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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.


Reply With Quote