Massively's NYCC Interview (there may yet be hope!)

[Ziero]

Re: Massively's NYCC Interview (there may yet be hope!)

When you manage your account in FFXIV, you go on the internet to do so, unless you use your android phone/iPhone to do it. But we're talking in general terms around the world and FFXI/FFXIV was marketed as an "international" game and not just a JP title or NA release.

PS3. HAS. A. WEB. BROWSER.

And I've said (but you conveniently glossed over) that the PC already has this stuff. Why would a PC user buy a console to play an MMORPG?

Because you do not need a PC. If you buy a console you can play this MMORPG. And you can do it without worrying about how well it will run. This is why FFXI was so popular, the Japanese are not big PC gamers, but since FFXI was available on the PS2 JPs could play it through that. And apparently it worked since the majority of FFXI players were JP players on the PS2.

Unless you back that claim up with figures you're just blowing hot air. Keep in mind that I've figured in users in all parts of the world and not the U.S. You're conveniently thinking in terms of "me and where I live" and not about what SE/Sony had planned to do or are doing now.

Again. PC Gaming is not that popular in Japan. Console gaming is. Thus an MMO on a console will be more popular in Japan then an MMO on a PC. Which btw, is not where I live.

And that's your opinion and not a factual statement. My statement suggests they may not want to and you're saying that they will. Stop assuming you know the demographics well because you don't.

...how in the hell is what you're claiming any different from what I'm claiming? You're saying people might not want to, I'm claiming people might want to. Your claims don't have any more "facts" to them then mine do.

You haven't backed up your claim with any data other than anecdotes and your opinions.

Your claim is that MMORPGs do not work on consoles. People have pointed out two that were made for consoles that were difficult to make MMOs for yet are still running...and you've just said "nu uh" in response. Where's the data proving your claims?

Oh really? So why are some gaming companies making more money than others? If life was this simple, I'd be a billionaire and you'd be married to Megan Fox.

....what the hell is this supposed to mean? You asked "How an MMO title would work on a console" and I explained it. It would work exactly the same as it would on a PC.

I'm arguing about MMORPGs while you're talking about MMOs in general. Nice how you like to gloss over things and just pick out what you want to argue about and conveniently leave out the rest of my post. As for you driving the point about centralized networks, I can tell you that is one of the reasons why MMORPGs don't succeed on consoles. PCs don't have a centralized network of users, they're free to roam as they please and do not pay for additional service fees outside of the ISP fees.

Except the only two full fledged MMORPG games made for consoles are doing well. How can you say they don't succeed when the only two console based MMORPGs ever made are still running? How is it such a terrible idea when other companies are making MMORPG and other MMO style games for consoles?. Your claim is that when the technology changes, it might be possible for MMOs to work on consoles, but the technology has changed, and MMOs do work on consoles.

And there is no additional fee for using PSN.

Facts?

The fact that 8 years into it's life it's still making them money.

Facts? It's your opinion but after reading articles and articles on this, it was never a resounding success. Maybe at one point 2 years into its life where it peaked out at just over 1.5 million subscribers, but the bulk of that left in a hurry and in just a scant 2 years after, they were barely holding 500,000 or 33% of their peak.

...so being one of the top ranked MMOs of all time isn't a success? Being able to hold a solid user base for 8 years isn't a success? As far as MMOs go, FFXI was one of the most popular ones ever made, mainly in part to the various different systems one could play it on. WoW is a freak gaming giant, but most P2P MMOs don't break a million customers and none stay at that point for long. For XI to do it, it means it was a success and for them to keep on making and supporting the game, it means it is a success.

I have to disagree with this. You can not count the monthly fees into the profit from the game. The other games are not online so to compare them in that fashion is unfair. So based on just sales of the game discs, I would say that FFXI is not as profitable of a FF game as you might think. If I remember correctly, FFX had 1.4 million PRE-orders, and I don't remember how many it went on to sell in total. But FFVII surpassed that with 10 million in total sales I believe and then if you want to factor in that they are also selling it on PSN now that would add to the sales (and its even one of the top selling games on there). I'd hate to factor in the merchandising sales too....FFVII is a monster!

But you have to take the monthly fees into account, being an MMO instantly puts it in a completely different league from the standard FFs and moving units alone is not what brought in the profits. The fact it is an online only game severely limited the amount of units sold, combined with the fact that it was a PC game, combined with the amount of hoops one had to go through to play it on the PS2, just judging it based on the amount of "copies sold" isn't any sort of decent measure of how profitable the game is.

FFXI is one of the most profitable FF titles of all time because it was an MMO. It doesn't mean it was the "best selling" FF game, it means it was the one that made the most money for SE, which no matter how you try and skew it, that's a fact.

@Ziero - It's not developed my SE. At all. Sorry, it's just not. They published it. That's not the same as designing. Like Aeni, I followed it when it was P2P and even before then. It was never solely developed by SE.

Again, everything I've seen points to SE being the ones who made Fantasy Earth: The Ring of Dominion. Even your link specifically says that Fenix Soft only made FE:Z. If you want to argue about it, argue with the 6 different gaming sites I posted.

[Etra]

Re: Massively's NYCC Interview (there may yet be hope!)

Again, everything I've seen points to SE being the ones who made Fantasy Earth: The Ring of Dominion. Even your link specifically says that Fenix Soft only made FE:Z. If you want to argue about it, argue with the 6 different gaming sites I posted.

Wow... Seriously? ...FE:Z is the same exact game as Ring of Dominion. It was relaunched with a different name after Gamepot bought it.

[Malacite]

Re: Massively's NYCC Interview (there may yet be hope!)

PS3. HAS. A. WEB. BROWSER.

So does the Wii actually, lol. 360 is the only one that doesn't.

[TheGrandMom]

Re: Massively's NYCC Interview (there may yet be hope!)

But you have to take the monthly fees into account, being an MMO instantly puts it in a completely different league from the standard FFs and moving units alone is not what brought in the profits. The fact it is an online only game severely limited the amount of units sold, combined with the fact that it was a PC game, combined with the amount of hoops one had to go through to play it on the PS2, just judging it based on the amount of "copies sold" isn't any sort of decent measure of how profitable the game is.

FFXI is one of the most profitable FF titles of all time because it was an MMO. It doesn't mean it was the "best selling" FF game, it means it was the one that made the most money for SE, which no matter how you try and skew it, that's a fact.

Ok, you said it "puts it in a completely different league", so therefore, you can not compare it to offline FF's. If you compare game discs sold as the only comparison, FFXI was has an average, at best, showing to bring to the table.

And how can you say "the amount of "copies sold" isn't any sort of decent measure of how profitable the game is."??? That is exactly how they measure how profitable a game is!

And no one is skewing things but you, you can not compare OFFLINE FF games to an online one when including the monthly fee. Thats an entirely different catagory. The offline titles will lose every friggin time, even with an online game that doesn't do very well (only online a year or two) the numbers could still outshine an offline game if you are including a monthly fee. Thats like going into a battle with your hands tied behind your back while the opposition is duel wielding axes for petes sake.

[Ziero]

Re: Massively's NYCC Interview (there may yet be hope!)

And how can you say "the amount of "copies sold" isn't any sort of decent measure of how profitable the game is."??? That is exactly how they measure how profitable a game is!

Except MMOs.

The offline titles will lose every friggin time, even with an online game that doesn't do very well (only online a year or two) the numbers could still outshine an offline game if you are including a monthly fee.

Which is the whole point. Aeni is claiming up and down that MMOs on consoles are bad business and don't work, when the reality is they're the best profit makers in gaming. I'm not talking about popularity or units sold, I'm talking flat out profits. Because of the monthly fee, FFXI is the most profitable FF title ever made, why wouldn't SE want to try and mirror or even surpass that money making idea? SE doesn't care about "units sold", that's just a fluff number that doesn't mean anything. They care about profits, which is where MMOs shine.

This whole four page argument started when the claim was made that MMOs for consoles are bad. There was no proof for that claim, there was no backing to that claim and there is no reason for that claim. FFXI, as an MMO available on consoles, has done very well as far as MMOs go and has made SE butt loads of money over the past 8 years. Mainly because it was available on consoles. How you can just dismiss the fact it's one of the top ranking MMOs of all time, doing better and lasting longer then most PC exclusive MMOs, and the fact it's one of SE's most profitable games ever is just absurd.

MMOs on consoles do work, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

[Absentia]

Re: Massively's NYCC Interview (there may yet be hope!)

Except MMOs.



Which is the whole point. Aeni is claiming up and down that MMOs on consoles are bad business and don't work, when the reality is they're the best profit makers in gaming. I'm not talking about popularity or units sold, I'm talking flat out profits. Because of the monthly fee, FFXI is the most profitable FF title ever made, why wouldn't SE want to try and mirror or even surpass that money making idea? SE doesn't care about "units sold", that's just a fluff number that doesn't mean anything. They care about profits, which is where MMOs shine.

This whole four page argument started when the claim was made that MMOs for consoles are bad. There was no proof for that claim, there was no backing to that claim and there is no reason for that claim. FFXI, as an MMO available on consoles, has done very well as far as MMOs go and has made SE butt loads of money over the past 8 years. Mainly because it was available on consoles. How you can just dismiss the fact it's one of the top ranking MMOs of all time, doing better and lasting longer then most PC exclusive MMOs, and the fact it's one of SE's most profitable games ever is just absurd.

MMOs on consoles do work, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

To your first bolded claim, the best profit makers are not MMOs. They are Call of Duty and Halo. Slap on $15 every few months for add-on content, and have millions of purchases, win. My opinion still, but it feels about right.


Now to your second bolded claim, my evidence is this: The lack of MMOs on consoles.

[TheGrandMom]

Re: Massively's NYCC Interview (there may yet be hope!)

Except MMOs.

Yes, when they compare MMO's to other MMO's then you are correct.

Which is the whole point. Aeni is claiming up and down that MMOs on consoles are bad business and don't work, when the reality is they're the best profit makers in gaming.

I think Aeni was talking about MMORPG's which are few on consoles and for very good reasons I am sure.

I'm not talking about popularity or units sold, I'm talking flat out profits.

But when comparing offline FF's to an online FF then you are putting the offline games at a handicap. Thats not fair. Just like I said, you are tying their hands behind their backs.

Because of the monthly fee, FFXI is the most profitable FF title ever made, why wouldn't SE want to try and mirror or even surpass that money making idea? SE doesn't care about "units sold", that's just a fluff number that doesn't mean anything. They care about profits, which is where MMOs shine.

On consoles? I disagree. The reason being is computers are expandable so an MMORPG can expand too. An MMORPG on a console has to stay pretty much static. They can release addons (bigger hd, ram pack, etc) but those type of things are notorious for failing on consoles. There is a reason for that, people who play mainly on consoles don't want the hassle. You saw the limitations that FFXI suffered because of the PS2, if they had not put FFXI on the PS2 I think the shelf life would have expanded since they could have updated the content to suit PC's. Hell, we are even now hearing about PS3 limitations with the new one.....and people aren't too thrilled about it either.

MMOs on consoles do work, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

Again, I believe the discussion was about MMORPG's. Taking that into account, there are very few MMORPG console games. There must be a reason for that and I think if they were so wildly profitable and worked so well there would be a lot more. With the way Blizzard is raking in the dough, don't you think they would have made a console version of WoW by now if it worked so well?

[Ziero]

Re: Massively's NYCC Interview (there may yet be hope!)

To your first bolded claim, the best profit makers are not MMOs. They are Call of Duty and Halo. Slap on $15 every few months for add-on content, and have millions of purchases, win. My opinion still, but it feels about right.

Except studies show most gamers don't buy DLCs. There was a big topic about it in the gaming section here.

Now to your second bolded claim, my evidence is this: The lack of MMOs on consoles.

Because previous generation's consoles had built in internet connectivity and expandable hard drives with easy to use USB capabilities? I mean seriously, compare the ease of playing an MMO on a PS2 with the ease of playing one on a PS3. One has everything you need built in and the other needs costly add-ons and attachments.

But when comparing offline FF's to an online FF then you are putting the offline games at a handicap. Thats not fair. Just like I said, you are tying their hands behind their backs.

You really think SE judges the profits their games make based on "fairness"? One makes more then the other, thus why wouldn't they try to make more of one over the other?

On consoles? I disagree. The reason being is computers are expandable so an MMORPG can expand too. An MMORPG on a console has to stay pretty much static. They can release addons (bigger hd, ram pack, etc) but those type of things are notorious for failing on consoles. There is a reason for that, people who play mainly on consoles don't want the hassle. You saw the limitations that FFXI suffered because of the PS2, if they had not put FFXI on the PS2 I think the shelf life would have expanded since they could have updated the content to suit PC's. Hell, we are even now hearing about PS3 limitations with the new one.....and people aren't too thrilled about it either.

PS2 limitations were a myth. They said they couldn't add more inventory but they did, they said they couldn't add more macros but they did. They said they couldn't add a lot of stuff they eventually ended up adding. Outside of pure graphical settings, which even considering those, FFXI looks pretty damn good, consoles really don't "limit" things much. Especially today's modern consoles which pretty much are computers.

Consoles may bring some unique hurdles to an MMO, but there are always ways to get over them. And with XIV's current "console limitations" SE already has things in the works to get around them. Most of these "limitations" were just SE being SE, and they still are.

Again, I believe the discussion was about MMORPG's. Taking that into account, there are very few MMORPG console games. There must be a reason for that and I think if they were so wildly profitable and worked so well there would be a lot more. With the way Blizzard is raking in the dough, don't you think they would have made a console version of WoW by now if it worked so well?

Yes, the reason is, the technology didn't exist before. Now it does and we're starting to see more MMORPGs being made for consoles. Before, XI and EQOA were the only pure MMORPGs ever made on consoles, now we have multiple MMOs(FFXIV, DCUO, DW:O, MH: Frontier) going to consoles from multiple different companies. MMOs take years to develop, and it just so happened, these consoles have been out for years which means enough time has passed for these MMOs to start finally taking shape.

And when does Blizzard make any Console game? Warcraft and Starcraft were massive PC gaming giants, but outside of crappy ports they never hit consoles either.

I mean, seriously, the only two console MMOs made so far are both still running and more MMORPGs are on the way. How is that not proof that MMOs on consoles can and do work?

[TheGrandMom]

Re: Massively's NYCC Interview (there may yet be hope!)

You really think SE judges the profits their games make based on "fairness"? One makes more then the other, thus why wouldn't they try to make more of one over the other?

Now you are going off on a tangent. For the basis of this discussion and not a discussion involving what SE thinks, the point was made that you are comparing a game that basically sells itself over and over again every month to games that sell themselves once. It is not fair to compare their profit margin side by side if they don't follow the same parameters.

PS2 limitations were a myth.

If PS2 limitations were a myth, then SE would have upgraded FFXI and squeezed every single drop of profit out of it that they could. Since there were things that they couldn't do because of the limitations, the game has lost popularity as other MMORPG's were released. You can sit there and point the finger at SE but you know that a closed system has limitations no matter what you say, and that includes the PS3.

Especially today's modern consoles which pretty much are computers.

Yes, the reason is, the technology didn't exist before. Now it does and we're starting to see more MMORPGs being made for consoles. Before, XI and EQOA were the only pure MMORPGs ever made on consoles, now we have multiple MMOs(FFXIV, DCUO, DW:O, MH: Frontier) going to consoles from multiple different companies. MMOs take years to develop, and it just so happened, these consoles have been out for years which means enough time has passed for these MMOs to start finally taking shape.

I agree that as the tech expands, you are going to see more and more MMORPG's come to consoles. But I think right now the movement is in its infancy and it will be several years before we see the boom that you seem to think there already is or is already happening. There is also the fact that developers and manufacturers are going to have to play nice with one another. When gaming is as hot as it is now, thats a hard thing for them to do because everyone always wants the biggest piece of the pie. It's more than tech holding them back from being released on consoles.

[Etra]

Re: Massively's NYCC Interview (there may yet be hope!)

It's more than tech holding them back from being released on consoles.

Example: FFXIV on the 360.

[Murphie]

Re: Massively's NYCC Interview (there may yet be hope!)

This conversation has kind of gotten to the point where I am tired of reading the quote trees.