have been made over the years. I really wish Bioware had made a Mass Effect MMO instead. After all, it's very much like Star Wars except good.