Wow, this guy called it 3 years ago

I think declining pop says otherwise.

Now that I think about what this game really needs is a cosmetic that turns our MAX suits into penguins

Have you even seen tarot card readings? That **** is vague as **** and people eat it up. The poor sods that believe it experience confirmation bias when they respond with "That's totally what's happening right now" when really nothing of value was even mentioned. The tarot reader may say "There's a man in your life that you find important and there's an event related to this man that has bothered you." The reason taking the reading has access to his/her spouse, father, countless friends, etc to choose from and, through confirmation bias, understand who the reader is talking about. It could have been a fight, a divorce, father getting cancer, etc. I have a friend who is really into this stuff.

I mention this because its really all due to being vague enough to be right. Your example is almost identical to this type of vagueness.

How many games are able to maintain the same population for years, other than World of Warcraft? Even WoW has experienced massive population shrinkage since its golden era.

Predicting a company with a bad history of patches/updates will ruin a game with bad patches/updates is not really that similar to tarot cards dude.

Correlation/causation fallacy, but that aside population is stable, don't try to lie to meh Paperlamp.

It is actually exactly what Tarot cards do.

Yes, I think most of us can agree PS2 took a lot of miss-steps since launch, I particularly list the infamous "NERF EVERYTHING!!" approach as the number one issue, because back when SOE was doing this with every update, nobody won, and people were actually concerned about patches, rather than excited as they would normally be when a game received an update. They seem to have finally learned that lesson after way too long, when their tank re-balance 'ideas' were forcefully rejected by the majority of the PS2 community.

I personally hope the focus on more content continues, for example we're still missing proper continent locking and other metagame functionality. But at least now the game and community environment is more positive than before, although I'm not sure if money shows a similar improvement on SOE's side.

http://borderlinetactical.net/rsnc/world-population/?world_id=0&zoom=5&totalpop=true

Not looking that good to me.

So looking at this graph, where we are equal to most of the past year after a January spike with OMFG, I'm supposed to think it's declining? What do you think "Stable" means?

Regardless, it's irrelevant, popularity speaks nothing about the quality of something.

This is debatable. Thought I do agree there have many GREAT changes; this guy is referring to LARGE content changes; Lattice System over haul, Continental Locking; Resource Revamp - these patches are equivalent to the Core Combat and BFR content updates from PS1 as they fundamentally changed the game entirely.

Admittedly it's extremely hard to justify when a game is "Good".

PS2 isn't winning in sales/player count. That's in decline. SO it's not good there - but that doesn't mean it's a bad game either.

However, when compared directly to other games it's clearly using as a base line? It still short. Now this is some what subjective as yeah; we are talking about "entertainment" here.
None the less; break PS2 down all the way and there is always seemingly a better title.

It has OK infantry; other titles have smoother, more robust infantry combat.
It has ... ok... ground vehicle play; again other titles have more robust combat for them.
It has... ****... Air play... it ... yeah. Just wow.

Opinion bias? OF COURSE! Willing to admit that. I'm saying this from a design perspective though.

Tank's don't feel like tank's nor do they have an applicable role.

Air combat is terrible for any Aviation Combat Junkie because.. wow, why the hell is this control scheme so bad... I'll reserve my thoughts as I am training at the moment so I have some pent up hatred (lol)

Play progression is conflicting. There are clear "upgrades" along with primarily side grades which... add no flavor (just minor edits to play styles) but absolutely NO player progression as a team

The World isn't dynamically persistent; it's merely persistently static.
No faction wide progress, no meta, no player created dynamics on a macro scale; nothing.

PS2 is a less than steller Battle Field on a Bigger Map with Infantry game play that tries to mimic a generic COD. . . On a Technical side.
And when they went to "improve" this but adding something unique? They failed. They back tracked to PS1 but implemented them for all the wrong reasons such as:

- the lattice system is meant to funnel and force mass zergs for "Bigger Fights".
In PS1, the Lattice System is actually a powerful a Macro Progression tool that effects the faction a whole; every one progresses as they achieve victory or assume defeat. It also adds true Persistent World experience because; log off for a Day and log back in later and your faction has managed to capture a facility that unlocks a tool set needed to counter the enemy on the other side of continent. The PS1 system wasn't perfect either; but it could've been easily improved upon. Hell some of the ideas the original devs had would've been a good start; such as Players getting to redesign the Lattice Lines after they win a continent as a type of Goal + Reward. Player Influences like this are why games that support Modding live for so long and it's something to learn from here; yet they didn't.

- the resource revamp is meant to bring value to bases... some day..
The devs are on the right course here but there is a clear problem with development now as they are releasing it in phases which... is only serving to piss people off. We have now a Resource Overhaul which literally HAS NO PURPOSE until it's development is complete. It's almost like releasing a sports car but all you've got to offer right now is the body kit. The Powerplant isn't complete so it's just a re-used 4 banger from a Geo Metro... That does nothing but leave a bad taste in people's mouths even though the whole Resource Revamp is a good idea! It's just being released wrong.

Any way; didn't mean to get off on a rant here. Sorry about that.

I appreciate your honesty, but when you outright say "Is this opinion bias, yes!" that sort of completely invalidates everything else you say, as all someone else has to do is contradict you with their opinion to be as justified as you. Granted, some of what you say (Persistently static map, for example) is entirely correct, in my view.

I wanted to address a few key points however;

Planetside 2 was as of April one of the most profitable F2P games per capita.

Planetside 2's strength is that it melds multiple diverse strands of gameplay into a relatively complete package. Few people would say it has the best shooting or vehicle play, or team-centric mechanics or meta, but when you take its solid/middling gameplay in those areas and combine them as SOE has you produce an excellent game. Personally, PS2 has ruined other games for me as they feel incomplete by comparison.

Planetside 2 was originally based on Battlefield as stated by Higby, as Planetside (1) was influenced by the release of Battlefield 2142. But it has diverged significantly from its mechanics that calling it a BF clone is inaccurate. It is in no way similar to Call of Duty though, lol.

It's k

No it doesn't, everyone has these biases, admitting it doesn't invalidate anything.

"I'm having an argument about objective facts, which I derive from my subjective opinion"

No.

This has been my impression of SOE since SWG and PS1. It may be vague, and PS2 may yet get better, but its most likely going to end up like the rest of their games.
Why? Because why would they suddenly stop doing what they have been doing for the past 11+ years.
(The random changes that nobody wants and lack of communication is a good sign that nothing has changed)
If you were around for (especially) SWG and PS1, you would automatically agree with what Sonris said.

Though lets just hope someone over there notices what they keep doing wrong and changes it before its too late (for PS2).
If they change, atleast the next game they make would have a chance.
(I really like most their games... at release)

Have you been asleep for the past half a year? SOE has been incredibly active and has told us almost everything, they've released things because we asked for it and nothing else. The only thing they've done like that is the tank cannon change, and maybe something else I forget.

For Planetside 2 at least, SOE has done a good job.

You guys are a bunch of drama queens, especially you OP.

As someone who was around for all of the SWG "events", SOE came out and said that they would never let something like that happen again. If you played then, you know how much different development was on that game versus this one. There have ZERO been dramatic alterations the Planetside 2's core gameplay, and I SERIOUSLY doubt that there are any plans for such alterations in SOE's development pipeline.

Yes, Planetside 2 has it's share of problems, but it is a serious far cry from being what you described OP. If you don't like game, why are you still playing it?

BTW, Everquest is also a SOE game. If you played from launch and then compared it to now, its quite easy to see how much that game has improved. Guess what folks, Everquest 1 still lives.

I just realized something; I'm wasting my time talking about an irrelevant subject at 4 in the morning.

Of course, and I realize that too. I'm glad you appreciate the honesty though.
I try to judge PS2 from it's technical perspective the best I can as I once tried design myself. Plus my current career with Quality/Test Engineering has taught me to lose a lot of bias as well; but I still wanted to admit that since this is a mere game; my "entertainment" values will be bias. For example, while I do not hold much high esteem for the game on a technical perspective, I still do "enjoy" it; partly because like you've stated - there isn't much else out there that really compares.

According the notes, the ARPU is simply an average per transaction. So this marketing statistic here is really only displaying the two conlficting market strategies. One strategy is relying on the small but die hard fan base that's willing to spend LOTS (known as Whales) while the other is to keep prices lower and more favorable for the masses.

PS2 is # 5 on the ARPU list, which only means that, we as users? Seem to have to spend more per purchase.

In constrast, back in 2012 the ARPU of PS2 was only slightly above 2 bucks. But as players dwindled and the Whales remained, that average went up. It's not a complete stat and doesn't say much. For example:

[[With an average revenue per user of $1.58, mammoth earner Crossfire, which generated over a billion in revenue last year, clearly relies on attracting a large crowd. The game has well over 50 million monthly active players. Nexon’s Combat Arms, counts approximately 1.6 million monthly actives but makes almost double the amount per user ($2.81)]]

Obviously, Nexon's title doesn't profit as much as Crossfire even though their ARPU is higher. And in the paragraph above this one; we see the opposite occure (where a smaller but more robust "Whale" player base out spends a far larger one).

I can't say this for myself. PS2 is merely the only FPS experience I go with right now because it's... well, the only one. The MMOFPS genre is very ripe for a great title to come along and sweep it away like PS1 and WW2O did over a decade ago but since there is no competition; you don't even have to try. I can count the games that are like PS2 on my two hands; it's still practically a new genre; waiting to be filled out.

PS2 has all these facets of gameplay yes; despite them all being mediocre at best - you're right. However it completely OMITS the very things that made PS1 and WW2O actually work and persist as an MMO. The key here is what makes an MMO, an MMO; and that's the persistant, living and dynamic world. Right now, PS2 is nothing more than a lobby game where the victory condition is not set and the player limit is set to 1600 per map. True fact; I could do this on CoD1 back in the day (well... I could host 999 players at least and make the map never end) but that never made it an MMO.
PS2 (and many other titles) is only alive because it's F2P. If it was Subscriber based only, I'm almost sure it would've died by now or by 2015. I can't say this about PS1 though, which persisted with the old Pay to Play model for 10 years - and it reminds us that new content isn't everything - the EXPERIENCE itself, however; is.

Higby is either lying or just doesn't know something or perhaps his words were misunderstood.
PS1 was released in early '03. WW2O released BEFORE PS1 in Jan of 03; so PS1 wasn't even the first big MMOFPS (WW2O is still the biggest one I know of at 300,000 square km of map... wow). PS1 also had a 5 year developement cycle so it's initial stages started as early as '98. BF 2142 was released in '06 and only had a 3 year dev cycle. It's clearly the other way around. PS1 likely pushed DICE to create a Sci Fi tactical shoot too; especially since Halo was a success as well at that time.

The Infantry combat is rather CoD; meaning is favors CQC twitch combat and has no tactical mechanics (no prone, lean, cover system, suppression mechanic or acrobatics). CoD's mechanics are extremely basic and refined. PS2 tries to mimic this, likely to try to appeal to the larger crowd so the learning curve is lower but it doesn't work as well. Noobies get frustrated with the low TTK (even though is higher than CoD's). Again, when I'm judging the game, I'm judgeing it from a Designer's stand point, I.E. the Technical design.

I'm glad you agree.

Understand that my "charge" of bias isn't a personal insult, but just an observation of reality that also applies to myself.

I've watched the Whales video also, especially the part about where he mentions/shows Sony is doing it right

Hundreds of thousands of people play this game on a monthly basis, and millions have played it total. I doubt very much they are losing money, and SOE employees have outright said on the forums and reddit that they would lose their jobs if it was the case (No link, this was some time ago and I foolishly didn't bookmark it). But again, this is not the issue at hand we are discussing.

I have no doubt that there will come a time when PS2 is looked at as we currently look at shooters from the early 2000's/late 1990's; good for its time but mediocre to poor in hindsight and in comparison. That's always been the case and there's no reason to think it'll stop now.

Going both by literal definition (Game played with many players) and the de facto definition (Game played with large numbers of people for the sake of progression in a persistent world), Planetside 2 is no more or less an MMO than its predecessor. Your Call of Duty server would not qualify the "accepted" term for MMO, but it would be an MMO in the literal sense.

I won't comment as I wouldn't be able to make an informed opinion about this. Frankly, nobody can.

You're forgetting that PS1 suffered from precipitous decline, and had been merged to its last NA server by 2009 I believe, well before this game's release, and after several other merges before.

It influenced the design after it was released, you misinterpreted my comment. He stated that BF was the base which they built from for PS2, and another time it was mentioned 2142 was a factor in the introduction of expansions for the previous game, alongside Halo and a few others. This was a passing comment, so idgaf.

So anything that doesn't have extensive tactics is a COD clone?

Horrible exploitative business practices aside, COD is pretty damn tactical when played competitively, as I can personally attest. And Planetside 2 has many tactical considerations that other games do not.

Er....... PS2 is better now than it was on release. Much more balanced, and generally more stable and playable.

Perfect, no, not even close, but better than it was on release? Yeah..... by miles.



(is it "better" than PS1 at its best.... I dunno, as it is very hard to compare games released 10+ years apart, but that's another kettle of fish)