I preface this with the assumption that there is some truth to the rumors that the Beta is indeed fun, and people are enjoying the new rendition of the game.
Failure is an interesting word. When we analyze the word failure I believe it is prudent to measure success simultaneously...
I said in the topic, the game won't fail in our eyes... so what does that mean? I believe, as a consumer success/failure should be measured by the utility one derives from consuming the product given the alternative of spending one's time performing some other task or presumably, some other form of entertainment i.e. another MMO/Video game for instance. If indeed this game is fun and you are finding enjoyment in playing the game... then from the consumers point of view the game is a success. Regardless of the sales figures.
Now from SEs point of view, they may indeed not reach their projected sales figures at which they determine the investment to be a success. That's not the point though.
I believe too many people are spending time worrying whether or not this game will be a blockbuster hit with millions of subs. Instead they should simply say "I enjoy or dislike this game based on how fun I personally find the game to be." And not on how many other people find the game to be amazing/horrible.
I find that in MMOs particularly there is an odd fascination with how many other people also enjoy the game... and the perceived love/hate for the MMO in the population as a whole often has a direct influence on the individuals own derived utility from the game.
With that long winded explanation I arrive at my point. I believe that this game is going to be amazing, and that many of the XI players and old XIV players will come to the game, however SE is likely not going to reach the stellar number of subs they are hoping for...
What are your thoughts?
Edited, May 13th 2013 12:23pm by je355804
- Forums
- Final Fantasy XIV
- General Discussion
- Why this WON'T (or shouldn't) fail in our eyes
Why this WON'T (or shouldn't) fail in our eyes Follow
Quote:
With that long winded explanation I arrive at my point. I believe that this game is going to be amazing, and that many of the XI players and old XIV players will come to the game, however SE is likely not going to reach the stellar number of subs they are hoping for...
Has SE stated anywhere what kind of sub numbers they're hoping for?
I agree with your premise above. There's too much importance placed on how many OTHER people are playing a game. For sure there's a minimum number below which a game just can't be played, but any game at that number is going to have shut down long before.
I also think there's a tendency for MMO developers to set unrealistic expectations both for themselves and for the players. I remember before SWTOR launched they announced they intended to compete directly with WoW. Certainly there have been other MMOs that were self-purported "WoW killers" seeking to attain WoW's impossible subscription base.
I do think that attitude is starting to fade from developers finally, but it's very much still present in the player community.
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
Japanese culture also accepts a smaller number of sales for individual units to be "successful" - this applies on the hardware side as well as the software side.
So SE's internals may be smaller than the equivalent numbers expected from a US made game, and that's a good thing. In addition to the 100K+ free games they're giving away, they may be satisfied with as few as 500K additional copies of the game sold (PS3 and PC combined), although they're surely hoping for a million plus since that's a much appreciated, if not needed, infusion of cash to offset development costs.
So SE's internals may be smaller than the equivalent numbers expected from a US made game, and that's a good thing. In addition to the 100K+ free games they're giving away, they may be satisfied with as few as 500K additional copies of the game sold (PS3 and PC combined), although they're surely hoping for a million plus since that's a much appreciated, if not needed, infusion of cash to offset development costs.
je355844 wrote:
I believe too many people are spending time worrying whether or not this game will be a blockbuster hit with millions of subs. Instead they should simply say "I enjoy or dislike this game based on how fun I personally find the game to be." And not on how many other people find the game to be amazing/horrible.
I think the reason people do this is because they get worried that if there aren't enough people playing the game, it will close down. And in reality, that's not a misguided notion. The game needs to achieve a certain level of success in order to stay afloat. Since SE backed the game themselves, they have far more leeway than most other mmo-makers, but there is still that point of no return just like other games. I'm not very concerned about it, I think the game will be successful enough to sustain itself for quite a while. If there truly were several hundred thousand people in beta phase 2, I think it's a safe bet that there is enough interest in the game to keep it going for quite a while.
I mean, just consider that there are a fairly large amount of players from 1.0 that haven't even gotten a beta invite yet and they still had those numbers. That says a lot to me. The mostly positive responses to the beta say a lot more.
Im kinda burned out on waiting and looking for a new MMO to play
The game won't succeed or fail on its release date, or even the first week. It will take a few months to gauge public interest and see if subscriptions are retained and if new players are joining or if sales are flat and subscriptions have been cancelled.
Furthermore, those who are hesitant to jump into ARR may wait until the release bugs have been ironed out and fixed before they join so the first month may not be too telling either, in regards to the games success or failure. Upon release, reviews will be important. ARR needs to be well received and build off some momentum.
I would expect old players to play upon release, as well as new players. After the inital 3-6 months there will be a better picture on whether ARR was a success or failure.
Furthermore, those who are hesitant to jump into ARR may wait until the release bugs have been ironed out and fixed before they join so the first month may not be too telling either, in regards to the games success or failure. Upon release, reviews will be important. ARR needs to be well received and build off some momentum.
I would expect old players to play upon release, as well as new players. After the inital 3-6 months there will be a better picture on whether ARR was a success or failure.
Thing is though, what happens if it fails? Are all these people worried about it failing going to /wrists themselves? No, life will go on.
Predicting whether this game will fail (or succeed) at this point is an activity that has very little merit in my opinion. It might be a better exercise 1-3 months after launch.
For now I'm having fun with the anticipation and really looking forward to everything they're teasing us with
Predicting whether this game will fail (or succeed) at this point is an activity that has very little merit in my opinion. It might be a better exercise 1-3 months after launch.
For now I'm having fun with the anticipation and really looking forward to everything they're teasing us with
Wint wrote:
Thing is though, what happens if it fails? Are all these people worried about it failing going to /wrists themselves? No, life will go on.
Predicting whether this game will fail (or succeed) at this point is an activity that has very little merit in my opinion. It might be a better exercise 1-3 months after launch.
For now I'm having fun with the anticipation and really looking forward to everything they're teasing us with
Predicting whether this game will fail (or succeed) at this point is an activity that has very little merit in my opinion. It might be a better exercise 1-3 months after launch.
For now I'm having fun with the anticipation and really looking forward to everything they're teasing us with
Yea I don't know it seems like these threads pop up much more frequently than any other single topic. Everyone's definition of "fail" is different, every company's perspective is different, and in the end I rarely think any MMO has flat out "failed." Success for the company ultimately boils down to one thing: Did we have enough subs to pay for the cost of manufacturing and development and make a profit? Yes? Then we succeeded even if the game lasted 6 months and everyone jumped shipped.
In any case I'm with Wint here. Anticipation is much more relevant at this point in time.
ACLinjury wrote:
The game won't succeed or fail on its release date, or even the first week. It will take a few months to gauge public interest and see if subscriptions are retained and if new players are joining or if sales are flat and subscriptions have been cancelled.
Furthermore, those who are hesitant to jump into ARR may wait until the release bugs have been ironed out and fixed before they join so the first month may not be too telling either, in regards to the games success or failure. Upon release, reviews will be important. ARR needs to be well received and build off some momentum.
I would expect old players to play upon release, as well as new players. After the inital 3-6 months there will be a better picture on whether ARR was a success or failure.
Furthermore, those who are hesitant to jump into ARR may wait until the release bugs have been ironed out and fixed before they join so the first month may not be too telling either, in regards to the games success or failure. Upon release, reviews will be important. ARR needs to be well received and build off some momentum.
I would expect old players to play upon release, as well as new players. After the inital 3-6 months there will be a better picture on whether ARR was a success or failure.
I don't mean to sound abrasive, but this is exactly the point I was trying to steer people away from in my OP.
Success to the consumer should depend on the amount of fun WE the player have... Not on the amount of money SE makes off of it.
EDIT:
~~Reading the remainder of the posts, it seems my original discussion purpose as per usual was lost... the original purpose of the discussion was to say success is determined by the enjoyment the game gives us and not the dollar for SE.
This was more to say we should be happy with a good game (which it appears we may get) and not related to total subs.
Edited, May 13th 2013 2:17pm by je355804
Archmage Callinon wrote:
[quote]I also think there's a tendency for MMO developers to set unrealistic expectations both for themselves and for the players. I remember before SWTOR launched they announced they intended to compete directly with WoW. Certainly there have been other MMOs that were self-purported "WoW killers" seeking to attain WoW's impossible subscription base.
I do think that attitude is starting to fade from developers finally, but it's very much still present in the player community.
I do think that attitude is starting to fade from developers finally, but it's very much still present in the player community.
From what we've seen, in my opinion, SE is more concerned about competing with itself, than with other developers.
In other words, they realized they made some grave mistakes, and they know they can do better.
je355804- it doesnt matter how you want to put it or have it heard people are going to flood this thread with things so far off topic and going very deep down the rabbit hole about things they really have no clue about yet... ive already tried this thread and it didnt go over well... however i had a diff approach than you do here... good luck buddy!
As a game designer, it's successful if it is received well by your target audience (or in the case of a new franchise, establishes an audience). So if your target audience is millions of Final Fantasy fans, and they don't like it, then you weren't successful. Even if some other audience picks it up and loves it, that's a happy accident--you still missed your target.
There's also the spirit of the MMO to consider: a perpetual virtual world with boundless opportunities for adventure. That's what the MMO was envisioned as, so if your game is shut down or can't keep releasing content, then in that sense it is unsuccessful.
And of course as a business, it's successful if it proves to be a good return on the investment. It's a slim but manageable margin by which the game could make money and still be unsuccessful.
It should go without saying, but there are many different objectives in play with any large scale endeavor. What's successful to some isn't successful to others. I might meet my goal of 80% of my audience liking my work, but that may still leave 20% calling it a failure. That 80% might love my work but not be willing to pay for it. If I had an objective to make money, then I would fail at that aspect. Success and failure are rarely all-or-nothing endeavors. There's always multiple objectives and multiple perspectives, each with some measure of success and failure. So it's generally fair to ask "Fail at what? Succeed at what?" and meaningless if not specified.
There's also the spirit of the MMO to consider: a perpetual virtual world with boundless opportunities for adventure. That's what the MMO was envisioned as, so if your game is shut down or can't keep releasing content, then in that sense it is unsuccessful.
And of course as a business, it's successful if it proves to be a good return on the investment. It's a slim but manageable margin by which the game could make money and still be unsuccessful.
It should go without saying, but there are many different objectives in play with any large scale endeavor. What's successful to some isn't successful to others. I might meet my goal of 80% of my audience liking my work, but that may still leave 20% calling it a failure. That 80% might love my work but not be willing to pay for it. If I had an objective to make money, then I would fail at that aspect. Success and failure are rarely all-or-nothing endeavors. There's always multiple objectives and multiple perspectives, each with some measure of success and failure. So it's generally fair to ask "Fail at what? Succeed at what?" and meaningless if not specified.
Mmoderator wrote:
je355804- it doesnt matter how you want to put it or have it heard people are going to flood this thread with things so far off topic and going very deep down the rabbit hole about things they really have no clue about yet... ive already tried this thread and it didnt go over well... however i had a diff approach than you do here... good luck buddy!
Very true... it's difficult to achieve a particular talking point without cross winds drifting the little ship off to new lands. Perhaps it speaks to my inability to make a coherent and concise topic :)
Kachi wrote:
As a game designer, it's successful if it is received well by your target audience (or in the case of a new franchise, establishes an audience). So if your target audience is millions of Final Fantasy fans, and they don't like it, then you weren't successful. Even if some other audience picks it up and loves it, that's a happy accident--you still missed your target.
There's also the spirit of the MMO to consider: a perpetual virtual world with boundless opportunities for adventure. That's what the MMO was envisioned as, so if your game is shut down or can't keep releasing content, then in that sense it is unsuccessful.
And of course as a business, it's successful if it proves to be a good return on the investment. It's a slim but manageable margin by which the game could make money and still be unsuccessful.
It should go without saying, but there are many different objectives in play with any large scale endeavor. What's successful to some isn't successful to others. I might meet my goal of 80% of my audience liking my work, but that may still leave 20% calling it a failure. That 80% might love my work but not be willing to pay for it. If I had an objective to make money, then I would fail at that aspect. Success and failure are rarely all-or-nothing endeavors. There's always multiple objectives and multiple perspectives, each with some measure of success and failure. So it's generally fair to ask "Fail at what? Succeed at what?" and meaningless if not specified.
There's also the spirit of the MMO to consider: a perpetual virtual world with boundless opportunities for adventure. That's what the MMO was envisioned as, so if your game is shut down or can't keep releasing content, then in that sense it is unsuccessful.
And of course as a business, it's successful if it proves to be a good return on the investment. It's a slim but manageable margin by which the game could make money and still be unsuccessful.
It should go without saying, but there are many different objectives in play with any large scale endeavor. What's successful to some isn't successful to others. I might meet my goal of 80% of my audience liking my work, but that may still leave 20% calling it a failure. That 80% might love my work but not be willing to pay for it. If I had an objective to make money, then I would fail at that aspect. Success and failure are rarely all-or-nothing endeavors. There's always multiple objectives and multiple perspectives, each with some measure of success and failure. So it's generally fair to ask "Fail at what? Succeed at what?" and meaningless if not specified.
Specifically I was hoping to discuss success in so far as it relates to us the consumer, and what that entails. And to avoid success/failure to SE... that one is easy, returning profit and giving to shareholders is success.
Edited, May 13th 2013 2:47pm by je355804
je355804 wrote:
Mmoderator wrote:
je355804- it doesnt matter how you want to put it or have it heard people are going to flood this thread with things so far off topic and going very deep down the rabbit hole about things they really have no clue about yet... ive already tried this thread and it didnt go over well... however i had a diff approach than you do here... good luck buddy!
Very true... it's difficult to achieve a particular talking point without cross winds drifting the little ship off to new lands. Perhaps it speaks to my inability to make a coherent and concise topic :)
Actually, and I mean this with no disrespect, that's exactly what it does. Your OP was somewhat long-winded and often tangential, giving people such as myself the opportunity to dissect aspects of it you probably weren't intending. If you'd really like people to stay on topic, you need to focus your post on the specific topic and be as clear as possible. No digressions, no ambiguity. Unfortunately, it's a lot harder to do than to talk about doing.
je355804 wrote:
Kachi wrote:
As a game designer, it's successful if it is received well by your target audience (or in the case of a new franchise, establishes an audience). So if your target audience is millions of Final Fantasy fans, and they don't like it, then you weren't successful. Even if some other audience picks it up and loves it, that's a happy accident--you still missed your target.
There's also the spirit of the MMO to consider: a perpetual virtual world with boundless opportunities for adventure. That's what the MMO was envisioned as, so if your game is shut down or can't keep releasing content, then in that sense it is unsuccessful.
And of course as a business, it's successful if it proves to be a good return on the investment. It's a slim but manageable margin by which the game could make money and still be unsuccessful.
It should go without saying, but there are many different objectives in play with any large scale endeavor. What's successful to some isn't successful to others. I might meet my goal of 80% of my audience liking my work, but that may still leave 20% calling it a failure. That 80% might love my work but not be willing to pay for it. If I had an objective to make money, then I would fail at that aspect. Success and failure are rarely all-or-nothing endeavors. There's always multiple objectives and multiple perspectives, each with some measure of success and failure. So it's generally fair to ask "Fail at what? Succeed at what?" and meaningless if not specified.
There's also the spirit of the MMO to consider: a perpetual virtual world with boundless opportunities for adventure. That's what the MMO was envisioned as, so if your game is shut down or can't keep releasing content, then in that sense it is unsuccessful.
And of course as a business, it's successful if it proves to be a good return on the investment. It's a slim but manageable margin by which the game could make money and still be unsuccessful.
It should go without saying, but there are many different objectives in play with any large scale endeavor. What's successful to some isn't successful to others. I might meet my goal of 80% of my audience liking my work, but that may still leave 20% calling it a failure. That 80% might love my work but not be willing to pay for it. If I had an objective to make money, then I would fail at that aspect. Success and failure are rarely all-or-nothing endeavors. There's always multiple objectives and multiple perspectives, each with some measure of success and failure. So it's generally fair to ask "Fail at what? Succeed at what?" and meaningless if not specified.
Specifically I was hoping to discuss success in so far as it relates to us the consumer, and what that entails. And to avoid success/failure to SE... that one is easy, returning profit and giving to shareholders is success.
Edited, May 13th 2013 2:47pm by je355804
Well, you could say that if you like it, it's a success, but to what end?
We could say, "It's different for every person," but in a significant way, it's not. Many people will have very similar experiences with the game. They'll stay or quit for the same reasons. Some will initially think it's a success, but by month six, they'll be done with it forever. Is that a "success" for that person? How long do you need to like it for it to be a success? It depends where they put the bar, really.
It's fine to ask, "What will you consider a success?" though. It's just that when you talk about failure or success, the only ones who care about subjective measures of success are those who want to think of it as a success. It becomes a kind of sad way of resolving dissonance, where you're defending the merits of the game because you like it--so it must be good. If you like it, that should be enough. It shouldn't matter how other people subjectively assess the game.
By the way, it's not necessarily that easy to brand a game a financial success. Profit and paying shareholders isn't enough on its own--a game can be profitable and not be a good investment of resources. If your game generates a 110% return on investment, but your average project generates a 300% return on investment, then your game was likely a huge failure and a waste of resources.
BartelX wrote:
je355804 wrote:
Mmoderator wrote:
je355804- it doesnt matter how you want to put it or have it heard people are going to flood this thread with things so far off topic and going very deep down the rabbit hole about things they really have no clue about yet... ive already tried this thread and it didnt go over well... however i had a diff approach than you do here... good luck buddy!
Very true... it's difficult to achieve a particular talking point without cross winds drifting the little ship off to new lands. Perhaps it speaks to my inability to make a coherent and concise topic :)
Actually, and I mean this with no disrespect, that's exactly what it does. Your OP was somewhat long-winded and often tangential, giving people such as myself the opportunity to dissect aspects of it you probably weren't intending. If you'd really like people to stay on topic, you need to focus your post on the specific topic and be as clear as possible. No digressions, no ambiguity. Unfortunately, it's a lot harder to do than to talk about doing.
Perhaps I should enroll in a descriptive writing class.
Kachi wrote:
je355804 wrote:
Kachi wrote:
As a game designer, it's successful if it is received well by your target audience (or in the case of a new franchise, establishes an audience). So if your target audience is millions of Final Fantasy fans, and they don't like it, then you weren't successful. Even if some other audience picks it up and loves it, that's a happy accident--you still missed your target.
There's also the spirit of the MMO to consider: a perpetual virtual world with boundless opportunities for adventure. That's what the MMO was envisioned as, so if your game is shut down or can't keep releasing content, then in that sense it is unsuccessful.
And of course as a business, it's successful if it proves to be a good return on the investment. It's a slim but manageable margin by which the game could make money and still be unsuccessful.
It should go without saying, but there are many different objectives in play with any large scale endeavor. What's successful to some isn't successful to others. I might meet my goal of 80% of my audience liking my work, but that may still leave 20% calling it a failure. That 80% might love my work but not be willing to pay for it. If I had an objective to make money, then I would fail at that aspect. Success and failure are rarely all-or-nothing endeavors. There's always multiple objectives and multiple perspectives, each with some measure of success and failure. So it's generally fair to ask "Fail at what? Succeed at what?" and meaningless if not specified.
There's also the spirit of the MMO to consider: a perpetual virtual world with boundless opportunities for adventure. That's what the MMO was envisioned as, so if your game is shut down or can't keep releasing content, then in that sense it is unsuccessful.
And of course as a business, it's successful if it proves to be a good return on the investment. It's a slim but manageable margin by which the game could make money and still be unsuccessful.
It should go without saying, but there are many different objectives in play with any large scale endeavor. What's successful to some isn't successful to others. I might meet my goal of 80% of my audience liking my work, but that may still leave 20% calling it a failure. That 80% might love my work but not be willing to pay for it. If I had an objective to make money, then I would fail at that aspect. Success and failure are rarely all-or-nothing endeavors. There's always multiple objectives and multiple perspectives, each with some measure of success and failure. So it's generally fair to ask "Fail at what? Succeed at what?" and meaningless if not specified.
Specifically I was hoping to discuss success in so far as it relates to us the consumer, and what that entails. And to avoid success/failure to SE... that one is easy, returning profit and giving to shareholders is success.
Edited, May 13th 2013 2:47pm by je355804
Well, you could say that if you like it, it's a success, but to what end?
We could say, "It's different for every person," but in a significant way, it's not. Many people will have very similar experiences with the game. They'll stay or quit for the same reasons. Some will initially think it's a success, but by month six, they'll be done with it forever. Is that a "success" for that person? How long do you need to like it for it to be a success? It depends where they put the bar, really.
It's fine to ask, "What will you consider a success?" though. It's just that when you talk about failure or success, the only ones who care about subjective measures of success are those who want to think of it as a success. It becomes a kind of sad way of resolving dissonance, where you're defending the merits of the game because you like it--so it must be good. If you like it, that should be enough. It shouldn't matter how other people subjectively assess the game.
By the way, it's not necessarily that easy to brand a game a financial success. Profit and paying shareholders isn't enough on its own--a game can be profitable and not be a good investment of resources. If your game generates a 110% return on investment, but your average project generates a 300% return on investment, then your game was likely a huge failure and a waste of resources.
Simply put, my point is this. We should not base the success of the game based on the profit or lack thereof which it brings to SE. In stead we should base it on the utility we derive from the game itself... Unfortunately I believe too many people directly link their enjoyment to the game based on their perceived "health" of the community, which is inextricably linked to the sales and or reviews which the game is receiving. In other words, individuals are unable to dissociate what they read on forums from their actual experience in the game.
~edit: I found myself often being guilty of this with regards to XI.
Edited, May 13th 2013 4:51pm by je355804
Edited, May 14th 2013 12:54pm by je355804
In any creative endeavor there are various notions of success.
The realms of critical success, does the fanbase like it, do others like it (as Kachi stated) and does it do well financially.
As someone who creates, I think there is a certain hierarchy of importance to the above, but sometimes that order changes.
I create because it is (supposed to be) fun and I get enjoyment out of it. The act of creation in itself is a success. But if I place terms or levels of quality, or levels of reception, or levels of intention that is going to be very different. Sometimes I want to be critically known, other times I just want to sell records...
But I am also not a company that demands a return.
---
I honestly think that the devs want ARR to cater primarily to the fans of the series, but also have an obligation to make money. In this case (and this is me just assuming) I think that as long as it's not panned, the critical aspect isn't as important.
What I think doesn't matter though.
I always love a certain show or band and they end up getting canceled or breaking up. My level of care doesn't make those things a success.
A certain level of subs or metric of a minimum number of subs does ultimately. For the company as a whole, nothing more, nothing less.
The realms of critical success, does the fanbase like it, do others like it (as Kachi stated) and does it do well financially.
As someone who creates, I think there is a certain hierarchy of importance to the above, but sometimes that order changes.
I create because it is (supposed to be) fun and I get enjoyment out of it. The act of creation in itself is a success. But if I place terms or levels of quality, or levels of reception, or levels of intention that is going to be very different. Sometimes I want to be critically known, other times I just want to sell records...
But I am also not a company that demands a return.
---
I honestly think that the devs want ARR to cater primarily to the fans of the series, but also have an obligation to make money. In this case (and this is me just assuming) I think that as long as it's not panned, the critical aspect isn't as important.
What I think doesn't matter though.
I always love a certain show or band and they end up getting canceled or breaking up. My level of care doesn't make those things a success.
A certain level of subs or metric of a minimum number of subs does ultimately. For the company as a whole, nothing more, nothing less.
I don't think it's possible to debate success or failure if we don't have clear definitions of what success or failure is. The definition varies from person to person, which also varies from what SE has in mind for success or failure. At this point, it's pretty much individual opinions based on what we each expect.
ACLinjury wrote:
I don't think it's possible to debate success or failure if we don't have clear definitions of what success or failure is. The definition varies from person to person, which also varies from what SE has in mind for success or failure. At this point, it's pretty much individual opinions based on what we each expect.
If we are at this point going to ask if this game will be successful that means we need to take into account all these perspectives from the current available sources.
The success of FFXIV to SE hinges on sales and subscriber numbers. To players it will be in a plethora of areas, from community to monster slaying. One measure of success for both of these parties will be social sites and the media, which there isn't much for us to base our judgement off of yet. That means the anecdotal evidence from testers and the tidbits of info we've seen leaked are the best source of judgement at this time.
Based on the areas of judgement my personal opinion is that FFXIV has the possibility to be very successful. Depending on how end game plays out the base platform is in place and it looks very very nice IMO.
#21REDACTED,
Posted: May 15 2013 at 1:21 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Basing stuff on something you have no hand on experience is dumb....But Anyways!
The reason 1.0 got 4/10 wasn't because it wasn't "WoW-like" enough. It's because it was ********** unplayable.[/i]
Catwho wrote:
The reason 1.0 got 4/10 wasn't because it wasn't "WoW-like" enough. It's because it was @#%^ing unplayable.
I just fell in love with you now. That's the best statement ever. And so, so true. Although once they polished it up there towards the end I really enjoyed it...I just hated the monotonous repeating terrain that never,ever,ever,ever changed.
Catwho wrote:
The reason 1.0 got 4/10 wasn't because it wasn't "WoW-like" enough. It's because it was @#%^ing unplayable.
Trying to gag reviews until months into the game's release probably sent up a few red flags too.
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#25REDACTED,
Posted: May 16 2013 at 2:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Is that why when they made it "Playable" the population still did not go up ? or why nobody played it when it was F2P ?
Ostia wrote:
Catwho wrote:
The reason 1.0 got 4/10 wasn't because it wasn't "WoW-like" enough. It's because it was @#%^ing unplayable.
Is that why when they made it "Playable" the population still did not go up ? or why nobody played it when it was F2P ?
Here we go again with Ostia's official player numbers. Tell us again oh great lord of toilet-paper math, what were the numbers?
I know that I, and 8 other friends returned during the PAID months. I know they removed the ability to know ANY sort of online player numbers. Therefore, I know you are saying unprovable sh*t to win internet arguments.
Recent Visitors: 145
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (145)
- Forums
- Final Fantasy XIV
- General Discussion
- Why this WON'T (or shouldn't) fail in our eyes
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC