GR writes: "I was one of many who invested in the Collector’s Edition and thought it would be the long-awaited game that would help me shelve World of Warcraft for more than just a few months. After playing for about a week it started to sink in that the game had some design flaws, some of which were polarizing. Admittedly no game is perfect, but for a game that had in the neighborhood of 200 million dollars invested in it I expected more, and apparently I wasn't alone. After fewer than eight months it has already been confirmed as a free-to-play title, making it one of the quickest MMOs in history to hang its subscription hat. It almost doesn’t even make sense… or does it?"
Another bandwagony article with absolutely no clue.
Nonperformance of something due, required, or expected: a failure to do what one has promised; a failure to appear.
If you think a $200 million game made by BioWare—who said the game will never go free-to-play before launch-going free-to-play within eight months isn't failure, I have no idea what is.
Sure, it sold a lot of units, but it hasn't even made back half of its investment.
You can call it bandwagony all you want, but don't say I have no clue. I've lived and breathed MMOs for more than a decade. I can tell you absolutely everything you could ever want to know about SWTOR because I followed the game for three years before release. Hell, I bought the Collector's Edition.
Your problem is you took the word failure way too personally. Would it make you happier if the title were Why Star Wars: The Old Republic was successful? That wouldn't even make sense.
You actually don't have the slightest solid data to assess how much it "made back" of the investment, nor how much it'll make in the future. As a matter of fact, EA was clear in sating that 500k subs would be enough to break even, and guess what? If you had a clue and followed their latest earnings conference call, you'd know that they're still way above that mark.
Only someone without a single clue would use a final word as "failure" about an enterprise that isn't even near the end of its lifetime, with a lot of potential for the future.
Someone without a single clue, or a hater that can't express a concept without the use of hyperbole. That may be your problem.
It may not be a complete and utter disaster, but its a far cry from being a huge financial success they were hoping it would be. What word would you use to describe a project that cost 200 million to make and then announces its going free to play within 8 months?
But if you don't have enough of a compelling end game to keep players coming back, they obviously won't be sticking around.
The game itself has not failed as a game, but it failed as an investment. It failed to become EA's WoW, which was one of the reasons it was created.
The goal was never to make a new Star Wars MMO. That could have been done at a fraction of the price. The goal was either to dethrone or compete directly with WoW. This is obvious in its design and going with subs from the start.
SWTOR may be a great game, but it isn't the game EA/BioWare needed. They were the failure not the game.
Yeah. It's not even a failure but an absolute catastrophe for EA. To deny this is to deny reality.
These companies refuse to give us the game we want and then wonder why they perform below expectations. When in truth your expectations were too high. People want what they tell you they want, not what you tell them they want.
Edit:
4th Paragraph from the top:...
"Given that a lot of people got their money's worth from enjoying the story but weren't interested in playing past the first free month, SWTOR would have made a much better single-player title."
I know. That's the whole point. We all knew. Everybody but the people making the game knew.
i can almost guarantee if they made a knights sequel it would have cost 4-5 less and made much more profit than the old republic will ever return
I have never been a big fan of the multiplayer portion in games, but I have No interest in playing a game to which I am online and having to find people to play with every time or even paying $15 per month for a game that I have already shelled out $60 just to buy in the first place.
Then this (a walking simulator btw) game sucked and no one wanted to play it anymore (dark Jedi and Sith on the light side? Lolwat). I'll probably go back and try it out now that it's pay-to-win but I'm not giving one more penny to Tortonic unless their game really impresses me.
The game itself hasn't failed the idea failed. It tried too hard to compete on WoW's turf. Same thing happened to SWG, WoW was huge and LA wanted a piece, thus the NGE. Once LA knew they weren't going to achieve that, they gave up, and SWG got a little better in the end. EA tried to use the WoW recipe and add BioWare, the Star Wars franchise, and a huge budget in the hopes they would at least compete with WoW. That hasn't worked, so they will try F2P.
Look at what EA is like. They are more interested in competing than being unique. SWTOR may live on, and may actually benefit if the focus on it shifts to something else and its allowed to create its own identity. Assuming EA doesn't just pull the plug.
IMO SWTOR should have tried to use the good qualities of SWG. SWG was far from perfect, but it had player housing, an complex crafting system, and space. One could ignore combat entirely if they chose to or just focus on piloting. It was never going to dethrone WoW but it didn't need to.
maybe if there wasnt a smear campaign of basement geeks that have never played it we wouldnt have this problem.
the launch wasnt as PERFECT as the basement dwellers wanted. so it gets blackballed and no one will give it a second chance afterwards even tho it has gotten way way better