| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (101)

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 12:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra

If you think shutting down SWG on Dec. 15 and launching SWTOR right after are coincidental, "you are mistaken, about a great many things"

:)
Reply

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 12:57PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

Ah! Here's one! :P

Nah, I am not. Prove it. And while you are doing that, why hasn't LucasArts shutdown Clone War Adventures or some of the games on their site?

Also prove how, this case is different from the standard operating procedure that LucasArts operates by which it rakes in the most money for its company. Prove how past examples, such as candy products, toys, and more have not been licensed by different companies, but yet produce products at the same time. And this includes different console games.

Thing is, you can't. LucasArts HAS licensed it's properties to two or more competing companies in the past at the same time.
Reply

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 1:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra

I can't prove it was planned anymore than you can't:P
Reply

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 1:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ren54

You betcha! But, nothing wrong with that. Last I checked Bioware, Lucasarts and EA were all for-profit businesses.
Reply

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 1:56PM Spacegrass said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Ren54

How many people are still playing Star Wars Galaxies? Four? Five? Maybe even six? I'm sure that's enough for Bioware to make their release date around.
Reply

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 2:02PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

LOL! I'll give you points for that, but the thing is, I have more stronger supporting evidence on my side given what LucasArts has done with licensing/marketing its IP in the past and even recent times (like Clone Wars).

Maybe in a year or so, more info will come out what happened at that meeting, but it makes little sense for them (SOE and LucasArts) for them to have had such a meeting and conversation in the FIRST place if LucasArts were going to turn them down cold in any event; wouldn't a phone or email be quicker than some long drawn out discussion? A discussion that tends to support that there was hope for SWG's continued existence (either through higher licensing fees or whatnot)?
Reply

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 2:08PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

And heck, you shot yourself in the foot with that reply to Ren54 (if you are the same Unverified) about EA, Bioware, LucasArts being all-for-profit.

While the numbers playing SWG were not spectacular, they were, conservative estimate, around 100K, give or take. As a business owner, why throw that extra money away? Even if it's "pocket change", I am gonna keep collecting it, so would LucasArts.
Reply

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 2:13PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Spacegrass

You can assume, but I happened to re-sub (during their free promo/downtime) into SWG and the population was healthy. A healthy population is about 100K, anything substantially less, SOE would and HAS closed. Look at Matrix Online, it didn't keep that game running, it CLOSED it. The recent patch SWG released was announced even BEFORE news of the closure took place, that tells me Devs were ACTIVELY working on an ACTIVE game, otherwise, why would SOE pay the man-power for a dead game?
Reply

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 2:26PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Spacegrass

I'll also say this: Given what I know. CoH boasts around 100K or so players and was doing healthy. They had 2 full servers among (in Prime Time)...14 or so. SWG has about...8 or so server. 2 servers were full or close to it at Prime time. One other server tended to peak at night, but that's European time. Other servers not so full. Maybe not comparable to CoH, but...

...but compare to Warhammer. That game has closed severs over and over. How many total servers does it have at the moment? (anyone know?) 4? 5? How many are full during Prime Time? Maybe none? Maybe one?

To me, that means SWG was even healthier than Warhammer Online (an EA product).
Reply

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 3:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra

Yes, I was the same unverified (lol). And I stand by my statement. Even if they had 100K still playing SWG most if not all will migrate over to SWTOR. And without the added expense of maintaining SWG (servers, employees, CS) then it was a smart business move.
Reply

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 3:23PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

Again, that's an assumption. ;P Business like to be held by the hand and the best thing to do that is with past performance and not future performance. We know the old warnings of "Past performance has little indication of future performance", but this is how businesses and accounts *really* operate, by looking at the past to see the future.

So, while potential is there, it is a RISK and not assured. Would those SWG players move or not? I know of some posts saying, "No." The game play is different. Again, why not close Clone Wars if that was the case? Wouldn't THOSE players also make CW "dead" when they moved en masse to TOR?

If it were me, I'd probably ask for a promise-rider in regards to SOE if I was LA, asking if sub numbers (profit) can't be kept at a certain level for a certain length of time (could be one month...could be 6), then the game/contract would be terminated. Again, "pocket change money" is "money", no matter how small.

We can't say how many SWG players would move (there have been a number of hate posts from current SWG members, even on SWTOR forums and the LA forums). Maybe all? Maybe None? Maybe half? That future is cloudy and business hates clouds in their future and looks at current/sustained profits.
Reply

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 3:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Ren54

So whether or not I'm a "real" Star Wars fan is dictated by whether or not I like and shell out for every one of their products? Fan since the original, the "update" to SWG killed it for me, no amount o f "loyalty" to a brand comes back to the consumer.
Reply

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 3:31PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

Let's also say this: December 15th or no, if your assumption of the closing is true, it doesn't really matter when SWTOR launches in regards to SWG's closing.

As long as SWG WAS closing, SWTOR could have launched September 28th or October 31st or even December 31st...or December 15th. As long as the doors were shutting to SWG, that would be that. To me, opening up on the exact date or before makes little difference in such a business contract (and has been done before; other contracts get set to expire, but a new contract is carried while the old one is still operating).

So, you could be correct about EA/LA wanting to close SWG, but the ultimate date is unimportant and that's pretty much my main beef with people saying Dec. 15th.
Reply

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 3:40PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

Ack, and just remember. LA just sat back and collected money while it was SOE putting in the money, man-power, servers, etc. into the product. LA had no money expenditure in this, only SOE did. So, ultimately, it would be SOE that needed to decide if it was worth it. All LA does is sit back and collect its percentage of profit from licensing the IP.
Reply

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 5:11PM HiroProtagonist7 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)

I won't be. SWG is a sandbox, SWTOR is a Themepark. SWG is a world created by the players. SWTOR is a game on rails.

I'd postulate that most of the players left in SWG are there because it's an open world sandbox, not because they're mega Star Wars fans.
Reply

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 5:13PM willflynne said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra

I don't know if it confirms or denies any conspiracy theories, but for me it does lend some support to my own thoughts about folks wanting a distraction-free release for TOR.

With another full-fledged SW-based MMO out there (CWA is questionable at times for meeting that definition), a TOR player who didn't find the game to their liking would and could go to the other game. Granted, it's an older game with a troubled history, but it also offers a more familiar setting and quite a few features that TOR doesn't have. That could have been a nasty little distraction for a new game that's looking for as many subscribers as they can get (just good business).

What's interesting is that, with the release date being 5 days after SWG shuts down, SWG gets to end in a distraction-free environment. Yes, TOR will be looming and I'm sure more than a few SWG players pre-ordered and will have early access. But with TOR not openly available, SWG's game-ending event gets to proceed without having TOR pull nearly as much attention away as it would have if it had launched before or during SWG's last days.

If LA had any input on the release date and pushed for it to release after SWG's end, I'd have to call that the first real showing of goodwill shown towards SWG players by LA since the SWG closure was announced.

Reply

Posted: Sep 25th 2011 2:45AM Amusednow said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra Clone Wars Adventures is a different entity to itself, more of a meeting place with games and as a tie-in to the animated series and or hasbro figures.
Reply

Posted: Sep 27th 2011 9:37PM ClownyDaggers said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Space Cobra

TL:DR
Reply

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 12:56PM Verus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Guess this xmas I will have to kick out family and play swtor ;)

Posted: Sep 24th 2011 1:11PM eyeball2452 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I feel bad for the Bioware employees who have to support the game post launch. I hope they all have a lot of stock options to compensate them for working 24/7 through Xmas/New Years.

Money is good. QoL is better.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW