Star Wars, The Bugged Republic

STAR WARS: The Old Republic
Star Wars, The Bugged Republic

Page 3 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »

chuixupu

10.13.2012 , 12:10 PM \| #21	Quote
Quote: Originally Posted by Yogol You, on the other hand, seem like a nice fellow For me, actions speaks louder than words. When 2 million people left, you can't say ''well, good riddance'. Then your game has a problem. Sure, the game is good enough for you. But, clearly, most people have higher standards than you have. If Bioware does not respect their wishes, you will be playing pretty much on your own in a few months. There is truth to that, but not everyone left for the game being buggy. Also, as it's often been pointed out, the ratio of lost subscribers is pretty much on par with other MMOs. Even Blizzard stated quite frankly that more people have left WoW than currently play the game. They said that a year or two ago when they were around 10 million (they're under 8 million now) subscribers....so more than 10 million people have quit WoW....why did they quit? A whole lot of reasons and not all of them are Blizzard's fault.
Wardens of Fate / Alea Iacta Est The Tarkus Legacy ~ The Harbinger/Jedi Covenant

Skoobie

10.13.2012 , 12:14 PM \| #22	Quote
Quote: Originally Posted by chuixupu There is truth to that, but not everyone left for the game being buggy. Also, as it's often been pointed out, the ratio of lost subscribers is pretty much on par with other MMOs. Even Blizzard stated quite frankly that more people have left WoW than currently play the game. They said that a year or two ago when they were around 10 million (they're under 8 million now) subscribers....so more than 10 million people have quit WoW....why did they quit? A whole lot of reasons and not all of them are Blizzard's fault. a) The ratio of lost subscribers is often pointed out by people who provide no factual numbers to back them up. b) WoW is back to having over 10 million players. http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/10/04/wo...andaria-sales/

Trenter

10.13.2012 , 12:19 PM \| #23	Quote
Quote: Originally Posted by Yogol You, on the other hand, seem like a nice fellow For me, actions speaks louder than words. When 2 million people left, you can't say ''well, good riddance'. Then your game has a problem. Sure, the game is good enough for you. But, clearly, most people have higher standards than you have. If Bioware does not respect their wishes, you will be playing pretty much on your own in a few months. Shouldn't you be saying "higher standards than us?" Using "high standards" as some sort of point is just ridiculous. What the hell does it even mean? Has it only to do with mass appeal? Can you have both high and low standards when it comes to gaming at the same time?
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" - Hunter S. Thompson

Leggomy

10.13.2012 , 12:32 PM \| #24	Quote
Quote: Originally Posted by MalDeChagas In 1991 I was dialing up to play Tradewars: 2002, and Global War on my super sexy 2400 baud modem. Thats very odd since (as a BBS owner I know this very well) the tradewars door game was not available for purchase until 1994 and wasnt a stand alone game until 1998.

Skoobie

10.13.2012 , 12:38 PM \| #25	Quote
Quote: Originally Posted by Leggomy Thats very odd since (as a BBS owner I know this very well) the tradewars door game was not available for purchase until 1994 and wasnt a stand alone game until 1998. I never played Tradewars, but according to this: http://wiki.classictw.com/index.php?...ory_-_Timeline Tradewars 2002v1 was released in June, 1991.

Leggomy

10.13.2012 , 12:41 PM \| #26	Quote
Quote: Originally Posted by Skoobie I never played Tradewars, but according to this: http://wiki.classictw.com/index.php?...ory_-_Timeline Tradewars 2002v1 was released in June, 1991. It does not say it was released in 1991. It says it was developed in 1991. The game wasnt actually for sale to BBS owners until 1994. So unless he was playing it on the developers home BBS then he is lying. Probably checked wikipedia like you did and assumed since it was developed in 1991 it must also have been for sale in 1991. Also in 1991 9600 baud was the standard and 14.4 modems (like the USR HST) had just came out. So why he was using a 2400 baud modem which was years outdated is another thing that makes you go hmmm....

Skoobie

10.13.2012 , 12:43 PM \| #27	Quote
Quote: Originally Posted by Leggomy It does not say it was released in 1991. It says it was developed in 1991. The game wasnt actually for sale to BBS owners until 1994. So unless he was playing it on the developers home BBS then he is lying. Probably checked wikipedia like you did and assumed since it was developed in 1991 it must also have been for sale in 1991. It says, quite clearly, " 1991 : TradeWars 2002 v1 is released by Martin in June. TW 2002 is a complete rewrite of TW 2001, and numerous features are added. v1.03 is released in July, and it remains active until August of '92 when a patch, v1.03d, is released. v1.03d remains the standard version while Gary works on TW 2002 v2 over the next year."

Leggomy

10.13.2012 , 12:44 PM \| #28	Quote
Quote: Originally Posted by Skoobie It says, quite clearly, " Tradewars 2002 v1 is released by Martin in June." Look down at 1994 when it actually was released for sale... Quote: 1994 : TradeWars 2002 v2 for MMBS, by High Velocity Software, is released. Before that date you couldnt get a copy of it unless you are the developer of it.

MalDeChagas

10.13.2012 , 12:52 PM \| #29	Quote
Quote: Originally Posted by Leggomy Look down at 1994 when it actually was released for sale... Before that date you couldnt get a copy of it unless you are the developer of it. I can guarantee you that more than one BBS in the Portland area was running it that year.

Leggomy

10.13.2012 , 12:58 PM \| #30	Quote
Quote: Originally Posted by MalDeChagas I can guarantee you that more than one BBS in the Portland area was running it that year. Well I dont really care what you guarantee. I ran a for profit BBS from the 80s until 1996 and I know what door games were available. I purchased TW2002 as soon as it was available. I was there. The guy is making the whole thing up to try and back up his argument. Its why you shouldnt base your entire argument on wikipedia and a google search. Makes you look extremely foolish when someone who was there calls you on it.

Page 3 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »

STAR WARS: The Old Republic

LucasArts, the LucasArts logo, STAR WARS and related properties are trademarks in the United States and/or in other countries of Lucasfilm Ltd. and/or its affiliates. © 2011-2012 Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd. or Lucasfilm Ltd. All rights reserved. BioWare and the BioWare logo are trademarks of EA International (Studio and Publishing) Ltd. EA and the EA logo are trademarks of Electronic Arts Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

You are about to leave this website...

This page is not meant to keep you from following the link you've clicked on. It is just a warning that you are about to leave this website. To go to this page, click the link below.

If you do not wish to follow this link, simply
close this message.

The statements and opinions expressed on these websites are solely those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views, nor are they endorsed by Bioware, LucasArts, and its licensors do not guarantee the accuracy of, and are in no way responsible for any content on these websites.

Close Continue