Order 66

Some time ago, I wrote here at Terra Nova that MMOGs really don't get a "do-over", that later changes to the game almost necessarily sit on top of old mechanics, that design is cumulative.

The live management team for Star Wars: Galaxies set out to prove me wrong with their "combat upgrade" and "Jedi revamp" a while back, and I watched with some interest. I couldn't see how they planned to change the rest of the game at the same time as the combat upgrade, given how tight the interdependencies of the game were. In fact, I predicted on the official SWG forum that any serious attempt to realize the ambitions of the combat revamp was going to take a major rethinking of the entire profession system and crafting along with it.

I was closer to the mark than I would have guessed: the live management team recently and with breathtaking suddenness announced and then pushed to live a massive overhaul of the entire game, the so-called "New Game Enhancement" or NGE. Unfortunately, the live management team seems to have ignored another long-standing criticism of SWG by many observers: that their design and implementation process is a disastrous mess. Never more so than with the NGE: whatever it is conceptually, in practice, it's roughly on par with an alpha build of a MMOG.

Or did they ignore it? It's just possible that SWG's latest flaming car wreck resulted from deliberately driving over a cliff.

I'm normally deeply suspicious of conspiracy theories. In the case of SWG's NGE, though, there are really only two possibilities: that there is a deeper agenda or that the live management team is well beyond cluelessly self-destructive, out in some outer void of fecklessness.

The basic scheme of the NGE aims to grapple with some of the longest-standing criticisms of SWG, many of which I've agreed with since the game went live: that the game lacks a compelling connection to its licensed fiction, that its sprawling design is hampered by serious game-mechanical contradictions, that its content is threadbare, and so on. In essence, what the NGE did is collapse the existing quasi-skill-based  profession structure into nine "iconic" classes designed with the films in mind, any of which can be chosen at character creation (including Jedi). Combat has been remade into a twitch-based FPS style, more like Unreal Tournament than a MMOG: character skills and quality or type of weaponry and armor matter very little now. Combat and movement have been dramatically speeded up.  Though crafting is technically still part of the game, it has been in effect deleted as it no longer matters in any respect.

In essence, the NGE removed the "virtual world" portion of the game, the one continuing virtue that the old design still had, the one asset or accomplishment of SWG that drew what was left of its player base. My critique of SWG in the recent Game Studies was written before the combat upgrade, and so in many respects was obsolete, but the one thing about it that I thought was still current was its assessment of SWG as the most "world-like" of existing MMOGs. Now it's the least world-like, rather more like Planetside in its conception.

Which might actually have been an interesting approach to designing a Star Wars MMOG if it had been taken back in 2001. At the least, it might actually have gone through a reasonably good process of design and testing. The NGE as it stands makes the bugginess of SWG just after its launch look relatively tame by comparison. The new version of the game is evidently a bubbling stew of bugs, incompatibilities, indigestible chunks of the old design and mechanics, and very poorly thought out implementations. Speeding up the combat and movement, for example, sounds like a good idea until you actually see it, in tandem with the new UI. It looks bad (certainly it doesn't look "Star Warsy") and at the moment  plays worse: it's not a FPS, it's not a MMOG, it's not anything. Almost everyone with any knowledge of SWG has been watching the NGE with horror after it has gone live.

The reason why the general consensus is so negative is not necessarily deep-seated hostility to the design ideas behind it. I applaud the courage and gutsiness behind trying to completely redo a live game. Like f13's schild, I think there's some reason to think a twitch-based combat design on top of a virtual world design might be really interesting. Certainly with the introductory quest, the SWG live management is trying hard to think about how to make the game feel "Star Warsy". Partial as I am to Raph Koster's virtual-world ambitions in SWG, you could make a good case for SWG as a Planetside game instead.

The problem is that SWG's chief problem from the beginning has been poor implementation, poor communication, poor service. Koster's design ideas went wrong when they got awkwardly stitched in late Beta to counterposing designs, when the center could not hold. They went wrong when they went live in a horribly  unfinished state, with an underresourced live management team desperately trying to keep a very leaky ship afloat. The NGE doesn't reverse any of those problems: it exacerbates them a thousandfold. A massive change to a game whose remaining loyalists were mostly devotees of the "virtual world" aspects of the design was pushed abruptly and brusquely into live in a state that's almost non-functional. And as usual, the corporate talk emanating from SOE about the consequences of the change is mindlessly, painfully out of touch with the reality. "Only a small minority of forum die-hards are objecting to the change" is the mantra at SOE. "No, we've only lost a few subscriptions". This I think, I have to believe, has got to be a lie, or at least a Bill-Clintonesque legal parsing of the word "few".

The only way this all makes sense is that SOE has decided it would rather lose most of its remaining playerbase in order to clear the way for some possible inrush of new players. I think they have to know that most current MMOG players wouldn't touch SWG with a forty-foot lightsaber given its reputation, and the NGE isn't exactly helping that. So where are the new players? World of Warcraft demonstrated that new people can be drawn to the market--I was sort of astonished a few months back when a colleague of mine who had never shown any interest in computer games at all asked me if I knew about this game "World of Warcraft" that she and her daughter were playing and enjoying. But I don't think any of those new players would  come to SWG until the NGE redesign settles down to something vaguely resembling playability, which might be never.

SWG players know this too, so many of them suspect that this is not about the PC market at all, but the console market instead. Is SWG-NGE a test bed for a PS3 or even X-Box 360 implementation? That strikes me as just possible. It's about the only way this whole thing makes any sense at all, and even so, it seems to me to be further evidence of serious disarray inside SOE in the wake of Blizzard's resounding success with WoW, that they're willing to further sully their reputation among PC gamers in order to aim for a highly speculative, possibly non-existent console market for MMOGs.

Afterthought: one other line of speculation out there is that the NGE is coming from LucasArts, not SOE. The details of their collaboration in SWG have always been murky: I have no way to assess this rumor in this case. Anybody with more information than me who isn't under an NDA is welcome to speculate here.

Posted by Timothy Burke on November 21, 2005 | Permalink

« Book and Volume | Main | ARGs and Utopian Dreams »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/5074/3708022

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Order 66:

» Fear and Loathing in Mos Eisley from Zombie Pirate Ninja Monkey
Fear and Loathing is rife as mixed messages emerge about a console version of SWG... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 22, 2005 8:38:57 AM

» The New Galactic Empire from Simon Pegg's Stalker
I have been attempting to write this post for, well, the best part of the whole of November now. It was my view, opinion and comment about SOE's recent overhaul of SWG with their "New Game Experience" or NGE (offically announced here.) The whole ... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 30, 2005 8:52:22 AM

» Star Wars Galaxies: Anatomy of a PR Disaster from Just a Few More Minutes
Developers of the niche field of Massively Multiplayer Online Games would kill for the kind of press access that LucasArts/Sony... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 16, 2005 1:25:09 AM

» Feedback on the Star Wars Galaxies PR Post from Just a Few More Minutes
Thanks to everyone who responded to my previous blog entry on the Star Wars Galaxies PR Disaster. For my friends... [Read More]

Tracked on Dec 20, 2005 9:17:23 PM

» Kaplan is kaput ashead of MSNBC from cable news network
the helm of the third-place cable news network with huge fanfare 2 1/2 years ago but didn't live up to his star billing. [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 10, 2006 10:29:08 PM

» Foundation Says Gates, Wife Involved from Foundation CEO
Foundation CEO Says Gates, Wife Will Both Increase Their Roles in Organization [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 16, 2006 5:16:18 AM

» The Most Successful Online Gambling Web Site from Is Illegal in
Gambling Is Illegal in the United States, but That Has Not Stopped Owner Calvin Ayre [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 24, 2006 11:46:06 PM

» New York Grand Opera Cancels Central Park Tosca Due to Heat from the New York
time in its 33-year-history, the New York Grand Opera has cancelled a performance due to hot weather. [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 7, 2006 11:05:21 AM

Comments

RedWolf says:

My opinion is that it is all just an Alpha test for SWG 2.0. It's sad to see SWG die like this, but for all its potential, it has failed to deliver years ago and I guess it's better to burn out than to fade away.

Posted Nov 21, 2005 11:42:47 AM | link

Jeff says:

Pre-Combat Upgrade and definately Pre-New Gaming Experience, SWG was a refreshing change in the MMO market. The virtual world feeling was that of Second Life, but with in-game activities. Unfortunately, after 6 months of bugs not getting fixed and poor performance the players left. Worse yet, there just wasn't much left to do in the game after 6 months.

The Combat Upgrade was SOE/LA's first attempt to ressurrect the game but it failed not because combat was broken, but because it didn't actually improve in the game's main problem area: a lack of content.

The NGE supposedly added 130 quests... whoopdie doo... World of Warcraft shipped with over 1200 quests.

The NGE also killed the Entertainer and Crafting professions while simultaneously watering down the combat professions so that there's practically no different between a smuggler, spy, bounty hunter, commando and officer. Only the jedi offers a semblance of difference because the jedi doesn't rely on ranged weapons.

I resubscribed briefly to SWG the day before NGE went live to check it out. There's nothing SWG offers that I can't get a better version of with Knights of the Old Republic.

I believe Woody at GUcomics put it best:

http://www.gucomics.com/archives/view.php?cdate=20051110

Posted Nov 21, 2005 12:29:53 PM | link

AJ says:

Excellent post Mr Burke as always.

Just to echo your very last point, I agree we need a good old fashioned whistleblower to give us the scoop from the inside.

I predict the next move for SOE/Lucasarts is to either make the boards available to read for current subscribers only (they did this a couple of months after launch during a similar, but lower scale s***storm) or get rid of the boards full-stop. 90% negative posts on the official boards are not going to fill prospective subscribers with confidence.

Posted Nov 21, 2005 1:52:30 PM | link

That Chip Guy says:

The interesting thing to me -- what I referred to as the breaking of a social contract in the other thread -- is the manner in which the NGE was rolled out. Roughly two weeks' notice was given before the NGE hit live servers. Most profession correspondents, volunteers selected by SOE to help collect feedback, were in the dark about the changes which would eliminate most of these professions. Test servers were inadequate to the demand. Midway between announcement and launch, the SWG community relations lead was fired without public explanation(*), which provoked an uproar on the boards. A number of forum moderators from other SOE games were brought in to help manage the tumult.

Being a casual reader of Terra Nova, I'm not as hip to the "magic circle" notion as the contributors. The PR moves SOE made in implementing the NGE seem to have obliterated the ability of current players to immerse themselves in a game environment. Conversations about the game seem to be entirely meta now. Even moreso than the negative tone of most of these conversations, it's the meta aspect that suggests to me this game's going down in flames, but fast. It's impossible for me to visualize that any appreciable influx of new subscribers can follow such bad word of mouth.

I wonder. Did SWG stop being a "virtual world" when this revamp hit? Or two weeks previously, when the revamp was merely announced?

(*) Not to suggest that it would have been appropriate for SOE to divulge personnel information like that. Such a high-profile personnel change in the middle of a such a critical moment generated massively negative PR, however.

Posted Nov 21, 2005 2:00:21 PM | link

Chas says:

I briefly reactivated my SWG account to look at the changes. I don't seem to be the only one- every time I've logged in, every server has been at "very heavy status" (note: this may be to the NGE requiring more server traffic and therefore, less capacity)

The first time I attacked an NPC, my first reaction was "wtf" at the speed he maneuvered. So did many on the forums. After the first 3 days, I noticed combat slowed down significantly- no more madly-sprinting imperial NPC's. The devs said the excessive speed was a bug...

I don't admire the employees at SOE this week- the hotfixes flowed a-plenty and the game seemed remarkably more playable this weekend, but changes this substantial should never have been rolled out this buggy. SOE had to know they would be under the microscope on this one- and getting alot of attention- and the first week was crucial to countering the negative first impression. It wasn't nearly as clean as it should have been (massive understatement).

It remains tremendously buggy, but, despite it being the antithesis of what I'd like out of an MMO, I consider my time on it strangely well spent.

I'm most disappointed with the loss of the ability to be a citizen-soldier: the tradesman who can take up a rifle and fight as need be, but I'm not seeing this as the absolute death of crafting as some are taking it... yet.

Entertainer came out of the NGE almost unscathed. It still offers the same buffs available since the Combat upgrade. What's lost is the ability to be an entertainer AND something else. The dancer / crafter and soldier / musician were always interesting roles for the blend of socializer / adventurer. Lost.

Craftsmen will need some attention quicky... we'll see if it comes. Some professions (weapons and armor) have been hammered by the loot and lack of decay almost to the "what's the point" level, but others, like tailoring and architecture, have long been outside the "decay economy." Consumbables (food) seem to be the only field that could offer a regular, substantial market for any length of time. How the other professions could offer interesting gameplay ONLY as crafters? I have no clue.

SWG was always the MMO I wanted to love... it came so close in so many ways to what I wanted to see... but failed in the execution. What's left, I'm trying to reserve judgement on. It's so different from what I wanted to love... so different from what I hoped for in a virtual world...

---
Now, in a twisted defense of the NGE "planetside" interface. The space combat system has been a strong point for SWG since it's release in "Jump to Light Speed", but it's never been well-integrated with the game: a "twitch" game saddled atop a "turn based" roleplaying game. The new design puts you in the cockpit sooner and the ground combat is more "twitchy"- meshing with the space system. They compliment each other now. I knew twitch gamers that wouldn't touch SWG because they hated the ground combat, and I knew turn-based gamers who never touched JTL specifically because of the twitch.

I say "twisted defense" because I'm one of those "turn based players" that never really got into the twitch.

Posted Nov 21, 2005 4:02:08 PM | link

Soln says:

Fundamentally, I think LA has been the hardest thing for SOE to deal with. A difficult customer, a very proud brand, and SOE had zero experience working as an outsourcer. What started as SOE doing the majority of the work has become what they always claimed; namely, SOE does hosting, dev, customer service, while all artwork and other assets come from LA. I also believe that around JTL the hammer was dropped and all design and direction now also comes from LA. In short, it really is LA's title, but SOE must take the heat for all design decisions.

Everything you describe I think is true. It has been one of the worst online services I've ever seen (and I work for maybe the largest). You can't patch in defects without telling your customers, or at least acknowledging problems. You can't have endemic lag and latency (only game I know that made an exploit out of "rubberbanding"). I can go on and on with teh hate, but Koster's design were good but the lack of an overall narrative for players was one problem and the other was terrible, terrible execution as you said. And sadly, it's just got terribly worse. Bizarro.

Posted Nov 21, 2005 4:36:32 PM | link

Punisher2k says:

SWG was doomed from that start. It was ill conceived and ill planned. The creature handler alone caused so many head aches and problems that it drove many from the game, never to return.

Right now we are in the "Too little too late" phase. I fully expect to see SWG close down by summer at the latest.

They need to burn it down and start over. New game engine, new database. Exisiting system just isn't good enough. Then move the time period to New Jedi Order where you can have Jedis all over and no feel knocked out of the immersion factor.

Posted Nov 21, 2005 4:48:19 PM | link

Heather Sinclair says:

I have to say I expected more out of Terra Nova than yet another whine about New Combat.

Posted Nov 21, 2005 5:41:45 PM | link

Timothy Burke says:

The idea isn't necessarily bad, Heather, but I'm sorry: the execution is.

In terms of more abstract design issues with academic implications, I think the questions here involve MMOGs and community formation (as in, what happens when you attract a community that will feel deeply betrayed if certain changes are made); also, as I suggested with my first link, the problem of path-dependence in design.

There's also some basic market-related issues here, as in, "Is there one?" and "What does this all tell us about the MMOG marketplace?" One of the interesting things on that latter point is that it suggests to me that there must be a pretty decent margin of profit from *any* MMOG once it's been live for a while, or you wouldn't be able to operate it while bleeding customers.

What do you think is worth saying about the NGE that is "worthy" of Terra Nova? I'm always intrigued when folks in the industry somehow expect that those of us with scholarly or semi-scholarly interests in MMOGs are supposed to be too decorous to engage in the ordinary business of criticism. Literary critics don't avoid occasionally saying tough things about bad novels, even bad novels by writers whom they generally have a high opinion of.

Posted Nov 21, 2005 5:54:19 PM | link

savetherobot says:

I recently read (on a sticker on the front of the box) that Star Wars Battlefront is the bestselling Star Wars game of all time. I enjoyed the game for what it is - it's basic and derivative, but fun, busy and challenging enough even if you're playing it alone - but bestselling game of all time? That means that rather than the deep storylines of KOTOR (which is often criticized as "too slow") or the open-ended experience of SWG (no comment necessary), people want to run around and shoot each other - in stormtrooper outfits.

Battlefront has no characters and not much story. You just get to run around a realistic Star Wars battlefield and decide how you want to blow people up. People want an open Star Wars experience - but they're happy to fill it with nothing but action.

Posted Nov 21, 2005 6:01:46 PM | link

Bart Stewart says:

In the best of the single-player FPS games based on the Star Wars license, Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight, there's a level in which you must find a way to escape from a starship that is plummeting toward the ground.

It's terrifying fun: klaxons are howling; the deck pitches and cants at crazy angles causing objects to fall past you and explode; a wrong step sends you falling to your doom; it's hard to get your bearings; and through all of this there is a timer inexorably counting down the seconds until the ship crashes and you must restart the level.

That's how I feel about SWG. Except it's not as much fun. And I see no reason to restart.

...

I came to SWG about a year before it launched because it sounded so good. For one thing, I'm a fan of the films. (I was quoted in my hometown newspaper for having seen the original film seven times.) The idea of playing a MMOG based on the movies that would let me "live the saga" sounded like a lot of fun.

For another thing, I'm a student of game design, and like Timothy Burke I'm interested in "world-y" designs in particular. What I saw and heard from LucasArts and SOE suggested that SWG would indeed be a complex and dynamic world, and that excited me as well.

So when SWG launched, I signed off of EQ and started playing SWG. I also participated frequently and constructively on the official forum. I've both praised and criticized LEC/SOE developers, but I always tried to pay for my criticisms with specific suggestions for correcting what I thought were problems, and I stuck around through all the changes. All told, I think it's fair to say I've been one of the "loyalists."

All of which is to highlight the sense of betrayal I have increasingly felt, both as a player of SWG and as someone who thinks that good design and implementation matter. I don't use a word like "betrayal" lightly, as I'm not a dramatic person; it's simply the most accurate word to describe my reaction to the actions taken by SWG's developers since SWG launched, and most especially regarding the recent "New Gaming Experience."

I basically subscribe to everything Tim said (and said well), starting with his praise of LEC/SOE for being willing to make broad changes to an existing game. First, they admitted the obvious -- SWG wasn't delivering a "Star Wars-y" experience. And then they proved ready to significantly alter the game to achieve that goal. LEC producer Julio Torres and the other leads deserve credit for these things.

But this by itself doesn't solve the whole problem. Seeing a problem and doing something about it aren't enough -- you have to do the right things.

Where LEC/SOE have repeatedly gone wrong is the specific design and implementation of the changes made to SWG's original design. The NGE is only the latest example of two and a half years of increasingly bad design and scheduling decisions. By itself, the NGE isn't enough to make me (a loyalist, remember) give up on SWG. It's the fact that the NGE is the last and most destructive wrecking ball applied to the remarkable original design of SWG.

I don't feel "betrayed" just by the NGE -- I feel betrayed by the NGE on top of two+ years of similar decisions that have consistently ignored, corrupted, or outright eliminated the aspects of this game that I cared the most about:

* SWG launched with and repeatedly pushed publishes containing bugs that were reported in testing. In some cases, these were bugs that had already been fixed in a previous release. A goal of hitting aggressive schedules is laudable, and the business need to release new content in time to tie in with other media events is understandable, but achieving good QA has been a consistent and conspicuous failure.

* The original design respected and encouraged multiple playstyles by explicitly requiring crafters, healers, and entertainers to support combatants. Subsequent releases provided serious content only for combatants; other playstyles received only minor content, or even had their required support abilities removed completely. The NGE delivered the final blow of this "only combat matters" thinking by its squashing of all entertaining and healing professions down to one class each, and all crafting professions down to one class (with four "specializations" so that it wouldn't be necessary to remove existing schematics)... but the combat professions received all six remaining classes of the nine primary classes. Not only that, but combat skills and non-combat skills do not trade on a one-to-one basis when existing characters are converted to one of the new classes. Knowing any skill in one of the pre-NGE non-combat professions inflates into knowing all possible non-combat skills in the sole related NGE class, but one pre-NGE combat skill is worth one NGE combat skill. Translation: combat skills are worth more. Taken as a whole, these changes on top of all the others have sent a clear message: SWG is only for people who like fighting games. Explorers and Socializers need not apply.

* In particular, the handling of Jedi has been consistently awful. You would think that a concept so fundamental to the story told in the movies would be handled with extreme care, from gameplay concepts to implementation to playtesting, but such seems not to have been the case. The initial idea of unlocking Jedi abilities through mastering several random professions made some sense from a game mechanics perspective: it would take time and effort; it would be unique to each player; it would reward and thereby promote a deep knowledge of the game. As a mechanical process, it got the job done. But in terms of actual entertainment value, it was a Very Bad Idea: it led to mindless grinding past professions that others valued; it bore no resemblance to how a simple moisture farmer could learn to respect and apply the Force; and it quickly began filling the game world with Jedi characters run by powergamers who had no interest in "playing like Jedi." Subsequent changes never solved this problem. The NGE simply surrenders and calls it victory -- now anyone can be a Jedi when they start the game. That's not more "Star Wars-y" -- it's less, much less... and it's typical of how SWG's developers have sacrificed a deeply human story of betrayal and redemption to whatever Marketing says will move more SKUs.

* The easily-switchable skills system of the original design promoted variety in play, depth of roleplaying, and opportunity for experimenting with other playstyles. While these features offered open-ended gameplay, the cost was that effectively knowing and performing one's role in combat groups required study and experience. To make this goal easier, the Combat Upgrade stratified professions somewhat, reducing the value of having a broad set of skills. The NGE utterly destroyed the skills system, turning SWG into merely another class-bound MMORPG.

* The simplification of skills into a few classes is part of a larger trend of reducing or eliminating many of the deeper aspects of gameplay. As Tim noted, it is impossible not to wonder whether the depth of gameplay and even the keyboard control system are being "dumbed-down" in order to attract console gamers. (I'm not expressing a personal belief that console gamers are dumb. I'm describing what I believe is the perception of console gamers by SWG's current designers as incapable of appreciating any gameplay beyond rote memorization and trivially simple button-mashing.)

I don't feel any personal animosity toward any of the responsible folks at LEC or SOE. They mostly seem like nice people, and I'm sure that most if not all of them want to make a fun game and truly believe that their decisions are the right way to achieve that goal.

The problem is that SWG's developers and I no longer have the same definition of "fun." The original design of SWG promised depth and drama, things I care about in a game, but since SWG launched it has been repeatedly stripped of those things in favor of simpleminded combat. This doesn't mean that SWG has become a bad game, or that it won't be more popular once the PlayStation owners sign up. It just makes SWG a game that I can no longer enjoy.

Will Vanguard or D&D Online or Lord of the Rings Online or Star Trek Online be the game that proves that "deep" and "popular" aren't mutually exclusive? Will any of them offer emotionally engaging entertainment and retain that focus over time? Can LotRO or STO deliver fun gameplay while remaining true to the spirit of their licenses (and satisfying their licensors)?

I hope so. I just don't know yet if, after SWG, I'll be able to trust any MMOG developer enough to try them out. That's perhaps not a purely academic viewpoint, but I submit it as an isolated sample of how one person can respond when significant changes are made to an existing game.

--Bart

Posted Nov 21, 2005 6:06:39 PM | link

AgentDib says:

I don't think it matters whether the NGE is an improvement to SWG or not. It could improve the game dramatically and still cause the same amount of damage to the community because the unavoidable fact is that SOE is treating paying subscribers like alpha testers.

Players spent several years perfecting templates and collecting gear that was completely deleted from the game with no compensation. I'm not going to get into the decision to change the severe grind to full temp Jedi Knight to a class that is selectable from day 1, but needless to say it was not well received by those Jedi who had ground for over a year to achieve their template.

The merits of the NGE are irrevelant - if ANY MMO removed the progress that 70% of their veteran player base had made over 2 and a half years it would cause the same widespread cancellation and dismay.

Posted Nov 21, 2005 6:26:12 PM | link

Heather Sinclair says:

>>The idea isn't necessarily bad, Heather, but I'm sorry: the execution is.<<

I would say the same thing about the original article. There's nothing wrong with criticism. It's great, it's wonderful, I like to hear criticism and analysis of what games do wrong just as much (if not more) as I like to hear what they do right.

There is, however, a difference between explaining what a game does wrong and just whining. I can read the latter about NGE at just about any gaming message board for any game. Suggesting that the "live management team is well beyond cluelessly self-destructive, out in some outer void of fecklessness." is just silly hyperbole.

If you're going to make claims that "almost everyone" has been looking upon the changes with horror, or that they're lying when they say they've only lost a few subscriptions, or that "most MMOG players won't touch SWG with a forty foot lightsaber", at least give us some data to back it up, especially when from my perspective it doesn't seem to be true at all. Someone mentioned above that every server has been at "very heavy" status, and many of my gaming circle plan to give NGE a spin in the near future.

Personally, I hope the changes do astoundingly well, even if only to prove that MMO’s can reinvigorate themselves as opposed to slowly sinking into obsolescence.

Posted Nov 21, 2005 6:36:10 PM | link

Scott Jennings says:

> What do you think is worth saying about the NGE that
> is "worthy" of Terra Nova? I'm always intrigued when
> folks in the industry somehow expect that those of us
> with scholarly or semi-scholarly interests in MMOGs
> are supposed to be too decorous to engage in the
> ordinary business of criticism.

Sure. But at the same time you've established a pattern of not stooping to, say, posting diatribes from MMO players angry about the latest patch for their game. (Boy, it's a good thing nobody ever did that. *cringe*)

I'll have to recuse myself from discussing SWG specifics (suffice to say: my wife was a bio-engineer/tailor) and I'm not sure that that's really where you want to go anyway. Every MMG posts far-reaching changes regularly - it's what live teams do. Reminds people we're still alive, if nothing else.

What IS interesting, and what I think should be discussed in this context and without, is the concept of completely changing a live service in mid-stream. SWG this week is a far different game from the one that existed last month. How do the players react to that radical a change? Do they react? Do they simply quit? Do they knuckle under and keep going, "relearning the rules"?

This is stuff that would be interesting. "I can't aim in combat any more" or "Gosh, this live team sucks at implementation", not so much.

Posted Nov 21, 2005 7:21:15 PM | link

Lydia Leong (Amberyl) says:

I suspect it'd be very interesting to know what Sony's internal numbers were, prior to this launch, for:

- Projected churn
- Projected cost of refunds on latest expansion
- Projected new subscribers
- Projected cost of new subscriber acquisition
- Projected revenues from new box sales
- Projected revenues for and length of new subscriptions
- Projected customer service costs for all of the above

Presumably someone at SOE thought that this made business sense. It was clearly rushed out for the new Star Wars DVD release and for the Christmas season. Personally, I doubt it's going to have much in the way of immediate returns for SOE, but it's potentially a toss-up for the future, if they're able to fix what is clearly the myriad of issues currently plaguing the game.

One of the key strengths of WoW is its polish and relative lack of persistent bugginess (other than stability issues). "Not having mysteriously frustrating bugs" is incredibly important for attracting the more casual audience.

Posted Nov 21, 2005 7:36:38 PM | link

Mike Sellers says:

For those of us watching from the cheap seats (that is, everyone here whose job isn't on the line with the NGE), this makes for very interesting, perhaps illuminating viewing.

First, this change shows how young MMOs still are. Can you switch out the basic mechanics and feel of a major game after it's been in play for several years? No one knows -- this is entirely new territory (Terra Nova anyone?).

Second, this change serves to illustrate how elements of an existing community react to virtually any large-scale change in an online world/game: there's cogent criticism, sure, but it's almost inevitably accompanied by hyperbole, whining, hand-wringing, and direly anxious predictions for the future. If nothing else, these indicate the depth of feeling people have for "their" game.

Finally, this leaves us all wondering about SOE's strategy: is this a matter of playing to (and thus trying to maximize) the audience they have left -- of trying to retain (and possibly regain) market share from WoW? Or is it a play for the future, testing out concepts that will come to fruition only with the console version of the game? Is it possibly the swan song of a disaffected live team effectively abandoned by management in all but an immovable deadline, trying in vain to put things right? Or is the NGE instead a set of half-baked game-design-by-committee changes that were driven by no vision other than expediency, or perhaps the need to do something in the face of waning subscriptions?

While one of the first two strategies is possible -- I mean, it's possible that once the dust settles SWG could be a much better game! -- and the third is a distinct possibility, personally I somewhat sadly conclude the last is most likely. I wouldn't go so far as to say that this puts those responsible into the class of those who are "cluelessly self-destructive, out in some outer void of fecklessness," though some non-hyperbolic version of that might apply. But I'm reminded of two sayings: Newton's statement that he had seen further only by standing on the shoulders of giants; and Kinky Friedman's statement that the Texas capitol building (larger than that in DC) was "built for giants but inhabited by midgets."

I don't think we've really found our giants in MMOGs, much less the ability to stand on their shoulders -- this sector is both too young and chaotic for that. Rather, I suspect many of us have in our imagination magnified these virtual worlds into palaces -- and somehow, imagined those who build them as creative giants. It's no surprise then that we're then horrified to find the reality is that the worlds are most often ramshackle huts crushed by the merest contrary corporate wind, and in far too many cases administered by those of somewhat more, shall we say, diminutive vision.

Or to paraphrase the words of another cultural icon: "Pay no attention to the committee behind the curtain!"

Posted Nov 21, 2005 8:06:37 PM | link

Stormgaard says:

This is my own take on the recent Raph Koster interview that Ogaming has posted here:

http://www.ogaming.com/data/3265%7ESOE.php

Seems appropriate...

~

Ogaming: EverQuest and sequel EverQuest II are currently running at the same time, complete with their own fan bases. Unheard of! How do you do it?

Raph Koster: Well you see it's quite simple! Nobody expected EQII to suck as badly as it did, so everyone who liked the orginal EQ is still playing it!

Ogaming: Your company practically invented the modern MMO with EverQuest, back when the concept was unproven. Now you face competition at every turn from upstarts like NCSoft and Mythic – what's the secret to winning the next-gen wars?

Raph Koster: Sony invented EQ? Really? I'm sure they appreciate that fact even though what really happened is that they came along and bought it up after it had already become a success! Thank you also for indirectly trasnferring some of that credit to me by way of association, even though I had nothing to do with the original game! As far as those upstarts go I wouldn't worry. By the time the stuffed suits at sony realize what's going on I'll have a nice fat retirement saved up to fall back on!

Ogaming: The Matrix Online: Why buy it? Who's still playing? And why do you believe there's a strong future for this franchise?

Raph Koster: Well we've made the decision rather than come up with one good game to offer our customers we'd offer a whole smorgasborg of crappy ones and hope they don't notice the difference!

Ogaming: The DC Comics MMO: Please explain the reasoning behind this decision. And should we take it as part of a push to expand Sony Online’s holdings beyond the standard fantasy/sci-fi realms?

Raph Koster: That's easy! City of Heroes kicks ass and we want to copy them! We think it's a good idea to expand in any direction that looks like it works since can't come up with any orginal ideas ourselves.

Ogaming: What's the company's general publishing strategy been in the past? What is it going forward?

Raph Koster: Well, in the past it's been to buy up what works! Going forward it's allllll smoke and mirrors buddy, alllll smoke and mirrors!

Ogaming: How do you feel about the general misconception many companies had in recent years that the MMO market was not as viable as people once thought? Obviously, it's currently going through a resurgence...

Raph Koster: Well of course there were a lot of misconceptions regarding MMORPG viability in the past! When Star Wars Galaxies fell flat on it's ass after a full 2 years of mega-hype about my creative genius who would have expected otherwise!

Ogaming: To what do you attribute MMO gaming’s return to prominence?

Raph Koster: Oh um... Night Elves.... Orcs.... Big Hammers... I dunno! Lots of things!

Ogaming: Where do you feel the MMO market is in its lifecycle – are there still millions upon millions of users to attract? Why?

Raph Koster: Oh it's doing quite well, and there ARE still millions and millions of users to attract. They just aren't here at Sony at the moment!

Ogaming: Most of America (not to mention the world) still isn't playing these titles... Why is it inevitable that this situation will change?

Raph Koster: Well I won't keep designing games forever now will I!

Ogaming: How does Sony Online decide which titles to publish? Is there a particular type of game you're looking to push forward with in coming years?

Raph Koster: There are all kinds of really cool games I'd like to push forward in the future, and the executives at Sony are really receptive to my ideas! I have this cool little routine I go through whenever I'm in the board room. I take out this little shiney pocket-watch, and I start telling them all that they are getting veeerrry sleeepy.....

Ogaming: Right now, you’ve got a lot of major blockbuster properties in your catalogue. Any chance you'll be looking towards more niche and/or smaller scale, yet more innovative projects soon?

Raph Koster: Oh we're working desperately on turning every single one of those blockbuster properties into niche projects!

Ogaming: What other developers/publishers out there are you seeing whose work you like? Do you feel that some are pushing SOE to become a better competitor?

Raph Koster: Oh I definitley feel like the stress releif I get from playing games like World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, and City of Heroes allow me to come back to work refreshed, rejuvenated, and ready to make a significant contribution to this company. I think they all make us better competitors!

Ogaming: Do you plan on reaching outside of Sony Online for the majority of upcoming projects, or tapping internal talent? Why so?

Raph Koster: Well with all that terrific talent outside the company why put extra strain on our employees here? Keep your eyes on the prize, that's my motto!

Ogaming: Where does the future of the MMO scene lie?

Raph Koster: Well you can travel to the future in Star Wars Galaxies! Oh wait no... that was a "Long time ago"...

Ogaming: How's the Station Exchange been working out for you?

Raph Koster: Oh great! My wife and I just paid for one of those High Definition television set with the money I made off it! IT'S GOOD TO BE THE KING!!

Ogaming: Why, as a company, choose to jump into the resale of virtual goods market after decrying the industry for so long?

Raph Koster: Well we weren't coming up with any games that were worth a damn...

Ogaming: How did that whole “/pizza” promotion work out? Should we expect to see more in the near future (“/beer” seems a natural compliment)?

Raph Koster: We felt strongly that the addition of a decent pizza improved the gameplay experience of EQII tremendously. It IS comfort food after all.

Ogaming: Just how much of an MMO nut are you yourself? And what sort of character do you most enjoy playing... female barbarians?

Raph Koster: Oh I AM a nut. And I do enjoy playing with female barbarians when my wife's not looking.

~

Stormgaard - The Se7en Samurai

http://www.se7ensamurai.com/

Posted Nov 21, 2005 9:29:03 PM | link

Mike Rozak says:

I won't get into implimentation of details of SWG, but think about this...

A few years ago I heard that the Cadilac division of GM was in trouble. The problem was that Cadilac appealed to a mid-aged wealthy driver in the 1950's, and an older (soon to die off) wealthy driver in the 1990's. Their customers were soon going to die of old age, along with the division, unless Cadilac changed.

According to MMORPG chart, SWG was 250k(ish) users in Oct 03. It's still around 250k(ish) subscribers in Jul 05.

If you were an auto manufacturer, you'd be pretty happy with a constant number of customers.

However, the overall MMORPG market is growing 30%+ per year. (US auto sales only grow at 3% or so.)

In terms of market share, SWG and almost ALL older MMORPGs are shrinking at 30% a year! Think about the numbers in this light and having constant number of users means your world is failing. Within 6 months of shipping, most MMORPG populations are shrinking (in terms of market share).

All MMORPGs have to decide how much they'll cater to their current users (who will eventually get bored and leave, or die of old age), and how much effort they'll put into attracting new users. Existing users like a MMORPG because of the way it is, and many/most changes designed to attract new users will alienate existing users.

Star Wars is a valuable property, so the SWG management team seems to have risked alienating its existing users for the greater glory/gold that might be created by their changes. Ultima Online, on the other hand, seems to have decided to accept to an ever dwindling community.

I posted some related thoughts on: http://www.mxac.com.au/drt/DiggingTheirGrave.htm

Posted Nov 21, 2005 9:47:06 PM | link

Franek says:

Mike Seller says “Finally, this leaves us all wondering about SOE's strategy” and I’d like to follow up on that.

I believe Lydia and Scott have the right of it. We don't have the numbers or insight into the decision making process that led to the current changes in SWG. And I suspect folks who have that knowledge will be reluctant to share. But we do know a few things and while we could just wait until it plays, out perhaps we could profitably structure our speculation a little bit.

What do we know?

* The changes were introduced on short notice
* The changes didn't just appear -- there were significant resources expended
* There is evidence the new system was released with massively insufficient testing – there are reports that many basic functions, especially where the old game and the new game meet, do not work.
* The changes are in the direction of FPS.
* The underlying game mechanics don't support FPS systems particularly well – collision and line of sight calculation, for example, are awkward – enemies seeing, shooting and chasing players through walls and the like.
* The initial game experience – the new player introduction – seems to be much more thoroughly thought out than the application of the new game mechanics in the existing world.
* SOE and LA are profit motivated.

What does this suggest?

* LA/SOE are unhappy with their numbers and have been for some time – either in an absolute sense or as a proportion of the on-line pie. (Numbers here could mean profitability as well as income) as Mike Rozak suggests.
* They attribute their bad numbers to the structure of the game – not to it’s execution or their support – neither of those have changed. So the existing system might be too expensive to maintain or not bringing in enough money.
* The new initial game experience is more directed and allows players to stop at almost any point with little penalty – so letting players take a smaller bite with less startup time may have been a design goal.

And what does it mean?

Bart touched on a good point…
* This may be a statement by LA/SOE that major corporations do not get the kind of return on “deep” games that they need. And that leads in to many of the discussions that Terra Novans have been having for quite a while.

Posted Nov 21, 2005 10:18:53 PM | link

Stuart Edwards says:

They turned what was an MMORPG that promised the paying subscriber that they could "build communities" and "live the Star Wars experience", into a FPS where nothing mattered more than spamming L33t at your opponent whilst you tried to wack them with your light-sabre (or endlessly grinding lava-fleas to gain experience points).

The game has lost direction, it has lost its' "feel" as an enjoyable experience - and I for one refuse to pay $14.95 to play a different game every 3 or so months. At least with WoW you know what you are getting week in and week out....you are getting entertained, not frustrated and angry.

I play games to relax and for fun and enjoyment. As my first experience of playing an MMO, StarWarsGalaxies initially gave me hours and hours of fun, entertainment and even a sense of accomplishment.

Since the debacle of the CURB and now the NGE, it has only shown me what to avoid in my future gaming life.

Successful games are build on both new and returning subscribers, and based on the abismal treatment that has been meted out to the community over the past 7 or so months, I truely cannot see how SOE/LA are ever going to get most of their much vaunted 750k player base to ever return again.

As a veteran player, I mourn for what could of been, not what is now. As a MMO subscriber, I have moved on and beyond SWG, never to return.

Posted Nov 21, 2005 10:41:50 PM | link

Betrayal and exploitation says:

I would just like to echo what a previous poster said about the NGE:

"I don't think it matters whether the NGE is an improvement to SWG or not. It could improve the game dramatically and still cause the same amount of damage to the community because the unavoidable fact is that SOE is treating paying subscribers like alpha testers.

The merits of the NGE are irrevelant - if ANY MMO removed the progress that 70% of their veteran player base had made over 2 and a half years it would cause the same widespread cancellation and dismay."

My girlfriend and I just started playing SWG NGE over the weekend, and we're both relatively open-minded about the changes. The game is extremely buggy and the developers clearly have little regard for the time that previous player have invested in the game.

I think that Timothy's original posting was well within the realm of what I've come to expect from Terra Nova. These recent changes to the game are a violation of the unspoken social contract that exists between players and developers. The unspoken social contract should trump the EULA. Recent developments in the game have clearly betrayed the trust of players who invested so much time in this virtual world.

Posted Nov 21, 2005 10:56:00 PM | link

Timothy Burke says:

Heather:

Characterizing a common mood or sentiment within the subculture(s) that swirl around gaming is roughly the same as making statements about what groups or collectives of people in American society think about politics, the war in Iraq, what have you. There are a variety of ways to go about making such statements. There are polling instruments and data they create: but those have their problems, even under the best of circumstances, both in terms of the way that particular questions create or presuppose answers, and in terms of the fact that real sentiments in the world rarely resolve themselves into neat packages that can register clearly in polls. In any event, comprehensive polls of game players are not available, not even to developers within their proprietary data. I could point to Gamespy polls, etc., or Amazon reviews, but they're not very reliable indices of typical opinion, only of the opinion of the aggrieved.

There are other quantitative measures: what memberships people hold, how they vote, what they buy. Most of those data are not easily applicable to the gaming world. Those that are held behind proprietary curtains. If SOE wants to be taken seriously when it makes a statement like, "Very few subscribers have quit", it's up to SOE to release the data that makes that a meaningful statement. I can only observe that after past disturbances within the SWG community over changes to the game or problems within it, the statement has been made that almost all players were satisfied and few had quit, with the same degree of confidence. And yet now we are told that focus groups and market research show that players were dissatisfied with the game as such and looking for something like the NGE. If developers want to complain about people coming to conclusions on thin data, they have the means to correct that. Other mass media share important data about subscribers far more readily than MMOG publishers: maybe that would help make the leap to being serious about the service end of the business? In any event, it's not tough to compile a list of direct misrepresentations in the history of SWG, which is reason enough to be presumptively skeptical now about any claims about subscribers or customer satisfaction.

There are also statements made that have a quantitative character that can be tested, at least a bit. You mention that someone above said the servers were very heavy; you're quick to grasp at something that confirms the conclusion you'd like to make. Read around as widely as I have, and you'll see plenty of people saying that the servers have been light. More importantly, you'll read many SWG players claiming that many of their guild members, friends-lists, etcetera, have unsubscribed. Do they exaggerate? Very likely, in fact, almost certainly. MMOG forum rats are nothing if not histrionic. But against one or two countervailing claims, I've got a hundred others that come up grim. Patterns and preponderances do mean something, if not something terribly strong.

The other way we make statements about how groups of people feel is by observation, qualitative assessments, ethnography, even intuition. Yes, this does turn into a contest of anecdotes, in some respects, though not *mere* anecdotes. What of it? I find these are frequently productive instruments for knowing the world in general; no less so for knowing what the reaction to a particular game might be.

Find for me the gaming sites where many commentators are singing the praises of the NGE. Find for me the sites of discourse where many people are reporting their excitement about the game and its future. Find for me something more than your friends and your circle. When I take stock of the tea leaves floating in the various brews that I can see, the signs and portents in the discourses that I've come to trust or regard as reliable, I don't see any of that.

Now if you're just going to say, "Oh, it's all those gaming sites again, those bitter gamers, those pointless forums...they don't represent anyone but a small minority", that's another discussion altogether. I think it's right to say that most online discussions of games and gamer communities are dominated by more jaded, more jaundiced views that may be unrepresentative of the larger market of game-players. In some cases, that's a very important thing to note: you can't understand why Deer Hunter or The Sims are the success that they are if you don't reach beyond f13 and Corpnews and Quarter-to-Three and Stratics and and various gamer blogs, sure. But the opposite is not true, either, and to think so reflects the siege mentality of many developers, which in turn often leads them to miss valuable signal that's lying in plain sight on their own forums and in other similar places. In the case of SWG, there's no question but that it's a boutique game and has been for a while. That means that what you hear in the world of gamer discourse online is likely to be a meaningful reflection of the sentiments of many within the game.

Where's Asheron's Call 2? Its developers protested just as surely against forum negativity (on their own forums and elsewhere) and claimed it was inaccurate. Was it? Or was that just corporate talk? You think the NGE is being welcomed with open arms, and SWG is viewed mostly positively by gamers? Tell me what that's based on besides your "gaming circle".

I actually share your hope, that the NGE succeeds, because I do think that would be an interesting development with a lot of hopeful significance for this industry. But I also think that virtual world management developers do owe something to their communities that goes beyond the pure provision of a product, that that relation is the source of much of the potential of commercial virtual worlds. Perhaps you do not agree. But if you do, then you can't possibly think that the actual implementation of the NGE is anything but a mistake, whatever the virtues of its concepts might be.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 12:10:16 AM | link

magicback (Frank) says:

Question is: why didn't they take the strategy they took with EQ I and EQ II? Both has found relatively stable fans concurrently, which was a safe move.

Creative distruction is one thing, but I think execution is very important.

For example in the mobile phone space, US went with *DMA while Europe went with GSM. Then when operators plot out the path from 2G to 3G standards, some went with 2.5G as an interim step. Execution of the transition proved profitable or not.

For example in the TV space, writers and producers make changes to the show each season. Some were good and some were bad. X-files without both stars weren't the same even if the show's premise and framework were the same.

So, bands that "sold out" to commercialism, sold out. But, hey, that's creative and business decisions made by people with ideals, dreams and flaws.

My 2 cents,

Frank

Posted Nov 22, 2005 12:12:58 AM | link

magicback (Frank) says:

The next questions are, what is this "magic circle"? What are the implied social contract?

Does SOE, like any other creative force, has the right to change creative direction? Can a band change musical direction at their whim or should their fan base as any say?

Lastly, did the change devalue RMT objects? What is the estimate monetary impact?

Frank

Posted Nov 22, 2005 12:19:32 AM | link

Charles Brownell says:

Finally a well thought out blog with intelligent analysis of the NGE. I have been playing for 2 years, invested a tremendous amount of time into the game, something I have never done before, and have made some very close friends. Prior to joining the SWG universe I was strictly a console gamer. But as an avid Star Wars fan, which spent most of the summer of 1977 role-playing Star Wars in my back yard, I could not resist.

It is my opinion that we are victims of a poorly thought out business model that was poorly executed and maintained. I loved the depth and richness the virtual world had to offer. It was fun to play out roles, and be immersed in a universe the stretched far beyond the movies. The extended universe of Star Wars was truly living in the game. However, I feel now that all of the aspirations the original developers conceptualized were far to loft for a $15 price tag, and also did not have the mass appeal they had projected.

My belief is that the SOE executives looked at the financial returns on the game 1 year after release, and were not happy with what they saw. It was seem plausible at that point to plan out a new strategy, for a new game. I believe most agree that this NGE had to been in the works for several months. If you form a timeline you can see the development path that the NGE most likely took. This had to have been in the works and under wraps for at least 9 before launch. This is my uneducated opinion, but seems likely. I guess this upsets me the most. Being deceived for such along time, with promises of bug fixes, updates, profession changes etc, all the while, a second game was being developed, a second game that is being forced upon a very loyal and fanatic player base. I am not sure this fits into the category of anti-trust, but it is deceptive and misleading marketing. I think a case could be made.

A recent study was conducted in San Francisco on behalf of SOE and LA. It has been rumored that the focus group was limited to males age 18 - 25, the "target group". I find it disturbing that someone my age, and an "original" Star Wars fan, is not a target group for a Star Wars based game. The whole Star Wars phenomena would not exist if it was not for the imagination of the 9 year olds like myself, and our parents money the fueled the mega merchandising.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 12:22:24 AM | link

Matt Mihaly says:

Magicback wrote:

Does SOE, like any other creative force, has the right to change creative direction? Can a band change musical direction at their whim or should their fan base as any say?

Yes and yes!

No different from Dylan going acoustic or from episodic tv writing out certain characters, fundamentally. I think the major practical difference here is that SW:G fans are a MUCH more connected community than the community of people who listen to a band or the people who habitually watch a certain tv show, and so the level of outrage generated may be much higher due to feedback loops.

But do they have the right? Of course. That's unquestionable.

--matt

Posted Nov 22, 2005 12:37:08 AM | link

Timothy Burke says:

Absolutely they have the right.

More than that, I'd say they had many sound reasons to make this change.

The issue is how it was done, both in terms of interacting with a community of customers and in terms of actual technical implementation. That's always been the main issue with SWG: not the ideas or designs themselves, but how they've been handled on the service end. But that's not some extra afterthought or minor issue: it's possibly the most important aspect of MMOGs. And I'm sorry, but making the same mistake on a major level at least three times means that there is something very preventably wrong in the management of that service.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 12:40:39 AM | link

Matt Mihaly says:

Mutter. Obviously, I meant Dylan going electric.

--matt

Posted Nov 22, 2005 12:57:53 AM | link

Byron Eastridge says:

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion and not being able to do anything about it.
Time and again the playerbase was told one thing while the SWG team did another.
If you want to know just how many players are leaving you dont goto the forums or polls or even look at the meters.It's been shown that the online meter has been and continues to be manipulated.You cannot go by light medium or heavy.
You go online and take a tour of the entire galaxy of every single server.
When the only place you see players is 1 spot on every server and the numbers there indicate at most 100 players it begs the question where is everyone.Every galaxy forum has posts talking about WHOLE guilds fleeing, guilds of 20 to 300 players.
When a community feels betrayed and that betrayal is shown to be a real betrayal of trust,
do you think any PR to the contrary is helping?
If anything it will in the long run keep customers away.Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
The biggest mistake this team has made imo has been in the service end.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 2:38:56 AM | link

CtG says:

Timothy sure says a lot in this article, without really saying much at all. He should go work for a PR firm.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 2:43:39 AM | link

Byron Eastridge says:

Just thought I would add never in the first combat upgrade did they result to mass permanant bannings on the forums.An angry customer base will only get worse over time by improper handling of this mess.

posted by the management.
Just a warning that we are not currently handing out suspensions. All bans at this time are going to be permanent.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 3:12:53 AM | link

Richard Bartle says:

Stormgaard>This is my own take on the recent Raph Koster interview that Ogaming has posted here:
>http://www.ogaming.com/data/3265%7ESOE.php
>Seems appropriate...

No, it seems smug, sneering and desperately ill-informed.

The weapon is good. Satire works. Unfortunately, you chose the wrong target, opened fire in the wrong place, used the wrong bullets, and you missed anyway.

Richard

Posted Nov 22, 2005 3:27:09 AM | link

PJ says:

Magicback wrote:

Does SOE, like any other creative force, has the right to change creative direction? Can a band change musical direction at their whim or should their fan base as any say?

In as much as it is their bat, and their ball - and if they wanna go play with themselves they can - yes.

If they want all the other kids on the block to play as well (and pay) there are rules you just don't break - like changing them in the middle of a game.

One of the biggest draws to MMOs is persistance. With persistance, you get player investment. Without that investment - folks might as well save the monthly fee and play single player, or free session games.

This strikes at the very core of trust, players expect a company will uphold the integrity of the game they choose. Change is one thing - totally gutting and changing the rules midsteam is another.

WoW brought a ton of folks into the genre that had never experienced it before - I just hope this excercise doesn't sour too many people clean out of it.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 4:29:38 AM | link

Dan Pusceddu says:

"Does SOE, like any other creative force, has the right to change creative direction? Can a band change musical direction at their whim or should their fan base as any say?"

Absolutely, a band can change musical direction at their whim. However, a band does not have an ongoing contract with a subscribed fan base so the analogy doesn't hold. More like, does a band have the right to change musical direction *and* come and 'update' your CD collection/iPod with revised versions of their old music?

I quit SWG when the CU nerfed my hard-earned character and made solo play all but impossible to enjoy. I'm currently playing WoW which has maybe 20% of the depth of (the old) SWG game but at least it is a consistent and well-designed 20%...

Posted Nov 22, 2005 5:01:31 AM | link

Timothy Burke says:

Looking over the thread, I want to highlight Franek's comments. First because I think he offers a good chart of the outsider's reasoning process that underlies some of my own conclusions. But far more importantly, because he suggests that the NGE may be driven in part by a conclusion that I would desperately like SOE/LA *not* to make: that deep virtual worlds are commercial failures. That's the main thrust of most of my writing about SWG: the failure of SWG is NOT in its basic design tenets, but in its implementation. The NGE does not solve SWG's most basic problem: it exacerbates it.

That's what I think SOE needs to understand. It is what they don't seem to understand. If they don't understand it, I have no trouble using the term "clueless", much as industry people here dislike it. If they do understand it, then they have some other market-rational objective in mind for which poor execution at the moment matters little against some long-term goal. If that's attracting a different audience of PC-based subscribers, I think their judgement of the market is badly flawed. By its very nature, there's no hard data to support that: we're all guessing about the future. If it's the console market, I have no idea--but throwing away your current subscribers in favor of a speculative console market is either very bold, or their current subscribers were a very small and discardable group.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 7:50:52 AM | link

Alex says:

Hello Heather,

i do still play SWG, and i can tell you that swg lost more people than SOE/LA would like to admit.

Numbers? Easy, i have a friendlist which has about 250 names in it, and from about 40 active in peaktimes about a month ago, it reduced to 5-10 active last evening. This is definetly more than a "few" subscriptions gone.

Alex

Posted Nov 22, 2005 7:51:58 AM | link

Chas says:

Allright,

So, we've come to agree that SOE/LA has the RIGHT to dramatically alter the game's play style, the issue is in their implementation.

So... how would you, as a developer, do things different? Avoid generalities like "better customer support" -- what could MAKE IT better?

First issue that comes to mind for me: A more stable version at release.... (but would this have lessened the player issues- the cancellation posts predated the release... even predated the arrival on the test server.) The negative votes on stratics and gamespot both predated the release as well, but maybe a solid first release would have acted as a calming effect.

What would you have done differently?

Posted Nov 22, 2005 8:37:30 AM | link

Green Armadillo says:

Quoth Lydia:
"I suspect it'd be very interesting to know what Sony's internal numbers were, prior to this launch, for:

- Projected churn
- Projected cost of refunds on latest expansion...."
_________________________

I will absolutely guarantee for you that they did NOT project costs for having to refund the expansion, they just somehow didn't think of how releasing a paid expansion and then fundamentally altering the game would be a problem for anyone. Once the bleep hit the fan, they made a new projection - that refund processes can be complicated to a sufficient extent that applying for one can be a deterrent. Therefore, they concluded that the PR benefit of offering the refund was worth more than the amount it cost them.

I'm surprized no one has mentioned the timing of this at all. Last night, I actually saw a commercial for what I thought was a generic action SW game on TV (albeit cable) that turned out to be SWG. Tis the season to hype one's games before X-Mas. I suspect that the new revamp whatever it's called was coded with dependencies on code in the expansion, which prevented them from pushing it live sooner. (The aneurism that looking at this code would probably give my programmer friends alone is a strong argument for Open Source. ;)) And then they ran into the same financial pressure that Blizzard felt this time last year of getting something out the door in time for the Holidays, even if that means problems down the line. Unfortunately, SoE has never been as good at this whole service thing, so I suppose predictable consequences ensued.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 8:44:33 AM | link

Heather Sinclair says:

Timothy,

First off, Yes, generalizing a common mood or sentiment within a subculture is a common method of reporting, but generally when I open up the Boston Globe I don't read statements like "Almost everyone in America has been looking on the war in Iraq with horror!" with insults to the government by the author interposed.

Again, I do not have a problem with criticism of SWG or SOE, like I said in the first post, the problem was with the quality of the article. Is it an editorial? not really, is it an analysis? nope, is it an actual factual article? no, that got thrown out the window as soon as you get to statements like "Bill-Clintonesque legal parsing of the word 'few'.". Maybe terranova is a rant site now instead?

The posts on this very thread highlight the things that people are more interested in hearing about NGE than "WAH" (while certainly some people just want to vent, there's more than enough forums for them to do that on). Scott put it very well in his post:

>>What IS interesting, and what I think should be discussed in this context and without, is the concept of completely changing a live service in mid-stream. SWG this week is a far different game from the one that existed last month. How do the players react to that radical a change? Do they react? Do they simply quit? Do they knuckle under and keep going, "relearning the rules"?

This is stuff that would be interesting. "I can't aim in combat any more" or "Gosh, this live team sucks at implementation", not so much.<<

and others bring up points that are worthy of discussion. *CAN* a subscription game radically change its game? What happens when you toss out thousands of very angry, disaffected players in favor of "better" ones? How can we find data as to how many players have quit and how many are resubbing? Is it possible to make sweeping changes and not generate the fervor that NGE has? (probably not, but who knows!). What exactly were the mistakes that were made? And so on.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 9:08:47 AM | link

Amberyl (Lydia Leong) says:

Timothy, I disagree that their likely target was experimenting with the intent of going for the console market. If you look at market forecasts from a variety of analysts, you'll see that PC gamers overwhelmingly continue to dominate revenues over the next several years. Moreover, MMOGs on the Xbox360, at least, are quite some time away -- I believe Microsoft publicly said that they'd be available about four years after launch (and to my recollection, the DC Heroes game is targeted for that platform). There'd be cheaper ways, and much less risky ways, to pilot a console-oriented game.

I think that this has to be looked at in another light. 250,000 subs for SWG means around $35 million in annual revenue. This is relatively small-fry stuff. Sony Pictures (which SOE is a division of) had 2004 revenues of over $6 billion. Sony is large enough to gamble SWG's *entire* revenue base and have it be an acceptable business risk.

Put it this way: The average American has seen the original Star Wars nearly 7 times. There are almost 75 million online households in the United States. 20% of these households play PC online games nearly every day; an additional 15% play at least once a week. The target audience is easily 15 million people just targeting the hardcore, and with the right game and the right business model could be much larger. If you assume these numbers were the same back in 2003 (they weren't, but it'll do for a rough cut), if SWG had 750,000 initial copies sold, that would be 5 percent penetration of the hardcore online gamers. Respectable, but not the kind of mass-market appeal that SOE had clearly been hoping for.

Sony could afford to take a huge gamble -- but it needed to be expertly executed. It clearly was not, and all that is needed to make the fiasco complete is an incident which makes news in the mainstream press.

But the jury is really still out -- can they fix enough in time, coordinated with a good marketing campaign, to drive a high volume of Christmas sales?

My guess is "no". Among other things, they've missed the press cycle, which is currently happily hyping the future WoW expansion.

So that puts us into next year, and maybe a year of fixing and trying to manage the community, in time for a new try in Christmas 2006. MMOGs have long lives. Even if they churn every single existing customer, it is conceivable that they could have a solid product available in a year's time, especially if it's accompanied by a graphical refresh, and sell enough copies and keep enough subscribers to be worth gambling their existing revenues.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 9:17:04 AM | link

ren reynolds says:

Magicback wrote:

> Does SOE, like any other creative force, has the right to change creative direction? Can a band change musical direction at their whim or should their fan base as any say?

> Yes and yes!

Matt wrote:

> But do they have the right? Of course. That's unquestionable.

Of course it’s questionable. It depends on the explicit and implicit contract that the players have with the thing. And I say ‘thing’ as what you call it tends to structure what you think about people’s relationship with it. Game, Service, World, Community – all suggest different types of relationship.

If designers make it very clear that anything could change at any time then I guess they have a case. But when I say clear, I don’t mean putting it somewhere in the middle of a 5 thousand world contract and couch it in terms of ‘party of the first part’ etc.

It comes down to the old question of what, if any, duties a publisher has to a community in virtue of creating something that facilitates that community, irrespective of what the designer my want or intend.

I think it’s a debate we have to have constantly and that it should never be a closed question.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 9:17:26 AM | link

Amberyl (Lydia Leong) says:

Timothy, I disagree that their likely target was experimenting with the intent of going for the console market. If you look at market forecasts from a variety of analysts, you'll see that PC gamers overwhelmingly continue to dominate revenues over the next several years. Moreover, MMOGs on the Xbox360, at least, are quite some time away -- I believe Microsoft publicly said that they'd be available about four years after launch (and to my recollection, the DC Heroes game is targeted for that platform). There'd be cheaper ways, and much less risky ways, to pilot a console-oriented game.

I think that this has to be looked at in another light. 250,000 subs for SWG means around $35 million in annual revenue. This is relatively small-fry stuff. Sony Pictures (which SOE is a division of) had 2004 revenues of over $6 billion. Sony is large enough to gamble SWG's *entire* revenue base and have it be an acceptable business risk.

Put it this way: The average American has seen the original Star Wars nearly 7 times. There are almost 75 million online households in the United States. 20% of these households play PC online games nearly every day; an additional 15% play at least once a week. The target audience is easily 15 million people just targeting the hardcore, and with the right game and the right business model could be much larger. If you assume these numbers were the same back in 2003 (they weren't, but it'll do for a rough cut), if SWG had 750,000 initial copies sold, that would be 5 percent penetration of the hardcore online gamers. Respectable, but not the kind of mass-market appeal that SOE had clearly been hoping for.

Sony could afford to take a huge gamble -- but it needed to be expertly executed. It clearly was not, and all that is needed to make the fiasco complete is an incident which makes news in the mainstream press.

But the jury is really still out -- can they fix enough in time, coordinated with a good marketing campaign, to drive a high volume of Christmas sales?

My guess is "no". Among other things, they've missed the press cycle, which is currently happily hyping the future WoW expansion.

So that puts us into next year, and maybe a year of fixing and trying to manage the community, in time for a new try in Christmas 2006. MMOGs have long lives. Even if they churn every single existing customer, it is conceivable that they could have a solid product available in a year's time, especially if it's accompanied by a graphical refresh, and sell enough copies and keep enough subscribers to be worth gambling their existing revenues.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 9:20:27 AM | link

Amberyl (Lydia Leong) says:

Sorry for the duplicate post. Browser claimed the first try timed out.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 9:23:34 AM | link

AJ says:

Is a comparison to Ultima Online, and the change it went through early 2000 with the 'Renaissance' patch, a valid one? I cant think of any other big-name mogs to have undergone a similar, drastic change.

We were told UO would have ceased to exist without the change and the vibe in that community was also quite negative, but it came out of it all stronger than ever in terms of subscriber numbers. Shows it can be done I suppose.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 9:25:50 AM | link

Detritus says:

I share Heather's sentiment; this is not the insightful and deep post I expect from TN. You make no attempt to explain to the reader - and non-SWG players - the reasons you strip the game of it's VW status, citing only technical flaws.

Your inclusion of language that is clearly inflammatory and perjorative - "Twitch gamer" and your comments on Planetside - make the whole post sound like you needed to take a day or two to cool off before writing.

I have tremendous respect for you Timothy, but your post has failed entirely to edify. Please consider an ammendment to the post which includes an explination, for those of us on the outside, as to how the changes make the game any less a VW.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 9:29:49 AM | link

Jon says:

I think the NGE is a good idea. Actually, I bought the game after hearing it was going to be implemented.

I had previously tried playing a demo of SWG (before the first CU) but the combat system was way too boring. Also, the profession system was confusing and overblown. I wasn't interested in a long Star Wars themed grind.

Now, after playing the NGE I have to say that the experience is a lot more satisfying. Simple, fast-paced, this is what Star Wars is about. It's quite a rush to charge, blasting away into a crowd of mobs with two padawan friends in the dungeon of station Gamma. I don't think that the same fight would have ben as fun with the old system.

I can understand why experienced players see the NGE as the end of their beloved game. In a way it is, SWG will never be the same. But I think it's for the best, and judging from the number of lvl 1-10 that are running around Tansarii point station and Mos Eisley these days, I'm not the only one who thinks so.

As for the implementation, I agree it could have been better but come on, this is a major overhaul we're talking about here, and it's only been a week. Give it a chance or leave but please, please, stop complaining just for the sake of it.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 10:04:55 AM | link

Timothy Burke says:

Heather: you will see some of that language in the Boston Globe if you look at the op-ed pages. Just think of this piece in that spirit. In any event, the questions you summarize as valid are all there in the original piece and in others I've written at TN (including the first one linked in this piece). The two places where I think you're being truly tendentious is asserting that in the absence of "hard data" (which I think you know will not be forthcoming if SOE does not choose to disclose it) we can't be sure that many people are quitting SWG, and second, along with Scott, suggesting that critiques of implementation by developers are somehow mere opinion, or irrelevant to some kind of deeper issue. The whole point here is to map contingencies: what can developers do in relation to the communities that form around their games? And to suggest that there are many, many roads not taken with SWG and the road that has been taken is the most dysfunctional possible example of that relationship in the current MMOG marketplace. You can circle the developer wagons if you like against that observation, but I think it's a perfectly valid and legitimately "scholarly" one to make.

If my tone is exasperated, it's because the history of SWG is exasperating. As Amberyl put it, Sony can afford to take a huge gamble, but it's a gamble not worth taking if not executed well. I have a hard time with anyone who doesn't recognize that this change has been executed poorly, and executed poorly in a way that echoes the poor execution of SWG as a whole. Anyone who has followed the detailed history of the game knows that it has suffered from the outset from distinctively bad execution on the service end. If there was any time to reverse that, it would have been when rolling out a massive change to the game in pursuit of an entirely different subscriber base. The logic cuts both ways: if SWG to date is chump change to Sony, and therefore, Sony can afford to take the gamble of losing its entire customer base, then there is no need for the kind of roll-out process that the NGE has actually received. Why not proceed in a more leisurely fashion, if Amberyl's reasoning is correct?

Is it clear to everyone reading about the NGE the timing here? That an announcement of a sweeping revision was made, the revision went to test servers, and then went live within the span of about three weeks? Doesn't that seem like a processual decision worth discussing (and criticizing)?

Posted Nov 22, 2005 10:13:31 AM | link

Mike Sellers says:

Two possibly significant issues seem to distill from all this Sturm und Drang.

First - operator rights. I have to agree with Matt above: SOE/LA owns SWG. The players do not. The players have no right to change (or demand change to) the world. SOE has every right to change it as it sees fit. Ren's arguments to the contrary don't put a dent in this. Appeals to an implicit social contract amount to idealism at best, whining at worst.

That said, just as SOE has every right to alter the game as it sees fit, the players have every right to play or not, to complain or not, as they see fit. Each player has the right to vote with his or her wallet, which is ultmately what the game operators will measure.

Which brings up the second issue: numbers. In the end, whether NGE was a good idea or not will depend entirely on the long-term retention of existing players and attraction of new players to the game. In the commercial sense, nothing else matters. Your guild, your friends, your wonderful hours spent in the game -- from a corporate POV, those are intangible and of benefit only insofar as they aid either attraction and retention of players.

Alex posted one anecdotal data point above: Numbers? Easy, i have a friendlist which has about 250 names in it, and from about 40 active in peaktimes about a month ago, it reduced to 5-10 active last evening. This is definetly more than a "few" subscriptions gone.

Well, we don't know that. The numbers game is a slippery one in MMOGs. Even here on TN we've seen companies report bloated numbers of subscribers. For example, there's the old game of reporting accounts made rather than actual active players -- as I've said elsewhere, it's like saying the population of the USA is over a billion... if you count all the dead people.

The only way that I know of to count people across games is to track concurrent usage. Historically, about 15-20% of all players are logged in to a MMOG at any given time. So if averaged over time you have 10,000 people logged in across all servers, your player base is probably about 50K-70K, give or take a few thousand (of course, this may change as play styles change in new games, but I doubt we'll see single-digit concurrent usage any time soon).

In other words all your friends may be leaving, but that doesn't mean tons of new people aren't flooding in. It may be, as Jon says above, that once it stabilizes the NGE will be a first step toward a much more casual-friendly MMOG. Sure the current uber-core players won't like it much, but maybe the more casual SW fans out there who have been put off by the complexity of the earlier game (and who outnumber the hardcore by orders of magnitude) will be more attracted to this reformulated version.

OTOH if the servers become depopulated, and the aggregate total population across servers drops significantly... well, that hardly bodes well for the business case of making this scale of change (or perhaps just this scale with poor execution) in an already-released game.

Like I said before, this case will be instructive to those wondering about the resilience of MMOG populations, and the ability of MMOG operators to successfully re-invent their existing games.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 10:18:10 AM | link

Timothy Burke says:

Detritus:

I don't regard "twitch gamer" as a pejorative, merely as a descriptive. Now it may be that I'm assuming a knowledge of what it describes in this post, and that's a fair criticism. In a first-person online shooter, the problem of latency has historically been a huge one: the person with the fastest connection trumps everyone else, regardless of his skill in the game. That was a worse issue at the point at which broadband had minimal penetration of the online market: you'd play an online FPS and the one guy with a fast connection would be dominating everyone else. MMOGs have responded to the problem of latency differently, historically, by subordinating player actions in the gameworld to the character's in-game skills and by standardizing all players to a set speed of action. (Which is what allows for certain notorious "speed hacks" where players try to fool the game servers into thinking their computer is slower than it actually is: the server then compensates and superspeeds that player's actions.) So to move a MMOG to a "twitch" model where player control of their avatar's actions directly manifests in the gameworld rather than being mediated through some game-mechanical modelling of the character's skills is actually a very interesting and potentially exciting thing to do, full of new design questions and challenges.

As for why the NGE removes the "virtual world" components of SWG, I agree I could have said more about that, and maybe I should say more in a separate post. My Game Studies critique speaks to a lot of this issue by summarizing what makes SWG a major "virtual world". In a nutshell, SWG had a very intricate economy that rested on player crafting; a very involved set of social tools that involved player "entertainers"; a relatively unprecedented degree of player ability to create structures and communities with persistent status in the gameworld. As of the NGE, most of the crafting and entertaining aspects of the game have been seriously gutted of their importance and capacity, and most in-game social and community functions were premised on crafting and entertaining--the purpose of player cities, in many cases, was economic and social. So even if the NGE doesn't mess more with that aspect of the game design, it already has messed with it. To some extent, I'd actually say that removing existing player cities and housing is actually a good next step for the NGE implementation to take, as they were what made SWG a "virtual world" but NOT the "virtual world of Star Wars".

Can a fast-paced FPS-style MMOG be a virtual world? That is truly an interesting question, one I wondered about in my Game Studies piece: maybe that will be what I follow-up around, and perhaps that will satisfy some complaints about this post.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 10:26:47 AM | link

Scott Jennings says:

> critiques of implementation by developers are
> somehow mere opinion

Well, um, yes. Is the service up? Yes? You can connect on demand? Everything else is opinion. Mind you, an opinion that may be shared by 25% or 50% or 75% or 90% of the player base, but it is still opinion.

Again, perhaps this is a sore spot with people who work on live teams, but trust me, we get enough feedback that consists, in toto, of "Jesus, you people suck! Learn to do your jobs!" to make anything remotely similar suspect.

It's obvious you play SWG and are passionate about it; dispassionate observers wouldn't use phrases like "And as usual, the corporate talk emanating from SOE about the consequences of the change is mindlessly, painfully out of touch with the reality." A few too many adverbs for comfort there. This doesn't make the op-ed piece any less valid - but it probably should have been labelled as such. "I play SWG, and my play experience has been destroyed. Here's why I think so." as a good example. Not sweeping, general "SOE is incompetent!" type statements. That's what I think people are keying on here.

Anyway, just hopefully helpful suggestions from someone definitely throwing stones in someone else's glass house. Back on topic, if I had to pick one thing that bothered me about the redesign, it's the backing away from a virtual world model. We need more virtual worlds, not less. What blew my mind so thoroughly about UO when I first logged on was the sheer immersiveness of it - I could walk in a city and it felt like I was in a real city, with things going on in the periphery of my view that I knew meant something. Like a group of horseback riders hurrying along in uniform, snippets of a passionate argument overheard as I walked by, etc.

I think we as developers forget that *that*, not game mechanics, is what can really draw folks in over the long term.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 10:38:06 AM | link

Timothy Burke says:

Mike:

Nothing else but retention of customers matters if we're talking business. But MMOGs are also culture; they are meaning-making, community-forming, expressive instruments. We don't have to evaluate either of those dimensions in isolation from one another. If you care about novels, you should also care about the business of publishing novels, and what makes that publication viable. But caring about what makes publication viable ought to be on behalf of something, in service to the satisfactions and impact of the novels themselves. The same here: MMOGs are both art and business, and there's no reason why we can't talk about whether they succeed aesthetically, culturally, experientially while we also talk about whether they survive economically. It's perfectly possible to succeed in business and fail in making a lasting contribution to the world, and conversely so. And sometimes initial business failures contain the seed of long-term success.

If SWG survives this change, but leaves behind it a lot of people who feel bitter, whose experience of a virtual world was circumscribed in non-necessary ways, that also might have implications for the business of MMOG service as a whole. I'm kind of agog here that the developers in this thread don't seem to care about that, or regard it all as pointless whining by aggrieved forum ranters. Among the many reasons I'd argue that Blizzard has succeeded with World of Warcraft is by finding a happy place between expectations and delivery. It's not a wildly inventive game, but it does what it does very well. It is not a game without technical and implementation issues, but those have been minimized. Players with bitter memories of other virtual worlds have found WoW something of a balm, I think. They may not be the whole of the market for WoW or even a major portion of it, but they are there. Reputation capital matters in this marketplace as much as any other service industry. And service businesses that blame the customer or try to minimize and explain away customer anger had better be near-monopolies that provide a service that is viewed as a necessity, or that blame-shifting rhetoric is just putting paving-stones down on the way to serious crisis.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 10:39:38 AM | link

Timothy Burke says:

Scott:

I do try to avoid strong invective of the kind you describe in most things, but really, there is a point at which it may become appropriate. It is precisely because I see so much potential in SWG, particularly virtual world potential, that its many implementation failure actually anger me, provoke me to passion. I can see why those statements bother you--for the same reason that I often find myself trying to calm down some critics of academia who go over the top in their rhetoric. But often I agree more or less with the thrust of the critiques of many who write about the problems of academia, and on occasion, I can be moved to strong language when what I consider to be minimal professional obligations among academics get violated (as in the case of Ward Churchill, for example). I'm just a bit bothered that you and Heather seem so unwilling, in the name of professional decorum, to allow that the implementation of the NGE has been handled badly in relation to any possible rational long-term business plan for the game, and that there is a pattern of bad implementations in the history of SWG.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 10:46:12 AM | link

Scott Jennings says:

>> I'm just a bit bothered that you and Heather seem so unwilling, in the name of professional decorum, to allow that the implementation of the NGE has been handled badly in relation to any possible rational long-term business plan for the game, and that there is a pattern of bad implementations in the history of SWG. <<

Precisely the sort of statement that
(a) professional decorum requires me not to comment on publically (no, really)
(b) is a matter of opinion :) At least until sales numbers come out. And yes, if you manage to make a large segment of your community dissatisfied/betrayed, it will show up in the numbers.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 10:55:30 AM | link

Abalieno says:

What IS interesting, and what I think should be discussed in this context and without, is the concept of completely changing a live service in mid-stream. SWG this week is a far different game from the one that existed last month. How do the players react to that radical a change? Do they react? Do they simply quit? Do they knuckle under and keep going, "relearning the rules"?

This is stuff that would be interesting. "I can't aim in combat any more" or "Gosh, this live team sucks at implementation", not so much.

Oh, this is way too good.

My point of view is exactly the opposite. It's the context (completely changing a live service) to be useless and the content (the specifics of the changes) to be relevant.

It's only the quality of the implementation to matter here. If the quality is very high, the dissatisfaction would be easily reabsorbed. If the quality is poor, instead, you'll simply fail to get both new and old customers and the context would be branded as "not convenient" for future, generalized references and commonplaces formed out of thin air that will be very hard to discard.

It's really this simple.

What was important was to consider the resources available and figure out if there was enough "space" to do a very good work or not. SOE made its choice. We'll see the results. These results should be always considered for the specific game and the specific changes. Not generalized and standardized as absolute principles.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 11:05:00 AM | link

Timothy Burke says:

Yes, exactly, Abalieno.

Consider a counterfactual. The basic design thrust of the NGE, but with another six months of testing involving the current playerbase, with a planned roll-out in March. This would not be the dire situation of a pre-live MMOG, where every day you test is a day without revenue. It just would be a situation where revenues were below some guessed-at possibility for a much larger playerbase. Imagine the various (quite good) ideas within the NGE rolled out with much greater stability, without some of the leftovers and contradictions of old design features. Imagine a process that involved the existing community of players, and sought to roll over a sense of "social contract" (without conceding at any moment the long-term design imperative).

All the interest that the developers in this thread take in questions like "Can you make massive changes to an existing MMOG?" would still be live. In fact, you'd be able to ask those questions far more rigorously, with much greater empirical certainty about the answer. In this case, if the game really doesn't survive, we're never going to know whether it's just a basic dictum (don't change your game) or a bad implementation.

It's worse than that. Much as the problems of early UO saddled developers with a problematic bit of conventional wisdom about PvP and player-policing (in my humble opinion), I fear very much that SOE is going to externalize this experience as "deep virtual worlds aren't commercially viable". And I don't think that's the lesson here at all. The intensity of my argument here is aimed squarely at that: I think that claim or the claim that it's just plain structurally hard to change designs mid-stream are fig leafs that shelter developers and managers from having to cop to preventable, avoidable mistakes in implementation and service. That's the main lesson I want to be drawn here by professionals, academics and players: that SWG's wounds are largely self-inflicted and tell us *nothing* about the commercial viability of deep virtual worlds or even about whether it's possible to do major redesigns after a game goes live.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 11:26:27 AM | link

Damion Schubert says:

Ah, but you miss a major fact of running a live service, which is that happy players can forgive an awful lot, whereas unhappy players will look for anything possible to complain and nitpick about.

The fact is, Scott's right. The central story here is the degree of change from the original vision, and the player's willingness to tolerate it.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 11:41:02 AM | link

Edward Castronova says:

Tim Burke> there must be a pretty decent margin of profit from *any* MMOG once it's been live for a while, or you wouldn't be able to operate it while bleeding customers.

When operating revenues exceed operating costs, it makes sense to keep the service alive. Yet the service can still be losing money - if it earns a dollar a year, net, but there was a million dollars in development cost, it would take a million years to go in the black.

This is what creates the pressure to do something to increase subscriber rates, rather than just shut down. You won't close the service so long as it is earning anything at all on ongoing operations. But you need to have it earn quite a lot to recoup development costs. Shutting down does not cut your losses; ironically, it cuts your profits. It makes them a bigger negative number.

****

FYI, Ogaming is owned and operated by IGE.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 11:56:53 AM | link

Abalieno says:

the player's willingness to tolerate it.

And can't you see that they willingness to tolerate it depends on the QUALITY of it?

The original vision already went to hell. You are forgetting this. One of the main reasons that brought to this change is about taking back that original vision:

The basic scheme of the NGE aims to grapple with some of the longest-standing criticisms of SWG, many of which I've agreed with since the game went live: that the game lacks a compelling connection to its licensed fiction, that its sprawling design is hampered by serious game-mechanical contradictions, that its content is threadbare, and so on.

The "communicative pact" was already broken back then and here SOE actually tried to heal the displacement. While you recognize only the second one, which is a consequence of other decisions.

The reaction of the players is a consequence of the offer. Short-term dissatisfaction would be easily reabsorbed if the implementation was better than what SWG players have been fed till today. But it doesn't seem so. Players are angry because they've seen this happening *so many times*. It's nothing new. And they are sick of playing an unifinished beta with the vague promise to be complete after six months.

unhappy players will look for anything possible to complain and nitpick about.

What I see is that the players are complaining again about an incomplete implementation.

Mobs shooting through walls, skills not working, clumsy controls, broken animations and other bad design decisions don't seem like "nitpicking".

Posted Nov 22, 2005 12:03:01 PM | link

Lee Sheldon says:

Let's remember John Smedley's keynote in Austin this year. He thinks diversifying games means putting them on new platforms. His thrust is toward cell phones. Cell phones don't handle complex virtual worlds well, even if in time they will provide limited windows into those worlds or smaller games thematically tied to them.

I'd suggest that this move makes perfect sense to Mr. Smedley. A much leaner FPS version of SWG could be translated far more easily to cell phone play. And that is the kind of "diversity" that he might believe would expand the piece of the SWG IP market he is able to tap.

Lee

Posted Nov 22, 2005 12:07:53 PM | link

Endie says:

What surprises me about some of the industry responses (Scott and Heather in particular) has been an unwillingness to accept that - whether or not the changes are well-written or wise - the way that they have implemented has been extremely cackhanded.

SOE had a kind of contract with the players: the implemented the In Concept/In Development/In Testing/Live in order to fix their well-known QA issues.

This was admitted at the time, and was in itself not at all a bad idea, even if it tended to be poorly implemented (here I only speak as a developer (financial modelling, comparable complexity of product but tolerance for errors tending towards zero) looking at the bugginess of the results, not as a gamer looking at fun).

The point is that this was - or seemed to be - an agreement with the player base. By looking at the "In Concept" and "In Development" forums, they could see the roadmap for the game's development. To an extent, this could inform their decisions to continue to play, to subscribe, and the like.

SOE suddenly revealed that the last nine months' or so (according to how I understand Dundee's post on his blog) of "In concept" and "In development" postings have been, at the very least, gravely misleading to anyone who read them. For some months they have - we now learn -been entirely fictional, mapping out a path that was not to be taken. How anyone can defend SOE against criticism of such extraordinary incompetence (the kindest interpretation) is bewildering.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 12:12:46 PM | link

That Chip Guy says:

Interestingly, Endie, in September Raph Koster briefly visited the forums and emphasized the importance of, and promised improvement in, exactluy this sharing of development information. (http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=Shadowfire&message.id=299502#M299502) Events clearly seem to have overtaken that intent, and the players of course noticed.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 12:50:05 PM | link

Timothy Burke says:

Please, if you're giving me grief about my tone in this piece, read Raph's post in the thread that That Chip Guy just linked to.

Especially if you're concerned with professionalism. How professional is it to cut off one of your own senior executives at the knees as the NGE implementation has just done to Raph Koster? Would you let one of your executives go out into the public space of a forum and say something like that if you knew that in just over a month's time you were going to spring the NGE on an unsuspecting playerbase?

Posted Nov 22, 2005 12:56:59 PM | link

Erillion says:

Let me add a few more points to this discussion :

a) "Flashes and Whistles" ....
SOE has concentrated on making the free trial look interesting and exciting (and based it OUTSIDE the actual game world to keep new players and veterans separate until the new players are buying the game). SOE has spend a moderate amount of care to the first 30 levels of the actual game so the new players BELIEVE to live in the world filled with content. Nevermind that even these first 30 levels in the "real world" of SWG are already buggy as hell. I pity them when they discover that beyond combat level 30 there is nothing unless they buy overpriced expansions.

b) "Beware of the zealot" .....

one of the biggest advantages of SWG was IMHO one of the best communities of all the MMORPGs I have played. Especially BECAUSE they have endured so much in the past. Many of them were fans boardering on the fanatical. Now .. a horde of fanatics has been kicked out of paradise. And they are running amok "out there". The SWG exiles are raising hell in all kinds of environments (especially in forums of OTHER games they have migrated to in the last 2 weeks after cancelling SWG). This is giving SWG a bad reputation like no other game has achieved since Mourning.

c) Numbers....
2.5 years in game. Server : Naritus. Friend list 234. Average numbers online these days : 3. About one tens normal. Guild: members 114. Online 2. Percentage of hard core veterans (1.5 year plus in game) leaving SWG = 50 %.

d) "Deception" ...
New overpriced expansion goes live (Digital Download only) November 1st .. most veterans have bought it. NGE is announced ... November 2nd. Veterans reel in shock. Talk about lawsuits emerge, mostly based on false advertising (content in new expansion for professions deleted with NGE one day later). About one week later SOE agrees to refunds for expansion buyers. However, all people who hate the NGE and who have 3-12 prepaid months of SWG playtime get ... nothing.

e) "Sea sickness and Bye Bye Cripples" ....

Go play NGE. Numerous cases of motion sickness have been reported since NGE. Also people with disabilities can more or less forget playing SWG now (a game which had a good reputation amongst the disabled community).

I have not cancelled. I give it a bit more time - or I simply enjoy being in the middle of a train wreck. Or I cant let go as easily as the others.

We will see.

Have fun

Erillion

Posted Nov 22, 2005 1:08:29 PM | link

Amberyl (Lydia Leong) says:

I don't think we need to look as far afield as mobile gaming for what the motivations are, here. I don't think this is a pie-in-the-sky move aimed at potential future platforms. I think this is a move aimed at the here and now, PC online gaming market. There is market share that could be seized and genuine market growth that could be achieved.

Despite over a million units sold and a quarter-million subs, $35 million is peanuts for Star Wars. The game's live team costs cannot be small. And how much goes directly to LucasArts as a royalty? 5% to 10%, perhaps? But how much of that revenue is covered by guarantees? (i.e., money that SOE owes regardless of how many subs the game gets.)

All that could result in an easy executive directive: Subscriber numbers to the existing game have to go up, go do whatever it is that's necessary to make them go up, even if it means burning the existing subscriber base to the ground. Starting a "SWG II" or equivalent could very well not be an option, both from the perspective of operational reasonability as well as the limitations of the licensing agreement.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 1:09:47 PM | link

Erillion says:

Ah yes ... I always wondered what " a million copies of the franchise sold" means (SOE quote from Leipzig game fair).

A million boxes of the basic game plus subscriptions for at least one month ? Or have all the sold expansion boxes and digital downloads been included in that number ?

Have fun

Erillion

Posted Nov 22, 2005 1:13:55 PM | link

Byron Eastridge says:

If your going to read threads from the Archives better do it fast.
They are going back and deleting posts in the archives that people are linking to.
locked threads and still they they fear the truth coming out so they are deleing them.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 1:37:08 PM | link

AgentDib says:

The effect of the NGE on the veteran SWG player is not being accurately portrayed in this thread. It IS a completely different game from the one that most players purchased and subscribed to - but that's that's not why most of us are unhappy. In fact, the majority of the forum was strongly looking forward to promised game revamps (GCW patch, profession revamps) that would have changed everything anyways.

What SWG did was basicaly release a nerf that was the king of all nerfs. Far beyond simply removing skills and items, but actually deleting the majority of professions from the game. Many veterans lost hundreds of millions of credits worth of attachments, armor, and weapons. It may be only a game, but an hour invested in an MMO is still an hour.

I don't think it's a unfair analogy to draw the comparison to Arthur Dent. Many players feel that they have been buldozed to make way for an intergalatic highway. It may be an AMAZING highway in every aspect, but this doesn't change the fact that they had to watch everything they cared about go up in flames.

SOE may very well end up making more money on SWG by replacing their veteran core with a large influx of console gamers. At the same time in the long run those displaced gamers will most likely be avoiding further SOE online endeavors and they will be probably doing their best to ensure their friends follow suit. There are plenty of virtual worlds to pick from - why pick one where the developer has shown the enjoyment of their current customers is inconsequential?

Posted Nov 22, 2005 1:47:15 PM | link

Scott Jennings says:

>> What surprises me about some of the industry responses (Scott and Heather in particular) has been an unwillingness to accept that - whether or not the changes are well-written or wise - the way that they have implemented has been extremely cackhanded. <<

If Jeff Freeman came on Terra Nova and posted about how he thought DAOC's server coding was "cackhanded", I'd be really, really, really mad.

>> the player's willingness to tolerate it.

And can't you see that the willingness to tolerate it depends on the QUALITY of it? <<

No, I'd strenously argue the point. If Civ 4 autopatched itself into a WW2-themed first person shooter, I really wouldn't care about the quality of the patch.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 2:02:29 PM | link

Matt Mihaly says:

Amberyl wrote:

Despite over a million units sold and a quarter-million subs, $35 million is peanuts for Star Wars. The game's live team costs cannot be small. And how much goes directly to LucasArts as a royalty? 5% to 10%, perhaps? But how much of that revenue is covered by guarantees? (i.e., money that SOE owes regardless of how many subs the game gets.)

I'm willing to bet it's a lot closer to 20-25% of net revenue (not net income) going to LA.

--matt

Posted Nov 22, 2005 2:38:27 PM | link

Endie says:

>> What surprises me about some of the industry responses (Scott and Heather in particular) has been an unwillingness to accept that - whether or not the changes are well-written or wise - the way that they have implemented has been extremely cackhanded. <<

>If Jeff Freeman came on Terra Nova and posted about how he thought DAOC's server coding was "cackhanded", I'd be really, really, really mad.

Bit of a non-sequitor. Jeff Freeman isn't in charge of PR or community management on the SWG team, for one thing. He's now, as I understand it, in design and development.

Nor does your own extremely well-publicised professional courtesy mean that you have to criticise others for even raising the subject, or that you should suggest that doing so is inappropriate.

Rather than attempts to suggest that the venue is inappropriate for what is turning out to be TN's liveliest and most fun topic in ages, I'd be far more interested in hearing your substantive opinions on the way SOE have managed their community and the role of the ignored "in concept/in development/in testing/live" cycle in provoking the current firestorm.

Do you think that bona fide attempts by part of the team to communicate more through this process have made its bypass all the more damaging? How do you think SOE should go about rebuilding trust?

Endie

Posted Nov 22, 2005 2:43:15 PM | link

Scott Jennings says:

Yes. I used the metaphor intentionally. Jeff does roughly what I do (he's more design focused, I tend to work more on plumbing fixtures). Neither of us are in PR or community management. If we were, we'd use cooler words.

Rather than take the bait for being thrown in that there briar patch of commenting on how well someone else is managing a community, I'd say that the task of explaining to a community that their world is changing in such a dramatic manner is probably the worst case scenario for a community team (well, aside from "we're cancelling the game next week"). There is no gentle way to say "your play style, as you know it, is over".

About all you can do is try to channel the fury into managable forms, let them know they're being listened to - regularly - and carry the feedback as much as possible back to the development team, and try to remind the players that the community staff are human beings, not target dummies. That being said, it's absolutely NotFun... once you make the decision that a live game is to be changed that dramatically, the community people actually have the worst job of all, at that point. They're the guys who have to bear the bad news.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 3:07:22 PM | link

That Chip Guy says:

To this newbie's eyes, the closest parallel to the NGE transition is UO's Trammel. Can anyone point me to a web resource that describes the history of that transition? (How it was communicated to players, how player reactions were managed, and so on?)

Posted Nov 22, 2005 3:15:17 PM | link

Brandon Checketts says:

On a releated note, the price of SWG Credits from IGE and on ebay has dropped by about half since the NGE. Presumabely because of people leaving the game and selling their in-game assets for whatever they can get.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 3:38:52 PM | link

Kristin says:

I have to say that I am amongst the most dissapointed on the NGE changes. Granted, I haven't been playing SWG for the last 8 months or so but I decided to give the NGE changes a shot.

I log in to find everyone gone and I mean GONE. Theed cantina, Bestine cantina, even Coronet cantina . . . they are all empty. I'm on my fourth day and still can't figure out how to get new skills since I was FORCED to choose a new profession. There is no information ANYWHERE explaining the new profession screen or how to go about obtaining new skills.

The only way that SOE can get the trust back is to revert the whole game back. I honestly have to say that I never thought that after the CU things could get worse but they certainly did.

I can truthfully say that by implementing this laggy, buggy mess, I will never play a game that has the SOE name attached to it.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 3:43:36 PM | link

That Chip Guy says:

Kristin: To be fair to SOE's developers, reverting the changes will not bring back all of the players who left the game, and would likely contribute even more to the perception of instability -- impermanence in a persistent world -- that is part of the problem in retaining players.

SOE surely expected subscriber numbers to dip with this change. (Based on their decision to offer refunds on the November 1 expansion a week later, I have to assume that they were still caught somewhat flatfooted with the depth of subscriber reaction.) The Bestine and Coronet cantinas' importance is deprecated in the new game. The re-marketing of SWG to potential new customers has barely begun. The test isn't whether your old guildmates are still playing; the test is whether enough new subscribers, along with a few veterans and lapsed subscribers, will be in, say, January or February.

For the reasons Timothy Burke has articulated, I don't think SOE/LA will pass the test. And, like him, I am concerned about what that means for the commercial future of deep virtual worlds. I don't know that the right lesson will be learned.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 4:13:18 PM | link

says:

Scott - far from throwing bait into briar patches (good line) I was interested in exactly the sort of answer you gave, thanks!

Brandon - Re the price of credits, what an absolutely excellent observation! I am smiting my head as I write. We don't yet know if the change in price reflects decreased demand (people leaving and not buying), increased supply (people leaving and selling), perhaps an alteration in pricing (insta-flation!), or sunply that cash is freely available in the new system, but it's a solid metric!

I wonder if some people haven't taken profits as a precautionary measure. It wouldn't take many of the big weaponsmiths doing so to affect the price by a bit, I suppose...

Endie

Posted Nov 22, 2005 4:14:33 PM | link

Bart Stewart says:

I'm actually enjoying seeing how this conversation has proceeded here on TN. SWG's design broke new ground in several areas, and this site is the perfect place to consider the consequences (business, technical, community, and otherwise) of that design. It's also a good place for open and informed discussion of the effects that the numerous major changes to SWG's original design have had.

I contributed to the "open" part; fortunately, others are taking care of the "informed" part....

Still, although I've said my piece, I feel like a couple of followup comments are in order.

First, it was hard not to wear multiple hats as I wrote. It might have been easier to be dispassionate if I hadn't been a long-time player of SWG. As it was, while I tried to step back and consider objectively the effects of the ongoing changes to SWG, both to the game itself as well as to the industry by how future designs are affected, I had trouble doing that. So if my comments came out sounding like merely another rant/whine, OK, mea culpa. (Although I will point out that if ranting/whining was my intention, I could easily have written an angrier commentary on the official SWG forum and been applauded by some of the locals for it.)

Second, I was guilty of something that bothers me when other people do it -- namely, assuming that what I like is what's "right." I was aware of this and tried to avoid it, but I did a bad job of that. I implied that the changes to SWG over the past two years constitute "bad design" because they (IMO) have made SWG more Achiever-specific and less welcoming to other playstyles. There might be a valid argument to be made there, but I didn't make it; I just assumed it. Again, mea culpa.

In fact, what I like is almost certainly not typical. I like my interfaces simple and my worlds complex. I want to be intellectually challenged. I believe that games are capable of being art; I think they have the power to say interesting things about the human condition. I play to explore -- whether it's Asteroids, Wolfenstein 3D, Deus Ex, or SWG, it's not the adrenaline high or high score that I seek -- it's the joy of discovering what happens next, of seeing what's behind that door, of appreciating new geographic and social architectures.

I believed that SWG would be this kind of game. In an entertainment space filled with products catering to cheap thrills, SWG seemed to promise that it understood me, that my kind would be welcomed, that its makers agreed with my belief that a persistent game world that was deep and inclusive of many playstyles could be commercially and artistically successful.

I liked what I heard about SWG, both as a potential player and as someone who's interested in game design and in the success of the MMOG industry. So I jumped in with both feet.

And then it launched, and nearly every change that followed seemed to chip away at the things that made SWG unique. It was as though after launching, the Live team got together and said, "You know, we've changed our minds -- this whole 'industry leader' thing was a mistake. We're losing subscribers; they get confused when they join us because we don't play like the other games. We need to be more like the other games out there, not less. What's hot right now?"

SWG was no Paradise, but I still feel a sense of loss. Am I wrong for that? Or is my error that I expressed that feeling?

At any rate, my beef isn't that SWG changed. I expect a persistent game world to change. (I might even argue that it must change to endure.) It's the kinds of changes that were made and the way those changes were made that I question. Why these changes, made in this way? What are the beliefs that led to making these changes in this way?

The thing is, I find myself asking these questions both as a player and as an observer of the game development industry. In both frames I wonder: do players have any amount of "ownership" in persistent worlds? If they have any at all (even if they only believe they do), should that affect how you make changes to an existing game?

You could:

* make changes with no announcement

* announce changes after they have been applied

* tell players what they're about to get shortly before they get it

* tell players what they're about to get and encourage discussion and comment

* tell players what's being planned and accept suggestions for very limited tweaks to the plan

* tell players what's being considered and encourage participation in the design process

When your players feel they have some amount of ownership stake in your game through their additions to your game world, should that affect which of these approaches to change management you use? How much of a role should "competitive advantage" play in withholding information?

As both a player and an observer, I believe that carefully managed participatory design is usually going to be the best choice for persistent world games. If players already feel a sense of ownership, then when they "own" changes they'll be more likely to accept them. (There's nothing new about the notion of owning changes, of course; the business world has used this approach for years -- not always ethically, unfortunately -- to mitigate employee criticism.)

Those who like the changes will feel proud to keep paying to play the game they've helped create. And those who don't like the changes will feel respected because you were honest about your intentions. Even if they leave, they're less likely to badmouth your game.

Or so it seems to me. Am I wrong? (Hey, at least it's not just another rant. ;-)

--Bart

Posted Nov 22, 2005 4:16:38 PM | link

Amberyl (Lydia Leong) says:

Matt said: "I'm willing to bet it's a lot closer to 20-25% of net revenue (not net income) going to LA."

It's been previously reported that Hasbro's toy license for Star Wars is estimated to be in the 20% range, but this is exceptionally high for a license. I'd have guessed that the MMOG license, which is a considerably more speculative business than toys, would be quite a bit less. Of course, it's entirely possible that SOE was overconfident about the revenues (and margins) it could bring in when it bid for the license.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 4:48:35 PM | link

Mike Sellers says:

Kristen said: I can truthfully say that by implementing this laggy, buggy mess, I will never play a game that has the SOE name attached to it.

Not to cast aspersions on your character, but this is the kind of statement that die-hard players make... and then never follow through on.

Comments like this are common at almost any turn in an MMO's life: "I'm cancelling my accounts -- all of them, do you hear me!" "I'm leaving and I'm never coming back!" "I'm cancelling today and telling all my friends to do the same, you scum!" Long-time players say this with almost the passion of a spurned lover, and then come right back for more. They don't cancel their account... just yet. They reconsider. They bluster but then decide they don't want to leave their friends.

I'm not saying this is the case with anyone here -- there's no way to tell how a given individual will act. But on the whole, hard-core players are known to employ histrionics and then silently, sullenly stick around for a few more months. And buy the next upgrade, because maybe they fixed things. This is one reason why such agitated posts on game boards gets little notice by the community keepers: they've heard it all before.

Now, if large numbers of players do leave and new ones don't replace them, the game operator will almost certainly sit up and take notice (unless they're truly in the outer limits of fecklessness). But it's going to take weeks to figure out in this case whether the NGE was overall a good thing for SWG or not -- the passionate opinions of vocal long-time players notwithstanding.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 5:12:49 PM | link

Teala says:

Great article and very well written. I totally agree. It is not that SOE is changing the game, it is how they are going about it that is killing it. You are also right, SWG would have been a really great game if it had Planetside traits. Planetside was a great game.

BTW: 2+ year vet of both PS and SWG here. All access accounts cancelled. SOE screwed me over for the last time as far as I am concerned.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 5:14:41 PM | link

Mike Rozak says:

Brandon Checketts wrote: On a releated note, the price of SWG Credits from IGE and on ebay has dropped by about half since the NGE. Presumabely because of people leaving the game and selling their in-game assets for whatever they can get.

I don't suppose RMT traders have gotten into derivatives and options yet... If so, some would be making a killing, while others would be jumping out of virtual windows.

"Sell all my SWG credits and buy WoW gold!"

Posted Nov 22, 2005 5:32:19 PM | link

yonderboy says:

Is *anyone* who has played SWG in the past year at all remotely surprised? There are still bugs that were known *AT LAUNCH*. That was years ago people. In the first three years there were 14 "publishes." That's a lot. Pub 15 (I believe) was the beginning of the self-mutilation, AKA the "Combat Upgrade."
That was May. And, according to SOE, it had *nothing* to do with a certain movie that also came out in May. Come early September, Publish 22 was rolling out.
That's a heckuva lot of Publishes. Publish 22 was the *final* straw for me. Not only had they halfway turned the game into "Bounty Hunters vs. Jedi" by deleting any usefulness of smugglers, entertainers, medics, docs, and most other classes, but Publish 22 had a grand total of *TWELVE HOURS* of testing.

Yes my friends. They put Pub22 on the test server for twelve hours. Then the next publish in essence turned the "play" button to a "Crash To Desktop" button. We were all *VERY* giddy to experience SWG's first publish-rollback after that. I remember seeing thousands and thousands of posts in the first few hours. I don't remember any of them being "wow, I really like the fact that the game is 100% unplayable... literally"

How can anyone POSSIBLY be surprised by any joy-murdering that SOE is doing? Are you even paying attention?! That's like being surprised by George W. Bush stumbling over his own words when trying to make an off-the-cuff remark. That's like being surprised by Bill Clinton having "sexual relations" with a fugly woman.

Seriously people. Anyone who is surprised in the slightest needs to slap themselves.

A lot.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 6:23:56 PM | link

Endie says:

Mike said:
'I don't suppose RMT traders have gotten into derivatives and options yet... If so, some would be making a killing, while others would be jumping out of virtual windows... "Sell all my SWG credits and buy WoW gold!"'

Actually, what you describe is almost the sort of derivative that I could see happening fairly early on: currency swaps. I imagine it would be most likely, though, between differing shards/servers of the same game.

After that? Hmmm... perhaps futures and then options, given an increasing degree of complexity. Pure derivatives might be useful for someone like IGE to hedge against market movements like those Brandon describes, but who else but them would want the exposure? And if they contracted with players, in what jurisdiction would they enforce?

Someone is bound to correct me, though, and point out where they are already happening... Second Life, I have no doubt ;)

Posted Nov 22, 2005 6:30:06 PM | link

Endie says:

Endie said: "Actually, what you describe is almost the sort of derivative that I could see happening fairly early on: currency swaps."

Correction to self. I remember swaps happening in SWG. There was a cross-server marketplace in holocrons: people would trade x hundred thousand credits on server A (where they had an established character) for holocrons on server B (where they would create a character to use them).

Posted Nov 22, 2005 6:35:54 PM | link

Justin says:

I'd like to at least try to shed some light on the numbers that SOE will not ever share with us, how many subscriptions are being cancelled.

In my guild alone (relatively small guild, 60 members only about 25-30 still active after the first CU) We have had 6 semi-regular players quit the game completly, these players have given ALL of thier posessions to the guild, credits vet rewards ect. That tells me they are not looking back once they go. Of the core members, the founders and the officers of the guild, we have lost 4 players. I have cancelled my 3 accounts, and my girlfriend cancelled her account, (four more right there) and my personal "padawan" a player who has been by my side everyday, someone I've personally walked through the game and provided with everything he needed from the first day (because he was really that cool a guy, and a good candidate, with careful guidance to take over my position as guild leader someday)He's leaving, theres 1 more. When I get home tonight and send out my farewell e-mail, I expect at least 3 more. Those number can't be argued with, they are quite simply FACT.
And when I run around the places that were normally extremely crowded on Ahazi, there are maybe 1/3 still there, there is a small amount of PVP but very little, and it's the same 10 people every night PVP'ing. What I am seeing an awful lot of are players wandering around not knowing what to do next, people just standing around everywhere. This game is hurting, and I don't need SOE to admit it to see it myself.

World of Warcraft for the win. (never thought I'd ever play it, but it makes SWG look silly at this point, way to go blizzard)

With Sony being sued for things like thier "rootkit" spyware fiasco.. I think I'm going to avoid everything they have thier names on from now on.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 6:41:35 PM | link

Matt Mihaly says:

Amberyl wrote:

Of course, it's entirely possible that SOE was overconfident about the revenues (and margins) it could bring in when it bid for the license.

Oh, they were definitely overconfident. I recall Raph predicting they'd be the first to hit a million subscribers.

--matt

Posted Nov 22, 2005 6:50:38 PM | link

Josh says:

Mike Sellers:

It's extremely easy for me to say that I will never play another SOE MMO. All companies are profit seekers, but most of them still try to keep their current customers happy. SOE's decision to shaft their current customers in favor of some possible future customers lets me know exactly how stupid I would be to ever be a "current customer" again. Fool me once..

Posted Nov 22, 2005 6:58:30 PM | link

Nyght says:

A couple of minor points here;

Some up a bit mentioned 20% license fees. Remember that this was probably pitched to LA at least 500k subs. If so, the license was viewed by them as worth over 15 million in annual revenue. Who here thinks they got anything close to what they were expecting?

Part of this can be explained cost side. SWG was the first (only?) to use commercial databases by the reports we had during beta. It appears that they have a significant data reduction and therefore associated costs are reduced.

If you look at SOE recent approach you will see other attempts at cost reductions by development sharing across games and by focusing on small incremental increases in revenue.

Finally, I agree with Hrose that there is really little of a generalize nature to be learn here because implementation does have a huge impact and it is nearly impossible to parse out the design decisions, the market decisions, and the implimentation affects.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 7:03:52 PM | link

Bewildered gamer says:

A thread about the Xbox 360 has been on the forums all day

XBOX 360 version of SWG announced on G4, DEV comment please?

No reply and no deletion.

Another thread right next to with 1 post got locked by a Dev with the comment to keep it in the Main G4 thread
So they are aware of the post.

Conspiracy theorists having a field day

Posted Nov 22, 2005 7:17:00 PM | link

Darniaq says:

Even if the Tinfoil Hat Brigade is right and this is a 360 title, I'd have to question the logic. How could a company gleefully turn away their core monthly subscriber in favor of both a platform that still isn't conducive to MMOG play?

My own view is sort of an amalgamation of everything. They really wanted the same influx of new players both WoW and GW proved are out there, wanted it by Holiday '05, and probably started working on it around the time WoW launched in China.

There's no way to sugar coat how bad of a decision this was though. They should have turned the Battlegrounds back on and tossed these rules into them. Or retrofitted Star Wars trappings atop Planetside and called that SWG 2.0. Or almost anything else that would have allowed their existing revenue to have been maintained with potentially additive results.

As it is, both the long and well-documented history of SWG and the very-not-beloved view most gamers have of SOE will likely ensure whatever SWG loses in subscriptions will not be surpassed by new arrivals. No matter how strong or weak the license is, there's just too many quality games out in all sorts of genres to give such new attention to an old one.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 7:49:39 PM | link

Bewildered gamer says:

Shortly after I posted here A dev replied to the thread


Okay.

I don't know about UFO's and I have never seen one. Ghosts are also iffy and I hope I never meet one if they are around. I have never seen area 51. I believe the government is benevolent for the most part and not conspiracy ridden. I wish there was a Santa Claus and I encourage you each to bring him to life for any children in your life. No Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy or Sandman either that I know of. But I could always be wrong.

I do know, however, that there is no console version of SWG in the works. Believe me or not, your choice but a red name has spoken.
Message Edited by Brenlo on 11-22-2005 04:40 PM


Posted Nov 22, 2005 7:52:12 PM | link

Matt Mihaly says:

Josh wrote:

It's extremely easy for me to say that I will never play another SOE MMO. All companies are profit seekers, but most of them still try to keep their current customers happy. SOE's decision to shaft their current customers in favor of some possible future customers lets me know exactly how stupid I would be to ever be a "current customer" again. Fool me once..

Mike's point, I believe, was that as long-time devs, we've all seen players loudly proclaim they're leaving forever time and time again, only to stick around. Here's the thing: If you spend the time to loudly proclaim you're leaving, you're outraged. Why are you outraged? Because you still care. If you still care, there's some chance (how much depends on the person no doubt) that you're coming back or that once you calm down, you'll be changing your mind.

The players I worry about losing are those who just start visiting less and less until they stop coming at all. They stop caring. That's when you know you've lost them, probably forever.

--matt

Posted Nov 22, 2005 7:56:21 PM | link

Greg R says:

What would it take to convince a Game company that they have pushed the customer to far? In reading this and other sites I have seen a great deal of disdain as far as what players complaining. The company that I work for had a very laissez-faire attitude about customers for a long time and in some ways still does. every year their is a survey about what consumers perceptions of companies are, and every year when the executives get the survey and realize that there is a great deal of Hatred (in a literal sense) of the company marching orders come down to do things that will supposedly improve the corporate image. Of course these get sidetracked in pursuit of better quarterly metrics every year but still it is a recognized problem. In reading some comments about gamer's whine and whine but don't actually do anything I see the same attitude that gets organizations the same type of reputation that is currently enjoyed by Microsoft and AOL. In an industry that is (possibly) more susceptible to competition from smaller but well perceived companies.

I find this especially intriguing in regard to the way SOE is handling this change in SWG. They pushed these changes live and have yet to acknowledge with a single post in their own forums the concerns of 1/9 the classes (trader). Some objects in the game where significantly reduced in value and that has been acknowledged only in an off hand manner, while others where simply deleted and not acknowledged at all. Bugs have been pushed GM that should have stopped Beta. And to top it all off you have the president of the company spinning the situation in a manner that most of the customers take as a figurative slap in the face.

So is this an experiment in changing a live game or in how far Customers can be pushed?

Posted Nov 22, 2005 8:46:56 PM | link

Brian J says:

One interesting issue that I believe deserves some discussion is player's ownership of virtual property. Many players lost a substantial amount of virtual property in a persistent world due to an update that was suddenly implemented. The amount of time and money that this lost property represents is often significant from a gamer's point of view. Recall the case of Qiu Chengwei who committed murder over a particularly valuable virtual item was stolen http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8143073/. An extreme and inexcusable response but an example of the passion that the investment of many, many hours of one's life. In the case of SWG, hundreds of hours for some things.

The operating costs of maintaining a persistent virtual world and the items therein are the reason customers pay a subscription fee. If a player was unable to access his or her own character consistently, yet was charged a monthly fee to play, it is highly unlikely that such a game would succeed. I think we all can agree that a customer's financial investment in a MMO is predicated on maintaining access to his or her assets in the virtual world (character levels and items).

In the case of SWG, customers are no longer able to access their virtual assets because they have been deleted. Does this represent a breech in the perhaps unwritten contract that a player can access their character's assets as long as they subscribe? I think it does and I am interested in hearing other people's opinions on this.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 9:52:19 PM | link

Brian W says:

I personally liked the concept of swg from start till its recent well lets be honest demise. Even without alot of story driven content there was a vastness of things to do in the game. Be it running a crafting empire to being a lone gunmen, and the game always rewarded dedication to an extent. Where the game initially failed was a simple lack of refinement which just exacerbated over time. The developement team often overshot the mark with tweaking over powered underpowered and underutilized professions. In other words fixing one thing broke another. Even with this people still clung in there.

The NGE sadly is the exact opposite of SWG. Its a fps not a mmorpg or atleast thats the closest incarnation. Where there was literally thousands of profession combinations there are nine. Instead of a free enviroment of get there as you see fit you are required to quest. Crafting is totally irrelevant, and the fact that you cannot both craft and combat only hurts things not help. There are too many other ludicrous issues to discuss bad UI, bad combat engine, still no resolution to pvp issues, or even lack of sufficent dungeons.

My oppinion is that SOE/LA whoever is in charge actually thinks the license will do the trick for them. When they should know better at this point. They also cannot deny that they have lost atleast 3 out of 4 players. Those 3 players now demanding the original system not the CU. I have never seen such backwards thinking in anything in my life. The combat system needs work they make a space expansion. The combat needs work well we need vehicles.

The only relevant idea is that this new system is not a PC system at all but a testbed for a console version. After which the PC version will be phased out.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 10:34:42 PM | link

Mike Sellers says:

So is this an experiment in changing a live game or in how far Customers can be pushed?

I think the answer to that is "yes."

Brian J wrote: One interesting issue that I believe deserves some discussion is player's ownership of virtual property.

Setting aside issues of customer goodwill (on which a service like MMOGs ultimately depend), this discussion is quick and easy: players own nothing inside a game (yes, SL aside, but there are other issues there). Despite how it feels to you as a player, you do not 'invest' in a world; you pay for access to the world. The realization of these facts comes when a game company changes things radically (nerfing a class or item, or changing the gameplay at a larger scale) and is part of what causes the upset we're seeing here: players tacitly come to see their character and items as theirs when in fact they own nothing. The dissonance between those realities causes a lot of discomfort.

Brian W said [SOE] cannot deny that they have lost atleast 3 out of 4 players.

Do you have data to back that up, or is this from your anecdotal experience? Let's not rush headlong here. Wait for the dust to settle. It's possible SWG has lost a significant portion of its playerbase... or not. It's even possible they come out ahead after all is said and done. I doubt it personally, but it's possible.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 11:15:03 PM | link

Darniaq says:

This I believe is probably going to be the biggest test of that Mike. Yea, players don't own nuthin. However, wasn't it in Singapore where a game crashed, a player lost some stuff, and the government ruled in favor of the company reimbursing the player?

Not saying that could happen here. But given the collective loss of property and goods due to these changes, I wonder if someone will try.

Posted Nov 22, 2005 11:21:02 PM | link

Mike Rozak says:

Some grad student could probably write an interesting paper or two on this:

- Social effects of radically changing a VW.

- Effects of the collapse of a virtual world's currency.

Posted Nov 23, 2005 12:11:03 AM | link

magicback (Frank) says:

Interesting comments so far. Here’s more of my own personal opinion.

The title of this thread, "Order 66" is very apt.

It's one "fraction" within the SOE/LA alliance taking over another "fraction" with the implied approval of the leaders of SOE/LA alliance. I would not be surprise if LA have a preemptive “Order 66” clause in the contract.

Now, I believe the vision for a faster-paced, cinematic version of SWG is in keeping with current market trends, but similar to the reception of the new King Kong game this dramatic change could be a bit ahead of the market and will take some painful adjustment.

Obvious, the launch is definitely ahead of product readiness. And I think we can all conclude that the execution was worthy of conspiracy theories. Plausible deniability abounds and the CS, PR and community managers were probably the last to know. Perhaps a whole department of designer, developers and QA had no clue whatsoever either.

And I think everyone realize that CS staff are underappreciated and expendable corporate pawns whose roles would be outsourced at an instant if it made corporate sense. Designer and developers are under threat that the company they work for could “contract” out their roles too, so I think we gotta start talking about the company directors and the marketing team.

So, for fueling the flames of conspiracy theories, what are the chances that LA is making a Order 66 takeover of the SWG live team?

Anyone, anyone?

Posted Nov 23, 2005 12:13:04 AM | link

Repub Arnaz says:

Just got to drop in a comment on an interesting meme going around the galaxy forums I've not seen in any other "reaction phase" to disturbing changes, nerfs, or publishes filled with bugs.

In a lot of the galaxies, the players are organizing a mass graveyard, filled with memorials to themselves.

They're making player cemeteries. And they seem quite popular.

I believe this is significant, in as such in all the "protests" and what the industry fellows above sniffingly call "whining" this reaction has never taken place before.

It's an unusual thing for me to watch. It's like seeing ancient Egyptians suddenly get the idea, "Say, it'd be neat to make a big pile of rocks for when I die."

I think it also is significant as it is a real expression of loss, grief, and ending. It's much more important than the daily server counts of people at starports. It is instead a more human reaction to a sense of finality.

Posted Nov 23, 2005 2:40:35 AM | link

Abalieno says:

Oh, they were definitely overconfident.

I don't think so. They were rightfully confident but the game jusrt didn't "click".

The hopes were well put. The results not.

Posted Nov 23, 2005 2:48:53 AM | link

Webrunner says:

Well, my wife and I would fall under the blog definition of "devotee to a virtual world". We both enjoyed the more mundane elements of SWG that the freedom and abillity to customize our play experience SWG gave us. Since the NGE, I have never seen her so disappointed in something we did for entertainment and fun.

My wife and I have played practically every MMO in the last 10 years, and we always stayed with SWG, despite the problems it has historically had. Not because we are Star Wars fanatics, or fanbois...but because we loved this virtual world sandbox.

The NGE stripped this away after 2 years live. Jeff Hickmans Austin Conference blog made a very valid point..."Players come to our game because of what we put in there. We come out, we make a system change to our games--and what does it do? It alienates our players,”

This is whats occurring with SWG now. This is a bold and radical change SOE/LA is attempting with a 2yr Live game. Its pitfall, in my opinion and I agree with Timothy Burke on this, is the poor implementation of it.

This is no longer the game that so many subscribers purchased...its completely different in every aspect. This is not only a radical change...but never before attempted in a live MMO.

I agree the game needed some changes. Any persistant virtual world needs changes to keep them persistant and interesting after all. However so many radical changes to fundamental game aspects, such as the user interface on top of combat changes and the marginalization and elimination of professions, nullifying 2 years time investments of its subscribers is a "gamble" at best...and is nothing more than slamming a door in the current subscribers faces. Doing this change so quickly and in a poorly implemented manner, full of bugs and in some aspects unplayable is what will be its downfall. Not to mention the public relations fiasco this has spawned.

If this gamble fails...what effect does it have on the question of whether or not "changes can be made on a live game"? Can this NGE scenario even be considered a test case for such a question? Surely not, only due to the poor implementation of this change. If it fails, will it be due to the changes themselves? Or due to the fact that it was pushed live with so many bugs, aggravating UI, and with a seemingly disregard to its current subscribers?

The SWG galaxy was my and my wife's sandbox. We made sandcastles there to entertain ourselves and we felt we got value for our entertainment dollars. Now, our sandcastles have not been merely stepepd on by SOE/LA....but our sandbox was tipped over. How long does a game have to be "in live" before a player can safely have a sense of ownership in that game? and what happens to the virtual world when that sense of pride and ownership is marginallzed? Pulling the plug on the game would have been more humane imo.

I enjoyed the original blog and the following discussion. It summarizes much of what my wife and I discussed this past week. These changes to SWG are both interesting and frightful at the same time. I'm curious as to how it will turn out...though we will be watching from the sidelines ...cause we didn't buy a ticket for this ride (canceled accounts of course) Now I'm trying to get my wife to decorate my cottage in DAOC...but she says it just isn't the same (/wink Scott)

Posted Nov 23, 2005 4:41:21 AM | link

Mike Sellers says:

(Just in case there are any left still reading this who like me didn't get the reference to this item's title right off, it refers to an order that "declared the Jedi enemies of the Republic and called for their immediate elimination." Here's a link to its entry (!) in Wikipedia. The key line, said by Palpatine in Episode III (missed perhaps while you were thinking about a good movie) is "Commander Cody, the time has come. Execute Order 66."

There's no word on Wikipedia how the Emperor reacted to the uproar that ensued on message boards across the galaxy after this order became public knowledge.)

Posted Nov 23, 2005 8:56:55 AM | link

Franek says:

Monetizing Meaning

Any entertainment franchise trades on meaning – the connection between their franchise property and the lives of their customers. When the property enables personal involvement, or where that involvement arises spontaneously, the meaning of the property to the customer is heightened. We see this connection between customer commitment and meaning in a variety of areas: sports, movies and video games. People don’t have to like the property for it to be meaningful.

Entertainment is elective – the customers choose to give themselves to it. So beyond the meaning that comes from the involvement, there is the emotional commitment that comes from applying a scarce resource – free time – to the endeavor. In the heart of the customer there is an emotional connection between their definition of self and the franchise.

In our current ethos we can not own people. We can’t keep them from leaving us no matter how involved we are with them. But if they become a part of our lives we feel betrayed when they leave. If the breakup is severe enough, we never have anything to do with them again. If the breakup is pathological, we try do damage them or ourselves.

We see similar patterns with sports, movies and video games. And the dark side of successfully forming a community is that the community carries human emotional weight as well as more straight forward “entertainment” value. The customer didn’t just have fun leveling – he sat around and bragged about it with his friends, got their help doing it, and decorated his in-game house with the spoils. The achievement had meaning at multiple levels.

So in a perverted sort of way SWG/LA has succeeded in creating meaning for its current customers while – if our analysis so far is correct – failing to meet it’s corporate profitability goals with the franchise.

Could they have done better if they had been guided by a $/meaning metric -- if they had maximized the creation of meaning and then priced each “unit” of meaning as high as possible? What might those units have looked like?

One way to measure meaning: ask. Each player, at login, answers the question “how important is SWG to you? 1=not very, 5=can’t live without it.” Take that and multiply it by the number of hours that person plays in some time period and you have the “meaning metric”.

Another way to measure meaning: observation. If meaning comes from interaction what are the measures of interaction? Count the number of other players contacted per time period, the number of hours played per time period and the number of optional items accumulated per time period. Weight the numbers and get a meaning metric.

With those metrics see if you are increasing meaning for your players or decreasing it. Compare what players do to the level of meaning the game has for them. Classify the demographics of players to meaning broken out by player activity patterns. Tune your game on that basis. Tie your pricing to meaning – you may be able to charge much more for game that are very meaningful and thus support a smaller population profitably.

Posted Nov 23, 2005 9:50:37 AM | link

Jason John says:

One of the things that I have found fascinating during the past several months of playing this game is the economy of the game itself. Not just the economy within the game itself (although my "play" sessions have come to involve this more and more) but also the economy that surrounds the game.
From credit resellers to galaxy (server) trade forums and even cross galaxy (server) credit and service trades, I have become more and more interested in how this economy functions and both reflects and deviates from real life economies.
And while this "NGE" has already had a huge and interesting impact on this player created economy, it is the "meta-"economic impact that I have found to be most interesting.
In particular, it has been interesting to watch as a company that is so involved in creating a social product has completely ignored or missed the deep seated social conditioning of its customer base.
I am of course referring the social conditioning of consumers whom are a part of the American style capitalist culture.
Members of that culture (and I would venture to say that most if not all of the people reading this are members of that culture, however willing) have been deeply conditioned to "know", beyond a shadow of a doubt, that "more is better."
In order for American style capitalism to succeed, the vast majority of its participants *must* believe this, at the deepest and programmed level. Quality holds some level of importance to us, but it already counts for significantly less than it might once have, and the modern pervasive marketing machine consistently convinces the consumer that quality is worth less and less.
So, back to what this has to do with SOE and the NGE. Basically, the introduction of the NGE was at the very least marketed as an attempt to increase "the quality of the gaming experience" at the cost of the "overwhelming" quantity that had previously existed.
This has caused a great ruckus which most anthropologists would have easily foreseen. In our culture, quantity *always* holds precedence over quality. This is perhaps particularly true when that quality has not yet proven to be visible, while the decrease in quantity has been incredibly visible.
This, I suspect, is the true failure of the NGE.

Posted Nov 23, 2005 12:35:04 PM | link

AgentDib says:

Matt -

I definitely will agree with your position in as much as it is relevant in the majority of situations where MMO's alienate consumers. However, I don't think your conclusion is logical in this case. NGE is NOT SWG and doesn't even carry over most of the same items.

Droves and droves of veterans are leaving SWG permananently - giving away everything they own, deleting any lot structures, disbanding guilds and uninstalling the game. When you are talking about players who had sizeable assets (equiv 1000+ gold in WOW) this step is usually fairly permanent. I know hundreds of players who have come back to equipped characters, but very few who have ever returned to a stripped one. The difference is the NGE.

If you incinerate a favorite Widget of mine with a flamethrower I will care about this very much, and I will no doubt loudly protest your action in whatever medium I can. However, You can't simply project that I will then I buy a completely different Gadget from you just because you put the sticker "Widget" on it. My passion was strictly for the original widget. My "characters" in NGE bore absolutely no resemblence to my characters in original SWG.

Posted Nov 23, 2005 1:03:13 PM | link

Dan S says:

I've been holding onto my SWG accounts (4) hoping something would change to convince me to play again. The opposite has occurred with this change. What attracted me were, as with many here, the virtual world aspects (especially what appeared to be a very interesting economic/crafting system that was mostly driven by players, and the meaningfulness of entertainers). I watched those erode. This most recent change makes it clear they are gone. Two accounts cancelled. The other two are Station Access accounts since I am playing EQ2 (and was an EQ player prior to SWG) and the process of trying to remove SWG and revert to EQ2 only is not mechanically intuitive (I can't even change my billing information obviously using the site!). I may try to one-at-a-time cancel Station Access and remain registered for EQ2 only as a statement of displeasure to SOE. I expect doing so will result in temporary difficulties with my EQ2 accounts, based on experiences of others in dealing with similar shifts.

EQ2 isn't terribly satisfying, but so far it satisfies sufficiently to keep me playing. This whole situation has made me seriously consider aiming to leave SOE-run games permanently. I tinker in WoW (I think I might prefer the combat there to EQ2), but the crafting systems there are (to me) seriously flawed and underdeveloped. EQ2 is slightly better. But if SWG is any indication, I cannot count on EQ2's shifts extending to gutting the crafting too. Already the great work put in by serious crafters is being depreciated by patches to make the process easier, crafting levels easier to achieve, and resources once rare and precious almost common. Smacks of a trend: hardcore gamers need not apply; dilettantes only.

I have brought along a small community (of 3). I do feel responsible to them, so I won't willy-nilly move. I will probably begin investigating other options again. I won't say I will never play another SOE game. I am too interested in developments in game systems to think I could resist. I will, however, factor it my experiences with EQ/SWG/EQ2 in deciding how much time I am willing to commit to living in a new game (hopefully a virtual world again).

I do feel sweeping changes to ongoing games IS a betrayal of me as customer. I prefer the general model of EQ/EQ2 to trying to make a shift of the degree SWG has. Small incremental change is fine in principle, but if the realization comes one day that the game at point J is not at all what it was at point A, and I cannot say that it is substantially equivalent in fun (ever if the type of fun has shifted), I must leave.

I recognise that SOE has every legal right to make these sorts of changes. However, I think an argument can be made without expending much perspiration that it is unethical to do so in the manner in which SOE has.

This piled atop the recent rootkit revelations about Sony have resulted in placing it on the "buy with caution" list. Where I have any option, I will go to their competition for products. I will also press those who depend on me for advice to do likewise. It's purely caution. We HAVE now been fooled more than once.

I think I'll look into the smaller games again...

Posted Nov 23, 2005 1:30:18 PM | link

Shaggz1297 says:

I wont say much, but they did a horrible thing with the NGE. I have personally feeled wronged. They perposlly waited till 2 days after the expansion to let the info be released. Its not as much in the change(but it is) as in their secrecy around it. We had found the "Starter Kit" on game sites, and was repeatedly told (Before Nov 3) that it was a false listing and will be deleted, when in fact it was just an early warning.
And with not that many people cancliong, Ive seen friends with 2,3, 5 and even two people with 10!!! paying accounts quit, including myself. They took a great game, ruined it once, got it going better again, and then dropped a nuke inside it.
After what they have done, I will never buy another SOE product again. They dont care about their customers, only their next profit mark.

Posted Nov 23, 2005 2:15:38 PM | link

Brian J says:

Mike Sellers wrote: "this discussion is quick and easy: players own nothing inside a game (yes, SL aside, but there are other issues there)."

According to this viewpoint, the veteran players of SWG lost nothing when the items attached to their account were deleted because they can still access the game. Essentially a subscription to an MMO is like the subscription you pay to your ISP for Internet access. The concept of a virtual world implies much more than the ability to connect to the game server and start over with each new connection, with nothing persisted from the last. I think it is rather smug to imply otherwise.

For those who emphasize that players merely pay for a connection to an MMO, how do you respond to concepts like Sony's Station Exchange? http://stationexchange.station.sony.com/

SOE states that players buy and sell the right to use in game assets such as coins, items and characters. This means that the player owns the right to use the in game assets connected to their paid subscription, not simply the right to connect to the game.

Sony states that the exchange is a service to allow players to securely participate in the secondary market of virtual assets and they charge a transaction fee. The buyer pays money to Sony, Sony pays money to the seller, less the transaction fee. If Sony was to delete said item as they did with many things in NGE, there could be legal ramifications because the buyer purchased the right to use that item from Sony.

Depending on the success of the Station Exchange, which is affected by transaction fee price point and a certain degree of consumer confidence, other companies may follow. Whether others adopt this strategy or not, I believe it is a precedent that acknowledges that players own the right to their virtual assets as long as they subscribe. That right has been bought and sold on eBay for years.

Posted Nov 23, 2005 3:35:21 PM | link

says:

Wow, you folk sure use a lot of words, eh? ;)

I'll come clean here, I'm one of those 'outsiders', not an industry professional or (currently) somebody with an academic interest in virtual worlds. Just a gamer, a customer and a fan.

I came to SWG way back when I was looking at the development of interpersonal relationships in the online community in general and got sort of 'stuck' with the game.

So am going to put my neck on the line here and say that I think the NGE had great potential but that the way it was implemented created such a huge groundswell of, first, confusion then frustration leading into aggression that it has, almost inevetably led to a crystalisation of many gamers frustrations at 'all the things that are wrong with SWG' into a motivation for them to finally get out of the comfort zone and go do something else.

On the Bria server, one of the heavier loaded, I maintained a list of around 250 jedi who my character occasionally offered various services to. Out of that 250, on a typical weekday, I'd expect to see 60 to 100 online.

On the day that NGE went Live it wasn't a great surprise to see maybe 200 of them appear online for at least a little while. Come on, we were ALL curious to see what was inthe new package.

Since then? Most I've seen at one time is ten.

Another profession group that i was interested in has gone from the game entirely and a growing number of the players who were rangers are, after giving the NGE a chance, making their final farewells and heading off to other games.

What is interesting is that many of them are saying that the NGE changes in themselves were not 'terrible' but it's the 'sudden' implementation, the launching (yet again) of seriously undertested code and a shocking attitude from the red names that has finally made them take the decision to go.

From an academic PoV this is fascinating, but as a SWG gamer it's awful.

To make a change like this, when from previous experience they must have known there would be a negative reaction, it would have served SOE better had they gone out of their way to win over as many hearts and minds first, convince the player base that change was necessary and that this change would be good... Instead they chose the approach of issuing a diktat and retreating to the "Like it or Lump It" bunker.

Posted Nov 23, 2005 5:08:23 PM | link

Timothy Burke says:

This, I think, is the most crucial point, and why some of us hammer (in admittedly negative and invective-filled terms) on implementation as the keystone issue.

MMOG (or virtual) communities are emergent systems in many respects: the initial condition of any given interaction with them quickly hardens into a crystalline complexity that shapes all future interactions. I continue to think that a live management team that was resolutely honest and that spent the time necessary to implement important changes (not just technical time, but social time) would reap some important benefits. Not just in revenue, but in lower general levels of anxiety and aggression. Surely that alone is worth it, given what Scott and others have said about the psychological toll of being on the receiving end of player fury. Think of it as a corporate wellness program, if nothing else.

Posted Nov 23, 2005 7:13:58 PM | link

Mike Sellers says:

Timothy: I continue to think that a live management team that was resolutely honest and that spent the time necessary to implement important changes (not just technical time, but social time) would reap some important benefits.

You may well be right. This seems to be the case with some of the smaller but popular games -- e.g., Puzzle Pirates. Unfortunately no one has yet figured out how to make this scale to hundreds of thousands of players.

The 'social time' issue is especially thorny: if the dev team spends time with the players, a sense of entitlement on the part of the players quickly grows (which almost inevitably curdles: "you guys never listen to us anymore! Why didn't you use my kewl idea!?") accompanied by a sense of rock-star celebrity on the part of the devs that's never good for actual development.

Keeping up a sense of contact between the devs and the players without ultimately harming the relationship (and the game) is as yet an unsolved problem in large-scale games.

Posted Nov 23, 2005 7:35:30 PM | link

Darniaq says:

Keeping up a sense of contact between the devs and the players without ultimately harming the relationship (and the game) is as yet an unsolved problem in large-scale games.
Yet the sheer suddenness of the NGE seems to bely any attempt at even trying, in a rather extreme sense. They have had to have been working on this for months, even if they assumed a critical mass of post-patch subscription-holding Alpha testers. This sort of wonton breech of player trust really calls into question their business ethics. It's a conspirators cornucopia too, making folks wonder if there's a secret separate Sith-like live team that worked on this (in the Far East or the Subcontinent, since that'd fit with their worldview) while the current obvious live team was just a wall of apologists. Given their usual practice at carefully-measured statements, I wouldn't be surprised if some at SOE were as surprised as the players themselves.
"declared the Jedi enemies of the Republic and called for their immediate elimination."
It's even deeper than that :) The results of Order 66 are based on the "installation" of that code at the time the Clones were first created, presumably encoded sometime in the 10 year period prior to Obi-Wan discovering they were "ordered" by "Sifo Dious".

Which just gets conspirators heads spinning! Imagine the Order for the NGE going out to some s00per s3kret Area 51 lab about a year ago, only to have it executed mere weeks ago, all while the Republic (pick a team) went on blithely trying to figure out what the current players wanted.

In any case, this single event rivals the EA/Counselor program issues in UO from so long ago. Some marketers think people talking about their products is always a good thing. There are wrong ways to raise awareness though.

I have no idea how many people will truly quit, nor who'll come after them. I would like to hear from folks who actually hit the 'Delete' button on their Character screens though.

Posted Nov 23, 2005 10:14:33 PM | link

SandozNaritus says:

Here's what I am curious about. The SWG team has been screwing the game up since launch. Everything about their development process has always seemed broken to me. Then you have EQ2, which started out pretty screwy, but with a heap of WoWifications they've managed to make the game pretty fun again.

So... Has the SOE side of the team just not been up to snuff? Or has the relationship between the SOE team and LA team been about as healthy as the relationship they now have with their subscribers?

The conspiracy theory I came up with almost two years ago was that SOE was trying to run SWG into the ground so they could just get out of business with Lucasarts. It doesn't make any financial sense, but that is the feeling I was getting watching the game fall apart under the weight of Jedi. Perhaps the reason I was feeling that was because SOE and LA teams were infighting.

It just seems that Sony is able to deal with their Everquest community in a much healthier way. Perhaps it's because they have to. There isn't a promised goldmine of 15,000,000 hardcore EQ fans just waiting to buy the game. However, there are at least that many Star Wars geeks in the world.

...

Someone put it best earlier: "This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion"


Posted Nov 24, 2005 1:50:17 AM | link

Erillion says:

>>>>
SOE better had they gone out of their way to win over as many hearts and minds first
>>>>

I cant shake the feeling that Sony and Lucasarts follow another famous political/military quote from the 70ies .. "Grab em by the balls ... their hearts and minds will follow".

Have fun

Erillion

Posted Nov 24, 2005 5:31:33 AM | link

Alexa G says:

I've been reading for hours now, and first I need to say "wow... while I do not agree with some of you and my immediate instinct is to lash out and feel insulted by some of the sentiments expressed here, these comments have been made in all seriousness and with great thought. Thank you for sharing."

I'm reading all of this as an ex-subscriber of SW:G (a point of reference for anyone who cares) and a veteran of the MMORPG gaming community. I have also been a service professional in ISP and online support for over a decade, though I am no developer. I think these are all important points to remember while reading my comments, as they may cast some light on why I feel the way I do and why I say what I'm going to say.

I very much view this last half year of SOE's handling of the SW:G community in the same light that I'd view an abusive real life relationship. The lion's share of this game's hardcore veteran community have formed very deep and very real emotional ties not only with others playing the game, but to the game and the world within the game as well. SOE's customer facing employees have been on the verge of brutal in their dealings with these people. Yet many have stayed, or worse yet managed to leave, then returned, knowing that nothing had changed on that front, even if the game itself had been drasticly changed. So in a very real sense, the hardcore subscribers ARE in the throes of a very unhealthy and abusive relationship. It doesn't speak well for the emotional health of the subscribers, but it also speaks negative volumes about this company's lack of commitment to its customers.

I am one of the lucky ones. I was not a player for over a year and I had not made such a deep emotional investment in the game that I could not come to my senses and look at it from a rational point of view and cancel. Erillion can attest to the fact that the game as it stood before the CURB was engaging enough to subsume my normal good sense and I DID come back for more abuse. He can also bear out that I was not at all satisfied with the alterations to gameplay that the CURB introduced without fixing the glaring problems the pre-CURB game had. However, when the new NGE was introduced, I could see the writing on the wall. It only took one session under the new system to convince me that I couldn't continue to pay for a product I no longer enjoyed and never signed up for. The fact that the new combat system was actually physically uncomfortable for me isn't really relevant (I am one of the motion-sick, and to make it worse, the new play made my mouse-hand HURT after only a few minutes play), but should still be considered, as I'm NOT physically impaired. The reason this should even be mentioned is that these complaints were introduced to the development team in test and ignored, as many real problems have apparently always been ignored. This makes one question why they bother to involve the playing public in testing at all. It also begs the question of why they bother even paying lipservice to their self-created test process. If you look at it from a consumer's point of view, you'll see that a consistant discrepancy between what a company states is policy and actual company practice is rarely if ever good for the company in question, as it erodes that company's credibility in the marketplace.

Personally, I don't believe that an MMO devteam should hand over the reins of creative control to its playerbase. That way lies ruin, because most of us can't agree on anything and we all have different wants, needs and goals, most of which are not constructive to the game as a living and growing structure. You can't please everyone all of the time and you HAVE to accept that. However, if you are going to do more than vaguely insinuate that a playerbase's input has some effect on the direction a game is going to grow, you need to live up to that to a certain extent, in a rational and controlled fashion. SOE has never done this with SW:G.

The flight pattern of this game's development appears, from the outside, to be a long, gruelling exercise in over-reaction on the part of both the game producers and the playing community. There seems very little of any rational, educated forward planning to it at all. There seems to be even less of honest effort at quality control. It simply looks like a virtual pinball game to be honest, with changes being introduced monthly in response to poor reception of the last mistake without much thought to what ramifications any of these changes and reactions will have on the game OR its players. This is no way to run an MMO OR a business. It's certainly not what I expected from a corporate giant like Sony.

I understand that many of you seek to look at this as a learning experience on both what effects making large changes to a longstanding live MMO will have AND the commercial viability of more involved, more complex and deep virtual worlds... but I fear all this example will show is the effects of poor planning and worse customer relations on the market in general and a single MMO in particular.

I've seen games come and go, and I've watched communities evolve and migrate over the years, starting with UO and I find the phenomena fascinating for many reasons. I have never seen ANYTHING like SW:G in all my time gaming. It is both the absolute best and absolute worst I have ever experienced. I've never looked at a game company with as much honest puzzlement and disgust as I now look at SOE -- both as a consumer/gamer and as a professional who has had to deal with the customer as part of my daily duties. Yet I have never seen a game that had so much untapped potential and sheer addictive power as the classic iteration of SW:G -- bugs, flaws, poor management and all. The entire thing is perplexing.

But in the long run, you can only batter your partner for so long before she either leaves you and tells everyone she knows what you've done -- or she dies. Either way, if SOE continues on its current path, the end result will be identicle to that of the longterm abusive relationship. The company will find itself alone, having lost its existing customers and hoping that a new customerbase that hasn't ever heard about their handling of the game moves into the neighborhood to replace the one it destroyed.

The bottom line isn't pie charts and powerpoint presentations, it's the simple equation of customer satisfaction = profit. And SOE shows not even a basic understanding of how to maintain customer satisfaction with a no-lose goldmine franchise. The rest has no relevance whatsoever if you're really interested in drawing any conclusions or lessons on the future of MMOs from Star Wars: Galaxies.

Posted Nov 24, 2005 7:26:09 AM | link

Lydia Leong (Amberyl) says:


Timothy: I continue to think that a live management team that was resolutely honest and that spent the time necessary to implement important changes (not just technical time, but social time) would reap some important benefits.

Mike: Unfortunately no one has yet figured out how to make this scale to hundreds of thousands of players.

Except that community management is not a problem unique to virtual worlds. It's just that a higher percentage of MMOG customers participate in public online discussions than they do for most products in the rest of the world. It's a key problem in CRM and e-Marketing right now, as well as a key extension of the role of PR.

People in this discussion seem to have made the mistake of thinking that live team communication is about having developers talk to players directly. It's not. Community management is about trying to ensure that players *don't* need to talk to developers directly, but that nonetheless information flows appropriately in both directions, and players feel satisfied and listened to, and the game improves as a result of customer input. There will be times when this does involve some degree of direct communication, particularly between key live team leadership and influential players, but this should be limited as well as focused.

There is a vast body of business practice around handling one's customers. Internet communities have introduced some new complications to manage, certainly, but they are not some impossible hairball, and a considerable number of companies do excellent jobs at managing theirs. The fact that most MMOGs don't do a good job of handling their communities should be viewed as a failure of their management teams, and not as an inherently unsolvable problem.

Posted Nov 24, 2005 8:14:51 AM | link

Erillion says:

>>>
It doesn't speak well for the emotional health of the subscribers
>>>

You have to understand this. People that left SWG and came back ... did so because of the community, NOT because the game improved. They came back DESPITE the buggy game.

That was also the reason IMHO why the Combat Upgrade did not have such a large impact on subscriber numbers - people left and came back, because they missed their friends. But with the NGE its different - now people are burning the bridges behind them (read : character deletion, not only subscription cancellation). They wont come back THIS time. Because THIS time, most of their friends left too. There is less reason/motivation to come back.

Have fun

Erillion

Posted Nov 24, 2005 9:42:16 AM | link

Zygwen says:

I see SGW as a two headed giant where the two heads can't agree on which direction to go and thus goes no where fast. On one side we have SoE with their Massive Online Experience and on the other we have Lucasarts with full control over the lisence. This fight has been going on ever since Raph Koster initial design was turned upside down and inside out before the initial release. The Trials of Obi-wan vs NGE is just the lastest round of communication breakdown.

I think their original plan was for SoE to do the initial development and slowly transfer the live team over to Lucasarts. It is quite possible that they are currently in an inbetween state where SoE has one live team that developed Trials of Obi-wan while Lucasarts has a second live team that worked on NGE. Both sides are oblivious of the fact that the other side is near completion of their project thus resulting in the current mess where Trials of Obi-wan gets clobbered a day after launch.

I find it interesting that most of the blame is put on SoEs shoulders and not Lucasarts. And yet the producers notes where NGE is announced comes Julio Torres a producer from Lucasarts that has a long line of Lucasarts titles on his CV.

Posted Nov 24, 2005 4:23:01 PM | link

Alexa G says:

I think there's something to what Zygwen is saying about the conflicts caused by two large project teams in two companies causing so much confusion. I also think that people DO tend to hold LA blameless and pummel SOE more often than not, which IS unfair, as it took both companies to ruin a good thing through their inability to communicate and coordinate.

However, the fault for much of the playerbase animosity DOES lie on SOE's doorstep, as that is the company running most of the interaction between the game team and the playing customer base. A lot of the problem lies in perceptions and expectations. The customer base is accustomed to recieving some attention, if not satisfaction from an online game provider, not only in the form of ingame customer support, but on forums and via email.

Other game companies, such as FunCom (producer of Anarchy Online) handle this in a satisfactory manner, and while they often fail to resolve the customer's actual problems, their customer facing employees and volunteers DO respond and give the customer the sense that they ARE listening and sincerely desire to rectify a given problem, even if they are unable to do so -- which is enough to mollify the customer and leaves him feeling satisfied or at the very least not hostile.

SOE lacks this quality of customer relations to the point that in an industry where poor customer service is the norm, and thereby accepted by the average customer, they have a bad, bad reputation for it, even among those who have never played one of their titles. Nowhere is this reputation more pronounced than in the SW:G title. I walked into the game with low expectations and was frankly surprised at how much they lived up to their bad rep. I honestly didn't believe that a company with such poor communications and relations skills faced towards their consumer base could survive long enough to have as many longrunning, successful titles as SOE currently owns.

Granted, the Star Wars franchise IS a very difficult one to break in terms of what a customer is willing to put up with (bugs, playbility, customer service, etc), but it sometimes seems as if the company IS trying to test how far they can go in terms of lack of quality in its programming and lack of satisfactory customer support. This is actually slightly alarming when you understand that other game companies ARE watching and that should SOE recover from the mess they are currently experiencing and the SW:G NGE title actually succeed and bounce back where the prior versions had failed, other companies will conclude that they can reduce or do away with both customer service and quality control. In an industry that trades in virtual property, which is inherently ephemoral, this would be very bad news for the consumer, as the game is not about fun to the producers, it's about money. Doing away with proper development practices, letting test cycles become quick and dirty, and cutting back on customer service is cheaper than the more desirable (from a customer's standpoint) current standards.

I know how jaded and cynical this sounds, but I am also very practical. I can and do see both sides of the deal. It's a very delicate balance, much like crafting the games themselves. It distresses me and disappoints me to a certain extent to see the direction of the discussion here, as it leads me to believe that many in game development are not in touch with the actual gaming communities, though it on further consideration isn't all that surprising, as it's a very human thing to forget it isn't "all about me". We all have a tendency to overinflate our sense of importance and relevance, and while game developers ARE an integral part of the equation (there would BE no games without you) and while development on SW:G IS a critial part of the issues that are causing such a stir among gaming circles, you are NOT the instrumental point of failure here. That lies very firmly in the laps of this division's management, customer service and marketing teams. Think about it. SW:G's subscribers are among the most tolerant and resilient of MMO communities. They have endured YEARS of a game that has frankly never progressed beyond open beta quality at its highest points and has seen times where large portions of the game shouldn't have even been in closed beta -- and they have beyond all reason stuck with the title, learning to love it (faults and all) where other titles would have folded quickly. What is actually injuring this game so badly is SOE's inability to keep faith with their customers and provide any form of stability. I cannot and have not placed the fault for this with its developers, though it is and can be very tempting to do so.

Now, about deep and sophisticated virtual worlds... there IS a market for this, I can assure you. There is a breed of gamer that craves far more than a simple kill-and-loot MMO, and SW:G was a leap forward from the traditional monty haul D&D knockoff that proliferates the market. Games like the Sims can't attract and keep this breed, because we aren't satisfied with simple Sims-based games -- we crave a hybrid game like SW:G that (no longer) gives elements of the action-adventure, PvP and social interaction/roleplay support. I don't believe that this is too big a bite for a game producer to pull off, though SW:G's initial approach certainly was, given SOE's resources and technology at the time of initial game release.

Posted Nov 24, 2005 5:31:49 PM | link

JP says:

Before SWG came out I eagerly awaited the release date. I decided to wait a month or two for the first reviews to start coming in. They were horrible. Sure, a lot of websites and magazines said it was a great game, but players were saying it was awful. I waited for the free trail to try it myself. The player reviews were correct. I didn't enjoy it one bit. I've always kept up on SWG news, because I kept hoping that SOE would get at least one game right since their early EQ days. Looks like they are still trying to get back to their former glory of being "Top Dog".
I have an idea for SOE. Perhaps they need to listen to their subscribers, instead of guessing what "would-be" subscribers want. They are always second-guessing themselves, which is witnessed in 2 combat upgrades from SWG and 1 from EQ2.
This gamer is very dubious of SOE. I'm probably not the only one. They used to be the leader of MMOs mesmerizing us with their talent of creativity. What has happened? Is it greed? Are they just trying to be "WoW jr."? I don't know, but I hope things get shaken up a bit over there.

Posted Nov 24, 2005 8:32:04 PM | link

Mark says:

I think that a vital point to the MMOG community is being missed. The SWG players leaving are not just posting actively on the SWG forums. The players are migrating into other communities and , in a classic "word of mouth" way, actively and very vocally passing on their fealings.

The upshot of this is that , not just the existing player base, but many other communities are getting involved in bad player feedback and bad press for SOE/LA. Many other communities have active threads on the SWG/NGE issues.

If I was SOE/LA I would be more afraid of this. It is this and its long term effect , if any , on brands that interests me.

The world a virtual village indeed.

Posted Nov 24, 2005 10:34:28 PM | link

Barry M. says:

So disappointing. I loved SWG and its potential. Because of SOE's utter failure with SWG, I have cancelled my SWG and EQII accounts. I will not buy another SOE product ever again.

And I am teetering on never buying another LA game again...but, KOTOR and KOTOR2 was so damn fun.

Posted Nov 24, 2005 10:52:39 PM | link

Craig Roberts says:

There are several issues on which I would like to comment.

First - I realize that professional courtesy is very important in any industry. As a teacher, I almost alway refuse to make comments to my students about my peers. However, I do not tolerate fools and will be harshly critical of incompetent teachers when they are indeed guilty. I find it shocking that Heather and Mike are willing to be so kindly disposed towards SOE and its development team, especially to the point of criticizing Tim for being upfront and honest in his assessment. You would have to agree that the following points are true about SOE and they are deserving of any criticism being heaped upon them.

1. SWG was pushed to live incomplete to meet a marketing deadline. Beta feedback was ignored, one example being the experience point problem of being too low yet it was changed several weeks into live when so many players maxed out in many of the professions.

2. Since that point, many updates have also been pushed to live without sufficient testing. These updates were mostly directed toward game play issues and failed to address many existing bugs and often created new bugs, some of which went months without fixes.

3. The release of the NGE contravened a great deal of existing information and statements released by the SOE Dev team on the forums, making a mockery of the existance of the entire information process provided by SOE on its SWG forums.

Second - The professionals seem to believe that communication between the players and the development team is something to be avoided at all costs since it would only keep the development team from completing its job. Once again, as a teacher I might find it convenient to not have to listen to suggestions from parents, I do not have that luxury. However, I do not dance to whatever tune the parent wish me to.

In plain terms, communication between the Development team and the customer base, facilitated by a community relations team, does not mean the players are calling the shots. Sometimes the communication from the Dev Team regarding suggestions can be "No" with an explanation as to why.

My overall complaint with SOE is the lack of honesty and communication with the customer base. I am reminded of the accounting practices of Enron and World Com. If these changes were necessary to prevent the plug from being pulled, then simply say so.

Posted Nov 24, 2005 11:59:41 PM | link

Roger Smith says:

I think that since SOE was basically in this hole with SWG, Lucasarts kinda stepped in and might've told em to get their act together or we'll shut down the game kinda thing and thats prolly when SOE released this NGE bullshT.

Posted Nov 25, 2005 12:44:01 AM | link

Lydia Leong (Amberyl) says:

Doing away with proper development practices, letting test cycles become quick and dirty, and cutting back on customer service is cheaper than the more desirable (from a customer's standpoint) current standards.

Ultimately, MMOGs are a business. Like all companies, MMOG operators have to choose how they spend their money and their time, and determine how they can best deliver value to their customers.

Today, MMOGs customers are fairly tolerant of downtime and poor customer service. This is at least partly because no one has come into the market hitting a home run in terms of gameplay *and* nailing the operational aspects. (WoW still clearly has stability issues and poor out-of-game customer service, for instance.)

Stability is to the operator's advantage as much as it is to a customer's, though. The more stable your environment, the less you'll spend on operations as well as customer service.

Posted Nov 25, 2005 12:54:16 PM | link

Warren Grant says:

I think that LA/SOE are guilty of analyzing its own player demographics rather than a broader analysis of the player market as a whole. I think they may have based their decisions on misselecting a target group.

In essence I think they took a game with massive potential - and the biggest provenance of any MMORPG out there (with the possible exception of LOTRO, still to come) - and slowly, through poor design, multiple changes and lack of content, whittled the playerbase down to only those people who were willing to play the game despite those faults. They then seemingly selected a subset of those players, males 18-25 (and deliberately excluded female players it is reported), and based their redesign on feedback from that subset - which quite frankly I find is seldom all that articulate and often not that capable of analyzing why they like something. In short I think they channeled their analysis based on a very small, and inarticulate segment of the MMORPG population, and the result is the new approach.

Now, it may prove to be a valid and successful approach but it has been poorly executed and is poorly supported, and moreover has alienated many of the previously loyal population by the manner of its sudden promulgation. No warning was given, insufficient testing was conducted - and it was obvious that whatever the results of the testing it was going live the way it was - and the new game eliminated the efforts of the current playerbase almost completely while failing to address that. Moreover it changed the nature of the game from a "roleplaying game" where character stats and skills mattered to a twitch style FPS where those figures are essentially irellevant, and worst of all, did so in a manner that is not perceived as an improvement. These radical shifts in the philosophy of the game have probably done more to alienate the current playerbase than any other factors.

Again, this may not matter from the business point of view, but the reputation gained by this sudden perceived betrayal of their customers will not earn them any favors with regards to word of mouth advertising and opinions. I think word of mouth recommendations carry considerable weight with most gamers, and moreover the tendancy is to go join one's friends (real or virtual) in whatever game they are playing.

My personal perception - and thus entirely subjective I admit - is the game has suffered a massive drop in population. I am the mayor of High Plains - a town on Tatooine on the Tarquinas server. Prior to the NGE I had roughly 70 citizens about 40 or so of whom relatively active with a core of about 15 or so who were regularly logged in. I was doing between 100k and 800k in sales a day as a fulltime crafter. Post NGE I have an active population in my township of about 10 with a core population of about 5 who are regularly logged in. Often I am the only person on. My town of High Plains is often credited with being the "most active town on Tatooine" - I have been told so by many people. Traveling to Mos Eisley in peak hours can generate a population of about 30 players or so - since this is the starter town and used to be extremely crowded at almost all hours - this bodes poorly. The Mining Outpost on Dantooine is almost dead, and this was formerly the hub of higher level players with usually 20-30 people present at any given time. Now perhaps the current population are all hidden away on Mustafar, but my citizens report Mustafar is pretty dead too.

Evidently churning 95% of their playerbase is not a concern.

Posted Nov 25, 2005 2:36:09 PM | link

Morat says:

SWG's problems are simple: Poor quality. From the beginning. I'm sure some of you can tell me -- and I learned about some early beta shenanigans that were new to me here -- a lot about the development, the ideas behind it, their general workability or problems, whatever.

It doesn't matter, really. SWG was implemented in a half-assed manner, run in a half-assed manner, and supported in a half-assed manner.

If it hadn't been Star Wars, it would have died long ago.

My personal belief is that what kept it -- above and beyond the license -- alive had a lot to do with some good design ideas that, even implemented in a half-assed way then nerfed to hell by half-assed patches made it worth staying there.

But that's just an opinion. Perhaps it's just the license.

SWG was my first MMORPG. My wife's first, and one of my friend's first. Since I quit (after the orginal CU, over the fact that solo and small group play wasn't worth the time investment), I've tried CoH, WoW, and EVE-online -- do you know what all of those games have that SWG lacks?

Quality. Even the poor ideas are implemented well. I laugh when people bitch about lag and bugs -- they don't have a clue how good they have it.

You want to know how bad the quality of Galaxies is? Their in game bug reporting tool hangs frequently. That's how damn bad it is. You can't even REPORT the bugs. (Not to mention that the bug reporting interface, including "gameplay mechanic affected" are pre-JtL and thus massively useless).

To me, that's got to be a management problem at SOE -- or a deliberate attempt to kill the game by SOE. I won't play another SOE game, because their QA problems in Galaxies were so widespread that I have no doubt it's a company-wide problem.

Posted Nov 25, 2005 3:02:43 PM | link

Darniaq says:

Does anyone remember any other article generating 129 comments? :) This certainly isn't to say this is of any higher or lower quality than the rest of course, since topics here span every level of gaming from those who just play to those who make them. It just seems interesting that this one has generated so much conversation, from a high number of first-timers too.

Does SWG just inspire so much emotion in people far beyond other games? Is it its status as a "veteran" title (not so much by age but rather who developed it)? Is it just one of those experiences that everyone "almost" loved if... they... just... fixed... one... more... thing?

I ask because I'm always interested in exploring the difference between those games that compel such emotional attachment and those which most just walk away from when done. The former statement could have been applied to any of the early-day MMOGs (those titles that followed the establishment of the term). Nowadays there's so many though, and such a vast difference between the ends of the spectrum (as in, GW and SL share the same genre), that I imagine the whole Retention vs Continued-Influx debate is of even greater importance now than ever.

I've long felt it was folly to expect players to play a single game forever. Most just do not. This is even more true of today, given the sheer volume of options for entertainment both in the genre and with those games just close enough to be considered a part of it (by virtue of appealing to similar preferences).

Posted Nov 25, 2005 4:29:25 PM | link

Morat says:

Speaking for myself: I loved it because it was more flexible than I had expected. I was a TKM/Merchant/Architect who supported himself by selling paintings to anyone through my vendor, meat to doctors, milk to chefs, and hide and bone to armorsmiths.

I had a house to make my own -- frankly, I don't think you can underestimate how much player housing actually gave that game, even with the HIGHLY limited ability to decorate (what I would have given to be able to, say, cross swords instead of being forced to leave them vertical). Having a home, decorating it to fit your tastes, that gave Galaxies a permanence -- a virtual world feeling -- that I have yet to find anywhere else. I had a home there. I had a wall decorated with guns and swords I had found, a living room decorated with crystals and loot. Paintings on my walls -- paintings I had earned, paintings I had made, paintings I had found. I had rugs, couches I made myself, suits of armor that had been beaten bloody with me inside them.

I had a home. It's not something I can say about any other MMORPG.

I had a business -- maybe a niche one, maybe I made more money selling creature resources or flying in space -- but I had a business. I had vendors, a tent, and customers.

I had flexibility. I could craft AND fight AND explore -- and my crafting meant more than WoW, since I had a bloody business.

But really, to me -- it was the home, with the business and flexibility a distance (but still important) second. It was my house, in my city, filled with my stuff, that I could show off.

Galaxies gave me more permanence than any other game I've played, because I had a home.

Where their problems? Damn skippy. Did they even need the CU to fix them, or god forbid, the NGE? No. What it needed was quality.

Outside of the godawful QA, I can trace down a few important issues in Galaxies:

1) A failure -- from late beta on -- to implement the original design. Interdepence among classes fostered a community -- important in a virtual world.
2) Koster's weakness with combat design -- a handful of changes would have severely reduced the biggest problem with pre-CU combat (defense stackers). Stacking defenses in a single tree of a profession begged for stacking. There were several ways around this (from moving the defense skills to the four 4th tier boxes to reducing the number of stackable skills. I prefer the first).
3) Rushed development. This problem was THE biggest and plagued them from beginning to the end. I never put faith in SWG's "balancing" of professions when severl professions never worked as intended to begin with. "Balance" comes once the combat mechanisms -- and skills -- work as intended.
4) Failure of imagination: This was the biggest problem with this sort of virtual world. It appears no one ever sat down and asked: "Okay, assuming the best resources, best skills possible, best food -- what's the BEST rifle a weaponsmith can make? The best doctor buff a BE can craft? The best buff a doctor can apply?". Without knowing what the endgame equipment and stats would be, you can't balance the endgame or PvP.
5) Lack of content: It IS a virtual world. The themeparks are nice (the ones that worked) but at the very least the player mission system should have been implemented. Players made do with the forums (those that knew about them), but how much better would it have been for an Armorsmith to simply create a mission for 10,000 units of the current Tatooine Avian bone at 30 credits per unit? If the players are going to be providing the content, then they need tools to do it -- player missions would be a good spot to start.
6) The Jedi system -- boneheaded from start to finish. People blame them for everything, but the real issues were their alpha class status (if you're going to make them a heroic class, offer OTHER heroic classes), their extra slot (which made sense with permadeath), the forced PvP nature (I'm against forced PvP as a rule, but it can work -- the BH system was a bad example of it), but most of all the grind. The grind destroyed a lot of the community.
7) The in-game macro system -- it wasn't designed to prevent AFK play. If you want some abilities repeatable, make them toggles. Recursive macros were a bad idea, and another solution should have been found.

The game was at odds with itself. It was designed to create a virtual world -- a community -- but there weren't enough tools to sustain it, and too many mechanisms were placed (with little thought behind them) in the game that broke apart the community.

Through it all was the bad QA -- no one seemed to think changes through thoroughly. Take the CL added with the CU. From everything I saw in the CU beta, it was added to make converting mobs easier. (No longer unique entities, they were a CL number with a random skin). Level-based ideas got shoved into a skills-based game. That broke the skills system. Mastering a profession made you CL 54. If you wanted to master another (Make yourself a Master Rifleman/Master Pistoleer) you were hosed -- your were only certed for low-end pistols, but had to kill level 50+ mobs. So they removed certifications from skills and made them levelbased -- which then broke what little balance they had, as you could use virtually ANY weapon with any special, rather than those you had the skills for....

Why? It was done in haste. Everything in the damn game was done in haste.

Posted Nov 25, 2005 5:36:05 PM | link

Tinfoil Hat Brigadeer says:

>>Does SWG just inspire so much emotion in people far beyond other games? Is it its status as a "veteran" title (not so much by age but rather who developed it)? Is it just one of those experiences that everyone "almost" loved if... they... just... fixed... one... more... thing?<<

i can only speak for myself although there are others like me on private and public forums. and it is alot simpler than the suggestions you propose. but i have not played SWG and do not have any really desire to play it. i have not played any game that requires a subscription fee to play. something about paying an upkeep to play a game bothers me. but i digress, and that is just a personal preference. so whilst you should all take what i say with a pinch of salt, it is interesting that this question gets posed now, as i have been following the debacle with some interest for many months. i have a rough idea of the SWG timeline in which major build revisions were implemented and what upgrades caused the biggest public outcry. this information is typically provided by SWG players and former players on our community forum or linked offsite from other forums or the SWG forums.

for what reasons do people like me take an interest? mostly for the comedy and because crowds always develop around the scene of a car crash. yes, it is pretty direct response but I do not really have any desire to sugar-coat it.

a number of questions doing the rounds are: how is it that SWG has managed to attract enough negative publicity to make it (in)famous outside of it's user base? will this negative publicity influence the buying power of prospective consumers that have not even played any SOE games yet? will this negative publicity impede SOE's attempt to acquire future film licenses and franchises etc? will this negative publicity tarnish SOE's name within the industry?

from the firing of SWG's community relations officer to the consistent level of criticism levelled at the handling of each publish 'upgrade' to the whole sale removal of parts of the original game mechanic to the level of animosity of certain SWG players who feel they are paying SOE a subscription fee to alpha test their game. there is enough drama generated from players and enough bad reviews on amazon.com to warrant a google search for 'SWG, NGE, LA and SOE' to see what all the fuss is about.

and then there are the swg forums. red name 'brenlo' has repeatedly been quoted as contradicting himself with regards to issues such as a possible console launch for SWG, thus generating more controversy.

red name 'smedley' having posted a whopping 2 posts in his entire time working on SWG, somehow manages to generate a sum total of approximately fifteen hundred replies (and growing every day), over half of which are insults to himself or to his family and fellow employees.

and then there is redname 'blackguard,' responsible for quite possibly the most inadvertently hilarious quote in recent times: 'blackguard isnt afraid to make lemonade.' thanks to the follow up reply: 'SOE isnt afraid to make lemon games,' this complete undermining of the authority of forum moderators and game developers without consequence has been doing backflips in a number of comedy based forums.

and then there are the various player testaments and screenshots - a hilarious one of a wookie in jedi robes where the wookie head, hand and foot models had simply been stuck onto a smaller, human jedi torso model. others showing how various model limbs appearing to be disconnected in smoky environments. the stories of game wrecking bugs. that pie chart of posting activity in profession specific sections of the SWG forums, showing an alarming 75% of all posts belonging in the jedi sub forum. with the remaining professions making up the 25% minority.

to date, the SWG saga is an ongoing botch up with enough clown currency to attract the interest of complete MMO laymen like me.

what emerges is, as mentioned by Zygwen above, a picture of company involvement where its left hand does not know what its right hand is doing. and now a crowd around this fiasco has begun to develop.

regardless of all of this speculation, i can safely say that SWG is by far the best game i have never played. considering i have put zero dollars into it, i have inadvertently derived many hours of entertainment, 'ooohs' and 'aaaahs' as a result of this ongoing abortive mess. it is just a shame that it is not actually a show and real people with real feelings (not the least of which are the 70 strong live team tasked with cleaning up) are getting disheartened by this response.

either way, some of you may want to read some gaming forums to see a worrying trend in thread topics that mock the marketing and executive decisions made by SOE's live team with regards to SWG. you can even find comedic references to SWG in forums that are not computer game specific.

i appreciate that this is a very bleak, very cynical and in some ways depressing response, especially for the developers. having not played the game I feel an analysis of academic rigorousness is pointless . but certain employees of SOE or LA seem to be consistently oblivious to the kind of circus this game is becoming. attempts at denial or minimising the scale of this public backlash is counter productive. i can only see this game and the reputation of its developer declining as long as it continues to provide this level of support. it would take a monumental effort to overturn all of this - practically building a new game from scratch or reverting to an earlier, functional build. but this would undermine much of the work that has gone into the project since then as well as discrediting SOE and LA even further. More than likely it will also provide enormous strain on the current development team and will not prove to be profitable in the meantime. contrary to what some may say, it is possible to box yourself into a corner where there is no feasible means of escape.

i wish all the developers every success in their future endeavours but if there has ever been a good time to start handing out resumes - i would suggest that *now* is that time.

Posted Nov 25, 2005 7:39:24 PM | link

Bob King says:

My comments on this are best summarized by a post I made back in early May following the Combat Upgrade. Here it is as originally posted:

Mr. Smedley - First, thank you for taking the time to communicate to us in the forums last night. Many are saying such communications are late, and I would agree with them, but late is still better than never.

I know you are a busy man and getting hundreds of emails. I'll include an executive summary of my message so that you can determine if you wish to read further.

Executive Summary: Your company has misjudged the demographics and interests of your target audience. Recommend conducting a 100% contact poll with some very specific questions.

I turn 40 in less than a week, next month I retire from the Navy with almost 21 years of service. I have two kids in high school. Why do I tell you this? Because I represent a significant segment of your target audience.

From playing in the game, and from the forums, I know that there are MANY others in my same demographic. I attended the SWG Fan Breakfast at Celebrations III. I took my entire family to both Celebrations II and Celebrations III because we are die-hard Star Wars fans. Lodging alone cost close to $1000 both times we went.

See - money is not an issue for me, or for many others in my similiar situation. Especially not when we're only talking about $15 to $45 (I had three accounts) per month.

Your recent changes alienated a very large number, if not significant majority, of customers in my demographic group. Many of us are business professionals or managers and realize this is not the way to treat an established customer base.

Furthermore, we played SWG for some key reasons: amazing supply/demand implications of the player driven economic model, very complex and intricate crafting system and, frankly, because it WAS Star Wars.
The game was also (notice the past tense) very immersive. When I was playing SWG I WAS my character. I was on Tatooine, in the player city I started as a community in July 2003 and have been Mayor of until just a few weeks ago. The introduction of colorful fancy icons and level numbers next to creatures have drastically reduced immersiveness.

The fact that a Creature of Level X does more damage against X-10 and less damage against X+10 flies in the face of common sense. The fact that the same creature does less damage to me just because I am grouped with someone of a higher level is even more ridiculous.

Recommendation: Do a 100% contact with all of your subscribers. I know you have the capability of doing it because you did when you sent that trumped up email with the positive spin about the pending CU.
In your 100% contact message, determine the demographics of your customer base. Include some very specific messages about the controversial aspects of the Combat Upgrade and ask us "up or down" or "1 to 5" - whatever will quantify the feedback you need.

That's the only way to find out what we really want (and don't want) and it will silence those that call the posters on this 25 page thread a "vocal minority."

Posted Nov 25, 2005 10:31:01 PM | link

That Chip Guy says:

Damage control continues, with an Open Letter to the SWG Community from John Smedley. Highlights:

"We're not sitting in our offices thinking of ways to upset our paying customers.. we're trying to bring Star Wars Galaxies to a broader audience to make sure that it's viable for the long haul."

Why not fix what was broken in the existing game? Per Smedley, the game was too big and complex. "Many design decisions made early on in the game's creation were boxing the team in to the point that we were never going to be able to really make this game rise to the level it needs to as both a great experience AND as a business. We have consistently kept the SWG team as one of the largest teams within SOE (around 70 people). Even with a team that size getting new content done along with maintaining the live game, along with developing new systems for SWG just proved to be tougher than it should have been."

Focus group data: Game was too complicated, combat too dull, game insufficiently Star Warsy. Had to simplify professions and revamp combat.

Couldn't do this without upsetting players, i.e. Creature Handlers. Creature handling will be back "in the near future" once implications are worked out, though not as a separate profession.

The "business end of things": "EverQuest is will be 7 years old on March 16th. We HAVE to think that long-term. With the game the way it was we knew we would never be able to attract enough people to really keep SWG viable as a business.... So what we're doing here is obviously risky.. we're betting that we can make this game a whole lot more fun to our existing userbase AND make it appealing enough so that we can grow that userbase in a major way. Right now I think it's fair to say we have work to do on both ends."

Smedley kicks off another focus thread asking for prioritized feedback on issues. Top dev priorities at the moment are (1) bugs, (2) skills to differentiate professions, (3) "Working on making crafting a much more important part of the NGE," (4) "cool new content," especially Galactic Civil War.

Comprehensive denial (again, but the meme won't die) that SWG is moving to consoles. Repeats that SOE doesn't have the resources to support pre-NGE (or pre-the previous Combat Upgrade) servers.

-----

This is the clearest statement SOE has made yet that the NGE is SOE/LucasArts' attempt to "save" the game for the long term -- and the tone of the letter suggests to me that they realize the depth of their player PR problem. Of course, recognizing is not fixing....

Posted Nov 25, 2005 11:03:09 PM | link

John says:

Mr Smedley:

I'm going to offer a very dispassionate analysis from my point of view, as I haven't played in a couple weeks. I honestly do not believe that your company can do anything at all to bring me back to this game.

I am someone who had 4 accounts, active since February 2004. I have spent over $1100.00 on your product. I realize that's probably what you spend for lunch and a manacure, but realize I am not a CEO. I work very hard for my money.

I am a 49 year old player, believe it or not, and a very ardent one at that. I spent 4-6 hours per day playing actively up until the Combat Upgrade.

The Combat Upgrade, in my opinion as a gamer, was poorly implemented, riddled in bugs, and slowed the game to a crawl compared to pre-CU. I think an honest analysis is that your Development staff was not good enough to work on the code written by the original team. Patch after patch failed, proving they probably understood the core EQ code (or wherever you got these people from) but could not match the talent of the original team.

Bungle after bungle, as they struggled adding onto the original core programming, often destroying large chunks of the working game. Linear thinking by this team is what created the 'zoned' planets, seen prior in EQ but not at all appealing to SWG and its player base. What sense is there in multiple free-roaming planets, and then an add-on bound by invisible barriers? No continuity.

The Mustafar expansion held promise for a great many, myself included, because I was a full-templated Jedi. But we all know it was a schill game, don't we? You can't spin it. It was a thirty dollar dirty trick played on people who have funded the game for two years or more. I truly do not believe that nothing was known of the impending changes in the game. Too hard to believe, we are not idiots afterall.

You personally have stated that what is now on the live servers was put in place to be able to balance the classes, which you stated could not be done with the vastly immersive previous system. I guess we define things differently. I do not consider making six professions the exact same thing as balance. The best a 70 person team could do is use the same exact icon art so that the specials would all look the same? You can't be serious.

The trader, entertainer, and Jedi classes are destroyed. Why would a two year elder full-templated Jedi continue to play in this system? After all my money and personal time, I am no longer a complete template. Not that it would matter since I couldn't survive anyway. I was a red-headed stepchild from the very beginning.

The first thing you did was destroy the player economy in its entirety. I personally believe that you set forth to end the credit farming, afk play and ebaying that had been occuring for quite some time. But it rubberbanded by destroying what a significant portion of the playerbase loved.

Your developers have been, and probably still do, play World of Warcraft. There was no need to copy it, you will not get their subscribers. This is Star Wars, WoW is fantasy. An entirely different genre. What you should have copied, rather than destroy the economy, was the abilities within WoW to craft as a combatant, and buy and sell items via player email.

The FRS left seven months ago, and with it the purposeful immersion for elder, veteran Jedi for a system where outsiders could not intervene. An endgame outside the GCW, just what (as a matter of fact) the playerbase had been asking for. Never to be seen again.

You have a live game that is appealing until around level 15. Shortly after leaving the nicely-done tutorial, a player is immediately immersed in a kettle of hot water. The horrific repetitious immersion into a back and forth quest system on the ground, riddled in serious problems. A lot of the waypoints are vacant, leaving the player confused as to what to do next. Many more are camped, because your team has not done anything for people levels thirty and up to keep them interested, keep them leveling, or keep them playing. If this work seriously took 9 months, then 18 more months should have been spent, 9 each on levels 30-60 and 61-90.

I cannot understand what market analysis convinced you that a shooter placed over a virtual world setting would ever be anything other than what it is. A huge mess. This game was an immersive, imaginative, creative place. Now it is a very shoddy, poorly-implemented washed out clone of an FPS. It doesn't do either of the styles justice, the FPS does not work well with the VW components. Pick one and be done with it.

The reason I cancelled all of my accounts is that I never ever liked playing games like this. I wanted the old game, the creative, thinking game, interacting with people, creating my place. Not spending 10 minutes a day shooting everything that moves for absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

Customer Service - my God, sir, do you need help here. You should seriously consider outside consulting, and dismiss everyone connected with your service debacle. CSRs who mock players. Canned responses and closed tickets. No communication to the playerbase. Forum moderators brought in from your other online games to delete, lock and ban players. Discontinuance of your customer chat. All of these things are why you are losing your battle trying to keep this change positive. People are so angry. You wouldn't let them vent it even here, where they pay you for the right. How do you expect to stop them from everything you know is true, on every gaming site they can find.

The refund of the ToOW was in my opinion, something you did for a positive PR effect. I find it disingenuous, mainly because of the difficulty you created to get an actual refund. This was a 'cut the losses and put out a good PR spin' move, aimed at duping the players that you cared about them.

It is very obvious, sir, that you do not care about any of the people that have kept this game alive. You do not care about the handicapped, they should be swept away. You reap what you sow, and when you're an old man and this great country discards you, think back to what your handicapped players must have felt when you swept the thing that put a smile on their faces under the rug.

I apologize to the players that love the new game, and encourage you to keep playing. I hope it is everything you have wanted it to be, I truly do. I mean no disrespect to anyone. I have not posted on this, other than this post. This game just isn't for me.

Regards.

Posted Nov 26, 2005 1:55:40 AM | link

Bob King says:

Personally I think they offered refunds of TOOW in order to avoid a legal precedent being established.

Clearly there was enough evidence for them to have lost on a "deceptive business practices" class action lawsuit. That loss would have been, as far as I know, the first of its kind in the MMO gaming industry.

So, to save legal costs, possible punitive damages and to avoid establishing a precedent, they preemptively offered refunds.

Posted Nov 26, 2005 9:24:53 PM | link

That Chip Guy says:

Something that Erillion mentioned above, and is coming up with some frequency in the response threads to Smedley, is the impact of the revisions on disabled players. As a twitch game, Star Wars Galaxies is now literally out of reach for a certain number of players for whom dice-rolled combat was manageable and sufficiently entertaining. This has also hit the gaming press.

In preparation for the previous Combat Upgrade, SWG introduced "snappier movement" which provoked some complaints of motion sickness from players. (I never experienced it myself; it may have affected people who used WASD keyboard controls for movement more.) The developers attempted to mitigate the problem. I would have thought that this experience would have heightened developers' awareness of the physical impact changes to the user interface or graphics engine might have on players. If so, SOE has not clearly acknowledged it yet, even almost two weeks after the change hit Live. (See Smedley's response to a player's inquiry two posts above this link.)

I'm not aware of anyone who complained that Planetside or, well, Doom 3 were inaccessible to some disabled players -- you know the interface's limitations (or your own, depending on your point of view) going in. But in this case SOE/LA have taken conscious steps to change the entire interface for the game, which has had a side effect of erecting barriers to participation in a virtual world. Seems to counter a lot of old idealism over the potential of virtual worlds to overcome physical (and geographical, and...) limitations to provide accessible, unbounded social spaces.

Frankly, if Star Wars Galaxies were a juicier target, I would be expecting SOE/LA to be pressured by disabled rights organizations. I hope SOE/LA is able to find some way to compensate disabled SWG players for the loss of their playing experience. A comped 6-month subscription to EverQuest 2 may not be much for a player who only wanted to play SWG, but there might be other affected players who would benefit.

Posted Nov 26, 2005 10:37:48 PM | link

Andrew says:

Just speculating on SOE's reasons but these articles

http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/10/28sony.html

And

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdcgw/is_200512/ai_n15717830

lead me to think that this change to SWG is to help them move to this new model in the future. The model involves offering the basic game for free and charging for specific items of content (quests, weapons, etc.).

Posted Nov 27, 2005 8:49:45 PM | link

Erillion says:

I have found a gem on one of the forums that shows some of the inherent flaws of targetting, movement and choosing specials in the current SWG NGE build. This may also explain why some people get motion sick in SWG since the new patch. What do you think ?

-quote--------------------------------------------
The so called NGE (New Game enhancements) are far from enhancements. My first issue with the new game is that all weapons will kill the same creature in exactly the same amount of time. So all pistols will kill a combat level xx creature is the same time. The only difference is rifle seems to be a second or two slower then pistol and carbon. Also, all armour will protect you more or less the same amount of time before you lose all your health. This has been tested and re-tested many times.

My second issue is with the combat system. How can increasing physical moves and necessitating removing the eye from the screen continuously improve the game? On the contrary, this increase inefficiency and increases frustration with the game.

It used to be that to chat one would start typing then press enter -return. Now, one must press enter then type then enter again. To execute a special one used to only need to use the mouse and click on the special move icon on the toolbar on the screen. Now, one must use the keyboard to press the corresponding key to place the special in the active box, then click the mouse right button to execute the special then wait to see if the special has been executed as half of the time it dose not fire! Also keep in mind that you need to use one of your hands to do this which means you come to a screeching halt or lose the target as you no longer have lock-on-target like before.

Movement used to be fast and easy and dose not require a pause in the game. Before by simply pressing and holding the right mouse button -second mouse button- the character moves and one would simply guide the movement with the keyboard. Now the keyboard must be used to initiate movement and guide at the same time -which would be ok if we also didn't need to change specials with the same hand on the same keyboard! So in combat now I have to actually lift my hand off of the forward movement key so I can change the special, meanwhile my target is moving around, so I lose my target. Consider the eyes. Before everything was on the screen. Now I have to stop moving in the middle of combat, take my eye away from the screen and move it to the keyboard, then press the key to change the special, then look at the screen again and hope my target is still on it, then move the cursor again to target the attacker and start moving again to get in range, then press the mouse right button and wait to see if it executes.

It seems they have gone to great lengths to get rid of target-lock. It is obvious that they see the success of WoW and other games that do not have Target-Lock and they tested it and feed back is that the consumer prefers non lock targeting. Well, then copy WoW! They have made a hybrid system that is non efficient and exhausting to use. Game play is much slower in the aggregate, and it is not fun period.


-unquote------------------------------------------

Sorry to not be able to quote the original poster - this information was not available.

A few words about the effect of weapons/armor ... it is the impression of a large part of the community that weapon and armor quality are irrelevant (this has been numerically tested by some people, but not yet in a large scale study as it has been done in the past - lack of motivation or "why bother" is the reason for that). No matter what STATS are mentioned in the item description, they seem to do damage or protect at the same rate.

This is obviously the death sentence for the Trader class, as it is now completely irrelevant if a crafter (Trader/munitions = Master Weaponsmith) with skill, good tools and excellent resources sells an exceptional weapon. His fellow trader from another branch (Trader /Engineer , has some weaponsmith skills) that is only partially familiar with crafting weapons, does use the most crappy resources and does not experiment for better stats sells an incredibly BAD weapon .. and it kills an enemy as fast as the exceptional weapon. And the customer thinks .. " HEY ! Why buying anything at all. I use this looted crappy weapon and it kills the enemy at the same rate as any UBER weapon I can buy !".

Now THAT is what I call a serious design flaw that usually does not even reach closed beta testing.

Have fun

Novarider

Posted Nov 28, 2005 7:59:15 AM | link

blackrazor says:

If MMOG players realized in their gut that they have no right to expect persistence, that their characters, abilities, items can be wiped away without warning or compensation at any time, then I sincerely doubt that subscription based MMOGs would have much of an audience. SOE has done us all a disservice, in this regard. Yes, it's an unwritten social contract, in contradiction to the EULA, and yet it is what allows MMOGs to exist.

I used to play a game called Infantry, designed by Jeff Petersen of Harmless Games. SOE bought out the title and managed it into the ground. Basically the same disregard for community relations that appears to plague its other endeavours. When I left Infantry, I vowed to shun all SOE products. I'm a huge Stars Wars fan, but I avoided SWG, because it was managed by SOE.

I'm just one person, and Infantry was a small game. But the bad word-of-mouth from SWG might create a much more lasting impression in the gaming community.

===

As for the idea of a twitch-based combat interface existing for a virtual world, I see no problem with it theoretically. In fact, I find the concept fascinating.

But managing gaming communities is like farming crops; you don't burn down your fields just because you like what's in the current seed catalogue.

Posted Nov 28, 2005 2:05:18 PM | link

Bart Stewart says:

The comment from an earlier poster about the direction that Lord of the Rings Online (LOTRO) may take reminded me of something.

In his Designing Virtual Worlds, Richard observed that Turbine's reaction to some player complaints about Asheron's Call 2 was to make some functions much simpler with no fictional justification. For example, instead of continuing to require players to expend some effort to change money from one denomination to another, developers simply added code to allow players to convert money to gold in their backpacks.

Some such changes might be justifiable on an "it's just not fun to do" basis. But what happens when you simplify a lot of game actions this way?

Now, Turbine has revealed that the skills system for LOTRO will consist of seven playable classes. Most of the seven classes appear to be direct analogs to AD&D classes (fighter, ranger, thief, bard, cleric/druid) with nods to EQ-like conventions ("tanking" and "aggro" in particular). In effect, it looks like LOTRO's skills system has been designed to be very simple and quite conventional.

From my perspective, these approaches make a game world much less interesting. In particular, "dumbing down" a skills system drastically reduces the breadth of options available to players. If you don't like doing the few things the developers allow you to do, you're stuck; there's little opportunity for creative interaction with the game world.

But from a developer's perspective, a simple system is a lot easier to balance, and is less prone to players devising "creative" (i.e., untested) applications of skills that confer some excessive advantage on early adopters. Theoretically, a simple skills system should insure a better game for all players.

Which brings us back to SWG and the replacement of some 34 professions with 9 classes. According to Jon Smedley, the players whom SOE heard from demanded simplicity. The NGE was imposed on SWG despite the radical changes it made to gameplay because SOE now believes that a complex skills system is too hard to maintain and enhance, and that MMOGs won't attract more/new players unless gameplay is very easy for players to understand.

So who's right?

Are Jon Smedley and Turbine correct in thinking that player actions must be tightly constrained, even at the expense of other goals such as immersiveness and "realism" and breadth and depth of action, if relatively large numbers of players are to be attracted and retained?

Do most developers agree with this ordering of goals? Do MMOGs need to be simplified to the point of becoming passive entertainment forms like TV if they are to achieve TV's market numbers? Will such products still be MMOGs?

Are "deep" worlds merely a niche market?

--Bart

Posted Nov 28, 2005 5:01:56 PM | link

Al says:

First of all, thank you, Terra Nova. This is the most intelligent discussion of SWG's NGE that I've seen yet. The SWG forums have degenerated into an absolute flamefest whenever a dev is unfortunate enough to show his or her head.

I ran across one post that looks like a pretty balanced and fair assessment of SWG as it now stands-I thought I'd share it with all of you:

Over the Thanksgiving Holiday I had the opportunity to sit down and play SWG for more than just a couple of hours at a time. In doing so I decided that after the weekend was over I would post my experiences with the NGE here. Now before I get too far into this post, I think it's worth mentioning that I have been playing SWG since launch. I have purchased the SWG Collectors Edition, JTL, RoTW, SWG Total Experience (for the BARC Speeder), and ToOW (I'm debating whether or not to buy the starter kit for the insta-shuttle). I have ONE account that I have been using since launch, but that account has four characters on different serves. I have been through Publish 9, the Combat Upgrade, the NGE, and all the hotfixes and updates in-between. I am not new to this game and I am also not new to the problems that have plagued SWG since its launch.

That having been said - here's my take on the NGE.


I don't play on Test Centre and I don't normally read or post on the forums, so it was purely circumstance that I happened to find out about the NGE. Unfortunately, as I learned later, I wasn't the only person to be taken by surprise when the NGE was announced. It really bothered my that such a sweeping revamp to the game was coming so soon after a major expansion was released (and for the record I do not agree with the way that the release of the NGE was handled). After I read the announcement I spent a few days combing the forums for information about the NGE and doing my best to prepare myself for the changes.

Having survived Publish 9 and the CU I was skeptical about the changes because I knew from previous experiences that these sorts of changes never went well. However, I was also optimistic. I actually liked the IDEA of consolidating the professions. While having 32 professions to pick and choose from certainly gave people the flexibility to create their own unique character it was also a nightmare. In my experience I didn't see see the rich variety of characters that were possible, I saw people making the same "über" template every time. If one profession was nerfed then it was all about recalculating your skill tree for the next "über" combination that would "pwn". If it wasn't the über template someone was after it was all about the hologrind; grinding through every profession not to play that profession but only to get a Jedi.

So what happened when the NGE went live?

Previous experience tells me to be cautious when SWG changes significantly; so I logged in with an ALT that I didn't really care about. When I logged in and did the forced respec I found out that I didn't get my profession rewards. I also found out that there was no intent to provide thes items to veteran players. That's when all hell broke loose. In the end, a hotfix is published, 2 extra respecs are given along with the profession items. Between my initial log in and the hotfix I decided to create a new character so that I could adjust to the new UI and get a look at the new missions and voice over quests.

There was some lag, there were some sound issues, but all said and done it was pretty fun. When the hotfix went live I logged in with my primary toon, respec'd and went out into the world and discovered that the NGE has it's good, bad, and ugly...


The GOOD:
For all the problems and all the negative response the NGE is getting - I'm having fun. The new quests are great and I am really enjoying a combat system that requires someone be at the keyboard insteard of using /afk combat macros or just spamming specials. I've also seen a lot of new people on my server and RP is picking up in certain areas as well.

The BAD:
Bugs. Bugs. Lag. Bugs. This, unfortunately, goes with the territory. The biggest of these issues for me at the moment - No XP given for quests on Kashyyyk, Unable to continue the Legacy Quests because Borvo's missions are bugged, lag on Mustafar.

The UGLY:
User Interface. Graphically I don't have a problem with it. However, I have mobility issues in my hands and while I'm adjusting, the new keymap it is difficult. The ability to remap the entire keyset is vitally important as is having more flexibility with the UI layout. I can only hope that this is being addressed.


I completely understand how the NGE has upset people. While I don't go so far as saying it's an entirely different game it is certainly an entirely new way of playing it, that not everyone will enjoy. Some people will like the changes and some people won't. Your game experience may change. All of us have to be prepared for that. In my case, I like what's been done so far and will stick around to see where it goes. The most important thing for me is that I'm having fun and so long as I'm having fun it's worth my $15 a month. Maybe it's just that the NGE is more to my liking because of my playing style, the types of games I enjoy, and the amount of time I have to spend playing SWG, but I like it. Hopefully, SOE and LucasArts will continue to improve on the NGE. What it all comes down to is choice and personal satisfaction.

If you're new to SWG then please try to ignore all the vitriol and negative sentiment that's been expressed in this forum and elsewhere on the net and try to judge SWG and the NGE by it's own merit. Maybe it's for you and maybe it isn't - just try not to be swayed by the people that have taken this change personally and now have a vendetta against SOE and LucasArts and take what's said here (including this very post) with a large grain of salt. To all the vets I'd say the same thing... but at the end of the day there may be no way to keep you playing. If that's the case then there is no more powerful way to show your displeasure with SOE and LucasArts than to cancel your subscription(s). While I'm not in that situation (yet) I respect the fact that there are a great many people who are unhappy and angry about the NGE, and I can understand why you're upset. However, it is just a GAME.

I know this post is going to be flamed to no end... and that's fine. I expect that. However, my opinion doesn't immediately become invalidated just because I don't agree with the majority. The most disappointing thing about all of this is how selfish and disrespectful some members of this community have demonstrated themselves to be by simply dismissing anyone who likes the NGE as either stupid, misinformed, inexperienced, ignorant, a n00b, or an employee of SOE or LucasArts.


-Xeros

Posted Nov 28, 2005 6:09:49 PM | link

Tilda says:

I have no problem with your post -xeros, of course you are going to personally give all the vets you so disparage their money back ?

Posted Nov 28, 2005 7:07:41 PM | link

jestenoir says:

First of all, thank you all for what is possibly the most eloquent and informative discussion of the implementation of the NGE and of its possible repercussions.

I have a question. In reading the various posts, people refer to a small segment of the player base that was used in focus groups to come up with the NGE. When I read Mr. Smedley’s letter, however, I came away with the impression that veteran players were not included at all. In fact, I believed that the focus groups that were used to come up with the NGE were specifically intended to be people that had not played the game. Presumably, this was done so that SOE knew what to do to attract a new player base.

Is this the impression the rest of you have gotten?

Posted Nov 28, 2005 7:08:27 PM | link

Keebler says:

My account with SWG lapsed yesterday, ending a tumultuous relationship that began with its broken launch on day one.

What can be expected in the future of persistent worlds if they are not persistent? How can you as a game developer hope to attract people to your world if they know you might decide on a whim to change it tomorrow? I’ve seen posts in this thread as well as on the SWG forums citing a “ends justify the means” approach as being necessary to ensure the game survived, but if that is the case, then the whole concept of virtual worlds falls apart. If you as a developer can’t promise your existing customers that the game/world they love will be there tomorrow, how can you expect to convince the new players you are trying to entice?

To the people who like the NGE as players, I’m not upset you like the game, I’m upset they took my game away so you can have yours. I liked that SWG attracted women and older players who weren’t all out to prove their mettle by beating me in combat. I enjoyed the fact that the world was deeper than running around and shooting things, and that I could spend a evening sitting in a cantina just talking to others who shared my appreciation.

I’m not sure if I’ll ever play another MMOG, and that should be a concern to all of you who make a living creating these worlds.

Posted Nov 28, 2005 7:52:54 PM | link

Marko says:

Hey, i haven't been able to post this anywhere on their forums as I cannot log into them (figures...). Can someone just raise the question for me?

Why not make pre-CU open source? Let the community work on it...the community process has proved itself many times over and it seems to me that it would make the most sense for a MMORPG.

alas...i can only dream :(

Posted Nov 28, 2005 10:31:54 PM | link

Erillion says:

Nothing relating to Star Wars will be open source anytime soon. George Lucas has his hands on all the creative rights and has mastered the art of merchandising and licensing. He does not give anything away for free PERIOD.

Have fun

Erillion

Posted Nov 29, 2005 2:16:21 AM | link

Dib says:

The irony of this is that many of the veterans who are now vehemently anti-SOE, including myself, would have been the first ones lining up to pre-order the NGE if it had been called SWG 2.0 and released as a seperate product. I played planetside for a year, love FPS games and have led several strong clans on multiple FPS ladders.

By trying to mash a completely new game overtop of the one I had been playing for two and a half years, however, SOE majorly screwed the veterans. Despite what SOE claims, veterans have almost nothing to show for their efforts - just rampant credit inflation, once premium weapons and armor that now have the same attributes as everything else, meaningless skill enhancing attachments, etc.

Posted Nov 29, 2005 1:28:28 PM | link

Heather Sinclair says:

Bart,

>>Now, Turbine has revealed that the skills system for LOTRO will consist of seven playable classes. Most of the seven classes appear to be direct analogs to AD&D classes (fighter, ranger, thief, bard, cleric/druid) with nods to EQ-like conventions ("tanking" and "aggro" in particular). In effect, it looks like LOTRO's skills system has been designed to be very simple and quite conventional.<<

Direct analog? no, unless you consider "classes with recognizable roles" to be equivalent ot "AD&D classes", and while the goal was to be conventional, that does not mean it's "dumbed down".

Of course, what one means when they say "simple skills" varies from person to person - for one it would be sheer number of skills, for another it would be the complexity of the skills themselves, for another it would be the complexity of the interrelations of skills amongst classes, for still others it would be a number of choices of skills, so it's wise to clarify what you're talking about when complaining that skills are too "simple."

Posted Nov 29, 2005 2:31:18 PM | link

TheMadHatter says:

I realize I'm late to the party.

But some tidbits I know (don't ask -- a little birdy told me):
-- SWG was down to around 100k subs from what I've heard. I've hard indications that they didn't think they could last a a year. (It would be very interesting to know what subs were at before the "CU" almost a year ago).
-- This change had been in development for over a year and a half.
-- It went in suddenly because it took that long for LA to finally greenlight it. It was released to test literally within weeks of said "greenlight".
-- In the meanwhile, not knowing if LA would even "ok" the changes, they continued to maintain the prior game.
-- A lot of this was based on "focus groups". They implemented a very early version of this, threw it at a focus group for laughs, and found that they got into it much more readily.

Some commentary:
I think they finally realized how much their combat game sucked. It really, really did. Unfortunately they didn't realize that their economy worked pretty well (despite having major imbalances of its own) or they just didn't care. Either way, they chose not to maintain it.

I think they read too much into their focus groups. Their focus groups told them that the existing combat game sucked. Their numbers told them that they needed more subs. But I think they latched onto the first change that got even mildly enthusiastic reactions and knee-jerked. Their biggest problem, and the primary reason that WoW hit a million subs and not them, is presenting a polished, complete product that does what it is supposed to do. And this new release of the game does nothing to help this. If anything it hurts their image greatly. And past performance of their development team indicates to me that polish is years off or just plain impossible -- years they apparently don't have. They haven't succeeded, not just because they didn't have fun combat, but because they never fully implemented any of their features, never dealt with core bugs, and never really succeeded at any specific thing.

I also know that the SWG dev team has gone through several incarnations and I can extrapolate that they have frequently had their hand forced to implement changes before they were ready or to prioritize expansions and other new content over polish.

In short: I lay the blaim at management for misunderstanding their product and its failures. If they had focused their goals a bit more and tried to create a polished product before release (sacrificing whatever was needed to do so) I think they might have made the bucks they were after. I would also argue that design folk like Raph just worked too hard to try and hammer a square SWG peg into a round VW hole. I just don't think that the Star Wars galaxy fits well in a VW context. It is far better suited to the action of Battlefront. I actually agree (from an objective stance, not as a player -- I prefer VW'y games) with the direction of the NGE. I just think they needed to have gone in that direction pre-release and with a better core vision. If they had reskinned Planetscape to be a Star Wars game I think they could have had a hit.

On a broader scope, I would agree that this says little about the ability to greatly alter a virtual world midstream. At least little that isn't known. Players hate change. This is obvious and was obvious when I was coding DIKU in high school. But a change of this scope IS heavily dependent on the content and quality of the change. Anecdotally, of the hardcore players that I knew who still played SWG, most were positive about the NGE until they played it. Even knowing that they would lose a lot or most of their assets. It could have been that the change would have been too great even if the NGE had been a quality product. I wouldn't argue against that. But we won't know that simply because the NGE is itself of such poor quality (which I take to be an objective statement, purely based on the extent to which it fails to implement its specification).

Posted Nov 29, 2005 3:03:12 PM | link

That Chip Guy says:

TheMadHatter>>But some tidbits I know (don't ask -- a little birdy told me):
-- SWG was down to around 100k subs from what I've heard. I've hard indications that they didn't think they could last a a year. (It would be very interesting to know what subs were at before the "CU" almost a year ago).

Entirely plausible, and possibly reflected in Smedley's recent "open letter."

-- This change had been in development for over a year and a half.

If so, this explains the long-delayed "smuggler revamp" and other postponed content additions and bugfixes. Also the relatively simplistic "Rage of the Wookies" and "Trials of Obi-Wan" expansions. RotW in particular was highly directed, complete with invisible walls, which suggested to me rushed development.

On the other hand, it kind of contradicts a recently-deleted November post on Lead Game Play Designer Jeff Freeman's blog. This excerpt from Google's cache:

Freeman>>So a few months ago The Man comes along and says "What can we do to make
this the most fun game it can possibly be?"

It was the lead designer who holed-up in his office for a few days and
then said, "Hey, come look at this."

There's no way we can do that.

There's no way we should do that.

Man that's fun.

The Man will never let us get away with doing that.

We can't do it.

We shouldn't do it.

Oh man that is fun.

When an executive producer sees something that is impossible to do, but
which is too fun /not/ to do, he makes a noise like "Hoooooooooph".

My job was to be the guy to say, "Yes we can do that." I had to say this
about forty times a day for two months. Lead Designer said it too, of
course, but no one believed /him/, because he's /crazy/. Obviously.

Posted Nov 29, 2005 3:57:20 PM | link

TheMadHatter says:

Yeah, I read Freeman's blog a while back. I don't think it really contradicted what I hae heard elsewhere.

From what I understand/extrapolate the NGE gameplay was initially a side project. Possibly to be used in battlegrounds, for example, as a side-game or expansion. And then they threw it at some focus testers on a lark and it tested a lot better than what they had for the CU, etc. I was under the impression it had been worked on for over a year and a half but I could be wrong.

Posted Nov 29, 2005 4:04:27 PM | link

TheMadHatter says:

P.S. Oops, I typo'ed Planetside as Planetscape. Quite funny that. I guess I wanted to inject some "Torment" into my comments.

Posted Nov 29, 2005 4:13:26 PM | link

Keebler says:

I read that post on Freeman's blog too. Glad to know the game 100k subscribers payed for was taken out because Jeff thought this was "Cool".

Posted Nov 29, 2005 4:19:18 PM | link

That Chip Guy says:

I think there's been enough information and rational speculation in this thread to make a personal potshot like that one against Freeman unwarranted. It does seem clear, from Smedley's own statements, that SWG needed serious help. A redesign of this magnitude would not be driven by one designer's whim.

Posted Nov 29, 2005 5:12:04 PM | link

Keebler says:

Did you read the post on Jeff's blog Chip Guy? The one where he says this happened because he was the executive director and made the decision?

My comment wasn't a made up figment of my imagination, it was his own words.

Posted Nov 29, 2005 5:31:46 PM | link

TheMadHatter says:

Read a little closer. Read the bits where Freeman talks about his many bosses, the lead designer, the creative directory, the execs and producer types. This wasn't Freeman's decision although he obviously had a large role in selling it to the producer/execs.

What I see happen all too often in situations like this is:

Developer: "Hey, boss, look at this prototype, it's cool, we can do this, isn't it great!"
Manager: "Uhhhh....."

One Month Later:
Boss: "Hey, you know that thing you showed me. The investors like it. It's going live. Yesterday."
Developer: "Uhhhh....".

It's easy to go all Dilbertesque I suppose. But it does happen far too often in my experience.

As interesting as the question as I find the question:
"can a major, massive W get away with completely changing its feature set 2 1/2 years after releasing?", I find the following question much more interesting:

"How much does the massive infrastructure required by a AAA online RPG and the investment/management required to obtain licenses, market the game to consumers and get it on shelves, actively interfere with the process of designing and implementing said games?"

Have there been many discussions of such issues on this site?

Posted Nov 29, 2005 6:08:43 PM | link

blackrazor says:

TheMadHatter,

That thought has occurred to me, as well. On the surface, one would imagine that a AAA production of a Star Wars themed MMOG could not fail.

But then you think of SOE, and its community management record. Add to that LA in the background, trying to have its creative say. Mr. Lucas may be brilliant, but might not be the easiest person to please regarding his Star Wars IP.

WOW probably has an easier time of it, since Blizzard already owned the Warcraft IP.

LOTRO will be easier too, since J.R.R. Tolkien has passed on, and will not be battling the MMO dev team for creative control. Any holding company for Tolkien's IP assets will likely be a far more silent partner.

In retrospect, SWG might have had a better chance, had LA done the project in-house, and contracted whatever help they needed to guide them in the ways of community management and MMOG architecture.

Posted Nov 29, 2005 7:03:19 PM | link

Franek says:

To follow up on TheMadHatter and blackrazor’s comments – perhaps we should watch the development of the Star Trek MMOG to see if it follows a similar arc. Does anyone know if there are parallels in the corporate / IP relationships that would make the comparison useful?

Posted Nov 29, 2005 8:12:57 PM | link

Bart Stewart says:

Heather, thanks for the comment. I'll try to explain myself, but it's going to take me into the world of strong opinion. Designers, please get your baseball bats ready. ;-)

...

Part of what I was getting at (a little too obliquely, as usual) was this: Has virtual world design truly reached the point where character growth systems are set in stone? Is innovation in this area already dead and designers must all copy each other now?

As I read it (and Raph or someone else is free to correct me if I'm wrong), SWG's designers realized that the Star Wars license itself guaranteed that lots of people would check the game out. That gave them the freedom to try something new -- a mix-and-match skill system -- instead of implementing yet another class system that merely copies AD&D archetypes.

For that matter, not having one of the Three Big Licenses hasn't stopped other developers from creating innovative character growth systems. EVE Online's skills system, to pick one example, does away with classes entirely -- you pick up the skills you want. While EVE's no WoW, it's done well for itself just through word of mouth. Its open-ended skills system has helped it, not hurt it.

So why is SWG going backwards, converting its interesting skill system to a class system? Why is LOTRO going with a "simple" (as in a small number of traditional classes tailored for now-familiar combat roles) system when it has one of the major licenses?

A hugely popular licenses is a license to innovate! But instead of trying something original (because their license gives them the freedom to do so), the designers of these games are creating worlds whose core systems are trending toward conformity and cramped simplicity. It's as though they have come to view potential subscribers as incapable of comprehending anything more complicated than a plastic spoon.

Is this the future of MMOGs?

I cannot bring myself to believe that designers of major commercial MMOGs have somehow all become completely and utterly bereft of creative ideas where character development is concerned. So I'm forced to wonder instead whether designs are being dictated by suits (rather than being constructed by designers) out of a belief that only mind-numbingly simple systems will pull in the subscribers.

And that's just a bit depressing to me.

(Actually, what's really frightening is that, based on what SOE has done with SWG and what Turbine appears to be doing with LOTRO, I must pin my hopes for an intelligent virtual world on the last of the Big Three licenses: Star Trek Online. Gulp!)

--Bart

Posted Nov 29, 2005 8:23:38 PM | link

Bart Stewart says:

Franek, it looks like we've both had the same thought.

Be very afraid!

--Bart

Posted Nov 29, 2005 8:25:10 PM | link

Mike Sellers says:

Has virtual world design truly reached the point where character growth systems are set in stone? Is innovation in this area already dead and designers must all copy each other now?

No. Emphatically no. But: getting funding (investor, publisher, whatever) to develop anything that has not been done and is not part of a ready-made license is maddeningly difficult. This despite the fact that licensed MMOs have a less than stellar record -- consider the success of MMOs made from three of the most valuable licenses for the online demographic: Star Wars, The Sims, and The Matrix. We'll see what happens with Star Trek and Lord of the Rings, but I don't hold out a lot of hope, frankly.

Let me also suggest that talking about innovation and "character development systems" in the same breath is hardly suggesting something daring. Innovation in MMOGs is not just about new hybrids between class and skill-based systems! Unfortunately, as both designers and players, we seem to be becoming increasingly inbred in the breadth of our thinking about the MMO space.

A hugely popular licenses is a license to innovate!

Sadly, I disagree: a hugely popular license is a license to play it safe, to not screw up, and most of all to not violate the well-honed expectations of everyone who loves the licensed property dearly. Innovation comes on the borders, in games without a license, not in those that depend on known quantities for their attractiveness.

So I'm forced to wonder instead whether designs are being dictated by suits (rather than being constructed by designers) out of a belief that only mind-numbingly simple systems will pull in the subscribers.

And that's just a bit depressing to me.

For years I've joked about making T-shirts that say on the front: "I Make Games..." and on the back say "...but I'm not bitter!" Maybe now you see why.

If you're an indie you don't have suits hanging over you, just the spectre of not making payroll at some point, or not making a milestone per a contract, and seeing all your dreams and work grind to a halt. If you're in a BigGameCo, you know you're going to get paid, but every single idea is filtered through layers of management who rarely add to the creative process, and you still risk seeing all your dreams and hard work come to nothing. It's Scylla or Charybdis, your choice.

But I'm not, you know, bitter. ;-)

Posted Nov 29, 2005 9:05:22 PM | link

Timothy Burke says:

This last turn in the discussion is worth its own thread at some point.

One of the consistent points I've made about SWG from its troubled beginnings until now is that the license has been far less of an asset than it might appear to an outsider. That's partly because of the obviously intricate and complicated relationship between SOE and LA, which I don't think has been a development asset. But more it's because it means that the very players you draw due to the license come with a much stronger set of expectations about the experience they're going to have, whether it's a deep "virtual world" experience or a relatively fast-paced Planetside-style persistent shooter. I'm on record as saying that I don't think Raph and the other SWG developers involved at the outset of the project took that aspect of things seriously enough, that they thought they could just drag over some of the design ideas for UO2.

This does have implications for Lord of the Rings Online, which I know full well that the developers at Turbine are aware of, since it's been a dominant issue on their official forums since those forums first became available. My personal sense, just looking from the outside in, is that they're running some fairly considerable risk of disappointing some of their potential audience in that regard. But deliver a polished product, and perhaps it won't really matter that much: that seems to be the consistent view on SWG, that the gambles taken with design (at the outset and now) can't hold up in the absence of a polished product.

Posted Nov 30, 2005 12:26:52 AM | link

Mark says:

Look at the record of film Tie-ins throughout the gaming industry.
A very poor track record.
A license that is going to attract an audience, in itself, is going to cost serious money. This means that the bean counters almost inevitably become involved almost immediately throughout the design and even concept process.
The normal design process should be 1.imagination - 2.concept - 3.implementation - 4.prooving.
The money men would normally come into the equation between steps 2 & 3.
Forgive me if I am wrong but my impression is that , with games involving licences, that somewhere between 1& 2 is more like it.
This involvement also has issues later on the chain as the 4th step.
If you dont let the designer start the process properly how can you expect a happy ending?

Just my opinion

Posted Nov 30, 2005 5:18:19 AM | link

That Chip Guy says:

A bit of credit where credit's due: in the last few days there's been a small flurry of developer messages listing bugfix priorities and projections for patches, content upgrades and profession tweaks.

Posted Nov 30, 2005 1:27:26 PM | link

Keebler says:

Everything they have posted about in the last few days makes it abundantly clear they didn't think this out and are now in a pure reactive mode. The post how they have some great things planned for the crafters, but it needs to get approved first before they can post about it. I'm sorry, but if it hasn't been approved yet, why the hell was this pushed on the live servers?

All they keep asking is to be patient with them as they add things over the next 6 months that should have been complete before this went live. To give them any credit at this point is to ignore what they have done to their paying customers.

Posted Nov 30, 2005 4:11:01 PM | link

Morat says:

So we've boiled it down to the simple:

"SOE delivered a shoddy product and it wasn't received the way they hoped. Instead of taking from this the lesson of "Quality matters", they consistently made poorly-thought out changes of -- once again -- poor quality, and moaned when no one liked them."

Quality matters. If you're going to take risks, try something new, quality matters even more.

SOE never learned that. They got lucky with EQ. As the only kid on the block, people tolerated shoddy work. With SWG, people tolerated it still because of the license.

Still, there's one thing I'm wondering --- with all these developers, designers, and others working on Galaxies, was there no one asking the question: "How will these changes affect existing game play? How will they fit into the overall game design? What impact might they have? What is the need for this change?"

You don't need to be a genius to know those are important questions.

Watching SWG's publishes and fixes, I get the unshakeable impression of a team that would identify the problem -- in a limited fashion -- then throw the first fix they came up with at it.

There didn't appear to be any thought involved -- especially not thought involved in how changes would affect game play and game mechanics.

I also found their priority list to be strangely out of whack. Prioritizing changes, improvements, bug fixes, and additions is basic software engineering -- but I think the SWG staff ordered things by throwing darts at a list.

There was a brief period -- maybe 6 months -- where a significant number of changes were made that DID seem to have thought behind them. Developers seemed to be prioritizing bug fixes on a rational basis, and changes seemed to be designed to make the game both more coherent and more playable. I don't recall the names associated with that period, but do recall they left abruptly around December of last year -- right around the time the original Combat Revamp design was radically altered. These were the folks responsible for shorterning wait times on shuttles and starports, some large changes to GCW (removal of TEFs, addition of PvE and PvP bases and planetary control) and a few other things.

I always suspected they bailed on what they saw to be massively flawed changes, or because those changes were being shoved in over their objections.

Posted Nov 30, 2005 6:18:10 PM | link

Morat says:

To shorten myself: The SWG development motto seemed to be "Change is the same thing as progress" and "Any fix is a good fix" and "Game design? What's that?".

Posted Nov 30, 2005 6:20:05 PM | link

bert says:

great info all, I'm looking at buying a account off ebay is it a god idea? I'm not sure about the account details but it has over 200 million credits and the toon its a elder Merchant. how have the changes effected accounts? these are some of his stuff, can i still use all these items? Should i buy the account?? thanx for the help i need it quick

Vehicles

Barc Speeder x3
Numerous Swoops

Ships

Luxury Yacht
Bellulab Ship Deeds (General Grievous' Starfighter)
2 Arc Ship Deeds (Jedi Starfighter Ship)


Houses

Underground Bunker (Tatooine near Mos Eisley)
Large House (Tatooine near Mos Eisley)
Generic Guild Hall (Tatooine near Mos Eisley)


Other Items

Lava Flea Mount
Character Respec Devices on both characters
All blender machines
All paintings and posters including anniversary items
Rare complete armor sets including Bounty Hunter, RIS Armor, and 20 sets of Katarn Armor
All of the miniature items in the game
All of the holograms in the game

Posted Nov 30, 2005 9:08:32 PM | link

Keebler says:

Bert,

First of all, what are you looking for from the game?

If you like fighting and FPS type games, then perhaps this might appeal to you, but be warned, the game has a lot of bugs right now and the devs are looking at 6 months or so to get them and all the missing things like collision detection back in the game.

If you are looking to be more social, perhaps a entertainer or crafter, than honestly, this game is probably something you should stay away from.

Spend some time reading the SWG forums, listen to what the devs say, listen to what the players say, then decide if you think it is worthwhile.

Posted Nov 30, 2005 9:36:04 PM | link

TheMadHatter says:

"There didn't appear to be any thought involved -- especially not thought involved in how changes would affect game play and game mechanics."

I agree.

And I think this is a good indicator when management becomes too involved with the process of designing and implementing the game itself. Management cares primarily about milestones. How can we get from A to B. And in my experience (I make games and though my own job is usually good fun, I do get quite bitter at times), quality is often the first thing to go. A good management team, producer, etc., will know when they need to trust the judgement of the people making their product. A poor management team, or a desperate one, will just reach out and grab whatever solutions sound good, or will sell the idea of the game.

Going back to licenses: utilization of licenses and the dumbing down of accompanying games is one thing I don't blame the big production companies and MMO developers for. They are just doing what sells well. If anyone needs to be educated it is consumers. And posting on blogs isn't going to change their attitudes much. That's really just a matter of waiting and hoping the audience matures.

And I don't think a big license game is the place to push innovation. The license is already constraining you and forcing you to put a lot of energy in things (Jedi, hobbits, whatever), that players identify with but probably aren't conducive to fun gameplay. Licenses are purchased because of their marking power, a power I don't think will be challenged anytime soon. But good games are created from ideas first. Licenses start the process backwards and just get in the way, even if the resulting, less interesting games, sell well.

Star Wars *can* be used for interesting games (see KotOR). But not an experiment in virtual worlds. For a mainstream game targetting a million+ subs, SOE should have gone vanilla as possible, handed out lightsabers and stormtrooper armor and let people go nuts. Maybe throw in a few slightly innovate PvP ideas. I wouldn't have played it but the more I play MMO's the more I think that whatever I really enjoy is probably doomed to be at best a niche product.

Posted Nov 30, 2005 9:38:28 PM | link

bert says:

I know about the bugs and i'm willing to give it a try. I like fighing i guess that why im looking at getting it now. i just don't wanna spend 5 months building my toon up. So is it worth it to buy a account of ebay? I'm looking at getting one tonight so plese tell me what i should do as far as wht kind of account to buy. the one i'm looking at has 350 million credits plus 500 mill worth of stuff but the toon isn't vary good. Isn't it worth buying the account under $200? Couldn't i sell the credits on ebay? i think 50 million gos for 40 or 50 bucks so i could make my money back in a hour,right? is it worth it? guru's please help me out. I know im jumping on a sinking ship but at this point i don't care so what should i look for in a account?

Posted Nov 30, 2005 9:51:00 PM | link

Morat says:

TheMadHatter: Actually, what Galaxies SHOULD have done was accept that 250k was their peak, that they were appealing to the virtual world folks, and spun off developers to handle it and looked for their money elsewhere.

Sure, they weren't making as much as they wanted. But with a fraction of the effort they placed into the CU and the NGE, they could have polished what they had, added tools to allow players to create more content, and hired a guy or two to do some official content and then just let the game be.

They could have kept 200k or subscribers until they turned out the lights, and been free to develop SWG2 or whatever else they wanted without pissing off existant customers.

It was stupid. I won't play SOE games anymore -- I can't trust their developers, I can't trust their management, and I'm not going to waste my money on them ever again. I'm not the only one -- they did some serious damage to their rep in a business where word of mouth can make or break you.

Posted Nov 30, 2005 10:12:07 PM | link

Keebler says:

Bert,

Why don't you go buy the starter kit for 20 bucks, give the game a month and then decide if you think it will be worth 200 bucks? Credits don't really matter anymore as you can loot weapons/armor that are better than anything you would buy.

Posted Nov 30, 2005 10:23:11 PM | link

bert says:

I don't have the time to build up my toon. so a elder jedi doesn't mean much anymore?

Posted Nov 30, 2005 10:31:48 PM | link

Keebler says:

Bert,

Jedi are the weakest combat profession in the game at the moment. On top of that, they can be kited easily and it is hard to keep your cursor on a target running around at close range.

If jedi is your goal, play KOTOR and save your money.

Posted Nov 30, 2005 10:35:43 PM | link

bert says:

keebler, help me out. i could use all the help i can get. i could care less about being a jedi, i just want the best toon i'm not a sheep i'm a leader.I'll be whatever will be the most well rounded. any and all tips please. tell me what you think i should do

Posted Nov 30, 2005 10:44:52 PM | link

Keebler says:

Bert,

You sound just like the type of player SOE is looking for with the NGE. I personally wouldn't spend 2 cents on the game, but it sounds like you are itching to get into the action, so buy the account, do your conversion to medic or bh which seem to be the FOTM and have at it.

Oh, I also hope the character you buy is on Bria server at it is the only one which isn't dead yet.

Posted Nov 30, 2005 10:53:29 PM | link

bert says:

so you think there is no hope for the future of SWG? how is the space battles?
could you tell me the good things about the game? hows the fighhting?

Posted Nov 30, 2005 11:02:48 PM | link

Morat says:

Bert: Download the free trial. Try it. Make sure you get PAST the space station -- the newbie space station is highly unrepresentative of the game as a whole.

Sadly.

As for the Elder Jedi: All you get for that is the ability to turn into a blue glowy. Hardly worth 200 bucks.

Posted Nov 30, 2005 11:42:21 PM | link

bert says:

is there still a market for selling credits on ebay?

Posted Nov 30, 2005 11:56:22 PM | link

Morat says:

so you think there is no hope for the future of SWG? how is the space battles? could you tell me the good things about the game? hows the fighhting?

Um, the character generator is nice? But if you're buying a character, that's not really a plus.

Not really. About the only remaining plus is player housing, but currently you can't even decorate it because of the asinine design of the NGE -- you can't click on ANYTHING and lock it. Not your furniture, not an enemy, not the bank, not a terminal. Makes doing anything an exercise in frustration.

Go download the free trial. Don't play Jedi -- they suck right now. Stick with ranged weapons on anything else. And for god's sake, have an ergonomic keyboard and mouse setup. There's a lot of damn clicking.

Seriously -- try the free trial. Make sure you make it OUT of the station and get some experience with the actual game. (The rest of the game is NOTHING like the station). Bear in mind the game won't be any more playable for about six months (it's a FPS without collision detection. Do you realize how ludicrous that is?), at which point the servers will be shut off.

The servers are empty. It's an MMORPG where, on the busiest servers at peak time, you [i]might[/i] find someplace with 5 or 6 people. If you have the ToOW expansion, leastwise.

Posted Dec 1, 2005 12:04:12 AM | link

bert says:

thanx mort! i'll try the trial although i only lets you join the light servers so there might be 10 people online but i'll still get a feel.

Posted Dec 1, 2005 1:32:17 AM | link

Timothy Burke says:

For anyone still following along on this thread, check out the questions and answers published by the SWG developers at their forum yesterday.

Mostly it's a lesson in the numbers of ways you can say, "That's an important issue and we're working on it" with variations on "That's a really big issue", which I take to be a code phrase for "We're not fixing that problem any time in the forseeable future".

I defy anyone to read through that and tell me that this is a reasonable professional way to go about making a huge change to an existing MMOG. It doesn't matter whether the basic thrust of the NGE is good or bad: you don't push such a change to live with these kinds of absolutely fundamental technical and design questions deferred to some hazy unknown future.

Posted Dec 1, 2005 12:22:01 PM | link

SeaRaptor says:

...you don't push such a change to live with these kinds of absolutely fundamental technical and design questions deferred to some hazy unknown future.

Unless you're SOE.

Posted Dec 1, 2005 1:20:39 PM | link

bert says:

Ok i played the trial but i can't make it out of the station without a real account. why can't i leave the station? i spoke to Fett but i get a pop-up that tells me to join. not a vary good 14 day trial.

Posted Dec 1, 2005 2:01:58 PM | link

Keebler says:

Like I said earlier Bert, go buy the Starter Kit for 20 bucks and give it a go. Trust me, there will be plenty of old accounts for sale for a long time.

Posted Dec 1, 2005 2:17:19 PM | link

bert says:

ok...but what do i look for in a account,also how does the dec.1 update change things? atleast they are trying to make things better right? there is hope

Posted Dec 1, 2005 2:27:42 PM | link

Bart Stewart says:

> It doesn't matter whether the basic thrust of the NGE is good or bad: you don't push such a change to live with these kinds of absolutely fundamental technical and design questions deferred to some hazy unknown future.

I find all this very puzzling as well.

You'd think it was clear that launches and major content changes need to be both mostly bug-free and reasonably complete. And you'd think that the NGE counted as a "major content change."

So to learn that there are still significant changes that they know they want to do but 1) haven't implemented and 2) don't have a clear timetable for implementing... well.

If someone can help me understand how there could be good business decision-making behind all this, I'd appreciate that. Because the logic behind how SWG has been changed since it launched escapes me.

--Bart

Posted Dec 1, 2005 3:19:10 PM | link

Morat says:

Ok i played the trial but i can't make it out of the station without a real account. why can't i leave the station? i spoke to Fett but i get a pop-up that tells me to join. not a vary good 14 day trial.
Probably because the station is utterly unlike the rest of the game, and they don't want you to find that out until you give them money.

I realize all businesses are out to make money, but SOE's business model is closer to "Scam" than "Service".

ok...but what do i look for in a account,also how does the dec.1 update change things? atleast they are trying to make things better right? there is hope
HAHAHAHAHAHA.

It doesn't change things at all. The core game is still utterly broken. Look, I'm level with you -- they'll turn off the lights by March if they don't undo this fiasco. It's unplayable unless you're such a hardcore fanboy that you'll plunk down 15 a month to chat with friends.

The game is dead. The NGE killed it.

The latest update? It's like putting an air freshener on a six-week old corpse.

Posted Dec 1, 2005 3:21:00 PM | link

Morat says:

If someone can help me understand how there could be good business decision-making behind all this, I'd appreciate that. Because the logic behind how SWG has been changed since it launched escapes me.

There is no logic. SWG has a number of problems:

1) Developer churn. Few devs or designers ever stays long enough to actually understand the current system. As such, new changes tend to break portions of the existing game.

2) Piss-poor QA: If SOE has a quality control team, they're keeping it a secret. They'll throw patches on test for a few days, then release them live -- with known and often gamebreaking bugs.

3) Group mentality: SWG's developers have absolutely no real contact with the community. There's the appearance of contact, but design changes indicate that "What would the current players enjoy" is NEVER an issue with design. Design choices seem to come solely from marketing or developers, with no consideration for impact on the current game or it's current players.

Personally? I think SOE wants out. I think they've wanted out since January 05 at the latest. I'm guessing their contract with LucasArts is very specific, and thus they're sandbagging their own game to get out of it. The NGE seems to be a large-scale test of an upcoming design. No sane developer would graft an FPS-style game ontop of SWG's engine -- SWG has ALWAYS had a huge lag problem. Their DB design and systems were never up to snuff, and if they ever attempted to optimize their netcode or server code, they hid it really well.

It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I understand it's not that uncommon. SOE and LA are partners in this. Neither can pull the plug until certain contractual obligations are met, even if the game isn't worth the money to one side or the other. SOE wouldn't be the first company to half-ass something in order to get out from under a contract they felt was burdensome.

Posted Dec 1, 2005 3:28:57 PM | link

bert says:

wow! so your saying its not worth playing? i understand that the new system suck in compairsion to the old but come on, saying its broke? ill give it a try...if things get back on track you all will look extreamly retarded. about as retarded as i look for getting into SWG now. ill take mt chances. bye the way, THANK YOU for all the help! actually you guys didn't help unless you want me to hate SOE. i didn't play for 3 years, so i don't care

Posted Dec 1, 2005 4:23:37 PM | link

says:

"2) Piss-poor QA: If SOE has a quality control team, they're keeping it a secret. They'll throw patches on test for a few days, then release them live -- with known and often gamebreaking bugs."

A common misconception. Players often blame QA when bugs get into an MMO. Usually QA knows about the bugs, had known about the bugs for some time, and for whatever reason, they were never fixed. I spoke with several of the SWG QA people online and met one once. They were all conscientious people and they definitely did exist. They just don't have any power over what happens with the game once they submit their bug reports.

QA is not the problem. It rarely is. The problem is acting on feedback from QA and prioritizing time to fix the problems that arise. The SWG team was clearly lacking here and frequently patched significant, well-known problems to the liver servers.

Posted Dec 1, 2005 4:32:49 PM | link

TheMadHatter says:

Forgot to put a name on the above post.

Posted Dec 1, 2005 4:34:06 PM | link

Bret says:

I am happy to find a well thought out NGE discussion. Here's my $.02. Well it's a long post, so more like $2.00.

I've been a Star Wars fan all of my life (aside for years 1-2 as I was born in '75) and consider myself a hobbiest gamer. I wrote for a video game mag for a while in my teens, but mostly I have been a casual player. Started with Dark Castle on my Mac Plus back in 4th grade and never stopped.

I'd never played a MMORPG prior to SWG. And as I type now I've only tried two in my life. The major reason is that I've never been a fan of the orc/dragon/dungeon/thief mythos. Didn't play D&D and the whole fantasy genre has always left me cold.

Despite misgivings, I tried SWG as I love the source material. It was buggy at launch -SHOCKER. Will never forget taking a day off of work to try it at launch only to find I was unable to login.

But as time progressed it calmed down and I settled in to a good play experience. Then a game called City of Heroes came out and I did a 2 month stint on there with my SWG account on hold. I liked the new game, the ability to create my own super hero (I was a roleplayer in High School, playing Heroes Unlimited, TMNT and Ninjas & Superspies) and the graphics. It was like a shiny new car.

However, I found the missions too repetitive so I went back to SWG. Played a bit longer, mastered a few professions and enjoyed the experience better than before. However interest eventually disapated and it went back on hold.

Late last year my girlfriend (who thank the Lord loves SW as well) decided that she wanted to try SWG.

We started with fresh characters on a new server and set out. I liked it better this go around - new content, new weapons, new challenges. I bought "Jump to Lightspeed" and found that as starship combat went, it seemed pretty good (for a MMORPG at least!). Then one day my gaming life changed.

I was in space and had just been ambushed by some TIES (I'm rebel, sue me). A player saw this and repaired my ship. He then offered to give me some new guns for my XWing as he had some higher level ones that he no longer needed. We landed and that day he introduced me to guilds.

I'd just taken my first step into a larger world.

We were welcomed into the guild with open arms and suddenly we went from soloing or the two of us hunting to full group grinding and large scale quests. More importantly, we met people that became friends. We'd look forward to seeing everyone online. Our guildchat was constantly flowing and it became a much more rewarding experience.

As they say - a friend is someone who will bail you out of jail, but your best friend is the one sitting next to you saying "that was f***ing awesome". Instead of hunts with random strangers, the team concept was lightyears ahead.

So on and off for almost two years, my SWG experience had finally hit its high point. When Rage came out, 3/4 of the Guild was there the first day hunting. It finally felt like a community - a family. We all felt pride watching the noob recruits work their ass off to become leaders as we had. One Ace pilot became a dozen. The guild was growing by leaps and bounds and our player city was a hell of a lot of fun.

Then Trials came out and we all watched a bit skeptical. A bunch of us were in the process of working through "The Village" so a Jedi-themed expansion caught our eye. After a week on there, we found that there was a bit for everyone on there.

I was disappointed with TOOW and most guildies I knew were too. Then literally 2 days after I claimed my ADK vet reward, the announcement came.

-My armor, custom crafted with high level AAs.
-My prized trando rifle, custom crafted with crazy high krayt tissues and adk'd.
-My life of hunting Jedis for extra cash

Gone.

My progress towards Jedi (one phase away) was rendered moot, as were the MILLIONS of Force Sensitive XP I was saving up to finally become a Jedi.

The biggest mistake the pro-NGE lobbiests made on the SWG boards early on was the "everyone hates change" argument. I was livid - mostly because I bought an expansion (Trials of ObiWan) that I could play as advertised for TWO WEEKS only. That was deceptive at best and fraud at worse.

I tried the NGE and hated it. Yes, the new player space station concept was nice, and it felt more Star Wars-ish, but once I made it back to the SWG universe I knew and loved, it was unplayable. I'm not the first to say this - but if I want a SW FPS, I play BF2. If I want a ton of Jedi, I play KOTR2. If I wanted to be a part of the SW universe, I played SWG.

I cancelled my account and asked for my Trials refund.

However what happened next was my point (I know this is long winded, but I'm venting). I was made aware by a guildie of a two week free trial for City of Heroes. I figured what the hell and picked up a disc each for my girlfriend and I.

I was again impressed with the robust options available for character design (lookswise) and again dismayed at the lack of options. That's another reason SWG was popular.

I wasn't just a bounty hunter. I was a rifleman and marksman as well. My friends were combat medic/carbineers, doctor/pistoleers, armorsmith/commandos, dancer/creature handlers. The hybrid system meant that although we all looked more alike than in COH, we more than made up for that in ability and spirit.

So anyway, I'm planning to stick with City of Heroes this time, and the reason is simple - most of my guild cancelled their SWG accounts and came to COH. So I still hunt with the same friends I've been hunting with for over a year.

Sure, we all look different and have different abilities, but Trentus still makes the same corny jokes, Micah' still makes the crazy sex references and Silurian is the cool quiet warrior.

We all feel a ton of loss over walking away from characters we invested YEARS in. But for now, COH is a capable rebound.

And the devs for COH and COV seem to "get" that idea with the implementation of Supergroups, bases, etc.

As for how many people are left in SWG, I know all but 3 people on my close to 60 person friends list have cancelled. I hear horror stories from COH guildies who still dabble in SWG.

Hell it's still SW so I'm sure there's SOME redeeming quality - but at $15/mo. I'm not sticking around to look for it.

Thanks for letting me vent - now quick closing comments.

1) The popular conspiracy theory that SWG had the NGE implemented to be PS3 compatible seems like a good one. Microsoft has the Marvel license and Sony needs a proven franchise to combat that with.

2) I consider the differences between pre and post NGE to be a lot like music. Sure Radiohead's music is more cerebral and complex than Nickelback's, but "the masses" prefer cockrock. Instant gratification. So yes, I wager SOE will lose or have lost many of their brainier players (who at least in my guild tended to be more inclined to crafting), but all the junior high kids who just like to run around and blow sh*t up can still slay Tuskens with a lightsaber so they're pleased.

The marketing seems much more tailored to youth now. Lower price, "wow cool!" commercials, etc.

3) I can't believe that if SOE had made a one time popup appear at login allowing ALL current user to vote "yay or nay" on the changes that anywhere CLOSE to a majority would have voted "yay".

4) I believe another reason to implement the NGE was to cut down on AFK spammers and credit farmers.

Posted Dec 1, 2005 4:37:17 PM | link

Morat says:

QA is not the problem. It rarely is. The problem is acting on feedback from QA and prioritizing time to fix the problems that arise. The SWG team was clearly lacking here and frequently patched significant, well-known problems to the liver servers.
I used a bit of shorthand. I've said -- in this thread, I think -- that SOE's QA problems are almost certainly managerial.

They know the bugs exist. But for some reason, they don't fix them. Even simple "quick and easy" bugs. (When the CU went live, one known bug was that Scout experience capped below the level needed for novice Creature Handler. You couldn't become a novice creature handler until they changed the cap -- took them weeks. That wasn't some convoluted piece of code. That was a simple DB value, but it took them weeks to change it).

I also have some harsh words for their software engineering processes -- assuming they even have them. I've seen constant reintroduction of already fixed bugs. Now, some of them might not be the same bug (the every-publish CTD bugs, for one) but some of them were.

Frankly, their development process was awful. Someone with a single SE class under their belt could have designed a more robust development process.

In fact, I'm sure they had a more robust development process -- however, it was obvious that management or marketing was shortcircuiting it.

Bret: As for your music comparison -- the NGE won't attract new players. Why? It's crap. Anyone who picks it up isn't going to stay -- who wants to play a FPS without collision detection, to name one flaw?

SWG is at least six months away from being ready for release. They've poisoned their market.

Hell, thinking that a two year old game with a bad reputation even HAD a potential "untapped market" was idiotic. MMORPG growth is fairly well established. SOE should have been focusing on giving their existing user base what they wanted, rather than constantly breaking the game to attract "new players" who wouldn't have showed up for even quality work -- much less the crap that SOE churns out.

Smart designers would have accepted that the game was appealing to virtual world people (potentially the stablest players you can ask for) and worked from there.

Koster was right about one thing -- having a home does give you an anchor in the game. I'm not a huge fan of the Sims, but I spent a lot of time in the game looking for decorations or loot for my house. My friend had a great GCW exhibit, and I know of several museums that were just amazing.

Posted Dec 1, 2005 4:59:55 PM | link

Morat says:

4) I believe another reason to implement the NGE was to cut down on AFK spammers and credit farmers.
I can assure you that SWG wasn't popular enough to support a decent credit farming business, and in any case there were MANY ways to fix both AFK play and credit farming that didn't require a poorly written makeover that alienated the vast bulk of the user base.

Removing recusrive macros, and switching some skills to "toggled", for instance.

Posted Dec 1, 2005 5:36:16 PM | link

monkeysan says:

If SOE/LA belives that WoW demonstrated that "non-gamers" and "casual gamers" are a viable source of market expansion (perhaps even capable of sustaining a market on their own), then I'm not sure why they should necessarily care about their rep amongst regular gamers and the usual playerbase of MMORPGs. I tend to think that the contact amongst these two segments of the market is relatively minimal, so the poisoning of one well might not lead to the contamination of the other.

Posted Dec 1, 2005 6:22:45 PM | link

Morat says:

If SOE/LA belives that WoW demonstrated that "non-gamers" and "casual gamers" are a viable source of market expansion (perhaps even capable of sustaining a market on their own), then I'm not sure why they should necessarily care about their rep amongst regular gamers and the usual playerbase of MMORPGs. I tend to think that the contact amongst these two segments of the market is relatively minimal, so the poisoning of one well might not lead to the contamination of the other.
From what I've seen WoW didn't capture "non-gamers" and "casual gamers" so much as it grabbed gamers who were not normally MMORPG gamers.

They tried out World of Warcraft on the strength of Blizzard's other -- non-MMORPG -- titles.

And even if SOE is trying to read "non-gamers" and "casual gamers", offering up a steaming pile of pre-beta crap is NOT the way to get them. If anything, non-gamers and casual gamers are going to be MUCH more sensitive to bugs in a MMORPG game.

Making the jump to shelling out 15 bucks a month for a game you already own is a big step for the casual gamers or non-gamers.

SOE gamers are used to being mistreated. Non-gamers tend to have standards and believe in actually getting what they're paying for.

If SOE/LA believes the NGE will bring in more gamers, I seriously want some of their drugs. It's got to be the best stuff on the planet. LA is known for putting out some seriously poor titles on the Star Wars license, and the NGE is right up there in the top ten crappiest Star Wars games of all time.

I wouldn't plunk down 10 bucks for the experience, much less pay 15 bucks a month to be abused in that fashion.

LA and SOE were a match made in heaven -- SOE had a history of less-than-stellar quality and poor customer service, but coasted on EQ's "only kid on the block" status. LA has a history of shoving crap out the door to meet deadlines, whether it's ready or not, and trading more on the license than quality, appeal, or playability.

What do you get when you combine a company with bad customer service and poor quality with a company that believes the name is more important than the content? Star Wars Galaxies.

I hate to praise Koster too highly -- for each insight he offers into MMORPG design, he tends to have a corresponding blindspot -- his virtual world design for SWG (what got implemented, leastwise) was compelling enough to make up for a lot of the lazy SOE practices and LA's "get it out the door, ready or not" philosophy.

Too bad they spent the last year ridding themselves of it.

There will be no influx of new players. SWG is dead. If they haven't merged servers by March, and haven't shut down by June, I'll eat my hat. (Unless they roll it back. Unlikely, but who knows. It might last a whole six months longer if they do).

Posted Dec 1, 2005 6:42:19 PM | link

Amberyl (Lydia Leong) says:

Getting funding (investor, publisher, whatever) to develop anything that has not been done and is not part of a ready-made license is maddeningly difficult.

This is because it's enormously difficult for gaming companies to convince investors, in particular (i.e., when the game is largely concept and not much else), that they're going to be able to deliver the game, on schedule, within budget, and manage to get enough customers to make it profitable and keep it that way.

MMOG start-ups, in particular, really *need* the business side of the equation -- the service delivery portion, as well as the production and project management expertise. Great game ideas are not enough.

Posted Dec 1, 2005 10:31:57 PM | link

Mike Sellers says:

Great game ideas are not enough.

Not hardly enough. But even when you have an idea, design, demo, business plan, a talented experienced team, an understanding of the market, technology, and service required -- getting funding for something that is not what has been done before is still maddeningly difficult.

This isn't just about games. 'Twas always thus. I'm just barely idealistic enough to hope that maybe sometime it'll change, that's all.

Posted Dec 2, 2005 1:04:22 AM | link

buy cialis says:

online pharmacy store buy cialis online lowest prices

Posted Dec 2, 2005 11:21:28 PM | link

John says:

I was just on Fileplanet, and thought I would pass this bit of info on about how great NGE is doing in comparison to WOW.

SWG Digital Downloads 3,684 Created on 11/15/2005
WOW Digital Downloads 124,734 Created on 11/19/2005

These are real numbers and can be located at:

http://www.fileplanet.com/158580/150000/fileinfo/Star-Wars-Galaxies:-Starter-Kit-File-2-%5BDigital-Purchase%5D

So although we are not hearing anything from SOE, I do beleive that this gives a good indication of how well the NGE is doing. These are hard numbers and not theories or surveys but an indication of how well the NGE is doing in the gaming community. The one theory that I do have is that a lot of these downloads are people leaving SWG, so if you are looking for your friends this is where a lot of them are going. WOW actually started this after SWG annonuced the NGE because they were smart enough to know that SOE was commiting suicide, and SWG players would need a new home --- smart company.

Posted Dec 4, 2005 11:55:02 PM | link

Erillion says:

Fileplanet numbers (sunday 4th):

SWG 3,689 paid downloads since November 15 link
SWG 26,609 10 day trials since November 15 link
WoW 125,424 10 day trials since November 9 ]link

-----------------------------------------------

I am usually not posting rumours, but this one seems to have more than a grain of truth in it. Read on (repost from SWG forum):

----------------------------------------------

"Apparently, the NGE has really, REALLY stirred things up in Austin. All sorts of fingers are being pointed among SOE employee's as nobody wants to take the blame. Right now EVERYONE is trying to distance themselves from being responsible for making ANY decsions on pushing the NGE live. Every single employee is avoiding any connection to the NGE like the plague. I was told that the Dev's expected SOME account cancelations when the NGE went live, but my insider said they were willing to take those vet losses with the hopes of bringing in new subscribers over the holiday sales season. Also, the devs were counting on most of the threats by vets to quit to not actually go thru with cancelling. They have admitted, at least internally, that they number of cancels has FAR FAR FAR exceeded the number they were willing to take. As a result, there is beginning to be some serious discussion of a pre-NGE rollback. Several dev's are in serious jeopardy of being fired, and many many many of the support staff etc are polishing up their resume's because SOE has become the laughing stock of the online gaming community. No longer is it a badge of pride to work for SOE according to what I was told. Even my friend says he is no longer proud of working for SOE because of how they have destroyed their reputation.

Also, after having to report to LA on the NGE results, specifically the account cancels numbers, some of the big dogs from LA have flown into Austin for some serious intervention. No details on what that means yet, but it is known that Smedly and the senior crew at SOE have been behind closed doors for unusually lengthy meetings and have emerged with scowls on their face. The speculation is that LA is gearing up to crack down big time. (I would love to have been a fly on the wall in those meetings)

Because of the signifacant loss of subscriptions, customer service has laid off 25% of their support staff starting the 1st of January with more cuts expected.

All in all, the NGE turned out to rock the player base more deeply than what they expected. Talks are now underway on cutting the game off sometime in the first quarter of 2006. There is discussion with an outside company that is interested in purchasing the pre-NGE code with the aim of running a handful (5 tops) of pre-NGE servers, and maintained with a skeleton support staff. Right now this is apparently looking to be the most realistic result.


Added stuff:

Oh, and my insider said the Devs are being intentionally vague on their forum posting and player communication because they want to keep as many subscribers as possible right now. A memo was passed down to ALL Dev's by the SOE execs with a list of topics that are completely not to be discussed or responded to on the forums. It is generally feared by the SOE team that the more info the player base has, the more of them will quit the game.

Also, the game WAS in the pre-development phase on porting to consol (xbox, playstation), but that those cycles have been 100% stalled at the moment because the future of SWG is so uncertain. But I was told that if any Dev posted or said that consol talks were never taking place it is a lie because significant discussions had already been underway with the design teams experienced with porting PC games to consol systems and that the NGE was partly (not entirely) designed to acomplish this objective"

----------------------------------------------

Have fun

Erillion

Posted Dec 5, 2005 8:45:09 AM | link

Morat says:

If they were pre-cu servers -- and not CURB servers -- I'd probably reup. Even though I'd be starting from scratch.

I miss my house.

Posted Dec 5, 2005 11:25:07 AM | link

cay-den says:

Sigh. I was given a 60 day card on my birthday (Nov 7th) and I am SO glad. It gave me the opportunity to live through the NGE and not feel like I was paying for anything. . .

I have been in SWG for about 2 years, and while not a vet from the beginning, do remember when shuttle times were 8 minutes apart.

I fear the NGE is going to be the death of SWG. People are leaving. My guild has seen a massive decline, houses are disappearing left and right from the city.

This entire NGE rollout (or shove out) was a fiasco from the beginning. I didn't see it mentioned here, but not only did it happen in 2 weeks time, but it happened 2 days after a major expansion release - Trials of Obi Wan -(which as it turns out the only thing major about it has been the lag).

I actually like a lot of the NGE ideas, but with the professions being literally destroyed overnight, I have little hope that this game in its current state will survive much longer.

I hope I am wrong. As a master pilot, I REALLY like the cozy feeling I get in my YT-1300.

Cay-den
Thievez' Paradise, Corellia, Sunrunner

Posted Dec 6, 2005 10:46:09 AM | link

Erillion says:

The numbers game (an example, Naritus galaxy):
We have just finished the grisly task of cleaning our guild rooster.

Pre-NGE ... 118 toons

Post-NGE ... 30 toons

(between 6 and 10 of these 30 will leave when their long term subscription runs out).

Just about the only thing really working at the moment is the Space Expansion "Jump to Lightspeed" (with "only" ONE mayor bug ... people not being able to master their current pilot career). As many want to ride out the botched ground game by becoming masters of all 9 piloting professions, this bug kicks those players in the marbles that try to pass the time in space til the worst bugs have been ironed out.

Have fun

Erillion

Posted Dec 7, 2005 5:37:56 AM | link

propecia says:

vist our site free review propecia
online
cheap drug

Posted Dec 7, 2005 5:49:19 PM | link

Linda Vissers says:

Heather,

I can confirm quite a lot about the subscription losses, since I have been a SWG guild leader for almost 2 years. Before the CU hit, Fated (Bloodfin server) had a stable membership of 100+ active people (120+ toons). We were a generic guild, with crafters, social professions, pvpers (10% or so) and pve players of all types.

After the CU, we hung on with at most 40 actives, a number that kept eroding, as new players usually came, saw, got bored and left. Those remaining were those interested in combat, and a very few die-hard crafters. You have to understand, the CU removed a lot of the very character flexibility and the sense of exploration that most had signed on for. Those of us who kept playing, even the combat types, for the most part did not do so because they liked the CU, but because they were too attached to the SWG community to let go. We felt bitter for all we had lost, and reminisced about the good old days. I, the guild leader of Fated, made an alt character guild leader, and joined a PVP guild (RIVAL), PVP being the only thing I still enjoyed in the game.

Then the NGE was announced, 2 November, one day after the latest expansion was officially launched. We were shocked, horrified. The CU had invalidated our skills, the equipment we had had made or looted, the resources needed for crafting. And now they were doing it to us again.

We were already hanging on by a thread, and the thread snapped. In a matter of days, entire guilds left the server. Rival had 60+ actives. All but 5 are now in City of Villains, waiting for an MMORPG that can become a more permanent home. Fated has scattered to the wind. 7 of them are with me in CoV, some of the rest have given up on line games entirely. Others are in WoW, DnL, DAoC etc. All of these games have entire threads, sometimes even forum pages, dedicated to SWG exiles.

As near as I can figure from the other guild leaders I knew (which were most), about 80% or more of the player base have quit over this. And this time, we are not coming back. The sense of betrayal is too deep. Twice now all we worked to achieve in game was destroyed. No one wants to go through this again and again and again, for surely in 6 months SOE will have another brainstorm on how to make more money.

I am not entirely objective about this, I cannot be. But I can tell you this, which you can check for yourself:

- the server loads for SWG are being manipulated. people have made toons on the various servers and done manual counts on all the planets, using the /who feature. Unless 100 people can truly be regarded as a medium server load, something is definitely fishy. Yes, you can set yourself anonymous, but usually only die-hard PVPers do so, and only 10% of the player base used to be into PVP.
- the forums for the individual servers are no longer accessible from the normal forum access portal. Unless you have a URL in your Favorites, you will not find them.
- the forum moderators are cracking down on any farewell posts, negative comments, links to SWG reviews etc. Scores of people have been banned without any reason given, including at least one of the player correspondents, who wrote a concise and polite post on his feelings upon quitting over the NGE.
- SOE management and the developers are ominously silent, there is hardly any communication going on. A letter to the community was proven to be almost a carbon copy of the letter posted after the CU. Monday 28 SOE management promised an announcement of a roadmap within a week. None has been seen so far.

Personally, I hope the game crashes and burns, and SOE and LA with it. Leaving aside the legal rights of these companies to do with their property as they please, I have serious problems with the ethics of the situation.

Linna

Posted Dec 7, 2005 9:17:58 PM | link

Tracey Snow says:

>> I'm just a bit bothered that you and Heather seem so unwilling, in the name of professional decorum, to allow that the implementation of the NGE has been handled badly in relation to any possible rational long-term business plan for the game, and that there is a pattern of bad implementations in the history of SWG. <<

Precisely the sort of statement that
(a) professional decorum requires me not to comment on publically (no, really)
(b) is a matter of opinion :) At least until sales numbers come out. And yes, if you manage to make a large segment of your community dissatisfied/betrayed, it will show up in the numbers.


Scott,

As an IT professional, I have to completely disagree with you about your point (b). If you have any knowledge of the implementation history of SWG and current software development methodologies, you cannot, in good conscience, tell me that you believe SOE’s implementations have been anything but poor.

Had any of the product implementations I have been involved with been executed with the lack of professionalism and utter disregard for the client community, I would have been tossed out on my ear.

With today’s software lifecycle management processes and techniques, there is no excuse for to code to consistently go live with the issues found in the SWG product. By SOE doing so time and again, it can ONLY be bad for the long-term business plan. This is true for ANY product.

This is just unprofessional conduct and yet another example of why I believe that a professional body should oversee certifications of software developers and management personnel, but that’s another topic completely.

Apologies for potentially re-hashing what may be a closed fork, but I just found this thread and I couldn’t let this comment pass.

Tracey

Posted Dec 7, 2005 11:45:55 PM | link

Tracey Snow says:

Mike's point, I believe, was that as long-time devs, we've all seen players loudly proclaim they're leaving forever time and time again, only to stick around. Here's the thing: If you spend the time to loudly proclaim you're leaving, you're outraged. Why are you outraged? Because you still care. If you still care, there's some chance (how much depends on the person no doubt) that you're coming back or that once you calm down, you'll be changing your mind.

'Tis true, Matt. I, for one, did not bother to comment on the NGE on the official forums nor have I cancelled my accounts… they’ll just expire. I didn’t see any point to saying anything since I don’t feel that SOE cares one whit about my opinion. I’ve certainly never witnessed anything that would contradict that feeling.

I wonder how many others like me are there out there? I suspect there’s far more than many would suspect.

Posted Dec 8, 2005 1:04:16 AM | link

David Oh says:

I am currently a SWG subscriber and actually paid out on three accounts till next summer, but I'll be cancelling in advance. These particular changes erode certain types of gameplay, so at least for the moment, those gameplaying populations will probably suffer. LA/SOE SAY that future changes will address those professions, but those statements have been made ad nauseum for sometime now, even prior to the CU and NGE. It's difficult to believe them. The recent example with the Creature Handling profession makes you wonder if YOUR profession is on the chopping block.

The unprofessional/unethical comparison with other segments of IT is probably dubious. Unlike most other service-oriented IT business concerns, MMORPGs aren't group contracts. If a company decides it's had enough, it leaves with a mass of customers all at once and sometimes according to the contract, sues based on the terms of the contract. MMORPG players represent themselves and are pretty wishy-washy about quitting. I have no idea how many quit for sure, but the marketing strategy of LA/SOE suggests that enough return later on to continue practices that inconvenience existing customers. Also there is no real contract with the customer base in a MMORPG which leads to a poor bargaining position on behalf of the customers and a service company more willing to experiment. In case you're thinking about the customer-company relationship with ISPs while the terms of the relationship are similar to MMORPGs, their service is more of a need than a want like games are.

I do feel pretty cheated though. I feel like my 2 yrs+ of gameplay has been subsidizing software development with a final product that is quite different from initially advertised. For the nay-sayers who state that the piddling revenue losses from SWG can easily be absorbed by SOE and that we should wait and see, why exactly should players keep faith and continue to pay for poorly disclosed experimentation? Undoubtedly some people will relent and come back because of the Star Wars franchise, but in my personal opinion, I would say that this change is more akin to 3COM's departure from the enterprise switch market in 2000 with sales up and to the point where they announced every enterprise switch is now not supported. Too bad, so sad, please try Foundry and Cisco.

Posted Dec 8, 2005 4:00:04 AM | link

Linda Vissers says:

As to the development practices of SOE: I have worked for several huge software companies as a bugtester/bugfixer/QA worker. My husband, who also played (and cancelled) is a database administrator. We were able to observe some things that were totally counter to business practice as we knew it.

- bugs would be removed, only to be reintroduced in the next publish or the one after that. To us, this indicated there was no version control: apparently several groups were working on the source code simultaneously, without a procedure in place to make sure all versions received the same fixes. An SOE insider once told me the company has entirely different groups working on in-game fixes for bugs reported by players, publishes, expansions etc, that hardly communicated. I have no problem believing this.

- From observation, it would seem that either the database design was severely flawed, or no database specialist were on SOE employ, and possibly both. One instance that still comes to mind is the fix for invalid loot weapons. These weapons sometimes had DOT effects, with a certain number of usages affixed to those DOTs. The number of usages ranged from 0 to 9999. Somehow, though, they sometimes came out at -1 uses, making them last forever. It took them over 1.5 years to fix the problem, and remove the weapons from the game. They claimed it was 'hard to find the weapons', because 'there were so many different weapons in game', which had my husband almost literally rolling over the floor laughing. How hard can it be to search for a variable? "IF usage=-1 then...."

Linna

Posted Dec 8, 2005 4:27:18 AM | link

Azaree says:

The problem I think SOE ran into is that SWG started with a very large amount of content. The content itself was not the problem but the errors inside the content itself was.
As time went by more and more of this content was being removed. In order to make the game more manageable. Then a few months later the game makes drastic changes.
The mistake was to remove content from the game, not just once but multiple times on large scales. You cannot give someone $50 for thier birthday and then go "oops im sorry I only ment to give you $20".
It would be a totaly different situation if they were adding content befor NGE insted of subtracting from it.

Posted Dec 8, 2005 4:52:07 AM | link

The Quixote says:

Does a company have the right to fundamentally change the rules in a persistent world game after it has established itself?

In a strictly legal sense I would imagine that they do. And from what I hear Sony has more lawyers then Washington so they probably have the right even if they don’t.

But there is a very strong and unwritten social contract that makes such a move very unethical. Even if the company is unaware of this contract or chooses to not to acknowledge it, as long as the players consider it to exist they will act accordingly if it’s breached. While the only visible enforcement of this contract is the potential for an immediate loss of customers there is probably a larger and much more damaging cost considering that this industry seems to depend so heavily on word of mouth.

Looking at the SWG forums it would also appear that customers have strong associations between a game and its company much like people associate a car to it’s maker. If you’ve ever owned a very problematic Ford you don’t buy a Ford again. You don’t have to read far to find someone stating that not only are they never buying a product from SOE again, they aren’t buying anything from Sony as well. Given that relative sizes of the Sony Corporation compared to the number of upset customers makes this completely inconsequential in this case, for a smaller company this could be devastating

If there is any truth to these assumptions and any underlying trend in these observations it may mean that it really doesn’t matter if a company has a right to make changes in the manner and scale of the NGE because the damage caused by the perceived breach of the social contract is so great it may actually sabotage any chance for gaining enough new customers to cover the loss.

So where does that leave everyone? How much of a change can a game safely make? How do you judge to what degree?

The best way to go about this type of decision is probably to operate under the assumption that customer’s virtual items belong to them and do have a real world value. Not only is this a good place to start but in some obscure alternate future I can see this actually becoming the case if more companies embrace a cash for virtual items model or implement player trading systems that involve real money. Under such systems virtual items act very much like stock in a company and the game company becomes more like a brokerage that is just a custodian of the stock while facilitating transactions. In such a reality ownership does become a valid and unanswered question and actions that severely affect an items virtual value represent a real world loss. If I buy a weapon for $20 and a company destroys its virtual use making it worthless are they liable? In this reality could the NGE be viewed like the Enron style scandal in the scale it destroyed virtual wealth?

Working from the assumption that the virtual items do belong to the customer means changes that adversely affect an items value need to be looked at like an eminent domain project. Yes the freeway would greatly benefit the society as a whole but the people whose houses you need to destroy need to be compensated at fair market value. Yes bringing an overpowered item inline with the rest of the game would be better for the game as a whole, but you have to fairly compensate people for it. Adhering to this concept will make a developer really think about how much a particular change needs to be made. Is it worth the additional personal and time needed to fairly compensate everyone adversely affected by the change? Is there a better solution? A little bit of research into the amount of compensation needed for any particular change might also give you a very general idea of much you will alienate your current customer base. For instance the amount of virtual wealth destroyed by the NGE might have been greater then the amount of money held by active accounts at the time.

In short it’s probably better never to get a game into the situation where such a change needs to be considered.

Posted Dec 8, 2005 5:53:35 AM | link

online pharmacy says:

prices compared online pharmacy
online
orderind online

Posted Dec 8, 2005 3:50:49 PM | link

Erillion says:

>>>>
The problem I think SOE ran into is that SWG started with a very large amount of content.
>>>>

SWG always suffered from a LACK of content and the content that WAS available was hard to find, especially compared to the sledgehammer methods of WoW to push the players into new contents and new areas. Add to that that the content in SWG then was more often than not bugged.

SWG started under the assumption that the players will make their own content and in a sense this was true. But these player events are be definition limited in scope and number of participants (especially as high number of participants would lag your event to hell because SOE has never been able to solve the problem of mass gatherings compared to DAOC or EVE). So players left the game bored after "having seen it all" (I doubt they have seen "all", but they have seen all the was easy to find and do). SOE / LAs answer to that was to make em grind for Jedi for months ... which was the true start of SWG going downhill (X-mas holocrons --> Jedi grind).

There was hope in early 2005 ... suddenly bugs were fixed, content was working, patches worked ... and **click** CU and new expansion ... and everything went to hell again. I wonder what happened in the beginning of 2005. Who was in charge and then sacked or brainwashed ? (S)he was our only hope ....

Have fun

Erillion

Posted Dec 9, 2005 2:53:06 AM | link

Morat says:

Erillion: To answer your question. In late 2004, there was a shakeup on the SOE Dev team related to the CU. Several developers "moved on" in December and early January -- most especially those names associated with the changes most enjoyed by the users. (GCW changes, shuttle wait changes, loot changes that included new schematics for crafter and new house items, and the promise of -- but never the delivery -- of more looted mods for crafters to increase weapon and armor uniqueness)

Why was there a shakeup? I don't know for sure, but that was the time period that the original CU design docs were scrapped, and the CU was rapidly redesigned in favor of a level-based, WoWish clone, and the "We won't push the CU live until it's ready" mantra suddenly disappeared.

What I suspect happened was this: There was increasing pressure to meet the Episode III deadline (and have RoTW CU-enabled) and Developers were being pressured to cut features, release early AND were under pressure from marketing and LA to make it more like World of Warcraft.

The CU was crap. It broke the virtual world design in several places, there were at least a dozen "last-minute" changes that broke their own CU design, and it utterly neglected the concept documents, sandbox testing, and careful design done over months to fit it into the original world.

The CU that was delivered was NOT the one that was designed. The CU that was delivered was a slash-and-burned version, done solely to meet a deadline and to appease the marketing idiots who think people play World of Warcraft because they like colored icons and cool-down timers.

It appears the devs with the ability to rapidly find other jobs -- or the wisdom not to tie their name to the CU -- left.

What's ironic is that things like crafting, the economy, and housing actually GAVE players something to do despite lack of content. And the Devs -- the ones from summer 2004 until January 2005, seemed to realize it. They made changes to increase GCW accessibility to all players. They introduced loot kits, to give players something to hunt for (and not necessarily high-end creatures either). They had new schematics, posters (they should have been a smaller size though -- too BIG to look right in most houses. Never sure how that slipped by), new furniture, and the promise of more flexible and innovative crafting.

Then those guys left, and the CU hit test a few months later looking NOTHING like what the design docs and sandbox testing had shown.

I doubt it was a coincidence.

Posted Dec 9, 2005 10:58:50 AM | link

The Quixote says:

Here’s speculative tin foil hat thought on the extreme WoWishness of the CU and the emergence of the NGE and Six or so WoW servers at the same time.

Blizzard sued SOE right after CU. SOE not wanting to publicly admit that the CU is a direct rip from WoW, SOE enters into a binding or non binding arbitration on the condition that the issue remains private. Sony legal comes to the conclusion that fighting the issue could be very expensive easily lost and not be kept private so SOE agrees to change the system within six months.

SOE now has to completely change its game again and the profession revamp is thrown in because they honestly think it will make the game more “Starwarsy” (I think this term is exchangeable with Cowbell.) and it provides adequate explanation for the drastic changes. The deadline arrives the revamp isn’t ready but it has to go live anyways.

Posted Dec 9, 2005 1:21:11 PM | link

Morat says:

Here’s speculative tin foil hat thought on the extreme WoWishness of the CU and the emergence of the NGE and Six or so WoW servers at the same time.
The CU SWG wasn't close enough to WoW to trigger any sort of lawsuit. I'm not sure what parts of the WoW interface might be copyrighted or patented, but the SWG "copy" was cool-down timers and levels -- nothing Blizzard invented.

Posted Dec 9, 2005 2:08:16 PM | link

Keebler says:

Any lawsuits between corporations like Blizzard/SOE would not have been resolved in the timeframe you mention Quixote.

Posted Dec 9, 2005 3:28:13 PM | link

Morat says:

I think the simplest explanation for the NGE is a combination of bad marketing and bad focus groups, combined with group think.

The focus groups WERE correct -- there is a large market for FPS games. They're very popular, after all.

The marketers were correct -- Galaxies could make a lot of money with a FPS (like they did with Outcast, Academy, and the like).

What no one apparently bothered to figure out was: "Was there a market for a badly implemented, poorly thought out cross between a FPS and a MMORPG?".

From reading Jeff Freeman's (now pulled) comments, it appears this went from concept to development in virtually no time, without anyone bothering to test the concept on actual players.

No offense to those "special" people Sony flew down to Austin, but honestly -- you're not going to get honest feedback (they won't even be honest to themselves!) from people you've paid to bring to Austin, put them up in a hotel, showed them around the "inside" of a game they love, and let them play tidbits of it.

It biases them just a bit, you think?

I'm guessing the CU bled more subscribers than it gained, and the NGE was rapidly cobbled together and thrown live.

They took away the combat spam, but it appears that all weapons do more or less identical damage (based on level) and that the stats don't seem to work at all. The combat engine is pretty much (Player Level * base_damage - Mob_level * base_defense) and applied if you happen to have the hit box under the mouse when the shot goes off.

That's it.

The game is actually MORE broken under the hood than it seems. They've got a steaming pile of crap there.

Posted Dec 9, 2005 5:21:45 PM | link

Keebler says:

I got a kick out of reading the publish 26 patch notes and all the remaining players falling over themselves to thank the devs for so many fixes. Haven't these people seen SOE in action with their "fixes"?

Most will likely not work, and the rest will probably break something that was repaired a few weeks ago.

Posted Dec 10, 2005 3:40:17 PM | link

Morat says:

Only the fanbois are left. I saw a most telling comment on one thread. I'll try to reproduce it from memory. The gist of the thread was a pro-NGE guy was telling all the upset people to just leave already, 'cause they were ruining the game.

One guy responds: "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out was what I said after the CU. That lead to the NGE, so that was a mistake. They won't keep the servers open for just YOU."

Posted Dec 10, 2005 5:44:21 PM | link

Keebler says:

"I guess this all started when Jim Ward became president of LucasArts. [As a group], we asked ourselves what could we do to significantly improve Galaxies. Star Wars is a big mass-market IP and we always felt like we had underdelivered on the Star Wars experience.

I think the numbers that we had, while they're OK for the MMO space, could be a lot bigger, given the amount of people that know about Star Wars." John Smedley, Gamespot interview

Does anyone else here fail to grasp his logic on this? With this thinking, they should do a Elvis or Beatles themed MMO because there are a lot of fans out there, so the game would be popular. Most likely the average Star Wars fan falls into one of the following categories:

Could it just be possible that there are only so many Star Wars fans who like gaming, and even less that like either FPS or RPG type games?

Posted Dec 10, 2005 8:18:38 PM | link

Keebler says:

"I guess this all started when Jim Ward became president of LucasArts. [As a group], we asked ourselves what could we do to significantly improve Galaxies. Star Wars is a big mass-market IP and we always felt like we had underdelivered on the Star Wars experience.

I think the numbers that we had, while they're OK for the MMO space, could be a lot bigger, given the amount of people that know about Star Wars." John Smedley, Gamespot interview

Does anyone else here fail to grasp his logic on this? With this thinking, they should do a Elvis or Beatles themed MMO because there are a lot of fans out there, so the game would be popular.

Could it just be possible that there are only so many Star Wars fans who like gaming, and even less that like either FPS or RPG type games? By having the name Star Wars or Star Trek on the title, doesn't that in itself begin to limit the audience to the game?

Posted Dec 10, 2005 8:21:12 PM | link

Bob King says:

The SWG mess made the New York Times today. While it's not unusual to see it at places like here, GameSpot, IGN, etc. I can't recall seeing a story about a game's failures like this reach the NY Times in the past.

For Online Star Wars Game, It's Revenge of the Fans

Posted Dec 10, 2005 8:55:08 PM | link

Mike Sellers says:

I wanted to call out this quote from the NYT article:

"We really just needed to make the game a lot more accessible to a much broader player base," said Nancy MacIntyre, the game's senior director at LucasArts. "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 experience of being Han Solo or Luke Skywalker rather than being Uncle Owen, the moisture farmer. We wanted more instant gratification: kill, get treasure, repeat. We needed to give people more of an opportunity to be a part of what they have seen in the movies rather than something they had created themselves."

I had a much longer post prepared about this quote, the nature of core vs. broader gameplay (and player demographics), and community, but I'm not sure it's worth posting. Suffice it to say that this one brief comment by Ms. MacIntyre tosses aside the bulk of what has been learned about the underpinnings of success in MMOs. Broadening the market by creating a "more instant gratification: kill, get treasure, repeat" works only if you're able to slough off PC players and replace them with a larger set of people currently more focused on console games. I can think of few more difficult and unproven transitions to attempt.

The real lesson here will be SWG's survival over the next six-plus months. I don't wish the game ill; I hope they're able to weather this current storm (and no doubt huge customer losses) to find a new and sufficient player base. But, like a lot of folks waiting and watching on the sidelines, I'm most interested in What Happens Next. Does the game pull itself together with a new playerbase, or does it wobble and totter and crash to the ground, unable to survive its own internal change?

SWG's survival (or not) will be the real lesson here. MacIntyre says in the NYT article that they expect their subscription numbers to rebound to pre-NGE levels within six months. That'll be the test, assuming SOE and LA don't pull the plug before then. If it lives and thrives, we all learn a lot about the resiliency of online games (the cries of the disaffected notwithstanding). If not, well, we all learn (perhaps once and for all) that where MMO success is concerned, "it's the community, stupid."

Posted Dec 10, 2005 11:44:36 PM | link

Jef says:

"But more it's because it means that the very players you draw due to the license come with a much stronger set of expectations about the experience they're going to have."
quoted from T. Burke earlier in this thread


This is precisely why SWG is a failure, and has been since it launched. I have played SWG every day, yes EVERY DAY, since it bowed in June 2003, finally giving up the ghost this past month with the announcement of the NGE and the realization that what little authentic Star Wars that was in the game has now died a final death.

The game was immensely flawed, both in terms of design, and in terms of being faithful to the source material, from the beginning. I knew this as early as beta 2, but I still logged in faithfully: leading a roleplay guild for two years, creating content for my friends, and generally making the most of the virtual world aspects that no other game had ever attempted. Why? Because this was Star Wars, and better yet, the chance to live in the Star Wars universe!

SWG is not a failure because of buggy code, poor customer service, or any of the other (mostly accurate) threats currently being levelled at SOE. It is a failure because it's developers/marketers didn't respect it's core audience, an audience that may not have made it the best-selling mmo in history, but could have, and I firmly believe would have, made it the longest running, and ultimately, the most emulated. All they had to do was respect the source material and they would have easily captured 100-200k hard core subscribers for the foreseeable future.

I've moved on, and I suppose it's representative of the charmed existence I've been fortunate to lead when I can list a game as the number one most disappointing experience of my life, but I do hope that other companies, particularly those working with much-loved licenses such as Tolkien, Star Trek, etc, learn some sort of lesson from the debacle that SOE/SWG has become.

It really is heart-breaking to watch, and while I have plenty of good memories and a handful of real-life friends as a result of SWG, I also have a belly full of nauseating realizations about the gaming industry and it's decision makers, and while emotion compells me to give SOE the middle finger, compassion compells me to hope that someone talks some sense into whoever is responsible for this fiasco, before they piss on the fantasies of another set of genre fans, anxiously, and perhaps naively, awaiting their dream of an accurate virtual world rendition of their favorite universe.

Posted Dec 11, 2005 1:18:43 AM | link

says:

>>>>
We wanted more instant gratification: kill, get treasure, repeat. We needed to give people more of an opportunity to be a part of what they have seen in the movies rather than something they had created themselves."
>>>>

Read : We need to give people the opportunity to grind themselves senseless until their brain oozes out of their ears. Or make them outsource the grind to China or India.

I dont remember Luke Skywalker slaying 234567 bol animals on Dantooine in the movies (and no, the number is NOT exxaggerated !!! I wish it were.).

>>>>
It really is heart-breaking to watch, and while I have plenty of good memories and a handful of real-life friends as a result of SWG, I also have a belly full of nauseating realizations about the gaming industry and it's decision makers, and while emotion compells me to give SOE the middle finger, compassion compells me to hope that someone talks some sense into whoever is responsible for this fiasco, before they piss on the fantasies of another set of genre fans, anxiously, and perhaps naively, awaiting their dream of an accurate virtual world rendition of their favorite universe.
>>>>>

AMEN to that !

Have fun

Erillion


PS: Thanks for the info about the dev shakeup in December 2004. Figures.

Posted Dec 11, 2005 7:41:17 AM | link

says:

Well, the 'Starter Kit' hasnt made a dent in the NPD sales figures. Sales rankings on several of the major online retailers are absolutely abysmal.

The gamble hasnt paid off. Last person out switch off the lights...

Posted Dec 11, 2005 11:51:47 AM | link

Morat says:

MacIntyre says in the NYT article that they expect their subscription numbers to rebound to pre-NGE levels within six months

Anyone who believes that is smoking crack. No sane human being believes that. It's just PR. They can't flat out say: "2/3rds or more of our existing accounts quit or cancelled, and virtually no one new has shown up."

Posted Dec 11, 2005 6:41:15 PM | link

That Chip Guy says:

MacIntyre: "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 experience of being Han Solo or Luke Skywalker rather than being Uncle Owen, the moisture farmer. We wanted more instant gratification: kill, get treasure, repeat."

Yoda wept.

Posted Dec 12, 2005 9:35:46 AM | link

JKalos says:

MacIntyre: "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 experience of being Han Solo or Luke Skywalker rather than being Uncle Owen, the moisture farmer. We wanted more instant gratification: kill, get treasure, repeat."

Yoda wept."

Yoda wept indeed.

Posted Dec 13, 2005 1:10:14 AM | link

Erillion says:

>>>>
Patch 26 Notes ...

* Billboards have been added to the world for important buildings so they are easier to find for new players
>>>>

Say hello to in game advertising in the near future !!!

Have fun

Erillion

Posted Dec 13, 2005 3:46:57 AM | link

Morat says:

I understand it's potentially a sop to traders. Despite the fact that loot is better than anything they can craft, that characters are rewarded with the items they need during character advancement, and that there is no decay of items whatsoever, SOE is apparently under the impression that traders will forget all that for the chance to advertise their wares on a billboard.

Either that or it's just for looks -- big equivilants of loot posters.

Fact of the matter -- the game sucks. There really IS no real market for a MMOFPS. The only persistence FPS fans want is rankings and stats -- their whole schtick is that it's player skill (ignoring lag for the moment) with the whole targetting and movement thing.

They don't WANT stuff like your character's "agility" screwing with their targetting. (And from what I understand, SOE didn't really implement character stats doing anything either) or "level" determining what guns or tactics they can use.

SOE's idjit marketers apparently saw "Hey, people like Battlefront. Let's make Galaxies like Battlefront, with some World of Warcraft in there too -- people like that as well!". The people who like Battlefront already PLAY Battlefront -- why would they pay 15 bucks a month for a lag-filled FPS that penalizes them by preventing them from using techniques and weapons without that stupid PvE grind?

And why would the World of Warcraft folks come play a crappy MMOFPS which was apparently coded by people who have never HEARD of basic software engineering principles -- like, you know, regression testing and version control.

My read on their Software Development practices is pretty ugly -- it appears they have at [i]least[/i] two teams working on the same code base with no interaction, no version control -- which means old stuff is getting written back over new stuff (which then has to be hotfixed after live) and no one catches ANYTHING.

I think their bug fix team fixes bugs, checks it in, and then the "development team" has altered that same file and checked it right back in -- and the changes aren't merged, resulting in the bug being RIGHT back in the game despite it having been fixed.

It also appears their marketing people are flaming morons, and their developers are more interested in WHAT they can do than whether their users actually want it done.

Good job, Jeff. You did indeed prove you can take a laggy virtual-world style MMORPG and turn it into some weird bastard offspring of Planetside and Battlefront. You also proved no one wanted it. Good luck keeping that job.

"The customer is always right" is a false statement. However, "The customer is the one that decides if your bloody product actually SELLS" is true. Enjoy your steaming pile of feces there. It appears you're about the only one.

Posted Dec 13, 2005 10:20:09 AM | link

Matt B says:

Crappy patch after crappy patch aren't enough to keep this thing afloat. The sooner they put this thing out its misery the better. But do enjoy your Life Day free gift! Bah. Who cares.

Posted Dec 13, 2005 3:32:00 PM | link

Pong Addict says:

I tried to read all the posts but for lack of time couldn't so forgive me if I am repeating another post.

Some of what is being discussed here is ethics.

I believe SOE/LA can change anything they want to. Clearly it has already been done. That does not make it ethical. If you subscribe to a gaming magazine and they change their format to housekeeping it is their right to do so but it is unethical.

Additionally, software may be one of the only products where quality is an unessential part of the product. This clearly is unethical. Imagine receiving medication that was "promising" for an ailment but didn't actually do anything. Or imagine eating at a restaurant where your food was "mostly cooked," sent back to the kitchen and then returned as a different dish entirely but also undercooked.

Regarding the motive for the changes - I can't see SOE or LA retargeting this at a newer "younger" crowd since it costs some $ to play and also because younger crowds also have an attention span that is scattered among many interest including other games and gaming systems (not to mention spending time actually growing up). This is a very cold and calculated move but that doesn't make it smart. Trying to repackage this as a new game may haved saved them some money in the short term but clearly the future is already spoiled.

Also, changing the game to make it more of a shooter is ridiculous. There are zillions (that is an actual virtual number) of shooter games available so why try to morph into yet another one? I can understand trying to generate appeal by making it easier to "jump into" but perhaps just creating a beginner universe would have been sufficient.

I think that there will be much more fallout from this "experiment" in both business and legal arenas than is currently apparent.

One last observation. If time (often) is money, all the hours spent by veteran gamers and loyalists must feel like a stock market crash. And would anyone reinvest in a market that has essentially stolen your hard work and hours?

Change is not always good nor is it always necessary.


Posted Dec 13, 2005 4:00:17 PM | link

Erillion says:

>>>>
Also, changing the game to make it more of a shooter is ridiculous. There are zillions (that is an actual virtual number) of shooter games available so why try to morph into yet another one?
>>>>

Especially when almost every single one of these gazillion shooters is technically better done than SWG, has less lag, collision detection, MUCH better mob AI etc.

Not to mention that LA has FLOODED the market with Star Wars shooter games already - so THEY THEMSELVES have cornered that share of the market already ... and it does NOT cost a monthly fee.

Check out this site :
http://startrek.perpetual.com/2005/11/customer_survey_results.html

Seems the Star Trek MMORPG guys are asking questions too. But contrary to SOE and LA they FIRST find out WHO their customers are and THEN ask them what they want. Strange behaviour, neh ?

Have fun

Erillion


PS:
For all the SWG tragedy .. the recent Wookiee Life Day gift made me smile .. a HUGE Wroshyyr tree, and Gungan celebration music. Its only 2 min of fun, but a much needed morale boost for SWG veterans.

Posted Dec 14, 2005 3:10:20 AM | link

Takaris says:

I really believe that SOE isnt the architect of this madness that is the NGE. I believe that Lucas Arts put the vice on the SOE team because the game was not living up to their expectations.

SOE developers...(at least the ones the players were dealing with)...were in the middle of working on the CU1 and all its problems and updates when this madness hit.

I believe...(because of all the rumors and information that i have seen)...that LA was working on this code along with a few select members of SOE for about a year then poped it on the SWG team.

I really think LA made these changes and wanted it done. SOE already has a better designed FPS called Planetside...why do they need another?

I play EQ2 and planetside...I do not see the level of mis-management in these games. I dont. I see a patch/fix or update to EQ2 at least every 2 days or so. I see Dev comments and questions. Its like the SWG team and the rest of SOE live in two different worlds.

I really think LA has a stranglehold on this game and that is why it has always stumbled. Constant nitpicking by LA and changed demanded by them never let the game get off the ground.

EQ2 is only about a year old and has had two small expansions as well as one major expansion called desert of flames. Yes it has bugs...but nothing compared to SWG.

Dosnt make sense unless LA has more control then we know...and i believe they do.

Posted Dec 14, 2005 10:15:49 AM | link

Morat says:

Takaris: From what I understand, SWG is SOE's problems writ large. Planetside and EQ and EQ2 ALSO show the same piss-poor quality control, the same issues regarding magically reappearing bugs, and many similiar customer service issues.

The sole difference, I think, is that SWG is under a rigid release timeline that EQ2 isn't. Shoddy documentation, lack of rigorous testing or version control -- all of this can be overcome if you're willing to spend a lot more time on the test servers letting your most obsessed players test it and let you know when you need to reapply crap you've already fixed.

SWG, however, gets released on an accelerated timeframe because of LA's. (Has to be a release for Episode III, has to be a release for the DVD release of Episode II, etc).

There's no "We can withold launching this a few weeks/months because we wasted time with poor quality control".

I don't doubt -- in fact I'd swear to it -- that LA pressure and LA timelines made the problems ten times more visible.

But the problems are endemic to SOE. They have poor development practices, poor version control, and -- above all -- what strangely seems like contempt for their customers.

Posted Dec 14, 2005 2:34:06 PM | link

Jef says:

While it is true that quality control, testing, and customer service are all contributing factors to the demise of SWG, I think what few people realize (or admit) is that the number one failure is that of bastardizing the license to the point of being unrecognizable. This started with the original design team, and though it has taken nearly three years to manifest itself, the meltdown we are seeing now is in no small part due to the gross negligence of those designers who chose to abandon Star Wars traditions in the name of 'fun' game design.

Were it not for the legions of player jedi (at a time when there weren't supposed to be any), high-ranking alien characters in the Imperial military, and a host of other flagrant continuity violations, I would still be playing and roleplaying in SWG, despite the crappiness of the NGE.

Sony took what would have been their most loyal customer base, purist Star Wars fans, and kicked them square in the groin with repeated design decisions and 'content' additions that made any sort of authentic Star War roleplay almost impossible.

Sure, the game mechanics suck(ed), but I would still be playing if they hadn't completely raped the Star Wars universe that has been presented in such detail across various other media forms.

Posted Dec 14, 2005 3:07:24 PM | link

Takaris says:

M: I do believe that the LA timeframe and their insistance to release the expansions in a specific time-line agrivated the problem 100%.

I also believe that LA demanded the changes and had a hand in creating the problem that is now SWG. I have not seen the same type of "bug" infestation to the degree that SWG is now experiencing in the other games of the SOE line. I dont know if you play any of the other games or have experienced SWG at all but is seems to me that the level of comitment and general work from the developers in the other games is on a different level then what the normal SWG player is use too.

Granted, all games have bugs and bugs will appear with each patch/upgrade in some form or another. Its the comitment in the developer team to get these bugs squashed in test and finally in live when a player lets them know about it.

I do not know the staffing levels at eq2 but they seem to squash as many as they can per update. SWG in contrast..well...it takes them a dang long time. SWG content takes a long time...if at all.

As far as contempt...i think SWG community is feeling the brunt of it...I do not notice this on the other games and ive been playing lots of SOE games for a bit of time....EQ1 anyone?....

I think its pretty easy to blame SOE on the whole but when one looks behind the curtain...you see the LA suits hyping the game in the NYtimes or doing interviews...or telling us there is going to be a change. (julio)


Posted Dec 14, 2005 4:09:19 PM | link

Bart Stewart says:

A writer for the Christian Science Monitor has now weighed in on the changes to SWG.

Actually, it's more of a comment on the comments in the recent New York Times article, but it's still interesting.

--Flatfingers

Posted Dec 14, 2005 6:12:13 PM | link

Dom says:

Did the Emperor care what the Jedi would think about Order 66?

The answer probably reflects SOE's opinion on the matter. People tend to act like SOE doesn't understand the implications of what they are doing. Yes, in general do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity, but in this case they had ample time to think about the consequences.

Posted Dec 14, 2005 7:42:12 PM | link

Morat says:

Jef: No offense, but purists would only have been satisified if they'd designed the game SOLELY for the purist, in which case you would have been better off strangling the game in the crib.

Your "They didn't stick to canon" gripe is nothing new -- I mostly hear it about Jedi. It's just scapegoating. "The game sux because they didn't stick to canon. The game sux because of all the Jedi".

No, it doesn't. It sucks because it sucks. It sucks because it was released a year early, and never fixed.

Had there been no Jedi and strict canon, it would have just sucked more playability out of it and died within the first year.

The game sucked because the game was of piss-poor quality. It was fanbois -- who were almost all bitching purists -- and devoted virtual world players who kept it alive.

The NGE crapped over both of them. There won't be a SWG by summer.

Posted Dec 14, 2005 7:53:06 PM | link

Jef says:

Of course my argument is nothing new. I've been saying it since Nov. 8, 2003 when the first jedi reared it's ugly head on the servers. The game died that day, in my opinion. Why? Because as soon as the cat was out of the bag, everyone and their brother decided they had to also have a jedi, and most players forgot about all the nifty virtual world features that made the original game fun to play (despite it's legion of bugs and non-existant quality control). Rather than craft, socialize, roleplay, or build communities, people chose to hologrind, and later, perform endlessly repetitive quests at the FS village in order to unlock a better quenker-killing template.

I agree with you that the game was conceptually flawed from the beginning, however, as I said, it would still be a viable money-maker for Sony and LA if they had not completely butchered the Star Wars lore that people grew up with. Hard core fans, such as myself and those in my guild, were willing to put up with quite a lot of sub-par game mechanics and design decisions. What was not forgivable was the constant influx of anti-canonical features and marketing decisions. Jedi were the most visible example of this, but there were many others as well, enough to fill a very large post in this forum.

Jedi were the most glaring example of the dev team's flawed logic, and those players that actively pursued Jedi status bear some responsibility for the game not living up to it's potential as a virtual world Star Wars simulation.

Posted Dec 14, 2005 11:42:02 PM | link

George says:

sorry Jef i don't agree with you in terms that the players who actively pursued Jedi status had any responsibility for the game not living up to its potential.
Those players simply used the game mechanics made available to them by SOE / LA.

Regarding, the Lure destructive nature of the "content" added, there i agree, from Jedi to Clone Trooper armour to mustafar... All they have done is milk the franchise to achieve more profit. It was highly, "immersion breaking" to go to Bestine and see 20 jedi's and 10 clone troopers in a timeline which they have no place of being in.
Its is a known fact that Roleplayers, are possibly the most long term players a company can want, since they normally do not leave based solely on game mechanics, but create their own content, Oh! but hang on... thats not write according to LA.
These type of gamers normally, have long term subscriptions and don't leave the game when a new "hot product" hits the market.
SOE / LA have since launch simply ignored them and put them aside.

Posted Dec 15, 2005 4:37:36 AM | link

Jef says:

Well, you yourself said that 'seeing 20 jedi's' was immersion breaking, so using that logic, player jedi bear some responsibility for the game not feeling like Star Wars, and not being conducive to authentic roleplay.

No one forced players to grind for months to achieve an immersion breaking character, they did so of their own choice, whether out of boredom with the game, ignorance of Star Wars lore, or both.

Jedi was a carrot dangled in front of people who didn't have the inclination or the imagination to roleplay or build communities, and it worked for awhile, as 80% of the servers (or whatever the official number was) went about diligently with their nose to the grindstone. This kind of community polarization effectively killed Star Wars roleplay in the game, which, if you were subscribing because of the game's virtual world Star Wars potential, was effectively the beginning of the end.

This is not to say that Jedi players were the sole reason for the crappiness of SWG, obviously much of the blame goes to the devs, marketers, etc, but I've grown tired of all the belly-aching by former Jedi that I see in much of the current SWG press coverage. These players were part of the problem, and have themselves to thank for the game's demise.

Posted Dec 15, 2005 8:37:51 AM | link

Morat says:

Jef, listen to yourself: "I blame the game's failures on people playing an available class when I didn't want to see them".

It isn't their fault. It's Sony's and -- to a lesser extent -- yours.

Jedi -- along with canon -- were a scapegoat. Someone to blame for a poor game. Heavens forbid you blame the game, because that means there's no cheap fix.

Was it a bad design choice? Hell yes. But blaming players for playing the game as designed is ludicrous.

Oh well -- the Jedi haters were nothing if not ridiculous. And I say that as a player who was never Jedi nor BH.

Posted Dec 15, 2005 10:51:15 AM | link

virtualbri says:

There's a facinating article in the Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/video_games_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001698964) called "MMOG publishers conjure up new business models" with some interesting quotes related to SWG.

The article really deserves it's own discussion, but I thought this from Nancy MacIntyre "senior director of SWG" was most interesting:

"MacIntyre believes that, over the long haul, the monthly subscription model will disappear from the MMOG market and will evolve to the selling of virtual items, an in-game economy, and the selling of premium services. But, she says, not immediately.

'Not all games are set up around the buying and selling of items, which would make it very difficult to take a game like 'Star Wars Galaxies' and make that transition,' she says. But, she adds, when 'Star Wars Galaxies 2' is developed -- perhaps in 2008 or 2009 -- things will be different. 'If we were starting to build 'Star Wars Galaxies' today, we would absolutely consider building it from the ground up with premium services.'"

Posted Dec 15, 2005 2:51:07 PM | link

Jef says:

Morat, kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth, and worse, enclosing them in quotation marks when I didn't actually say them.

You may disagree with me, which is fine, my only point was that I, and many players I know, would still be playing (bad design and all) were it not for the constant canonical raping. The ability to roleplay in an authentic Star Wars world was more important to us than the game's poor implementation.

Jedi and other canonical blunders are not a scapegoat, they are an undisputable fact staring you in the face. They may not have been important issues to you personally, but they still exist.

SWG has gone downhill because of poor design and worse quality control, no one is disputing that. But for many people, perhaps more than you realize, those issues were not the most important ones.


Posted Dec 15, 2005 3:06:13 PM | link

Morat says:

You may disagree with me, which is fine, my only point was that I, and many players I know, would still be playing (bad design and all) were it not for the constant canonical raping. The ability to roleplay in an authentic Star Wars world was more important to us than the game's poor implementation.

How do I put this gently? You purists were screwed the moment they announced the time frame of the game.

Secondly, there aren't enough people so big into roleplay to pay for a crappy game but so purist that they couldn't work around the constant canonical problems -- generally by the simple expedient of setting up a guild and not allowing anyone in who violated whatever vision they have of "canon".

If you can tolerate people talking in spatial about the new Firefly movie or their new car in the middle fo the cantina, you could tolerate Wookies with Imperial ranks and pre-NGE Jedi.

But Jedi and Wookie Imps were a lot easier to blame than the game design -- because, let's face it -- SOE's MUCH more likely to shut down the Jedi path than they were to fix the game.

Posted Dec 15, 2005 4:21:40 PM | link

Bart Stewart says:

Hang on a bit. Quality control, I agree. The two systems for enabling Jedi (multi-profession mastery and Village grinding), I agree. Those were serious design problems. (Although the latter looks more obvious with the benefit of hindsight.)

But "poor design?"

First of all, which design are you talking about? Do you mean the design of the original game? The original game plus vehicles and player cities? That game plus Jump to Lightspeed? The post-CU game? The NGE game? Or something else?

Secondly, while in hindsight I could name some things I thought could have been done better, overall I thought the original design was actually very good. Not so much in terms of evoking the Star Wars universe, but as a massively multiplayer persistent-world game based on that universe, I thought the original design did a very good job on a number of important basic features. For example: skills rather than classes, designed-in dependence among playstyles, a fully player-run economy, visually appealing graphics, Imperial vs. Rebel PvP, and an unusually deep crafting system.

So what is it that people are thinking of when they refer to SWG's "bad design"?

--Bart

Posted Dec 15, 2005 4:27:10 PM | link

Jef says:

I suspect than when people throw around the catch-all 'poor design' in relation to SWG, they are really referring to poor customer service and the fact that many patches broke more than they fixed.

I am a Star Wars fan first, a roleplayer second, and a gamer third, so, when I say poor design, I am referring to the game's ability to recreate an authentic version of the Star Wars universe for fans to populate. The original box says, and I quote, "immerse yourself in the Star Wars universe." It doesn't say immerse yourself in a loose approximation of said universe where large chunks of the mythology are ignored or altered in the name of more subscribers.

I actually liked many facets of the SWG original 'design,' from the skill system, to the player housing, to the social professions, to the crafting, and I played the game long past the point when it stopped being Star Wars because I thoroughly enjoyed running my shipwright business and roleplaying with the few Star Wars fans who cared.

Poor design, again, to me, was implementing the timeline during a period when few, if any, jedi existed, and then allowing players to be jedi (as the lightsaber is a signature icon unique to Star Wars, of course every casual fan who tried the game would want to have one, regardless of whether it was canonically appropriate).

I have always been curious as to why, if the dev team knew they had to include jedi to generate subscriptions, they would willingly bork the fun of the purists (who were more likely to be faithful customers) when they could just as easily have set the game in a period more appropriate for large numbers of visible jedi. That is poor design.

Ditto the teras kasi profession. TK's were a dime a dozen in SWG, because before the original 'combat upgrade,' they were one of the most balanced and powerful combat classes, nevermind the fact that they were ultra-rare in canonical Star Wars, and turned SWG servers into giant kung fu fights that looked more at home in MXO than SWG. Again, poor design, from the perspective of someone who wants to accurately roleplay Star Wars.

The TK and jedi examples are two of the more glaring ones that purists like myself took offense to, and the fact that no thought went into these concerns (and I assure you they were voiced in beta) falls into a phrase that I call 'poor design.'

And, despite the fact that it seems very easy to just wall yourself off with a guild of like-minded friends and ignore all the b.s. around you, as Morat suggests, the reality and practicality of that is somewhat less simple. Believe me, it was tried.

Posted Dec 15, 2005 4:47:13 PM | link

Jef says:

In terms of the gameplay itself, the Imperial vs. Rebel PVP that Bart refers to was horribly unbalanced, alternately controlled by players with knockdown abilities, then combat medics, then players with the ability to do headshots, and finally jedi. So, I think it is a bit inaccurate to label the PVP part of the SWG equation as 'well-designed.'

Along the same lines, the player-interdependence was only an issue for non-jedi, since those with force-sensitive templates crafted their own weapons, wore their own robes/armor, and generally existed completely outside the rest of the player-run economy in terms of supply and demand.

These are just a few of the game mechanic designs that I consider flawed, and again, they pale in comparison to the treatment of canonical/story issues. Many players scoff at these, but I have to ask them, why are you playing an RPG for any reason other than roleplaying/immersion?

Posted Dec 15, 2005 4:54:50 PM | link

Bart Stewart says:

> Imperial vs. Rebel PvP

When I cited that as an example of good design, I wasn't referring to the specific implementation -- what's important is that it's a feature that was implemented in any form.

The same goes for the other systems I mentioned. We could argue all day over whether the details of each of these were implemented "well" or "badly," and the details do matter, but they don't matter as much as whether SWG's designers thought to include those systems at all.

Of course, the decision to allow players to become Jedi might be one of those things that was just doomed from the start, even if it was a marketing necessity. Maybe (as I think you and others have implied) no amount of design could have saved that decision from dragging SWG into the Dark Side.

Sometimes designers don't get to design.

--Bart

Posted Dec 15, 2005 6:25:57 PM | link

Jef says:

Ah ok, my mistake, I thought you were saying that PVP was one of SWG's strong points. If you approach SWG from the standpoint of what sub-systems made it into the game, then yeah, I think it's one of the best 'designed' mmorpgs to date, prior to the CU.

However, all that potential was ultimately wasted, which is one reason myself and other ex-patriots are so vehemently opinionated against Sony, Lucasarts, and whatever anonymous devs/marketers/executives are ultimately responsible for it degenerating into such a fiasco.

I think we all wanted to love SWG, for various reasons, and it's just a shame that it turned out this way.

Posted Dec 15, 2005 9:35:16 PM | link

Chewster says:

Let me be upfront about this I despise the NGE for its failings. Its reduced the game to a laggy mess which animates at about 1 or 2 fps overnight. Its turned a rich skill system I very much appreciated into what I always hated about RPG's (and yes I mean the paper and dice ones) where you were stuck in your class and that was it.

I quit over the NGE and I won't be back in the game I've played since European launch date. A game that - at times - I was spending about 90% of my disposable time in (excluding sleep, work, mealtimes, SO time.)

However...

I can see exactly why what was done was done. It was badly executed, badly communicated and a betrayal of the ethical trust players should be able to have in the designers of a virtual world but players made this a rod for their own back IMHO.

Three things happened in SWG IMHO that made such a last ditch attempt to bring in subscribers inevitable. 1st the original design was over ambitious and led to a great deal of complexity that would ultimately be difficult to manage.

2nd the games alpha class didn't remain a myth. They publicised how to get to it and at a stroke changed the whole end-game. They lifted at least 50% of the player base out of what they were doing (acting as a community) and put them onto what was then the hologrind (and would later be the XP & timesink of the village.) Why did they do this? They wanted to use Jedi to market the game and also due to existing player pressure to know. Never underestimate the fact that we "forced" them to tell us, just as we always did, by making a noise about it.

3rd - they listened to us when they shouldn't have done.

The first problem was purely SOE's. The second was in part the playbase. The third... that was all us. Maybe they should have been stronger but ultimately we made the game what it was.

Of course when I say "we" I actually mean "other players - the vocal few" who actually used the forums. For nearly 18 months I never even looked at the forums - most players DON'T. If you're content you don't look. If you don't have time to spend hours trawling through them without sacrificing the little game time you get per day you don't look. The people who are active on the forums (please allow me to generalize a little) are:

a) People with genuine, long term issues to have resolved (eg the Smugglers and the Creature Handlers)
b) People who want PVP fixing.
c) The genuine souls who wanted the best for their own niche.

Of these my impression is that item b) was the most vocal.

Now, before you say it yes after the CU and NGE this changed - granted. But mostly the life of the forums has been about PVP and what was wrong with it for each profession. This is why entertainer, crafter etc never really got the love - but also avoided the nerfs. No one was being very vocal in those professions.

The PVPers essentially got what they wanted from profession to profession, nerfing here, nerfing there... That might have been fine but the design of the game was too complex. There were too many skill possibilities which is why we had FOTM templates - to get around the nerfs.

Until someone bleated about it and we were nerfed again.

The players caused that IMHO.

And when Jedi came through as a viable, achievable class? Then you had not just the PVP players but a whole load of other players who may never have considered it before wanting to make Jedi. They just wanted the most efficient way through their jhologrind - and later the village. Social hunting stopped on Tatooine for example - we did it to ourselves because we all wanted to grind Jedi.

We bleated about the "indignity" of having to stop our grind and actually get back into the community to heal battlegatigue and wounds. So they took battlefatigue away and effectively destroyed the point of entertainers.

Even pre-CU it got to the point that the only time most people said anything to another character was "pwned you" or "thanks for the buff doc", post CU if you weren't PVPing then you didn't even have that much contact.

Jedi was so important that a huge percentage of the player base went after it and when it got there... it was that huge, vocal, percentage that wanted what? Yes, nerfs. BH are too powerful. Why should I lose x? Why can't I do Y?

Publish after Publish was given to Jedi because the players led them that way. Even if you weren't actively pursuing it you'd still use your holocrons. You'd still rack up professions. You'd make use of the content or go after the loot involved. To SOE it appeared the shift to Jedi was the profitable route - and they could sell the game with lightsabers!

We did that.

Yes, you can argue lack of content led people to Jedi, but I'd actually argue that people didn't stop to explore content or (in the hologrind days) play their professions BECAUSE of Jedi. Look at the forums - Jedi have long been the most vocal. Jedi and Jedi wannabe's have been a growing % of the playerbase - but critically a larger % of the forums. Why? Because when Jedi was a time sink, demanding huge amounts of player time, it favoured certain type of player. People who could devote large amounts of time to the game, people in school, college for example. Fine - you spend the time you get the reward. But I believe this was a relatively smaller piece of the subscription cake - a smaller part who also had time to spend hours a day on the forums.

Personally I was never a Jedi, I never wanted to be. I didn't really look at the forums until around the CU. And as such I'm partly to blame because I was never a voice that said - "you know apart from PVP this game works okay. If you want to PVE you can be pretty much any combat profession... and it works. Just give me some more content devs."

I never did that and so we come to NGE.

We borked the game every bit as much as SOE. Our "decisions" led us here because we created the problems in the game. We let the whole thing be about an alpha-class. We didn't stop to think beyond our own selfish concerns about where new players were coming from.

And now we got what we deserve.

I don't expect this to be a popular comment and let me say again I believe how SOE handled this (timing, communication, breach of faith and the like) to be a model of what not to do. But lets not blame it all on them. We - the players who knew there was a forum and visited/contributed to it - carry the blame too. We never said "this works, good job. Hey, don't just listen to that."

NGE was the last throw of the SWG IMHO. Numbers were declining even when they started it. Maybe there's a console issue - but even if there isn't I can see why SOE/LA did this. They had to start again to fix the mess we all helped make.

Oh... and I'd just like to share one thing. The saddest thing I ever saw in SWG was the night before the NGE on the Euro servers... Creature Handlers taking out their favourite pets one last time, petting and playing with them. Perhaps they thought they'd still be able to pull them out, maybe they knew. I am not joking when I say that the conversations I overheard between them then brought a lump to my throat. And I knew then that what SOE was doing was a breach of faith. I became then as angry as the rest of us. These were people who'd stuck with broken professions - proving that a 'break' doesn't need to mean you can't play or enjoy it - and made their own content and connections. These were the people that were being let down the most. Their whole way of playing, their content was being removed. And in part - we all did it to them.

C

Posted Dec 16, 2005 1:08:18 AM | link

says:

I honestly think that the NGE for SWG might have killed any prospects for an SWG2. SWG got a whole lot of players who were new to MMO's and will likely never play one again - or at least not play one made by Sony. I have a hard time imagining any other companies out there who could successfully make and market such a huge product which everyone will expect to be horrible because of its first outing in SWG. To be sure it wasn't just the NGE, but the myraid of problems that plagued SWG from the onset from bugs to exploits to lack of content to lack of customer service and communication. It certainly ruined not only MMO's for many people, but SW too (along with the prequels) - myself among them.

As for the NGE being LA driven instead of SOE driven... Well, only SOE could have brutalized the player base so succinctly in their release of this product, but the design HAD to come from LA due to the amazing sales and popularity of Battlefront and Battlefront 2. Its fairly obvious the design elements were taken almost directly form that engine. Gives LA a black eye right on top of the one that SOE has earned throughout the years.

Posted Dec 17, 2005 1:04:42 AM | link

says:

Chewster talks about the players having precipitated this New Game Engine (my term for the NGE, because it's certainly not an enhancement), but he bases all his arguments on PvP players. Frankly, the original design of the game is based on the end game being all about PvP. There isn't really a whole lot for players to do once they tweak their character the way they want except PvP, and a little high level grouping escapades. Either way, you get to see the differences between professions, virtually all of which had MAJOR flaws. Not to mention that there were bugs so rampant in the combat system that PvP, again the advertised end game of the the system, was difficult at best. I hated PvP and did very little of it, but there was also so very little to do outside of it. Content was severely lacking in the game, which is why it relied so heavily on PvP. Also, crafters got plenty of tweaking and nerfing, lest we forget the lesson learned by Droid Engineers in the first 6 months of the game.

It couldn't have been the player's fault if it wasn't incumbent on the players to create content in the first place. Sure, it's an MMO where YOU get to decide what happens, but there has to be something more to interact with than other players or there ends up being nothing else but PvP and what was the GCW in SWG. The imbalance between the professions and the basic broken-ness of many professions was the greatest detriment to the game long before the NGE, and that was caused by LA and SOE, not the players. Many complained about legitimate and reasonable issues that were mostly ignored or I guess more realistically, were horribly misconstrued as a desire for 'faster and easier' gameplay. Truely ridiculous to blame it on the players if they hadn't been playing a broken and minimized game from the start.

Posted Dec 17, 2005 1:18:18 AM | link

Morat says:

You know, I cruised the SWG forums today -- just for giggles. I've got to say, I got a lot of kicks out of people claiming "Just stick with it, it'll get good soon. they've got some good stuff coming".

Traders are slated to be looked at three publishes down the line (March -- which means the SWG plan for Traders is to have them all quit, and replace them with NPCs).

SWG's devs have always talked a good game. But other than a 6 month period in late 2004 -- they've never delivered a fraction of what they said they were. It's amazing that some people still haven't grasped that.

Posted Dec 17, 2005 8:19:50 PM | link

Keebler says:

I had one of the NGE supporters explain how SOE was serious this time about fixing the game because they had risked so much with the NGE that it was unthinkable there was any other reason for it. I wish I wasn't so cynical in my old age, but I really do think they fully expected this to be a resounding success and now they are just pulling things out of their rear trying to make it all work.

Posted Dec 17, 2005 8:59:37 PM | link

Shadow says:

This is from a post in the SWG Forum that was locked up. Im not sure if anyone of you saw this but I was able to retrive this. Weather you believe the content is entirely up to you. Everything after this has been copyed and pasted.

INSIDE INFO ON THE FALLOUT OF THE NGE ON SOE

I don't expect you to take my word on this but I will share with you what I was told by a friend of mine who works for SOE. I can't give you any more detail like his position, department, etc for fear of him being identified. They apparently are bound by some air-tight non-disclosure agreements.

Below is what I was told:

Apparently, the NGE has really, REALLY stirred things up in Austin. All sorts of fingers are being pointed among SOE employee's as nobody wants to take the blame. Right now EVERYONE is trying to distance themselves from being responsible for making ANY decsions on pushing the NGE live. Every single employee is avoiding any connection to the NGE like the plague. I was told that the Dev's expected SOME account cancelations when the NGE went live, but my insider said they were willing to take those vet losses with the hopes of bringing in new subscribers over the holiday sales season. Also, the devs were counting on most of the threats by vets to quit to not actually go thru with cancelling. They have admitted, at least internally, that they number of cancels has FAR FAR FAR exceeded the number they were willing to take. As a result, there is beginning to be some serious discussion of a pre-NGE rollback. Several dev's are in serious jeopardy of being fired, and many many many of the support staff etc are polishing up their resume's because SOE has become the laughing stock of the online gaming community. No longer is it a badge of pride to work for SOE according to what I was told. Even my friend says he is no longer proud of working for SOE because of how they have destroyed their reputation.

Also, after having to report to LA on the NGE results, specifically the account cancels numbers, some of the big dogs from LA have flown into Austin for some serious intervention. No details on what that means yet, but it is known that Smedly and the senior crew at SOE have been behind closed doors for unusually lengthy meetings and have emerged with scowls on their face. The speculation is that LA is gearing up to crack down big time. (I would love to have been a fly on the wall in those meetings)

Because of the signifacant loss of subscriptions, customer service has laid off 25% of their support staff starting the 1st of January with more cuts expected.

All in all, the NGE turned out to rock the player base more deeply than what they expected. Talks are now underway on cutting the game off sometime in the first quarter of 2006. There is discussion with an outside company that is interested in purchasing the pre-NGE code with the aim of running a handful (5 tops) of pre-NGE servers, and maintained with a skeleton support staff. Right now this is apparently looking to be the most realistic result.

Oh, and my insider said the Devs are being intentionally vague on their forum posting and player communication because they want to keep as many subscribers as possible right now. A memo was passed down to ALL Dev's by the SOE execs with a list of topics that are completely not to be discussed or responded to on the forums. It is generally feared by the SOE team that the more info the player base has, the more of them will quit the game.

Also, the game WAS in the pre-development phase on porting to consol (xbox, playstation), but that those cycles have been 100% stalled at the moment because the future of SWG is so uncertain. But I was told that if any Dev posted or said that consol talks were never taking place it is a lie because significant discussions had already been underway with the design teams experienced with porting PC games to consol systems and that the NGE was partly (not entirely) designed to acomplish this objective."

Posted Dec 17, 2005 11:56:27 PM | link

virtualbri says:

Seems unlikely that they'll sell off the game to someone else to run pre-NGE servers. I can't imagine that LA's deal with SOE allows that, and if they really are talking about a SWG2 in a few years, they're not going to let the license go anywhere while they wring more money out of it.

Posted Dec 18, 2005 1:33:59 AM | link

Bob King says:

Received the "come back and try it for two weeks" email last night. My account, of two years, expired in August.

So I downloaded the new patches over night and signed on this morning.

In three hours, I saw 3 people off of my 566 friends list online. I acknowledge it was a Sunday morning, so I'll check again this afternoon and evening.

However, if that small snapshot is any representation of how many people they've retained it must be bad.

Caveat: I tended to hangout with those that enjoyed the creative side of the game, more into crafting and socializing than pure combat. So the dropoff in my circle of friends would most likely be much higher than an random cross-section of the entire player base.

Posted Dec 18, 2005 11:02:30 AM | link

Keebler says:

Many vets have the same situation as you do Bob. My friends list of 180 or so had 2 on last night (Saturday evening). Just my opinion, the people in game right now are one of two types:

Old vets holding out because they love the old game and hope it will return one day and players who prefer FPS/action games that enjoy what the NGE is.

Posted Dec 18, 2005 12:04:37 PM | link

Jef says:

Well, there's a link over at Slashdot to an interview with SOE's John Smedley, in which he distressingly shows just how little SWG's decision makers have learned in nearly three years of game (mis)management.

The gist of his conclusion is that 'sandbox games don't work,' which apparently explains the dumbing down for the NGE.

I just hope this misguided attitude isn't prevalent throughout the mmo development community, because if the exciting virtual world aspects of the original build of SWG get swept under the rug, that will be even more of a tragedy than what these folks have done to Star Wars.

Posted Dec 18, 2005 3:20:03 PM | link

Keebler says:

The problem is that sandbox type games are hard to make, hard to maintain, and hard to justify when you have WOW pulling in the money. In his recent interview on Gamespot, he admits that the numbers for SWG were good for a generic MMO, but not one with the Star Wars name, hence the changes he implemented. With this thinking, no game can hope to satisfy the ideals prevalent here on Terranova.

Posted Dec 18, 2005 9:23:59 PM | link

Mark says:

I have read the recent interviews with John Smedley and Julio Torres about the direction of SWG and the attempt to make it more accesible.
The blatant envy for the success of WoW leaps from the page. With good reason of course.The huge numbers posted by that game are the dreams of all the online companies.

I think they miss the point that WoW is limited in scope but seriously good in implementation. Its quality leaps out at you from all aspects. This is the thing lacking in SWG.

In my opinion what makes WoW so successful is not that it caters to the hardcore players with high level instance play and PvP play. It does , but the real beauty of the design is that casual players can play for 30mins , 1hr , 2hrs and still feel a sense of achievement. Still have an involvement in the game. This is the key to having the large numbers. Casual players , New players. Players who have had little involvement in MMORPGS and whose only previous experience of gameplay is single player games. WoW CAN be played on a level where a single player can play it just as a dynamic single player game and be "lured" into the MMORPG aspect.

This , to me , is where they are trying to take SWG. I suspect that the original game code was hard to maintain and that it had "got away" from the Devs. The code became badly maintained , documented and implemented. The CU seemed like an attempt to move large parts of the internal code from EQ2 over to SWG and bring the code back into line. This obviously failed. The NGE seems to me a major re-write from the ground up of the code and , linking into to the original post , a serious attempt to rewrite completely the SWG game.

I can see a long term plan of making SWG a minimal fee , maybe even free-to-play MMO. Alternate revenue streams , real cash purchase of additional items etc etc. Who among the veteran community bought the expansions and special additions just for the in game "goodies"?. I have several alternate copies of the game to obtain the glasses, the BARC speader and more.

The manner of its implementation and timeline associated with it simply beggars belief. I am speechless at the way this has been presented and done. How anyone could think this would be anything but a PR disaster is beyond me. If the decisions had been reached I can think of many ways in which this would have been done better.
Who decided on this? Who decided this was the way to go? and in the way it did?

I have rambled a little. My passion for the game is dying now and I can see in hindsight a brutal inevitability in the way it went. I just wish....

I think game companies should NOT be envious of WoW. Blizzard are introducing millions of new customers to the MMORPG market.Companies SHOULD be viewing WoW at the moment not as a rival but as a GATEWAY product. Fetching new people into the genre.

SWG , properly developed , in its initial form would have been in an ideal position to be the "next step" for these new gamers down the road to a true virtual world game. This is the next big market that needs looking at. WoW players looking for a little more depth and interest. Maturing themselves as gamers and looking for a little more feeling into a game. Dont copy WoW , embrace it and move on.

Alas never to be for SWG!

Posted Dec 19, 2005 8:55:15 AM | link

Boonaki says:

I started with EQ way back, and after Sony took over there was very little change to the game at first. Then came the cutbacks to CS. They outsourced CS to India to cut costs and enlarge the profit margin. They removed almost all of the player driven guide program. I put up with this for years until one day I lost something that I worked very hard for and I got an automated response, after a month of trying to talk to a person and not just an automatic response I quit. I moved to another game called EvE Online and vowed to never play another Sony game. I think that was the smartest thing I have ever done (online game wise)

EvE Online has attracted many of the old SWG players, not nearly as many as WoW but still quite a chunk. One of the many reasons I still play EvE is the developers listen to the players, they have a defined testing process that's open to all. There's no intentional secrets (sometimes they forget to put an item in the patch noted) kept from the playerbase. Many players share their ideas via the forms and many of those ideas are implmented. SOE could learn something from CCP.

Check out www.eve-online.com

Posted Dec 20, 2005 10:12:03 AM | link

Morat says:

Admittedly, their (EVE Online) patching process isn't the definition of "smooth" -- but when they patch, it's expansion sized. I listened to the old hands and didn't even bother logging in for two days after the patch.

It's been a week and it's apparently quite playable now -- except in the heaviest systems, where lag can sometimes kill you.

Then again, their Devs have been quick to accelerate their hardware replacement plans and to bring in some serious experts to help them build a bit more overhead until they transition.

We use some serious hardware at my work, but what EVE's got planned makes our stuff look dated.

Posted Dec 20, 2005 11:46:27 AM | link

Bart Stewart says:

Jef> The gist of [John Smedley's] conclusion is that 'sandbox games don't work,' which apparently explains the dumbing down for the NGE. I just hope this misguided attitude isn't prevalent throughout the mmo development community

I don't know about "prevalent," but from what's been published so far on Turbine's Lord of the Rings Online MMORPG, and in particular from the blunt comments of some of their designers, it sounds like they agree with Smedley.

LOTRO looks to be designed to be conventional, simple, and directed, rather than innovative, deep, and open. Maybe Turbine is right, and this risk-minimizing, gameplay-focused approach is the only way to compete with WoW. Maybe another game that's deliberately similar to WoW in its gameplay can be as successful as WoW.

Maybe so. But it's still a let-down for those who enjoy immersive worlds. The SWG refugees will have to look for their promised land for a while longer, it seems.

--Bart

Posted Dec 20, 2005 2:43:33 PM | link

ant says:

Don't forget the evident deception surrounding the release and advertising of the Trials of Obi-Wan and the NGE. ToOW was advertised as containing items/specialties for professions that were announced two days later would cease to exist. Viewed in the context of SOE knowing full well the NGE would mean lost players, it's not difficult to see that this was an attempt to squeeze out the last bit of money from the previously-loyal playerbase that they have now discarded entirely.

Additionally, their public statements in interviews about some of the professions they removed are jarring. Take Dallas Dickinson's IGN interview statement of "I mean, what is a Pikeman, and why is it something in the game?" when in actuality, there are more characters fighting with polearms than there are smugglers in the movies. This statement along with the others about 'no one wants to be Owen Lars and work on a farm (this means you, crafters)' is just more horrid disrespect for the players. Disclosure: I played a Pikeman from the game's release until the NGE when I cancelled furiously. I was also permanently banned from the SWG forums for writing something similar.

They also stated that the Creature Handler and Bio Engineer professions were played by less than 1% of the players, when their own profession statistics released in just August 2005, lists CH as 15/37 in rank of most played, and another dev list ranks CH as 11/37 in most-mastered professions. Both ranks are above professions that made it through the NGE transition. I find it hard to believe that those ranks represent 1% or close enough to reach 1% a few months later. This is simply another example of SOE's low opinion of it's current customers.

Julio Torres gave another insight into SOE/LA's opinion of the SWG players in the weak G4 TV interview where he says: "we experienced that in the past when we make enhancements like these and in general whats really interesting about that a lot of them come back after they feel like ok they\x{2019}ve vented their, their concerns." They honestly seem to believe that players are just children throwing tantrums and are so hooked on this game that they won't be gone for long, no matter how poorly they treat their customers.

I think the reactions to the NGE, the real reactions, not SOE's PR, have shown that this time the customers are more resigned to leaving it all behind than they were for the Combat Upgrade where many people complained a lot, but not so many actually left. The NGE is attempting to shift the playerbase, shift genres and instead has shifted the already precarious PR position of the game into one of rapid freefall.

ant

Posted Dec 20, 2005 6:23:46 PM | link

Keebler says:

Well, the onslaught is on full time now as they offer 15 day trials to cancelled subscribers, make space fighting give you ground fighting xp, and introduce random loot drops that give you a combat level jump when you use it.

How bad are things going when they actually link to IGN's story listing them as the "biggest suprise" for 2005 on their website? The story doesn't say anything good about the game, yet they promote it as being something good. I also notice they failed to link to Gamespy's award as being a "green banana" but I guess that is to be expected.

Posted Dec 23, 2005 1:44:36 PM | link

Azhrarn says:

Maybe they should try paying for better press. But then, when you're getting hammered by everything from the New York Times to the Chrisitan Science Monitor... you get a little desperate and anything that isn't an outright slam starts looking like good press.

Or better yet, maybe they should re-evaluate and revamp their bad business practices and maybe invest in and USE some actual version control.

Posted Dec 24, 2005 3:53:42 PM | link

says:

Found an intrestiing post on IGN's boards. Its supposedly from the guy who stated that the NGE was going to happen. Everything after this point is from post:

More from the guy who leaked the NGE to the jedi boards months back
(sounds like his source is now cut off):
_______________________________________________________________________

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:37 pm Post subject: These plans are a bit dated at this point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway I heard about the NGE six months ago when it started though I actually thought it was a new game my source was telling me about or that. Maybe it was a large expansion. When TooW arrived I thought that was it. Sadly the NGE arrived and I knew the awful truth. Anyway it was a totally different team working on the NGE not the second tier devs or the guys they brought over from matrix.

Previous plans asside this info is actually quite moot at this point. These plans have all been scrapped even though the data may be stored for reiteration at some point in some other product.

From what my friend told me and he has been fired by the way. The situation is entirely too bleak for words. Right now the whole project is in a form of limbo. There simply is not the playerbase now to generate profitability. The trials of obiwan has generated negative cash flow position, and the NGE code and previous code incarnations are at practical war with one another. Not least of concerns is that LA is very agitated by the no profit margin situation.

Unfortunately this all boils down to one thing people still in the game are going to be left with a very limited developement cycle. In all reality the NGE is not going to be around much longer nor will there be a rollback. The realization is that this would not bring back enough players.

From what I have heard there are 2 options on the table. Option 1 is to reimplement a pre Cu system in a couple months as a sort of grand reopening either through sony or a third party who will buy or lease the original engine. With a very small developement cycle. Option 2 is that SOE keeps the license or is relegated merely to server hosting duties. Which SOE at this point seems to prefer. Anyway developement of SWG 1.5 shall commence. This will not be a playable product persay when developement starts all servers will come down. The servers will then return late next year. The new game will recycle a great deal of material from the original game enviroment item models, but the base line engine will be different one that will be very upgradeable.

The reasons for this are simple instead of a 2.5 year production schedule the product can be up and running in a shorter time frame because it does a high degree of recycleing. Which might be a good thing. No matter what maybe early to late february expect to see 1 or 2 options implemented or maybe a combination of both. Where a smaller company obtains swg original matrix and can port over current or previous users, and the swg team will be ported over to work on the rebuild with a few newly hired team.

Right now there is no good solution the oppinion in the offices is that the damage is irrevocable. The players still will not trust the product even if a rollback were enacted, and doing the additional recodeing on what now is a very high risk propostion may be good money following bad. So the choice is either sell or pawn the license off on someone else, or do a signigifigant redevelopement cycle in alpha stage. Either way from what I understand the entire NGE system is scrap. In this sense they have listened to the player and even discounting the bugs most players have expressed they hate the entire concept.

Posted Dec 26, 2005 4:51:59 PM | link

Nik says:

I'd like to make an observation:

There have been several instances where SOE has backed down in the face of overwhelming player opposition to changes. If memory serves me correctly, once was around the CU, and the second was the ToOW rebate.

I know of several people who have left SWG, and they have done so cleanly. They don't check the forums, look at reviews, post on Amazon, etc., heartsick as they are. They respect the decision of their guildmates and friends who have chosen to remain behind.

In contrast to that are the anti-NGE'ers who post here, and anywhere else that they can find.

What's the motivation? Were the anti-NGE'ers emboldened and encouraged by these previous instances, with the theory being that if they can make enough noise, SOE will back down here as well? What's the ultimate goal? Is it to scare off enough people to kill the NGE and force a rollback, even at the risk of shutting down the SWG? Or is it just vengeance?

I suspect some of the vehemence between the anti-NGE side and the remaining players stems from the remaining player's suspicions that the anti's are in fact pursuing a scorched earth policy. Unfortunately, if the negative feedback campaign is actually effective and sufficient enough to cause a roll back, the following will occur:

1. The game will not be able to overcome the negative press enough to grow the player base, and still shut down.

2. Players will grow more vocal, not less, in SWG, endangering SOE's control in other properties as well. You have to understand groupthink in order to see that this could be a bad thing. Think lemmings.

3. Other companies will take note, and in order to maintain control of their properties, not allow themselves to fall into the "SOE trap" by allowing players to influence commercial decisions.

In short, the stakes are very high. SOE now has no choice but to stick by the NGE. It's either continue with the NGE, or shut down the game.

With that realization, if the anti-NGE'ers continue with their actions they have in effect declared war not only on SOE/LA, but on every player who has chosen to remain in the game and wants it to continue.

Make no mistake, if you are a player who wants this game to continue, whether you like the NGE or not, you've just been issued a call to arms.

Posted Jan 8, 2006 12:15:14 PM | link

Keebler says:

Nik,

While I think there is some truth to your assumptions, you seem to have missed one where the anti-NGE people are hoping to make this such an obvious mistake for SOE that no other game developer will even dare think about pulling the same stunt. If SWG lost 50k subscribers and gained 100k, the fact is SOE screwed 50k people and that can't be supported.

Posted Jan 8, 2006 8:01:46 PM | link

Jef says:

Nik, I can't speak for anyone else, but my 'motivation' for speaking ill of SWG and SOE is to encourage anyone I come in contact with to avoid the product.

Much moreso than being anti-NGE, I am anti-SWG, and have been since late 2003, when the game began deteriorating from its virtual world roots into the fiasco that it is now. The NGE was just the icing on the cake in terms of illustrating how wrong the game went, and how clueless its developers were/are.

While I feel for those folks who have decided to stick it out and keep playing (I was one of them for a long time), I don't have any sort of responsibility to 'let it be' and not point out the fact that the developers have been blatantly and unapologetically raping Star Wars for the better part of three years whenever I get the opportunity to do so.

I would hope the mmo industry takes SWG as a lesson, and either stops making licensed games, or makes them respectfully and accurately, realizing that their target audience is hardcore fans, not the gazillions who flock to WoW. If it takes shutting down SWG to send a message to the suits calling the shots, I'm all for it, whether or not it offends any players who are drinking the SOE kool-aid and hanging around.

Posted Jan 8, 2006 10:18:31 PM | link

Azhrarn says:

Oh Nik... for many of us, you got it all wrong. For many of us, even if SOE did roll things back, we wouldn't return -- and SOE KNOWS THIS. They know that they have alienated thousands and destroyed any chance that they could rebuild enough credibility with us that we'd even consider returning. It is TOO LATE for them to repair what they have broken. And what they have broken is the unwritten yet all-important contract between customer and vendor to deliver the product that was paid for in a complete and working condition.

While this contract may be more elastic in the world of MMOs due to the nature of the product, it still very much exists -- as SOE and LA's handling of SWG has proven. And in a market where customers cease to subscribe to good products when they become bored of them, simply cancelling and walking away does not sufficiently make it clear to either the business or the buying public when a product is as consistantly eroded of value as SWG has been. So we have found ways to make ourselves heard, both to the company that has cheated and lied to us and to our fellow consumers.

It is regrettable if those very few who like the new product are inconvenienced by the message we are delivering. We have nothing against you. If anything, we feel sorry for you. You haven't yet felt the sting the deplorable business practices that SOE and LA use. Saying that you will, in time, feel as we do is an excercise in futility, since no one wants to believe that they are being used and ripped off and we all want to believe that we are somehow protected from the callous incompetance and greed of those we rely upon to provide us with our products and services. But the truth is, the only ones who can protect us from becoming victims of an unscrupulous company's bad business practices are ourselves.

These attempts of ours may end up to be feeble and unsuccessful, but they are worthwhile. We can be content in our efforts knowing that SOMEONE hears us and is paying attention. And in the end, we can only hope that the people who provide us with our games are not only listening, but learning that we are more than green-wooled sheep mindlessly waiting to be fleeced -- but that we are educated and intelligent consumers, handing over our money only when that money buys us what we choose to buy, and unforgiving of intentional substitutions or consistant shoddiness.

Posted Jan 9, 2006 10:10:39 AM | link

tilda says:

Let me give you a slightly different example Nik as to why you are wrong. The whole of SOE is rotten to the core, and the anti-SWG folk are mostly those who stuck it out for years due to their love of Star Wars, the NGE was the straw that broke the camels back.

On to the example, Customer Relations. Well they deleted the CR forum as there was too much negative feedback. A person has an issue where the base she planted is unusable as a tree was spawned right in front of it's door. She called in CSR and asked them to delete said tree, she was then called an Exploiter and was told she put the tree there (I wish we could have stuck down trees and lakes willy nilly, we could have decorated so much nicer). The CSR then deleted her base and left the tree where it was, as she was an exploiting cheater. She then took her problem to the Game Discussion board (well they deleted the CR one), and was told it should be on a CR one, and was deleted and locked. What price Customer Service? That's why so many hate SOE, they not only screwed up SWG, they screw up CR and screw us at the same time. The anti brigade is doing it's level best to ensure on other developer does this again.

PS Raph Koster will talk about the end of SWG beta, but funnily enough he is silent on NGE and the end of his sandbox game.... makes ya think?

Posted Jan 9, 2006 10:23:31 AM | link

Paul "Phinehas" Schwanz says:

Quixote >>"Does a company have the right to fundamentally change the rules in a persistent world game after it has established itself?"

I think this is a great question, but (as with most great questions) I don't think the answer is as obvious as it may seem. I think that in this instance, there are some other considerations that may change the question a bit. I think there are at least two perspectives on this issue.

This first is this:

Does a company have the right to fundamentally change the rules on its subscribers with little or no notification or input?

Here, I think that the answer has to be a resounding YES. Anything else is just crazy talk, since ultimately, the developer owns all of the ones and zeros.

But the second perspective asks a very different question:

Does a company have the right to fundamentally change the rules on its community members with little or no notification or input?

This question may appear to be almost identical to the first, but my feeling is that it isn't even close. Here, I think that you have to answer a resounding NO. I think that to do otherwise is unconscionable.

Lydia points out above that, ultimately, MMOGs are a business. This is certainly true, but I'm reminded of the old "It's just a game" argument. Ultimately, a game is just a bunch of ones and zeros, but when you arrange them in a certain manner the ones and zeros take on the characteristics of a game so that they are no longer merely what they are ultimately. Further, when the game becomes an MMOG with its own community, it becomes more than just a game. In a similar manner, when one is in the business of developing and supporting an MMOG, they become a service industry, and I believe that when a community rises up around their MMOG, they take upon themselves additional responsibilities.

It's the community, stupid.

The game is not "just a game" because there is a group of real people with all of their messy feelings and such forming an in-game community. In a similar manner, SOE cannot be "just a business" because there is a group of real people with all of their messy feelings and such forming an out-of-game community. This is not incidental.

Game developer conferences have sessions on how to form an online community. MMOGs have community relations people who talk about the community of players. They interact with those players on community forums and use the word "community" a lot in their posts. Why? Because they don't want players that just subscribe to their game, they want people who are connected in a deeper way. They want to foster deeper relationships, and I personally feel that, for a lot of developers and community relations leaders, this goes beyond simply increasing retention (although I don't doubt that retention factors into it).

I'm sorry, but you don't get to have your community members and eat them too!

If you want to foster a community, you don't get to then treat your community members like mere subscribers. You don't get to objectify them as nothing more than the monthly fee that they pay. You don't get to write of something that disenfranchises much of your community as just a business decision. You and your MMOG helped to create the community, and you have a responsibility to what you've helped create. That's why you see the word "betrayal" above. That's why you see the feeling expressed even in the posts that don't use the word. Subscribers don't feel betrayed, but community members do. You don't get to ignore that.

The ethical foundation for this reasoning is very similar to that which condemns the "griefer." You are playing an MMOG where you share the sandbox with other members of a community. You don't get to act like your concerns are the only concerns that matters.

From this perspective, an MMOG provider that treats the community members that it has helped to create and foster as if they are mere subscribers is taking on the role of a "griefer."

They are acting as if the MMOG is "just a business" when they should know that it is much more. They should know because they've worked hard to make it such.

So, what happens when the MMOG providers have painted themselves into a business corner and some drastic measures need to be taken to overhaul the game? Am I saying that the providers don't have the right to do this? Not at all. They just need to keep in mind that the MMOG is more than just a business and they need to treat the community members as more than mere subscribers.

At least, that's how I see it.

--Phin

Posted Jan 10, 2006 11:22:47 AM | link

nik says:

Interesting responses to my last post. I read them with great enjoyment! :)

I think we can all agree that MMOG's are essentially the property of the companies that put them online. And any business that ignores its customer base does so only at it's own peril, unless it's managed to create and maintain a monopoly with an inelastic demand.

What I've found interesting is that most of the former SWG players posting here have invested themselves so deeply into the game that they actually feel a sense of grief and anger over the changes made. I keep reading the word 'betrayal' used. I suppose that is the risk you take when you are the creator of an immersive virtual environment-that sometimes your customers will go in a little too deep.

Interestingly, I just caught myself doing that with this, my last post on this subject. I very nearly launched into a tirade using phrases like "angst-ridden", "vindictive", "self-righteous", and my favorite "Got your personality mixed in with the size and color of your lightsaber", but I was strong. :)

I will now huddle in a nearby corner and repeat the words "It's only a game" over and over until I lose all urge to post on this topic again.

Posted Jan 12, 2006 6:37:19 PM | link

Keebler says:

Nik,

I think people who actually make virtual world games couldn't be happier that people feel so emotionally tied to their creation, afterall, that is the goal of virtual worlds, to seem real.

I can also understand why you don't get it when you say to youself "its just a game, whats the matter with these people?" Maybe one day you will find something that captures your imagination enough to make you forget it is just a game, then you will understand better.

Posted Jan 12, 2006 9:45:25 PM | link

Praxis22 says:

I've just read this, all 144 pages of it in one sitting, (actually in bed :) It's without a doubt the most interesting thing I've ever read about "games" Astounding!

However, to matters at hand, the Washington Post is getting in on the act too:

"Sadness in 'Star Wars' World"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR2006020102341.html

Then there is this page on IGN:

Date Posted: 8:51am Subject: SWG server loads revealed. Deleted off the $OE boards.
http://boards.ign.com/star_wars_galaxies/b6642/109251731/p1/?1

-Quick Stats: 10,363 people total
Most people on a server: Bria
Bria's Population: 722 (conceptually speaking approx 60 people per planet)

Least amount of people: Lowca
Lowca's population: 227 (conceptually speaking approx 18 people per planet)
Note, I ignored Europe-FareStar server's pop (of 113) b/c it's not in its prime time there.

Posted Feb 4, 2006 3:23:58 PM | link

says:

Praxis22, thanks for the server load info! Couldn't find it (of course) on SOE's boards. The populations are definitely really, really low.

Posted Feb 6, 2006 12:12:18 PM | link

Keebler says:

Seems they have disabled the server population info from being sent to your computer now, so all galaxies show as "very light" regardless of actual population.

Not sure which looks worse, knowing 10k people are playing or that all the galaxies are empty, either way, kinda sad in the scheme of things.

Posted Feb 8, 2006 11:51:18 AM | link

retiredRanger says:

As of today, the servers still rate a population traffic level of Heavy. However; lag, warping and bugs are at an all time high. Numbers? Have a friends list with 500 people on it, last night only 5 people were on. This ship is sinking. The next publish is the make or break point for even the new post-NGE players. The entire player base is fed up with the lack of commuication from the developers and csr's.

Today I deleted my 3 year old characters (4 of them) and threw the SWG disks out.

Posted Jun 13, 2006 2:37:05 PM | link

formerMasterCH says:

I finally bit the bullet and cancelled. Over the past half year since NGE hit, I haven't seen the game get better or more exciting. Yes, there are some new players, but these are the immature, "target demographic" of "OMG WTF, i'm ub3r 1337!!!11" This is the type of player that SOE apparently wants, and not me, the mature and intelligent player. So I think I'll have to join the masses at WoW.

Though no game will ever be what pre-CU and pre-NGE SWG were. It's pretty sad. Seriously, Smedley and Julio need to do some serious rethinking. No one wants World of StarWarsyCraft.

Posted Jun 14, 2006 10:29:47 AM | link

ActiveNick says:

I must confess that I was only recently made aware of this site and I am in awe. The maturity of the conversations around such a topic that are MMOGs is astounding. I have been sifting through the archive in search of more opinions on SOE, SWG and the NGE. I have been a player of SWG for 3 years now and I find myself fascinated by the "business" side of this MMO: what was SOE/LA thinking? what are they thinking now? where can this go? how long does it still have? what is the current status?

I'm not sure if there are still Terra Nova authors who pay any attention to SWG and/or still play it. In any case, I would be very interested in hearing the latest opinions of the authors regarding SOE, SWG and the NGE. Thanks.

Posted Jul 10, 2006 4:16:52 PM | link

ren reynolds says:

ActiveNick > I'm not sure if there are still Terra Nova authors who pay any attention to SWG and/or still play it. In any case, I would be very interested in hearing the latest opinions of the authors regarding SOE, SWG and the NGE. Thanks.

I spent about 12 hours downloading all the patches last weekend, I hope to take a poke around to see what changed. I also downloaded and registered with Seed, and updated EVE - I guess I'm in a space mood.

Posted Jul 10, 2006 4:48:25 PM | link

ActiveNick says:

Just as a quick follow-up to my previous post/question: The reason I was asking is there were a lot of early opinions in this thread back in November as to speculations on what effect the NGE would have, would it succeed/fail, and what would be the impact on the player base and subscription numbers.

SOE was asking the community for 6 months to solidify the game and make it fun again. While I think this is a ludicrous request as the NGE should have shipped 6 months later in that case, we are now 8 months later, the subscription numbers seem down based on MMOGCHART.COM and based on player observations online, a majority of the forum posters are more furious than ever, the latest "expertise system" announcements from SOE are doing nothing to ease the player base on their complaints of lost pre-CU/CU and lack of character diversity, and the list of bugs/issues with the game is still very long.

Is there one of the Terra Nova authors planning on starting a new thread/post/topic regarding the state of the NGE + 8 months and its effect on the gaming industry and SOE's decision to stay the course all this time? I would also be interested in hearing the opinion of the scholars here as to what are SOE/LA'S options at this juncture. Thank you.

Posted Jul 11, 2006 2:52:45 PM | link

ren reynolds says:

ActiveNick > is there one of the Terra Nova authors planning on starting a new thread/post/topic regarding the state of the NGE + 8 months and its effect on the gaming industry and SOE's decision to stay the course all this time

sounds like a good idea, expect something, sometime, from, well, one of us :)

Posted Jul 11, 2006 3:33:28 PM | link

Jake says:

I've played UO, tried the stupid game called WOW, and durning the whole time been off and on in SWG.

The swg of today is nothing like day 1. Yes the game has taken some bad turns but it is today a fun game for those who seek it. The expertise system gives you variety yet gives anyone that wishes to participate in PvP an equal chance. The only people I hear complaining are the1337s that can no longer win 90% of the time in combat.

Na sayers should stay out of SWG. Go play your teeny WOW game or City of Heros.

Posted Sep 22, 2006 3:06:25 PM | link

keebler says:

Jake said "Na sayers should stay out of SWG. Go play your teeny WOW game or City of Heros."

If you say that enough times "CU, NGE initial, NGE current, etc." eventually you will be playing by yourself. Game companies want people to play, and telling them to bugger off is the fastest way to kill a game. How much fun will you have if they close down SWG because too many went to play their teeny WOW or COH?

Posted Oct 11, 2006 9:43:53 AM | link

keebler says:

Well, today is the 1 year anniversary of the NGE and it seems not much has happened. They still have half of the professions missing their expertise systems, still don't know what to do with crafters and entertainers, still don't have collision detection, and still don't have mobs of players.

Most of the new additions made in the last year are re-gifts on things that were in the game prior to the NGE, but somehow they just aren't as good, and the one truely new thing "Restuss" lagged out so bad that most didn't bother trying to experience it.

All in all, pretty pathetic for a company that keeps touting itself as "A leader in MMORPGs".

Posted Nov 15, 2006 9:50:10 AM | link

Gander says:

Too bad they seem to spend more time and resources censoring criticism and calls for the return of the old system from the forums than they actually do on developing the game.

Posted Nov 26, 2006 3:41:57 PM | link

Mortars says:

Sony to launch virtual universe

After the complete disaster that SWG has become, does Sony actually expect to compete with SecondLife in this arena? Do they really expect memories to be **that** short?

Posted Mar 9, 2007 12:42:30 PM | link