The Epic failure of Star Wars Galaxies, caused by it's Developers IMO*. I have been going thru old videos and stuff and was looking at my old SWG recordings and just reflecting on the whole experiance. In my opinion, massive post launch nerfs and changes is what caused the game to fail.
It is my opinion that major game changes to mechanics post launch is bad business practice, especially if a company takes money for subscriptions, the customer has paid for an expectation level and when the product they purchase is destroyed from a patch, changed or removed forever, they get ripped off a little bit everytime. Test and Evaluation needs to be more serious, slow and double checked with player populations.
The attitude of screw you we will patch or nerf whatever we want is a poor attitude. And in this case resulted in the loss of employment and destruction of an epic online game franchise, in my opinion due to many poor management decisions with changes. The original game, just as EQ1 was before the 2nd generation graphics and Planes of Power porting stones. Was a superior product to the patched product, and in both cases excessive changes made a product so different from the Original they almost become different games.
This comment is in a nutshell the problem with a "cocky" development staff thinking they know more than the cash paying customers. Here is what senior staffer Ms. MacIntyre said in response to SWG customer complaints over patch changes and nerfs.
Quote Ms. MacIntyre: "We really just needed to make the game a lot more accessble to a much broader player base ... There was lots of reading, much too much, in the game. There was a lot of wandering around learning about different abilities. We really needed to give people the experiance of being Han Solo or Luke Skywalker rather than being Uncle Owen, the moisture farmer. We wanted the most instant gratification kill, get treasure, repeat. We needed to give people more of an option to be part of what they have seen in the movies rather than something they had created themselves."
End Quote:
Wow just... for one I liked being Uncle Owen and enjoyed farming minerals. And something they created themselves.. yea that YOU and Smedley destroyed.
Vash.,
I agree with some points, but on others I don't.
First, SWG was not a failed MMO. It ran for years and made the company money. It was profitable. It was a success. The ONLY reason it isn't still running is because they lost the license for Star Wars. Bioware picked up the license for a Star Wars MMO when they launched SWTOR. Bioware paid more for the license than Sony was willing to for a renewal or Lucas arts figured they would get more money from royalties with a new modern game.
I have heard from many people who were the oposite of you and thought the patch was good for the game. They didn't like the tedium of "being Uncle Ben" and wanted to be an instant hero. They didn't want to put the work in to become a Jedi, they just wanted to play a Jedi. For these people the patch, to some extent, made the game more fun and attractive to them.
The developers responded to a change in game culture. More people out there wanted a game closer to what SWG was post patch. When it comes down to it, the devs and publishers are here to make money. Bottom line. They are not here to make any one specific person happy. They don't do this for giggles. They want money. If a game has stagnated and the publishers want to expand the player base they will look for a way to do this. If that means changing the scope of the game to be more appealing to more people they should. It's in their best interest and the game's best interest to do so.
Now in this specific instance, it may not have been the right choice to expand their player base. I don't believe they saw any real gain in subscribers after the patch. So maybe this was a mistake on the dev/publisher's part in this instance. That does not mean that radical design changes are bad in any way. It just means that devs really need to be cautious when making such a huge change.
EQ1 is a good example of how a shift in design can be a good thing. EQ from classic up until Velious was very much group centric. This was great and most had no issue with it. When Velious was released it was the first real Raid oriented expansion. It was very well received. ToV was something that a lot of the community thought the game had been missing. Luclin went back and added more group content, but its major feature was a graphical update. They wanted, and needed, to keep the game current and relevant. They updated the character models which by this time were very much showing their age. Technology had progressed by leaps and bounds. EQ had to compeat with games like DAoC and WoW which had much better graphics. The look of a game is very much important. A game that looks old will turn off many new players. I, for one, like the Luclin models in EQ and I know many people who do as well.
When I read the quote you provided above I see a dev defending their decision for, what they beleived was, the future and betterment of the game. In these cases it's hard to tell what the players actually want. When people are happy with a change they don't usually say anything about it. When people don't like a change they are increadibly vocal, even if they are in the minority. 1000 people bitching all over the internet doesn't mean that the entire player base is unhappy. There very well might be many more that are happy with the changes. The devs need to cater to the majority of the player base. I am sure that during development and testing of that patch, which you probably had no clue was happening for years before it landed, the feedback was more positive than negative.
WoW has gone through some MAJOR overhauls through the years and people have been vocal on how unhappy they are with the changes. If you talk to players in game most are actually happy with the changes and how easy the game has become. Thing is you don't see this on the net. All you see are the people bitching about how the game has devolved. For some this holds true, myself for one, but those people are actually in the minority, and a very small minority at that.
When you create an account for any MMO ever you are told right off that game play may change. The developers do not owe you anything. They will, and should, do what they believe is best for their game. If the game changes into something that you are no longer happy with, then that is a problem you need to deal with. Either adapt or move on. At the end of the day the objective of any game dev is to make money. They should do what they think best. you as a customer have the right to provide feedback on any changes but at the end of the day, if the dev disagrees with you, they aren't "cocky" they just don't share your opinion and most likely the data they have collected (because I garauntee you they have collected a LOT of data before making such a huge change) points in another direction.
Just because you are a paying customer does not mean you own the game. It is not yours. You have no right to decide the fate or future path of the game. That is solely up to the developers and publishers. Sometimes you will not be happy with how the service changes. Again, thats a problem you need to find a personal solution to, because not everyone will share your views. You are not entitled to the service. You pay for the priviledge of using the service.
Well.. The developers deffinately needed far better customer relation skills, I'll say that. I can only guess at their motives from reading not only what She said but also what was/ may have been implied. Like it or not these products must make a profit to survive. A player base most grow in a sustainable long term way. There is nothing wrong with giving people the experience of being or having the feeling of being a Han Solo type character. However...and what I'll say next is equally important... Han Solo's ship was not designed and built by him. The same applies to his weapons and gear. The point is someone had to make those. It is also true that the Han Solo Types need to have a good income either by quests i.e. doing smuggling runs, rescue missions or other side jobs so, they can afford the services of those ( crafters ) who supply and/or cater to their needs.
The developers would've been best served, if reasonably possible, by having a symbiotic relationship between crafters, those who convert resources into needed items and those who consume. In a well designed and thought out game one can't succeed without the other. Though some checks and balances would be needed such as NPC merchants and rewards from quests to help protect from "abuses from unwarented manipulation" of a totally player driven economy. 1st and formost games should be as fun as possible for everyone playing it. Keep in mind we're players... that means we are playing... not working. A successful game will never feel like an RL job.
Now I do not mean to say that a lvl of difficulty should not exisit. If Ms. MacIntyre did indeed say that SGW wanted the most instant gratification kill, get treasure, repeat, I would take issue with that. Instant gratification imo is not fun. Yet wether something is instant gratification or not is subjective.
Now about Pantheon, I've no idea wether or not the game will make it. Only time can answer that question. It really comes down to how marketable the game is. In the end consumers will decide. Now if this game is more of a hobby by those designing it, having no thought of at least meeting expenses, if not a profit, who are perfectly willing to financially prop up a game that may or may not incease it's player base, then that's all fine and well. If the answer is no, then an approach that can in a reasonable way bring in the numbers to sustain the game would be required. In the end, the question of sustainability will be answered by those paying the bills...i.e. people paying to try out and play the game or by the developers themselves if they have no concern of at least meeting expenses.
Those are very good and valid points. Customer relations are very important and how something is handled, good or bad, can have a huge impact even if it was meant with the best of intentions. People are just far to quick to make the developers and publishers out to be the bad guys when most of the time we the fans do not see the whole picture.
I agree also that in the case of SWG they catered far to much to one specific crowd and it does seem like the crafters were an after thought. Again though at the time, with the data they had and the condition of the market, it probably made much more sense to them. They probably thought the crafters were such a small minority that any oversights wouldn't impact the game much. When, from what I can see, all it did was cycle out a lot of old players for any new players they may have gained. In hindsight I am willing to bet they recognize their mistake and had they to do it again they might have made a different choice. Hidesight being 20/20 and all though.
I completely agree with you on the instant gratification point. Its why I really can't stand most modern MMOs like WoW. That said, the new generation of gamers are lazy. Pure and simple. We as a society have gradually moved into this mindset of Give it me now. We can see this in industry trends now. Publishers want to make money so they follow the lead of popular games like WoW, TERA, FFXIV and some other moderately popular MMOs. It's safe. For the majority of the gaming world out there, that IS the type of game they want. People like we here on the Pantheon forums are very much a small minority.
This is one reason why I think Pantheon will succeed. Like you said, only time will tell, but with a developer that is not bound to a publisher who wants to stick to their guns and do something that most would consider risky bsiness wise and cater to a niche audience with realistic expectations and very obtainable goals as far as design and market share, I think VR has a future. They aren't trying to compete with WoW and other "big name" MMOs. They recognize that there is a decent size player base that are looking for just such a niche title and decided to capitalize on that. they have a good strong business plan that will rely heavily on them providing a very exact experience.
Now later on down the line if the community doesn't hold up our side and respond with subscriptions and support and VR has to decide to make a shift in game design to keep the doors open and the service running, then I cannot fault them one bit. Will I be upset by the turn of events, probably. Does it mean that VR doesn't care or didn't listen? No, because they builts the game we asked for in the beginning and WE let THEM down. If their niche audience doesn't want to play their game, well they need to find a different audience. Thats exactly what they SHOULD do, and I would support them in the move even if I didn't really like the end result as much as the original game. At that point I would either need to adjust to the new design or cut my losses and go ahead and move on as I would no longer be their target audience.
I stopped playing SWG just before the NGE took place to head to EQ2. I am glad I did, because I still have fond memories of the galaxy, far, far away as a dancer/rifleman/teras kasi and a doctor/bio-engineer/carbineer. I thought it was cool that there were a limited number of elite jedi per server, it added to the immersion.
I play SWTOR as well now, and it is fun to play an elite "hero" in the world offered to us, but the game was built on that from it's start. SWG was supposed to be about the ordinary people who rose up to do extraordinary things for their chosen faction. When they shifted the game's story focus, that's when it was broken.
kellindil said:I agree with some points, but on others I don't.
First, SWG was not a failed MMO. It ran for years and made the company money. It was profitable. It was a success. The ONLY reason it isn't still running is because they lost the license for Star Wars. Bioware picked up the license for a Star Wars MMO when they launched SWTOR. Bioware paid more for the license than Sony was willing to for a renewal or Lucas arts figured they would get more money from royalties with a new modern game.
I have heard from many people who were the oposite of you and thought the patch was good for the game. They didn't like the tedium of "being Uncle Ben" and wanted to be an instant hero. They didn't want to put the work in to become a Jedi, they just wanted to play a Jedi. For these people the patch, to some extent, made the game more fun and attractive to them.
The developers responded to a change in game culture. More people out there wanted a game closer to what SWG was post patch. When it comes down to it, the devs and publishers are here to make money. Bottom line. They are not here to make any one specific person happy. They don't do this for giggles. They want money. If a game has stagnated and the publishers want to expand the player base they will look for a way to do this. If that means changing the scope of the game to be more appealing to more people they should. It's in their best interest and the game's best interest to do so.
Now in this specific instance, it may not have been the right choice to expand their player base. I don't believe they saw any real gain in subscribers after the patch. So maybe this was a mistake on the dev/publisher's part in this instance. That does not mean that radical design changes are bad in any way. It just means that devs really need to be cautious when making such a huge change.
EQ1 is a good example of how a shift in design can be a good thing. EQ from classic up until Velious was very much group centric. This was great and most had no issue with it. When Velious was released it was the first real Raid oriented expansion. It was very well received. ToV was something that a lot of the community thought the game had been missing. Luclin went back and added more group content, but its major feature was a graphical update. They wanted, and needed, to keep the game current and relevant. They updated the character models which by this time were very much showing their age. Technology had progressed by leaps and bounds. EQ had to compeat with games like DAoC and WoW which had much better graphics. The look of a game is very much important. A game that looks old will turn off many new players. I, for one, like the Luclin models in EQ and I know many people who do as well.
When I read the quote you provided above I see a dev defending their decision for, what they beleived was, the future and betterment of the game. In these cases it's hard to tell what the players actually want. When people are happy with a change they don't usually say anything about it. When people don't like a change they are increadibly vocal, even if they are in the minority. 1000 people bitching all over the internet doesn't mean that the entire player base is unhappy. There very well might be many more that are happy with the changes. The devs need to cater to the majority of the player base. I am sure that during development and testing of that patch, which you probably had no clue was happening for years before it landed, the feedback was more positive than negative.
WoW has gone through some MAJOR overhauls through the years and people have been vocal on how unhappy they are with the changes. If you talk to players in game most are actually happy with the changes and how easy the game has become. Thing is you don't see this on the net. All you see are the people bitching about how the game has devolved. For some this holds true, myself for one, but those people are actually in the minority, and a very small minority at that.
When you create an account for any MMO ever you are told right off that game play may change. The developers do not owe you anything. They will, and should, do what they believe is best for their game. If the game changes into something that you are no longer happy with, then that is a problem you need to deal with. Either adapt or move on. At the end of the day the objective of any game dev is to make money. They should do what they think best. you as a customer have the right to provide feedback on any changes but at the end of the day, if the dev disagrees with you, they aren't "cocky" they just don't share your opinion and most likely the data they have collected (because I garauntee you they have collected a LOT of data before making such a huge change) points in another direction.
Just because you are a paying customer does not mean you own the game. It is not yours. You have no right to decide the fate or future path of the game. That is solely up to the developers and publishers. Sometimes you will not be happy with how the service changes. Again, thats a problem you need to find a personal solution to, because not everyone will share your views. You are not entitled to the service. You pay for the priviledge of using the service.
kellindil said:I agree with some points, but on others I don't.
First, SWG was not a failed MMO. It ran for years and made the company money. It was profitable. It was a success. The ONLY reason it isn't still running is because they lost the license for Star Wars. Bioware picked up the license for a Star Wars MMO when they launched SWTOR. Bioware paid more for the license than Sony was willing to for a renewal or Lucas arts figured they would get more money from royalties with a new modern game.
I have heard from many people who were the oposite of you and thought the patch was good for the game. They didn't like the tedium of "being Uncle Ben" and wanted to be an instant hero. They didn't want to put the work in to become a Jedi, they just wanted to play a Jedi. For these people the patch, to some extent, made the game more fun and attractive to them.
The developers responded to a change in game culture. More people out there wanted a game closer to what SWG was post patch. When it comes down to it, the devs and publishers are here to make money. Bottom line. They are not here to make any one specific person happy. They don't do this for giggles. They want money. If a game has stagnated and the publishers want to expand the player base they will look for a way to do this. If that means changing the scope of the game to be more appealing to more people they should. It's in their best interest and the game's best interest to do so.
Now in this specific instance, it may not have been the right choice to expand their player base. I don't believe they saw any real gain in subscribers after the patch. So maybe this was a mistake on the dev/publisher's part in this instance. That does not mean that radical design changes are bad in any way. It just means that devs really need to be cautious when making such a huge change.
EQ1 is a good example of how a shift in design can be a good thing. EQ from classic up until Velious was very much group centric. This was great and most had no issue with it. When Velious was released it was the first real Raid oriented expansion. It was very well received. ToV was something that a lot of the community thought the game had been missing. Luclin went back and added more group content, but its major feature was a graphical update. They wanted, and needed, to keep the game current and relevant. They updated the character models which by this time were very much showing their age. Technology had progressed by leaps and bounds. EQ had to compeat with games like DAoC and WoW which had much better graphics. The look of a game is very much important. A game that looks old will turn off many new players. I, for one, like the Luclin models in EQ and I know many people who do as well.
When I read the quote you provided above I see a dev defending their decision for, what they beleived was, the future and betterment of the game. In these cases it's hard to tell what the players actually want. When people are happy with a change they don't usually say anything about it. When people don't like a change they are increadibly vocal, even if they are in the minority. 1000 people bitching all over the internet doesn't mean that the entire player base is unhappy. There very well might be many more that are happy with the changes. The devs need to cater to the majority of the player base. I am sure that during development and testing of that patch, which you probably had no clue was happening for years before it landed, the feedback was more positive than negative.
WoW has gone through some MAJOR overhauls through the years and people have been vocal on how unhappy they are with the changes. If you talk to players in game most are actually happy with the changes and how easy the game has become. Thing is you don't see this on the net. All you see are the people bitching about how the game has devolved. For some this holds true, myself for one, but those people are actually in the minority, and a very small minority at that.
When you create an account for any MMO ever you are told right off that game play may change. The developers do not owe you anything. They will, and should, do what they believe is best for their game. If the game changes into something that you are no longer happy with, then that is a problem you need to deal with. Either adapt or move on. At the end of the day the objective of any game dev is to make money. They should do what they think best. you as a customer have the right to provide feedback on any changes but at the end of the day, if the dev disagrees with you, they aren't "cocky" they just don't share your opinion and most likely the data they have collected (because I garauntee you they have collected a LOT of data before making such a huge change) points in another direction.
Just because you are a paying customer does not mean you own the game. It is not yours. You have no right to decide the fate or future path of the game. That is solely up to the developers and publishers. Sometimes you will not be happy with how the service changes. Again, thats a problem you need to find a personal solution to, because not everyone will share your views. You are not entitled to the service. You pay for the priviledge of using the service.
The 2nd set of player graphics and porting stones ruined eq1. Can't please everyone. This is why developers need to leverage hardware to create more than one version. I.E. a classic server that is locked at a certain patch except for bug and hack fixes is what I would suggest.
Your views and mine will never be the same. I buy a monopoly off the shelf or an old game I expect to load or play the game when I want in the future and have the same experiance level. I hate huge post launch changes and I am not alone. When a weapon is nerfed the developer should realize they screwed up, they hurt the customer, they didn't test it right, an item or spell should be so well tested and thought out that it does not require a nerf and any change to spells or mechanics should be the exception and rare not common and a rule. As to not irritate the playerbase. The need to post a weeky change log just to justify personnel should not negativly impact my gameplay experiance. Sure they can legally do what they want and we agree to terms but I also want to make it clear that if my gear or spells are nerfed heavily I click cancel. Have done it with every game so far. Right now not one company or game can earn my monthly payment. Nothing is stable enough for me to enjoy.
SWTOR went and reduced levels and power of all my characters so I clicked cancel and Bioware will never again get my business and I'll tell everyone I know not to buy anything from them over it (example of action / reaction to mega nerfage).
Its completely within your right to stop using a service you don't like. It doesn't make the devs wrong or that bad design was involved. To say that any piece of software should be absolutely perfect before it goes live is just plain foolish. Perfect software is NOT possible. All software will always have bugs and mathematical mistakes and the like. No matter how much you test something WILL slip through. You cannot account for everything. Its just not possible. No game would ever see release. To expect that of any game is beyond absurd.
It seems to me that you expect the moon and if they can’t deliver then they are stupid and have no skill. What you expect is not possible.
Folks, please don't bash other companies, the fastest way to be moderated is to do this, it isn't easy developing a game, not everyone agrees with the decisions made but in most cases they are made to keep the game successful and ensure its longevity, keeping in mind games are not free to run, they cost a lot of money and successful business models need to be considered to ensure that revenue continues to flow and the company is profitable, something gamers hate visioning but it is a reality, money makes the server go around.
There is no perfect answer on how to do this so a lot of companies experiment, some work and some don't but that doesn;t mean the developers are useless or that they don't care about the game, there is a lot of passion and hard work that goes into making these types of games so don;t be so quick to write off a companies actions until you truly understand why they made those decisions. :)