Xfire, TES MMO, and a lost EVE pilot

Xfire: When I link Xfire stats, I don’t do it with the belief that Xfire is 100% accurate and to show exact sub numbers. I do it because Xfire trending has, historically, been accurate in painting how a game is doing. If your graph on Xfire is heavily negative, fewer people overall are playing your game. It’s worked for AoC, WAR, LoTRO, WoW, EVE, LoL, etc. If Xfire let you zoom the graph out more than a month that would be easy to see, but sadly they don’t, and I’m too lazy to Google blogs that have done this kind of tracking before. But if you personally doubt the trending, feel free to track a few games for a few months and see what happens.

With that said, if you believe Xfire IS NOT accurate, and that games that trend poorly are in fact growing, feel free to provide that evidence. To date I’ve never witnessed a game decline on Xfire yet succeed otherwise, and I have witnessed the data lining up numerous times. Doubting the numbers just to doubt them is pretty foolish however, especially for a cookie-cutter game like SW:TOR. If Xfire correctly showed WoW’s decline, why would it not be accurate for SW:TORs?

The Elder Scrolls Online: My hope here is that Zenimax did not spend 300m to fail in their attempt to recreate WoW. Those early screenshots are atrocious for an Elder Scrolls game. Also this hopefully does not delay the next TES RPG.

EVE 9 Years post: The post was not about how amazing EVE itself is (that should be obvious), but rather that it’s sad more MMOs don’t follow the same basic principles. For instance, won’t it be nice if today you could log into WoW, have it look like a 2012 game, and go raid Onyxia with 39 others? And after that raid, go hit up Kara with 10, followed by running the latest heroic with 5? And that all of that content would be viable and rewarding? That tier one gear would still server some purpose, just like tier (whatever now) does. To simply write that off as “well WoW is a themepark, its different” is selling the genre short. Expect more.

Funny EVE moment last night: Right as our Corp was wrapping things up for the night, some random pilot asked if anyone was around in our wormhole’s local chat. For those that don’t know wormholes well, you NEVER talk in local. His ship was also default named, making it easier to track him down. Our initial though was that he was attempting to bait us, as he was part of a larger Corp.

We scanned him down, but he would jump from planet to planet often enough to never pin him for long.

After a few jumps, we noticed that he ejected from his ship, and renamed it “Free Ship”. We wondered what kind of serious bait this was; someone willing to risk a Drake and his pod just to get the locals to reveal themselves.

Finally scanned down, our Cov-Ops pilot noticed the pod was self-destructing.

Oh.

The poor pilot either flew into our wormhole and forgot to bookmark the exit, or he was a member of the former Corp to live in this hole, and just now came back to the game in a ship without probes.

As we picked up his Drake to store in our hanger, we all regretted not talking to him in local. We could have sold him the exit out. Sadly he logged after he self-destructed, so we could not convo him to find out exactly what he was doing.

About SynCaine

Former hardcore raider turned casual gamer.
This entry was posted in EVE Online, MMO design, Random, SW:TOR. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Xfire, TES MMO, and a lost EVE pilot

  1. Anon says:

    Exactly correct on XFire stats reading.

    Comparing a single game’s usage TREND over time is useful, but comparing the current usage LEVELS for different games is possibly filled with selection bias from XFire participants.

    • thade says:

      Did we really expect them to try and break the mold with a sandbox? That’s still seen as risky from the “AAA” folks, sadly. Getting investors to back a game that’s not well-defined and is a big risk even if it is well-defined…that’s often too much for them to take.

      For the time being we’ll need to rely on little brave studios who throw caution to the wind and/or are privately owned to give us sandbox titles. When one of those explodes the way early Blizzard titles did (see: Warcraft 2) we’ll see a new genre explosion that will give us big studio made sandboxes.

      • Chris K. says:

        We expect TES gameplay from a TES MMO. Not WoW-like mechanics.

        I mean, catering to all the people that praised Skyrim to high-heavens? Clearly a niche, non-profitable audience.

      • adam says:

        Absolutely. The moment I heard there would be a TES MMORPG I knew it would be a standard vanilla. No innovation, no excitement, nothing. I felt tired just reading over the list of “features.” You can’t rely on big companies to do anything remotely risky in the MMOG space. They just won’t do it. Instead of trying to hit on the hundreds of millions of avid gamers who don’t play WoW, they’ve decided to try and poach the 9 million or so who do–you know, kind of like 95% of every other MMORPG to come out in the last seven years.

        How is this concept not getting through to them?

        • thade says:

          I mean, the answer to that is easy. WoW made a STUPID amount of money; investors want IN ON THAT. That’s all there is to it. They understand that WoW makes money, but they don’t get *why*. (See: Blizzard changing core elements of game-play and re-designing their entire combat system half a dozen times over the game’s life span.)

          Video games are very often a big risk; they cost a lot, they take a long time to make, and there’s seldom any form of guarantee that it’ll sell. What’s sad here is that I’d see an IP as strong as TES giving them leverage in getting creative…but they didn’t go there.

  2. Pingback: X-fire and validity. « thade's Hammer

    • Rammstein says:

      I’ll just respond here since thade Tobolds his comment section.

      A. Correlation is not causation: While linking to xkcd is “Oh so trendy!”, you might want to notice that the actual claim here was just that Xfire and later performance are correlated. The causation is usually not specified, but we can generally assume the underlying causation for this correlation to be “people realized the game was bad”. Really, correlation is not causation is so often the appropriate reply, that when you use it incorrectly as in this instance, it has a “boy who cried wolf” effect in the cases where it should actually be cited. Naughty thade :(

      B. “There is – very, very likely – some relation between X-fire trends and global trends; what the comparative slopes are, utterly impossible to determine. It’d still be difficult, even if we had all of the data we’re lacking.

      That was really my entire point (which I failed to communicate firing from the hip yesterday) and all I wanted to get across. ”

      That’s your entire point? Here’s my response, which I believe is representative of most people’s feelings about your main point: Who the hell cares? I’d be more interested in the comparative slopes of our driveways than in the comparative slopes of those trends. What are you saying is not relevant to anyone else in this world, sir. Besides, to really be impressive pseudoscience, you should have pulled out the stops, slopes? What about polynomial/exponential fits, time lags between curves, some real polysyllabic jargon? Your point seems to be 1. Inductive logic is hopelessly vague,and we need massively detailed charts for everything, even though predicting the future in anything that involves large groups of people is not actually very scientific. This is classic pseudoscience. 2. Recognizing that there’s self-selection bias involved in Xfire, so that statistically it no longer functions as a random sample.

      Normally, people either fall into camp 1: pseudoscience, or camp 2: careful statistical analysis. Normally, someone who is able to articulate arguments from camp 2, but still makes type 1 kind of arguments, is being intentionally dishonest, and trying to pull some kind of scam for lucre. I don’t see how you gain from this,and you seem sincere; so I think you may just be unhinged mentally.

      “Anyway, the reputable Syncaine (and others) still maintain that X-Fire is a valid source to use as a predictor for the collapse of games, despite liberal application of sampling bias or the sheer definition of validity i.e. a formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation. ”

      Predicting which games are going to fail is an exercise in INDUCTIVE LOGIC (Or, one could argue by saying that the fact that Xfire trends have so far predicted the collapse of games with strong accuracy, means that we should treat Xfire as useful data for making predictions in the future, which is more of an abductive logical claim). You are quoting definitions from wikipedia for DEDUCTIVE LOGIC. Claiming that the “reputable Syncaine” stated that he is making a DEDUCTIVE claim that Xfire predicts game collapse is a logical error on your part. Again, this is the kind of error that leads itself to the most obvious interpretation of intentional dishonesty on your part; but I still have the feeling that you are just highly confused.

      ” we have nothing else to go by;
      I’ve seen consistency, I swear;
      what’s a third variable?

      I see this kind of stuff too frequently in blog-o-land and I guess I have this unconscious, feverish, and vain hope it will some day go away.”

      Well, it will go away when Isaac Asimov’s vision of a true science of human mob behavior, set in speculative fiction thousands of years hence becomes current day reality, and not before. (Which is probably never.) You offer exactly ZERO progress towards this goal, you offer no useful criticism or interpretation of your own. All you do is post over and over that the informed opinions other people are presenting are not scientific facts, and fail tests of deductive validity. I’m sorry to inform you that you are just stating the obvious there, in a highly irrelevant fashion. Then you compound this error by claiming that people are presenting inductive and abductive arguments as if they were deductive, which comes across as a bald-faced lie on your part. I would advise you to drop the wise philosopher routine, it makes it much harder to forgive your very basic errors of logic.

      • KSC says:

        That’s an amusing bunch of sophistry from someone railing intentionally dishonesty. I’m now convinced that you are intentionally misrepresenting people’s arguments just to get a reaction.

        • Rammstein says:

          Sophistry? I made multiple specific comments of factual error, which you are either unwilling or unable to do. If you can’t respond factually, you will be dismissed.

      • “Here’s my response, which I believe is representative of most people’s feelings about your main point: Who the hell cares?”

        You clearly do?

        • Rammstein says:

          No, I clearly don’t. Perhaps you misread the exchange?

          The logical pattern you are espousing is as follows:

          You cheat on your girlfriend, she screams at you, you say “but it was my birthday” , she says she doesn’t care that it was your goddamned birthday, you say “But *Clearly* you do care, you’re screaming right now”

          If A is objectionable, and B is used to justify or explain A, the less relevant B is, the more objectionable becomes the use of B to justify A. Note that in all examples above, B is a true statement, although of course B being false wouldn’t improve the argument.

  3. saucelah says:

    on TES — that’s just depressing

  4. Wingpie says:

    It is funny when other non-MMO gamers get excited about a game, then hear that it is like normal MMORPGs are their visions are crushed and everyone goes back to their own business. Non-MMO gamers are on the outside looking in, which gives them a better vision of what they want in an online game, just goes to show what a mess the MMORPG genre is in.

    • SynCaine says:

      But if you are a huge fan of TES games style (sandbox), isn’t hearing that the next TES game is going to be nothing like that disappointing? MMO fan or not?

      • TheJexster says:

        This demon is tes in name only…hmmm sounds like a mmo that is star wars in name only see how that worked out for them.

  5. TheJexster says:

    Looked at the ign info…sounds like wow with more pvp and no sandbox…went from omfg to puking in record time here.

  6. Rammstein says:

    “EVE 9 Years post: The post was not about how amazing EVE itself is (that should be obvious), but rather that it’s sad more MMOs don’t follow the same basic principles….That tier one gear would still server some purpose, just like tier (whatever now) does. To simply write that off as “well WoW is a themepark, its different” is selling the genre short. Expect more.

    This begs the obvious question: Which games is more like EVE, retail original WoW, or cata/MOP WoW? At level 60 I: kept 4-5 sets of gear and switched fits for different situations; had incentives to run content in-guild, even small group content; had incentives to help people in my guild progress since they couldn’t do it on their own easily; and making money for consumables was an issue. I.e., WoW’s greatest success came when it was the least “themeparky”–in effect, the social structure built on the 4-legged tripod above was an emergent metagame functioning as a sandbox game. Just like the Mittani enjoys EVE as a sandbox without even logging in to the EVE client some days, one could log in to a Vent server, discuss the guild structure and participate in the player made sandbox of the guild culture without logging in to WoW, back in the day. To me, that was the original design of WoW, it was intended to have that from day 1.

    This is why I’m really happy with the gun-mining nerf in EVE, I feel like people make way too much of some mystical inherent difference between WoW and EVE, and ignore that it’s more about one moving forward and one moving backwards. Watching the different maintenance development teams feels like watching two men trying to make their way through a dark room. The CCP man has a sensible method of going forwards and not backwards. He sees faint landmarks in the gloom, every so often he stops to check. Did the landmarks get turned around? Did he blunder into a harpsichord? He gets his bearing and starts walking again. The Blizzard developer, for post-BC WoW, has a simpler algorithm for making sure he’s going forwards, not backwards: 1. Walk forward. 2. Did you hit something? If so, spin in a circle until you get dizzy. 3. If not, walk faster, speed is king. 4. Become inspired by Pokemon. 5. ???? 6 Decrease profit, again.

    The removal of gun mining is definitely a harpsichord inspired retrenchment. Of course, the algorithm that every other ‘themepark’ besides WoW seems to be following is even worse. 1. Release copy of WoW with new graphics. 2. Release a patch with 3 features from WoW that you just didn’t have time to get into the retail release, and a shiny new mount/costume. 3. Release a patch implementing 2 fatal flaws/nerfs in WoW that you just didn’t have time to get into your retail release, and a shiny companion pet. 4. Go back to 2 and repeat last 3 steps, until game failscades.

  7. I think you were right to be weary of typing in local. The ONLY times I’ve ever said anything in a wormhole local channel is either baiting, or “gf”.

  8. Azuriel says:

    For instance, won’t it be nice if today you could […]

    In a word: no.

    I don’t ever want to be back in Kara, or Onyxia’s Lair, or be forced into a 25m raid again. I don’t want old content to be “viable,” when it is only possible to be made viable by being made required (or eliminating progression, I suppose). I don’t want to come back to WoW and have to slog through Firelands and Deathwing and whatever else came out between when I quit and came back. I don’t want to have to “earn” all the old tier gear I skipped when it became boring. And I don’t want to grovel and beg disposable acquaintances to run content they have played to death for years already.

    Part of the ineffable appeal of themeparks to me is precisely the newness, the camaraderie of common progression. In other words, the planned obsolescence of raiding tiers is not a bug, it’s a feature. There may be another Burn Jita event, but you were there at the first, right? I was there for Ulduar, when everyone was struggling at the same time, when each new progression kill was meaningful, when you felt connected to everyone in a single unifying (months-long) event.

    Even if Ulduar was still relevant or viable an expansion later, it would be missing that quality of newness. Imagine if the Burn Jita event was something a new player could experience on demand by zoning in and talking to an Agent or whatever. The temporary nature of these events makes them more meaningful to you, even if it leaves a lot of “wasted” content along the wayside.

    • Xyloxan says:

      So, you are saying that having a game content that is “viable and rewarding” even after a few years of playing is not good. Because “it would be missing that quality of newness.” I just hope that your friends and significant others in RL don’t mind when you drop them because they are losing “that quality of newness.” Yea, having a “viable and rewarding” experience is such a bad thing.

      • Azuriel says:

        You’re trying too hard to be Rammstein, and just embarrassing yourself.

        Remember the TV show Lost? Did you watch it when it was current? It was exciting seeing a new episode, trying to figure out what the hell just happened, and then talking with your friends about it later, coming up with theories, etc.

        Try doing that now. The story hasn’t changed, so it’s just as “viable and rewarding,” right? Not really. Your friend that has seen the whole show already might humor your theories without spoiling them, but the bottom line is that the Lost boat has sailed. The show felt different when it was being released episodically to everyone, every week.

        Why do people go to sporting events when they could watch it on TV later, much more cheaply? Is watching the 1986 Superbowl not just as “rewarding and viable” as this year’s? Hell, there’s no reason to watch current sports shows at all, considering you have ~80 years worth to consume, amirite?

        • Rammstein says:

          How hard is he allowed to try to be like me, before it’s too hard? Not that I think he’s actually trying to be like me at all, but I thought I’d ask what the official limit is.

          I like this analogy though, the hidden message is: people who like themeparks, are the kind of people who like to watch a lot of TV. Very good argument against themeparks, I’d probably say you were trying too hard to be Rammstein, if I knew exactly what the limit were.

        • Azuriel says:

          People who like themeparks, are the kind of people who like to watch a lot of TV.

          More or less, yes. The ineffable quality of newness, which enhances the content itself, is present in both.

          Not sure why you see the comparison as an implied negative (“argument against themeparks”), but feel free to explain yourself.

        • Rammstein says:

          There’s nothing wrong with watching a lot of TV, some people are very ill and that’s all they can do. If you are seriously advocating that watching a lot of TV is good for an active, healthy, and mentally capable person,for example, a more fitting activity than commenting on blogs–then by all means, go watch your shows, man, don’t let me keep you. Or perhaps you comment on blogs while watching TV? That analogy is even better, then it’d be implying that themeparks are great, a wonderful way to introduce ineffable newness into your life, as long as you’re also doing something else entirely that actually manages to occupy your attention.

        • Xyloxan says:

          I’m afraid you are embarrassing yourself. You are asking yourself whether watching again and again exactly the same Lost episodes is “viable and rewarding” and you’re stating that it’s not. I agree 100%! But, it seems to me that you are equating “viable and rewarding” with “newness”. I don’t. That’s it.

        • Azuriel says:

          @Xyloxan

          Err… what? I’m saying if I have never seen Lost before, and just came home with the whole series on DVD to watch for the first time, the show will be less entertaining to me than had I watched it when it was current. Being a part of the millions of other people who had no idea WTF was going on added something to the experience; a something that does not exist if you started watching tomorrow.

          Even if Karazhan was made somehow “viable and rewarding” today, that raid is half a decade old. I spent 24 weeks in there back in the day, and I don’t ever want to go back. The people who missed Kara when was current? Sorry about your luck. “Viable” or no, it wouldn’t feel the same as it did on release anyway.

        • SynCaine says:

          Az: Kara would feel old to you, because you already spend 24 weeks in that content. EVE missions don’t seem super new to me, because I’ve already run all of them multiple times.

          But unlike Kara, someone new to EVE can still run missions, while no one new to WoW can run Kara and have the content be viable. That’s the point.

        • Azuriel says:

          @Syncaine

          Right. And I’m saying that the changes necessary to make Kara viable for a brand new player would (likely) negatively impact my own game experience. “Items degrade and/or lost on death”? Yeah, no thanks.

        • spinks says:

          It’s not actually a necessary part of themeparks that content gets obsolescent. I think GW (PvE part) is a good example of that. No, MMOs that have a lot of planned obsolescence do it for different reasons, to do with levels and progression and needing to keep setting goals for achievement focussed players.

          Somewhere along the line, themepark players decided that they couldn’t be arsed with long term objectives, so any time a game puts them in there is a mass outrage and threats that people will find ways to shortcut the path to the goal (ie. by buying gold or whatever) because too many players just are unable to patiently work their way towards a goal at a comfortable pace.

        • Rammstein says:

          Long term balance requires a baseline level of difficulty. If everyone can beat every challenge, then everyone will win and nothing will be left but pvp. If you’re against anything that would make WoW harder and ruin your experience, than you’re against long term balance, because it’s currently ridiculously easy. This is all basic stuff not worth discussing in a dialectical fashion, so far.

          The problem here is that a little debate started up over Azuriel answering what was a rhetorical question: “For instance, won’t it be nice if today you could log into WoW, have it look like a 2012 game, and go raid Onyxia with 39 others? …[etc]” He took it as a poll of the readership, when it seems to actually have been a rhetorical question translated as follows : ‘I think it sucks that 98% of the games out there right now are biased away from long term balance and towards immediate universal accessibility, the market isn’t adequately serving every niche”. Debates which start when people mistakenly answer rhetorical questions don’t accomplish much, and someone should have caught it before now ~_~

          @spinks: I was under the impression that the PVE portion of GW wasn’t really enough to call that alone an MMO. Is there actually some kind of pve endgame in GW?

        • spinks says:

          My knowledge of GW is mostly from friends, but I think there’s a fairly extensive ‘endgame’ around collecting elite skills and farming up interesting stuff.

        • Rammstein says:

          Ah ok, so I’d say that GW doesn’t function as a counterexample to themeparks not requiring obsolesence, because it doesn’t sound like GW is a themepark at all. You can do that in WoW also, but focusing on achievements/collectibles/grinds is going off the rails of the themepark ride there. My understanding is that Blizzard is going to heavily emphasize that aspect of the game in MoP, but this general phenomenon isn’t a counterexample to the earlier statement about classic themeparks, but an example of the gaming industry moving to incorporate achievements/pokemonz to create themepark hybrids. Which is great, unless every title does this, creating undesirable uniformity and overloading that niche. Obviously, in the trinity of degrade/obsolete/rarity of maintaining content for the playerbase, the rare collectibles and elite skills in GW is throwing all the eggs into the third leg. Eve is heavily weighted towards the first, WoW in vanilla/BC towards the second–so they all are(were) fairly pure in picking one to emphasize, but none of them escape the solution space outlined by their cartesian product.

          If I were designing a sandbox, I’d go heavy on all 3, why not? Have most items be lost on death, design a subset of obsoleting items somehow optional to the core gameplay, and also a set of collectibles optional to the core gameplay.

          So, you have your basic fantasy system, mage/cleric/fighter/thief/ranger. That equipment has a chance of being lost/broken on death. then you have seasonal invasions/magical events, where you get gear useful for a limited time, after which it has no use and gets broken down for scrap metal. Then collectibles which have maybe no combat use but offer social/convenience benefits. Just like real life, where you can spend 1000 on a set of heirloom Le Creuset, a computer which obsoletes, or a designer handbag worn for status but not practically better than a knockoff. Could a themepark go heavy on all three? No, it wouldn’t be a themepark anymore. Even with just 2 as WoW is moving towards with MoP, the only way you can still credibly call WoW a themepark is that Blizzard is keeping the themepark ride pretty separate from the achievement/collectible path, avoiding interlocking bonuses to combat from collecting cheeves.

        • spinks says:

          I think this is possibly a topic for a post of its own, but what exactly do you think a themepark is? I don’t see GW as a sandbox, for sure; it has potted content, zones, bosses, so why would it not be a themepark?

    • Rammstein says:

      “I don’t want old content to be “viable,” when it is only possible to be made viable by being made required (or eliminating progression, I suppose). ”

      Currently in themeparks, only one tier is viable at any one time. In sandboxes, everything is viable. Any rational observer would then say, in the themepark, that one tier is effectively required, but in the sandbox, nothing is required. Your statement, that you don’t want to be required to do content, works in the opposite direction that you think it does.

      • Azuriel says:

        The context is the requirement to complete content I have already experienced (e.g. Kara, etc), or content other than what everyone else is currently excited about. The two most common “let’s make everything viable!” solutions are A) requiring one to progress from T0 –> T1 –> T2 –> etc in order to get to endgame, or B) flattening (or broadening if you prefer) progression.

        If you have alternative solutions, I would be happy to hear them.

        • Rammstein says:

          Are you joking? How do all sandboxes keep everything viable? It’s been discussed on this blog hundreds of times. A. Nothing is soulbound, so you can get monetary reward from doing something with friends and not feel like you’re wasting drops because you already have that item. B. Items degrade and/or lost on death. C. Slow down the item spigot to keep things in balance, when every boss drops multiple EPIX! items, then there’s no way to keep everyone from having tons of the best items, at which point it doesn’t matter if progression is linear or flattened, there will only be a few encounters that drop the very best loot that people will care about. All three ideas can be represented by the simple concept “removing the three least realistic elements of the themepark loot system”, so even if you hadn’t seen them hundreds of times on this blog, they’re still fairly obvious.

          Now, if you really wanted to get complicated, then instead of just making loot more realistic, you could add in fancy new unrealistic elements specifically designed to keep more content viable. It’s not required though, simply making things closer to how they work IRL is sufficient.

  9. gevlon says:

    Talking in WH is probably the sign of being lost or the simplest way to figure out if it’s taken or empty. If it’s taken, someone will show up in no time. I remember when my girlfriend scanned down a WH and jumped in. The guy who found her T1 frig with a strat cruiser not only did not pop her but spent about 10 mins explaining the basics of WH life.

    People in EVE became way too suspicious. When they see someone doing something weird they assume bait, however in 99% it’s just stupidity (or genuine newbieness).

    I once had to answer the fire alarm (food in the kitchen oven). When I returned, my interceptor was floating at a gate, left cloak long ago, having 500M in the cargo, being locked by a Tornado but not harmed. Warped away and opened convo to the Tornado pilot, asking why didn’t he loot my ship, as it’s clearly profitable. Answer: “bait fail! u surely had a secure container to protect loot, your cloaked buddy would have looted you when i pop and i get concorded for nothing. im not a n00b lol”

    • Devore says:

      This is kind of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I understand why people are suspicious, there are tons of scams, spies and thieves. On the other, it causes EVE to become cliquey and somewhat unfriendly, at some level. Once you’re comfortable in the game with your friends, buddies, corpmates, whatever, there’s little reason to venture out and meet new people and take risks. The value of what you and your corp have accumulated over time is now too great, and it’s become a self-sustaining little community. Don’t rock the boat.

  10. Professer says:

    What? I thought I read that the TES MMO was going to be a factional pvp focused game… i only glanced over the first article I saw announcing it though

  11. Aufero says:

    Interesting bit on why SW:TOR is shedding subs on Richard Bartle’s blog yesterday: http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2012/QBlog040512A.html

    TL:DR – The leveling game is mostly single player story centric play, which is how the game was advertised. The endgame is the same stuff everyone’s sick of from WoW and clones. Few players stay interested once they hit the endgame.

  12. doonewoodtac says:

    Why aren’t more games doing what EVE does …

    …what is EVE doing? Not a joke question, but something to really think about.

    EVE is doing one thing, continuously in my mind: FFA PVP with a war economy (player driven). This is it. This is the fun loop. The intrigue of EVE is being able to literally do what you want with what’s provided. It’s extremely seductive and addictive. It’s a successful formula.

    When comparing EVE to other MMOs, for better or worse, we find EVE has a substantially smaller player base than most MMOs. It has fewer subscribers than Second Life (what should we learn from them?) despite being older. It saw a stiff decline last year, but has since recouped those numbers. Is EVE still growing and what should other MMOs copy from EVE?

    I think there’s some things EVE can teach other games, but I don’t know that they should model after the game entirely. That would be saying that there’s no flaws with EVE and that’s just not the case.

    I’d love to see a game with a player driven economy, perhaps Archeage will succeed in this area in offering something EVE does not. GW2 is the only game on the market attempting to make a dynamic world (where towns and people can disappear from the landscape); we’ll see how well this fares. The questing in EVE is as dull, if not more dull, than any other MMO offering. Faction grinding, check. Infinite supply of crafting materials, check. If all EVE ever wants to appeal to are FFA PVPers they will continue to succeed like no other game on the market … and they will do it with under half a million players world-wide. Not that size matters; success is success and I’m in favor of more niche games tbh (maybe we can all get what we want this way). But with 20 million known gamers around the world EVE is capturing less than 3% of those players. Or put another way, FFA PVPers are barely a drop in the bucket (especially since we know a significant portion of EVE players *don’t* care for FFA). I don’t know if this is good or bad, but tell me your thoughts.

    What should other games learn from EVE?

  13. muckbeast says:

    When you ask “What is Eve doing right” I think it boils down to a very important and admirable thing: They picked one very important thing to do well and they never forget that’s what they are supposed to be doing. Someone already labeled it FFA PvP with a war economy. That’s probably a good description.

    I think that’s one of the reasons people flipped with that recent expansion because for the first time it looked like CCP was distracted and took their eye off the ball.

    MMOs, or any online games, need to “know thyself” and make sure every decision they make is made with the understanding that they need to stay true to their primary game design paradigm.

    Does Zenimax really have a $300 million budget for TES MMO? Is there any more info out there about this? Where did they get such massive fundage?

  14. Serpentine Logic says:

    Why not just open a private conversation with the pilot instead, or send him an evemail or something?

  15. Pingback: Gaming Xfire | Diminishing Returns

  16. xXJayeDuBXx says:

    I can’t argue the correlation between Xfire numbers and subscriptions for a game and having played TOR since release I can attest to the fact that the server I do play on seems less populated at prime time. How many active users does Xfire have and is it really representative of the pc gaming community?

    Personally I don’t want TOR to fail cause I like the game. I don’t want any MMO to fail for that matter, but I don’t understand why there are those who are hell bent on this idea that a particular style of game needs to fail or die.

  17. brainclutter says:

    Liar! Blasphemer! Xfire is not even remotely accurate! I mean, just look at SWTOR! http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ea-sales-beat-targets-star-wars-takes-hit-2012-05-07 That game is totally gro…. err… mainta… er… shit.

Comments are closed.