Gamasutra: The Burning of Star Wars - The Old Republic

This man disagrees with me, he must be a hater!

Bingo.

I'm okay with it so long as it means they aren't erasing the whole thread, like they did with the last discussion on this. (Also, 'old news' guy was just irritating.)

Anyway, there's some places where the author is misinformed, but the bits he's gotten wrong are largely cosmetic. He's bang-on about the F2P model being a "subscribe to get punished less" deal.

I personally think that happened because, after deciding that they were giving away the entire story for free (y'know, the part that even the people who quit and hated the rest of the game still liked), they realized they didn't have a whole lot to offer subscribers.

I'm cautiously optimistic about them relaxing F2P punishment once they start making things to benefit subscribers. If they make things to benefit subscribers, something I am also cautiously optimistic about. Problem is that the F2P model as it was released is not good at all (and they did a pretty bad job of laying out the perks and restrictions effectively; the Internet has so much misinformation about this it's sad), and right at its release was the time when it got the most publicity. Their implementation of their F2P at release has hurt them, and it's hard to say just how avoidable it all was.

Isn't that pretty much the definition of a hater though? Some people in this world are built to be unhappy no matter what. Most of these same people would be whining 2 years from now when everything they whine about now isn't around. They'll go to another game and whine in the same fashion. It's what they do, it's their thing, it's the nature of the MMO community and largely the gamer community as a whole. I don't like it, so it's terrible goes the general though process.

They'll whine when Blizzard put's out a new MMO, if it's different they'll complain it's too different. If it's quite a bit like WoW they'll whine it's not different enough. They'll whine that it's dark and cold then they'll cry that it's too bright and hot.

The internet makes a career out of whining, I'm doing it right now! You did it! They do it! So, in the traditional spirit of the internet I say: You're all wrong, I'm right, and if you don't like it I won't read you reply!

I think people who hate on very specific things and then shut up when they're changed get excluded from that group.

It's easy to blame complaints on 'haters' and the seeming MPD of a never-satisfied market, but it's absolutely important (if you really want to get into it instead of self-indulgently dismissing people) to pay attention to the names. Sometimes those change, so the styles of diction.

Different people want different things, and if 75% of a population thinks a new feature is great and 25% thinks it's awful, there will be complaints whether or not it's implemented. Like, people complained for ages about the lack of a group finder. Then, when a group finder was put in, people complained about that too! You can't please anyone, right?

Well, if you'd pay attention, it's entirely different people complaining before and after the fact.

And if not, well, you've found your real haters. They're pretty rare though.

Well, that specific writer: definitely. He goes as far as changing his opinion on a matter (just read his previous articles and compare) just to point out how bad TOR supposedly is. I see plenty of things in TOR I don't like. But I also see plenty things that I DO like. Some things I don't like I can still justify, for other things I don't see any logical reason to be the way they are.
This writer on the other hand, first goes "I don't like apples, gimme oranges!" and when given an orange, makes a 180 degree turn and goes "I don't want an orange, gimme an apple!".

And yes, that does sound like a spoiled single child who missed out on a couple of good spankings and lockups in a cellar. Age didn't bring him any wisdom, at best he got a little more deceitful at it.

I agree with the article, although reading the comments was very informative as well.

I posted IN THIS THREAD the writers response to the comments in the Gamasutra's com box. I will leave it to you to reread this thread ( it seems that you haven't ) and find and comment on the author's comments.

I read through the article when it was released, and through the comments once those picked up later.
I have to say, I'm disappointed with Gamasutra for approving this article. While there are great points contained within, it's hidden within hyperbole, ranting, and tacky internet memes. Keep in mind Gamasutra is a website for professional game developers and designers.

He could have taken an unbiased analysis of the game, but instead opted to post a long negative diatribe. The fact that he posts much more eloquently within the comment section supports the idea of the article simply being click bait.

See that's the thing, depending on who you talk to on these forums I am a "fanboi" or a "h4ter". I am more of a Jolee Bindo.

I agree with you that the "hate" could be about "specific" features and not the entire game. But, the "White Knights" are blind to that.

The true haters here won't read anything possitive about SWTOR and just type their diatribe without context. The "White Knights" do the same, they just go passive agressive in their word choice "sounding" more polite in tone but equally as irrational and full of hate to anyone that would point out that the emperor was not wearing clothes and that their beloved SWTOR could have anything wrong with it. The author of the article explained his tone in the com boxes at Gamasutra. I posted those comments in this thread.