Alliance based content

[Afania]

You really have a narrow POV toward "success". That's like saying only Steve Jobs is successful, everyone else isn't, which I don't entirely agree.

Yes other games have had shorter lifespans, they've also had larger amounts of money to keep things running or to create new content I'm sure,

Before you made such claim, where's the number and data?

I would say a successful MMO is one that has a successful release without needing to rebuild the game, is well advertised to draw in more players, and can keep up at least a moderate amount of players playing the game whilst at the same time adding new content on a regular basis.

-FFXI from what I know did the first of these things but only due to the FF name as many people have told me the original version was terrible, and I have to assume by that the FF namesake is what kept this game from crashing, but I could be wrong as I never played and have no personal experience.

-So far as the second thing, advertisements, goes that is a complete and utter failure on this game's part as I have still to this day never seen a single ad on TV nor have I see any online besides on FFXI related sites, the only one I have seen even on them that comes to mind is one for SoA, which I saw, once... This game's real advertisements are the players playing it, we're the ads, if we don't draw in new people this game dies because hardly anyone is ever going to find this game without us.

-The third is to keep up a moderate amount of players while releasing new content, the first half is a failure as the population of this game declines even more to the lowest point I have ever seen(@719 people on Phoenix, yay...) and SE still does nothing effective to change that such as ads, enticements for old players to return, or anything of the sort. You would think with their want for FFXIV to be a different kind of game that they would advertise one another in their games so people who don't like one can try the other, it would be a great marketing strategy but nope, not happening.

-So far as pushing out content though they are getting that right finally, if the content were better done in some cases they could really make it great but for now I give this part a success.

So out of basically 4 criteria they failed 3 so far as I know, but if I abstain from even answering the first due to lack of personal experience you still get a 1/3, with a failure to advertise and maintain a playerbase. Their only success in my opinion is something fairly new and that's a consistent stream of content flowing into the game for us to do, before it was an update once every 3 months or so and I wouldn't actually call that much a success when a large amount of players were standing around with their thumbs misplaced and nothing to do. Now we finally have moderate content updates monthly, which is a success, but the failed in other ways that make the game itself fail. So, 12 years of being alive, a ton of mistakes, a few successes, but the game overall is not one I could actually consider a true success, it's alive, but not a success.

1. That does not determine whether a game is a success or not.

2. That does not determine whether a game is a success or not, no MMORPG can keep players forever. WoW used to have 12M sub, dropped to 8M and less at one point of time. By your logic WoW isn't a success.

3. That doesn't determine whether a game is a success or not either.

More like you set your own definition of "success", and called the game unsuccessful because it doesn't fit your own definition.

My definition of "success" for any game:

1.It makes money. If the game invest 20M to develop, but it makes 50M profit, then it's a success. A 20M cost game doesn't need to make 200M profit to be successful.

OR

2. It has certain industry changing design goal, and it successfully delivered it. Even if the game isn't commercially successful, it's still a success because it's goal of this game may not be making money to begin with.

Basically, if a game set a goal, and it meets the goal, then it's a success.

From what I've seen, FFXI fits No.1 criteria, therefore it's a success.

If I'm going to use your logic "I don't like X, so it's not a success" to call a game being unsuccessful, Warhammer online, SWG, Anarchy online, RO2, EQ2, Age of Conan, Asheron's call2, Blade and Soul, Tera, Mortal Online, Hello Kitty Online, King of Fighters online, Dragon's Prophet, Dragon Ball online, Dynasty Warriors Online, Earth and Beyond, FF14 1.0, Shadowbane, Wizardry Online.....all those games aren't successful, and the list goes on.

Yeah I haven't even start naming all the B grade and C grade MMO that you probably never heard of. I can find probably one or more criteria you listed above and call them unsuccessful.

I called you a FFXI hater because your claim makes no logic, just "I don't like it, bahhh I don't like it therefore it's not successful" opinion.

The point is, compare with 95% of MMORPG ever exist on the market, FFXI is certainly "up there". Just because you never heard of or play those titles, and only ever look at WoW, doesn't make FFXI unsuccessful. It may be possible that FFXI sells because it's FF, but that doesn't matter.

[Afania]

In my opinion a MMO is a "success" if you could imagine being able to convince even one of your friends to play it for any amount of time.

Nope. I think Planescape Torment, Baldur's Gate, and Everquest are some of the greatest game ever made, but I can't convince my friends to play it. They're mostly playing more "mainstream" game such as Call of Duty, Starcraft, mobile games and so on.

Just because your friends don't share same taste as you, it doesn't mean games for minority is not a success.

Variety is spice of life, there are always "mainstream" titles, there are titles that only appeal to minority, that doesn't mean games for minority is bad. They're just different.

I'd gone crazy if every game on the market are mainsteam titles, what a boring life.

[Demonjustin]

You really have a narrow POV toward "success". That's like saying only Steve Jobs is successful, everyone else isn't, which I don't entirely agree.

The fact you disagree doesn't change much. To you, it was a success, to me, it wasn't, it has no affect on what I said which no matter how you wish to take it was simply stating a game's lifespan does not dictate it's success. Call of Duty lasts a year, maybe 2, and yet they are considered a success by all means because they can sell millions of copies and do so every single year. Comparing different genres? Yeah, I am, but the point still stands that a game's lifespan doesn't dictate it's success.

Before you made such claim, where's the number and data?

I clearly said 'I think' for a reason. I can't prove it, but I would be naive to think that the upkeep for this 12 year old game with the graphics of an early PS2 game and the small amount of players it has right now would even compare to newer games with what I assume are much more sophisticated servers, graphics, and larger player base to maintain and adhere to. If you truely think the cost of upkeep on this game is equal to that of newer games then... why do I even bother...

1. That does not determine whether a game is a success or not.

Actually, it does. If you release a game poorly originally it affects the overall longevity of the game and it's name sake because by a poor release alone you can forever damage the game in the minds of many people. Take for example FFXIV, I am sure a great deal of people will never even play ARR simply because of the fact the original failed so terribly and nothing more, besides that it also means even longer before the game is playable and before the game is actually moving forward rather than correcting previously created issues rather than creating new content. That can leave a game stagnant for some time and also kill a bit of it's appeal since the game seems to start more slowly as players who did play through the rough start will have completed a bit of content and gotten further into the game, reaching the dead end sooner and thus running out of things to do more quickly while new content is created slowly due to the aforementioned time used to fix previous failures in the game.

2. That does not determine whether a game is a success or not, no MMORPG can keep players forever. WoW used to have 12M sub, dropped to 8M and less at one point of time. By your logic WoW isn't a success.

3. That doesn't determine whether a game is a success or not either.

So the amount of people has no baring on a games success? I fail to see how. A smaller player base means a smaller revenue which means less profit and thus as a result less success. It also means a smaller community which is what drives many MMOs to an extent, fewer clans, guilds, and what have you to join or compete, a smaller market, there are many things in MMOs that depend on a community and by having a lack of advertisements and players joining the game you can find yourself with a dry experience that has people leaving in droves. The amount of people playing doesn't have to be a consistent high of millions, no, but it does need to be enough to have a solid community.

More like you set your own definition of "success", and called the game unsuccessful because it doesn't fit your own definition.

Well here we go Afania, let's go back to the same old arguement you and I always have about preferences and how mine are apparently so very different than yours, shall we?

My definition of "success" for any game:

1.It makes money. If the game invest 20M to develop, but it makes 50M profit, then it's a success. A 20M cost game doesn't need to make 200M profit to be successful.

OR

2. It has certain industry changing design goal, and it successfully delivered it. Even if the game isn't commercially successful, it's still a success because it's goal of this game may not be making money to begin with.

This is financial and revolutionary success. When talking about games in the general term of success I always look more to entertainment success than financial or revolutionary.

Basically, if a game set a goal, and it meets the goal, then it's a success.

From what I've seen, FFXI fits No.1 criteria, therefore it's a success.

Financially yes, it's a success.

If I'm going to use your logic "I don't like X, so it's not a success" to call a game being unsuccessful, Warhammer online, SWG, Anarchy online, RO2, EQ2, Age of Conan, Asheron's call2, Blade and Soul, Tera, Mortal Online, Hello Kitty Online, King of Fighters online, Dragon's Prophet, Dragon Ball online, Dynasty Warriors Online, Earth and Beyond, FF14 1.0, Shadowbane, Wizardry Online.....all those games aren't successful, and the list goes on.

See, this is why I don't like fkin talking to you Afania, because you change everything to sound like I'm just some moron who says things like 'If I don't like it, it sucks!' which is fking insulting as hell. I like this fkin game, you don't get that, you think changing something makes this something besides FFXI and since I support such a change I must therefore not like FFXI, and as a result, I must think it isn't a success. That's the line of logic you're using right there and it's fkin stupid.

I layed out my ideas of what makes a game successful, how many of those games have I played? None, so will I say if any are successful without having played them or any knowledge of them? No, I won't, because I'm not a moron. If I were to say any of them weren't successful it would be FFXIV 1.0, ya know why? The game flopped so badly they had to remake it, it's the only game I know anything about in that list and I know how horrible it sounded.

Yeah I haven't even start naming all the B grade and C grade MMO that you probably never heard of. I can find probably one or more criteria you listed above and call them unsuccessful.

Did I say every criteria must be met? Did I say that without them all being fulfilled they weren't successful? No. I said

I called you a FFXI hater because your claim makes no logic, just "I don't like it, bahhh I don't like it therefore it's not successful" opinion.

Yeah, sure, my arguments are dismissed based on the fact you have determined I don't agree with you and thus all arguments are pointless with you because that's all you'll ever say in any form of talk with me, such as this. I'm sure if I hated this game I would continue to waste away my life playing it every day rather than doing something more productive, I mean, who wouldn't? The meaning of life after all is to do what you hate right?

The point is, compare with 95% of MMORPG ever exist on the market, FFXI is certainly "up there". Just because you never heard of or play those titles, and only ever look at WoW, doesn't make FFXI unsuccessful.

I don't compare WoW to FFXI you fool. I compare FFXI to my idea of what a game should do in general, if WoW does it then great, I don't give a rats, but the point isn't FFXI to do what WoW does, I've never even played the damn game, I'm saying what a game needs to do to be a success to me, to me, FFXI is a failure.

It may be possible that FFXI sells because it's FF, but that doesn't matter.

That's so wrong I don't even feel like typing out how it makes all the difference in the world because the fact it has FF in it's title effects it's success as much as if not more than it did with XIII.

[Olor]

Nope. I think Planescape Torment, Baldur's Gate, and Everquest are some of the greatest game ever made, but I can't convince my friends to play it. They're mostly playing more "mainstream" game such as Call of Duty, Starcraft, mobile games and so on.

Just because your friends don't share same taste as you, it doesn't mean games for minority is not a success.

I am talking about people who share my tastes. Sorry lady, but you don't get to assume I mean something I don't mean. My friends, who love final fantasy and love RPGs and love MMOs will not touch this game with a ten foot pole, because they can just look at it and see, they would have to invest months of being bored into it before they could do content with other people (other than perhaps, having me power them through missions/battle content)

My other friends, who have played this game, quit when ilevel came out, because XIV looked like greener pastures. If SE at least added a combo deal for the two games one or two of them might play a bit, but probably not, since the critical mass of players/our friend group - is now gone.

[Afania]

The fact you disagree doesn't change much. To you, it was a success, to me, it wasn't, it has no affect on what I said which no matter how you wish to take it was simply stating a game's lifespan does not dictate it's success. Call of Duty lasts a year, maybe 2, and yet they are considered a success by all means because they can sell millions of copies and do so every single year. Comparing different genres? Yeah, I am, but the point still stands that a game's lifespan doesn't dictate it's success.

Call of Duty isn't MMO, and CoD sells better than majority of games in same genre, thus it's a success. FFXI also sells better than 90% of MMO in the industry, thus it's also a success. In MMO industry, besides revenue, one of the most common way to determine whether a title is successful, is by looking at it's lifespan. It's fact, and that's how the majority of dev/players judge a title in this industry. No one would care about how one individual player think about this game, but they care about the numbers. A game's lifespan and sub number directly affects revenue, in FFXI's case, it did better than most of the titles in the industry, so how is it not a success?

And fine, that's assume you're correct that FFXI is cheap with upkeep(I still don't know exactly which title you're comparing with, cuz you only use vague concept, but oh well):

So the amount of people has no baring on a games success? I fail to see how. A smaller player base means a smaller revenue which means less profit and thus as a result less success.

I just told you why. A game cost 200M to make and make 100M back with bigger player base, v.s a game cost 20M to make and make 50M with smaller player base. You can tell which title makes more money by doing the math.

The amount of people has no direct connection on a games success, because a game cost money to develop, and it cost money to update. I remember I saw some info about FFXI cost around 16M~24 to make somewhere, plus extremely low budget on content update. SWTOR cost 150M~200M to make, nearly 10x more amount, but not much more sub after 1 year. I've heard Tera also hits 100M mark and sub number wasn't impressive either. A game cost 5~10 times more money to make than FFXI should have 5~10 times more player than FFXI, but pretty much every title besides WOW on the market can't get 2.5M~5M sub.

So yeah, the amount of people has no direct baring to a game's success, because it depend on the development cost.

Well here we go Afania, let's go back to the same old arguement you and I always have about preferences and how mine are apparently so very different than yours, shall we?

This is financial and revolutionary success. When talking about games in the general term of success I always look more to entertainment success than financial or revolutionary.

Financially yes, it's a success.

You don't get the point, the point is, the way you use the word "success" was wrong.

Yes, we have different preference, but when we use the term "success", it's often used in an objective way that it has nothing to do with your personal preference. That we often determine whether a something/someone is a success by something measurable with number and data. Such as the amount of money it makes, or it's influence in the industry, or in MMORPG's case, it's lifespan.

The fact is, at first you claimed FFXI isn't a success because it doesn't fit your criteria of being a good game. After I mention the financial aspect of this game, you admitted that it's a success. Because you can't deny the fact that FFXI is indeed a success after we start talking about numbers.

I don't like Apple product, I don't like Steve Jobs, I don't like WoW, but if you ask me "Is Apple a successful company?" "Is WoW a successful MMORPG?" "Is Steve Jobs a successful individual?" I would answer "hell yes!" I don't answer "hell yes!" because I like them, but because the fact that they make a lot of money AND change the industry. I'd be delusional if I deny it just because I don't like them.

You can try to ask people around you, see how they use the term "success". I believe the majority use it in an more objective way. Your "entertainment value" is very subjective, because everyone has different taste when it comes to entertainment and fun. Thus you can't really determine whether a game is successful or not by "entertainment value".

If you say "Just because a game has long lifespan doesn't mean it's fun", then I wouldn't start this entire argument, because that statement may be correct due to everyone has different taste.

But you did say "Just because the game is still running does not mean it's a success." without further explanation, in an industry that most titles can't live for more than 3~5 years with 500k sub. THAT is pretty much changing the definition of standard. You can't blame me for pointing the flaw in your logic out.

See, this is why I don't like fkin talking to you Afania, because you change everything to sound like I'm just some moron who says things like 'If I don't like it, it sucks!' which is fking insulting as hell. I like this fkin game, you don't get that, you think changing something makes this something besides FFXI and since I support such a change I must therefore not like FFXI, and as a result, I must think it isn't a success. That's the line of logic you're using right there and it's fkin stupid.

Your above post clearly admitted that your definition of success was based on your own personal preference, exactly how I change everything you said? "If I don't like it, it sucks!" is judging something based on personal preference just like "I look to entertainment success". Except at this point of time we all know "sucks" is often an opinion, while "success" often comes with a measurable standard when being used.

I layed out my ideas of what makes a game successful, how many of those games have I played? None, so will I say if any are successful without having played them or any knowledge of them? No, I won't, because I'm not a moron.

It doesn't matter which game you've played and what game is on the list. You're judging whether a game is successful or not by your own preference, so technically you can call a game that changed the world and got 20M sub "failure" because you don't like it, or call a game cost 400M to make and only got 1k sub "success" if you like it.

That's so wrong I don't even feel like typing out how it makes all the difference in the world because the fact it has FF in it's title effects it's success as much as if not more than it did with XIII.

I never deny the fact that FF has strong IP value. Just because FF rely on IP value to sell, doesn't mean FF isn't successful. FFXI was a successful MMO compare with majority of titles, maybe it's successful because it's a FF MMO, but it's still a successful MMO. Being a FF game or not does not change the fact that in this industry, FFXI is considered more successful than 90% of titles on the market.

I don't compare WoW to FFXI you fool.

Next time before you pissed off on the internet because you can't convince someone on the internet, maybe you should start presenting your opinion in a more logical way.

I am talking about people who share my tastes. Sorry lady, but you don't get to assume I mean something I don't mean. My friends, who love final fantasy and love RPGs and love MMOs will not touch this game with a ten foot pole, because they can just look at it and see, they would have to invest months of being bored into it before they could do content with other people (other than perhaps, having me power them through missions/battle content)

My other friends, who have played this game, quit when ilevel came out, because XIV looked like greener pastures. If SE at least added a combo deal for the two games one or two of them might play a bit, but probably not, since the critical mass of players/our friend group - is now gone.

"Like RPG" "Like FF" and "like MMORPG" is barely same taste. There are players who love FF6 but hate FF13. There are players love single player FF but hate MMO FF. There are players that only ever play MMO FF but never touch any single player FF. There are players love FF11 and hate 14, and vice versa.

I don't see how "not able to convince someone to play the game you like" is an issue. There are probably only 1~2M players are interested in games like FFXI, there are 7 billion people on Earth. The chance of you meeting other FFXI fans irl is as low as it is. You'd have better luck meeting someone into FF7.

Edit: Oops, did some research and some say Tera wasn't 100M, only about 50M. Still a lot of money for unimpressive sub.

[Mirage]

Sorry Demonjustin but Afaina is just correct in this case. It'd be easier to just admit to it and let this thread move back to its actual topic.

[Demonjustin]

Call of Duty isn't MMO, and CoD sells better than majority of games in same genre, thus it's a success. FFXI also sells better than 90% of MMO in the industry, thus it's also a success. In MMO industry, besides revenue, one of the most common way to determine whether a title is successful, is by looking at it's lifespan. It's fact, and that's how the majority of dev/players judge a title in this industry. No one would care about how one individual player think about this game, but they care about the numbers. A game's lifespan and sub number directly affects revenue, in FFXI's case, it did better than most of the titles in the industry, so how is it not a success?

And fine, that's assume you're correct that FFXI is cheap with upkeep(I still don't know exactly which title you're comparing with, cuz you only use vague concept, but oh well):

I don't go specifically by financial success for a reason. I don't go by my own personal idea of fun either. I think of a successful MMO as being one that is kept alive but also has a large active player base and consistent content being added to it. The reason for this is due to the fact it not only actually gives greater financial success, but it also keeps the game alive a long period of time, if I made a MMO tomorrow and 1000 people played it over the course of the next decade but only 1000 people ever actually played with no new players I wouldn't call my game a success.

So far as upkeep, I am comparing FFXI to basically any MMO alive today. I doubt any MMOs alive today made within the last 5 years which have content still being created for it have a cheaper upkeep in all honesty.

The amount of people has no direct connection on a games success, because a game cost money to develop, and it cost money to update.

Financial.

But you did say "Just because the game is still running does not mean it's a success." without further explanation, in an industry that most titles can't live for more than 3~5 years with 500k sub. THAT is pretty much changing the definition of standard. You can't blame me for pointing the flaw in your logic out.

Perhaps it is a flaw on my part that I can't properly describe things well. Perhaps success isn't the word I seek to use. I am not a money person, I don't ever look at money as a source of one's success or one's achievements, nor do I look to money as the end goal for things. Perhaps it's for this reason that when I speak of success as I am now that money doesn't even factor into it for me in any way, I couldn't care less if FFXI made more money than was spent on it because in the end that's not what ever mattered to me. When I say this game isn't successful, I mean that it's entertainment value is lower than that of other games and that it has had failures in many fields that are easily done by any game that I think are required for a game to be successful at being a great MMO. A large playerbase is one key thing I associate with MMOs, the lack of attempting to get people into this game alone has been enough to say this game has failed terribly in at least one way to me, but the overall game itself outside of finance to me seems to be a failure rather than a success.

I never once meant to imply that the game isn't financially successful, I doubt they spend hardly anything by compare to the money they make every month from players, mules, second accounts, and so on just to make the updates we get.

Your above post clearly admitted that your definition of success was based on your own personal preference, exactly how I change everything you said? "If I don't like it, it sucks!" is judging something based on personal preference just like "I look to entertainment success". Except at this point of time we all know "sucks" is often an opinion, while "success" often comes with a measurable standard when being used.

To say that it is based off of an ideal of 'If I don't like it then it sucks' would mean only games I like can fit into the category, but this isn't the case, it's why the fact I haven't played games is meaningful, I'm not judging all games I like as successful and all those I don't as not, some games I like aren't successful, some I don't like are, as I said though, perhaps my wording is off, I don't know, success is the only word that seems to fit what I'm looking for yet it seems you're saying it applies in this case only to finance and nothing more really.

I never deny the fact that FF has strong IP value. Just because FF rely on IP value to sell, doesn't mean FF isn't successful. FFXI was a successful MMO compare with majority of titles, maybe it's successful because it's a FF MMO, but it's still a successful MMO. Being a FF game or not does not change the fact that in this industry, FFXI is considered more successful than 90% of titles on the market.

Specifically what you said is that it doesn't matter. My point was is that it makes all the difference in the world on how the game's received and thus, matters more than anything. Were FFXIII put on the market as something besides FF it would have been a so-so RPG a few people would have played, given bad reviews, and moved on from. Instead of that happening the game was kept alive by sequels, it got a ton of attention, it had financial success where it would have otherwise flopped, and overall the title carried it, and possibly even did some damage to the game's integrity due to the fact that it was judged much more harshly against other titles rather than being just another RPG itself. The reason this matters for FFXI is the fact that FFXI can very easily be seen as the same kind of situation, I again don't know how FFXI was on release but if it's half as bad as people have made it sound to be then I have little doubt that people played this game and made it what it is today over the years not because it was great, but because it was Final Fantasy. The idea of playing Final Fantasy with friends could easily be too alluring to pass up and in the end have been the reason for it's success. So to say that just because it's Final Fantasy and may have succeeded for that reason doesn't matter seems very inaccurate, because it seems to me that could imply a bad game got the spotlight only because of it's name while other games were they made the same or we're this game titled differently would have failed. But again this diverts away from the idea of it being less about finances and more about the game itself, as I'm talking about a game that can't stand on it's own right and you're likely talking about the fact that it made money be it FF or not and thus is a success regardless.

Next time before you pissed off on the internet because you can't convince someone on the internet, maybe you should start presenting your opinion in a more logical way.

I did. Perhaps you should stop acting as though what I say is something else. Such as taking everything I say and balling it into the idea of 'If I don't like it then it's not a success' which is what you did. I gave criteria that I judge games as a success by, many games fall into that category including games I do and don't like, at that somehow still gets balled into the same idea. You basically ignore what I say and just go off into la la land about how I'm wrong when you seem not to even understand what I'm saying due to the inability to properly comprehend that you're coloring my statements with the wrong light by assuming I am simply arguing for nothing more than what I like and saying everything I don't like is by definition bad.

My anger doesn't come from an inability to debate or argue with you over these things properly nor being unable to change your opinion it's about the fact you seem to consistently take my arguments the wrong way and dismiss them under the context they mean something completely different than originally intended.

[Lithera]

If the game came out know with how it is now along with the direction they are taking it the game might not be successful. Then if it did come out right now I would strongly hope they were not going to go with the same thought process as they are now. Also can't be judging if the game is a success with how it is right now and ignore it's past. Yes there were not many adds done for it outside of japan for any of it's life and might have gotten bad reviews. Along with at least two bad pr segments in gaming news. Then look at ESO most of the current things many people are hearing is bad and that sure it feels like an ES game but has just enough stuff that even people who love the series won't be playing it at launch. Then there are those who will play it because of name alone.

Anyways it kind of feels at least to me we are experiencing something similar to what happened when WoTG came out where they kind of got tunnel vision and only gave other sections of the game a bone if enough rabble was roused about non WoTG stuff. Like many have said before there probably is more casual players than non and so yes they are trying to cater to smaller groups. I do agree that the rewards should probably scale with the difficulty in getting one or more items than what an easier setting should. I still find it funny that after many years of people complaining about how you couldn't do most things without a group we now have it and now that we have it people are upset over it. One or the other people. We can't have the happy medium because even if SE did try and give that to us there would still be people complaining about that.

[Afania]

I don't go specifically by financial success for a reason. I don't go by my own personal idea of fun either. I think of a successful MMO as being one that is kept alive but also has a large active player base and consistent content being added to it. The reason for this is due to the fact it not only actually gives greater financial success, but it also keeps the game alive a long period of time, if I made a MMO tomorrow and 1000 people played it over the course of the next decade but only 1000 people ever actually played with no new players I wouldn't call my game a success.

That's not the definition of success, that's more like an ideal that no game has ever accomplish before....even the most successful MMO like WoW lost a lot of sub at one point of time.

In a happy rainbow land, of course every dev would want their game to have 1000 players first year, 2000 players 2nd year, 5000 players 3rd year and 100000 players after 10 years. But this is reality, the reality of this industry is after 3~5 years your game is very likely to shut down.

By your logic I can pretty much call anything, any company or any individual in this world unsuccessful, because they can't accomplish the ideal.

So far as upkeep, I am comparing FFXI to basically any MMO alive today. I doubt any MMOs alive today made within the last 5 years which have content still being created for it have a cheaper upkeep in all honesty.

Then you don't really understand the industry, or maybe you only ever look at AAA big budget titles and think that's normal. There are hundreds and hundreds of low budget titles from Asia that pretty much just launch, milk every penny from the player with cash shop, every update= reskinned mobs and zones, and they stop updating the game after 1 year or something. Which lead to even faster player decline so they have a legit excuse to shut it down. Then they launched another title in 1 year, repeat the entire process, with every game design and stats copy and paste from previous titles, only with different art assets and game title.

Some game with better quality may made it to the west if they have a publisher, but the content isn't any better. But that doesn't matter, because most of the players playing this kind of MMO, tend to play for 2 weeks and quit, come back after 6 months and play for 1 week and quit. Having quality and speedy update and keep players around for entertainment value isn't their goal. Make money by creating a title as fast as possible, hoping 1%~5% of those 2 weeks player spend some cash in their cash shop is their goal.

THAT is the fact of 90% of games in this industry. They don't make a living by making quality product, but by the quantity of the product.

You may not care because you're a player only wanting to play quality AAA titles, and only ever care about AAA titles.You can probably name many quality AAA titles from past 5 years. Warhammer online(btw, this game also had slow update and eventually lost enough sub to shut down), Rift, SWTOR, GW2, FF14 ARR, Tera, and soon TESO. But they're not majority, they're just 1% of the titles in this industry. FFXI's update, especially update speed after 2013 Nov, is much better than 90% of the MMORPG existed.

I'm not saying you must compare FFXI with low budget cash shop MMO titles. Obviously that's bringing FF IP down. But you shouldn't really claim "I think every new MMO title from past 5 year did this better", without understanding the industry as a whole.

Perhaps it is a flaw on my part that I can't properly describe things well. Perhaps success isn't the word I seek to use. I am not a money person, I don't ever look at money as a source of one's success or one's achievements, nor do I look to money as the end goal for things. Perhaps it's for this reason that when I speak of success as I am now that money doesn't even factor into it for me in any way, I couldn't care less if FFXI made more money than was spent on it because in the end that's not what ever mattered to me. When I say this game isn't successful, I mean that it's entertainment value is lower than that of other games and that it has had failures in many fields that are easily done by any game that I think are required for a game to be successful at being a great MMO. A large playerbase is one key thing I associate with MMOs, the lack of attempting to get people into this game alone has been enough to say this game has failed terribly in at least one way to me, but the overall game itself outside of finance to me seems to be a failure rather than a success.

Of course you wouldn't care, because obviously you aren't the one paying for the development cost. Maybe one day when you fund your own company(and using kickstarter doesn't count) you'd know. No offense, I'm going to make a guess(if I guess wrong, I'm sorry) that you probably never start your own business, or you did but your own business isn't very successful. Because most of your opinion seems like opinion from a customer, but not opinion from a developer. It has zero sense with marketing and business.

A large playerbase doesn't come just because you try, "attempt to get people into this game" also don't come just because you try either. Everything you do in a company, it needs resource. If you want to put ad to attract more players...money. You want to hire a community manager and interact with the community? Money. You want to attract the player by creating some sort of super awesome change to the game? MONEY. You want to relaunch the game so every player look at your game? MONNNNNEEEEEY.

Eventually, you may find your investment may attract some players, but ended up not THAT effective. You may spend $1000 on marketing this month to get new players, but you only get 10 more players=$120 more profit this month. In the end, you just lost $880!

Your line of thinking, is completely rainbow land /customer line of thinking. "I want the best game to play with!" "I want A feature, B feature, C feature in the game I'm playing, if a game is like that, it'd be perfect!" But that'd never work, because eventually it'd backfire.

Remember SWTOR? Honestly, I think playing SWTOR from lv1 was an enjoyable experience. I love SW, I love the writing quality of SWTOR, and SWTOR voice acting is AWESOME. The entire writing quality, with the quality of acting and VA, made SWTOR a pretty fun experience that quite a lot of players made a lot of alt just to experience the story. Even though it's not really a virtual world I'm looking for in a MMO, it doesn't really matter that much if I only play for the story.

However, a large part of the crazy 150M~200M dev cost of SWTOR also came from hiring voice actors, and when the sub dropped to 500k after 1 year, SWTOR couldn't generate enough profit to cover the cost, and implemented a very bad F2P model to generate more profit.

THAT F2P model completely killed the game experience for me, it made me quit.

The point is, SWTOR could be a better game without VA, maybe. Plenty of game has no kick ass VA and it was enjoyable, why'd SWTOR need to spend that much money in it? VA made the story a more enjoyable experience, but is it make or break in a MMO?

All the money dev spent on marketing, it will go back to the customer. There are no free lunches, after all. All the money dev spend on ad, community activity, relaunching a game, getting press review for update, managing relationships with, it will go back to the customer with one extra mount you must buy from the cash shop, or lower quality update.

The real question isn't "why SE doesn't toss money to get more players", but "do we need to sacrifice the quality of the service to get more players?"

IF I'm the game dev, I wouldn't aim on "getting large player base". That's pretty much_key_to_failure. It's key to failure because dev would start making silly decisions if their goal is to get as many players as possible, ended up getting none. There's only one goal I'd aim for: Make a game my target audience would enjoy. If my target audience has 10 people, I'd make this game super fun for THEM and screw everyone else. Nobody get time/resource to please everyone. That is how you make a successful product.

You may not completely agree with my POV now, but if you happen to know a successful entrepreneur with business sense, and ask THEIR opinion about how to be successful with target audience, maybe they'll agree with me.

Specifically what you said is that it doesn't matter. My point was is that it makes all the difference in the world on how the game's received and thus, matters more than anything. Were FFXIII put on the market as something besides FF it would have been a so-so RPG a few people would have played, given bad reviews, and moved on from.

Nope, exactly the opposite. FFXIII is a very well made, polished and enjoyable game, the production value is very high. The majority of hate came from linearity and the presentation style, which isn't a flaw but just the game design direction.

The review score it got was what it deserves, it won't get lower with a different name. It got plenty of hate BECAUSE it's FF. Players expect FF to be something similar to what they know and used to play, something closer to Lost Odyssey, at least not that linear. FFXIII is very different from what they expected, therefore it got hate.

Without the name FF, FFXIII can truly shine with it's strength: Battle system, art, cut-scenes and animation. Because it's honestly not a bad game if you don't already believe FF should follow certain style.

On the other hand, without the name FF, FFXIII probably won't have enough resource to have all that production value to shine in above mentioned aspect. Half of the enjoyment in FFXIII came from cool animation and art, which cost money and most SE titles aren't getting that much resource unless it's FF, therefore FFXIII will be a so-so RPG if it's not FF, due to the lack of resource. Being a FF title is both a curse and a bless for FFXIII.

If FFXIII has another name such as Crystal Legend, but has same resource in quality, art and animation, I'm pretty sure it's not going to get as much hate. Players gonna play it, tell their friends "Hey I just played Crystal Legend, the battle system is pretty fun!" "Cool I'll try it out" "Never heard of it, gonna pass". It won't sell millions and millions of copies, but most players won't hate this game for being linear and having cliche JRPG story.


A super huge wall of text, sorry. But I can't help it when I see opinions about the industry that clearly didn't do much research about them. If you don't agree with my opinion about business, prove me wrong by showing me real life examples, don't just tell me what your ideal is.

[Ravenmore]

I don't necessarily disagree with the basic point of your post, but I want to point out a typical hard core player very likely pays for more accounts and mules and is much less likely to deactivate any account(s) on a whim. Using myself as an example, between my GF and myself we have 4 accounts with dozens of mules. I personally haven't ever deactivated for ten years.

While I agree that SE should always keep casual players in mind, losing the hardcore players (and hardcore is a subjective term) would have more of a significant impact than you imply. With that said, I'm happy with the direction and current state of the game. My only current frustrations are the end of double XP, the apparently huge time sink of job points, and Ark Angel congestion.

Still no where near enough for the game to shut down if they all went away. The game is already at the point were it is unlikely to get another full blown expansion and it it was already well on the way when SoA was released. I am willing to bet SoA was SE plan C if FF14 had failed again like 1.0. Like he said SE would just dumb the game down a bit after seeing the clear rates drop to a unacceptable level.