Letter from the Producer LIVE Part XXVI

[The Stig]

Ya just saying, like everyone else is doing in the thread lol
But since LoV seems to have taken the most resource (Diadem can be summed up as a new zone instance with some group objectives or "quests", relics being a copy paste of previous relics) they probably can do more in this insignificant area haha

[ronin sparthos]

If I had my way, they'd have just focused on Chocobo Raising/Racing with more tracks and depth alongside continued Triple Triad updates.

[Stef]

But since LoV seems to have taken the most resource (Diadem can be summed up as a new zone instance with some group objectives or "quests")

This might be oversimplifying it a bit. Most of the assets were already there for LoV (the minions and their animations, the re-purposed Wolves' Den, etc.) and the rules were more or less carried over from the actual Lords of Vermillion. Based on the info from the latest Live Letter it seems that it was mainly the UI team that worked on LoV - considering a few of the members that mentioned working on it were also new recruits, it might have even been a way for them to get familiar with developing for the game without jumping right into ongoing projects for the core game. As for the Diadem, although the gameplay implementation was simplistic they still had to develop the technology for the randomized gear stats, the multi-group persistent instances, and various other things like chest/NM spawning systems, etc. It might be simple in the scheme of things, but it was probably more complex than adding a new dungeon or trial.

[Rocl]

Are Diadem randomized gear stats really any different from aetherial randomized gear stats?

[Lokus]

Diadem aetheral gear isn't any different than other aetheral gear sooo... yeah, no wasted dev time there.

[Spider-Dan]

1.23 showed progress for a game everyone knew was changing and had no real consequences.

Or, put another way: it showed progress. Unlike, say, most of this game since 3.0's release.

The only reason the "trend line" looked positive was because of 2.0

No, it has literally nothing to do with 2.0.

I am saying that the trendline from 1.0 to 1.23 was better than the trendline from 2.3 to 3.15, because back then, problems were actually being addressed (rapidly) and the game was getting considerably better.

and if it took a year/year and a half for people to realise how the game was going to be that has little to do with the direction of the battle system

[...]

There's nothing to suggest even if they kept 1.23's battle system that the direction of the rest of the game would be different as well.

Why do you keep bringing up the battle system? The primary problem with this game right now is not the "battle system," it's almost everything else.

Furthermore, whatever problems I have with the current battle system (mostly: rails) also existed in 1.23 (which had way more rails than 1.18, which itself had more rails than 1.17, etc.). "More rails" have been part of every trendline in every version of this game, so it's not a distinguishing factor.

If you assume that the problems facing MMO developers (managing staff and resources, creating content for a broad player base, technical limitations, etc.) are easy to solve then the only way to explain the abundance of games on the market that fail to meet your expectations is either stupidity, incompetence, or maliciousness on the part of the devs.

So which category does poor vision of the direction the game should go in fall under? Incompetence? If so, then I choose that.

However, I disagree that the "only" options are either to quit or "get angry at the devs and loudly and abrasively demand sweeping changes." I think it's also fair to consistently ask for more engaging content that better meets existing market standards (including: standards already existing in other Final Fantasy products). I've made many suggestions that are nowhere near "sweeping changes" (e.g. refocus Diadem around the already-existing objective system instead of mindless enemy grinding).

[haroldsaxon]

This might be oversimplifying it a bit. Most of the assets were already there for LoV (the minions and their animations, the re-purposed Wolves' Den, etc.) and the rules were more or less carried over from the actual Lords of Vermillion. Based on the info from the latest Live Letter it seems that it was mainly the UI team that worked on LoV - considering a few of the members that mentioned working on it were also new recruits, it might have even been a way for them to get familiar with developing for the game without jumping right into ongoing projects for the core game. As for the Diadem, although the gameplay implementation was simplistic they still had to develop the technology for the randomized gear stats, the multi-group persistent instances, and various other things like chest/NM spawning systems, etc. It might be simple in the scheme of things, but it was probably more complex than adding a new dungeon or trial.

Random gear sets already existed (Aetherial Gear). Multi-group persistent instances already existed in 3.0. Chest and NM spawning already existed (Treasure maps and Hunts).

[Elcura]

Or, put another way: it showed progress. Unlike, say, most of this game since 3.0's release.

No, it has literally nothing to do with 2.0.

I am saying that the trendline from 1.0 to 1.23 was better than the trendline from 2.3 to 3.15, because back then, problems were actually being addressed (rapidly) and the game was getting considerably better.

Yeah, it showed progress because 1.0 (not 1.17, .18 or .23) was absolutely the worst piece of shit game ever. Let me say this in a way you'll understand:

There was literally no where to go but up.

So if you're wondering why you felt that way, that's why. If you're wondering why 1.0 to 1.23 had more improvements than 2.3 to 3.15, it's because 1.0 was a broken, messy piece of shit and 2.0 comparatively had a million less issues to deal with. I know, it's amazing and shocking but not surprising you wouldn't consider this. Let's add in another facet you didn't understand or consider: money. They weren't making any and they were losing customers and faith fast. There were no other projects as damning as this (or uplifting like KH3/FFXV/FF7R) so therefore all hands on deck let's fix this shit. How much time/money did they spend getting the original 1.0 running? Daaaaamn. Suddenly shit starts to make sense.

And of course 2.0 had something to do with it (the fact that you say it has literally nothing to do with it is LOL) everyone knew they were changing everything and that led to them being able to make bold choices in terms of content/rewards (which, were frustrating back then as well).

Your lack of vision astounds me, it's amazing you're able to say that 1.0 had a better trajectory. Wait, no, the opposite of that.

Why do you keep bringing up the battle system? The primary problem with this game right now is not the "battle system," it's almost everything else.

Because the battle system (and pay attention to this) is the majority of what changed and the majority of people wanted to change. They spent like 3 patches changing the battle system then added in jobs, how can you say the battle system is not a huge part of why 1.0 to 1.23 was an improvement?

Because if you're talking about everything else...and again, pay attention to this.

There was literally nothing else that mattered in 1.23 aside from the battle system. Everything else was shit or has already been reproduced/replaced (thanks 2.0). Again, the battle system concept is the only thing of worth from 1.23.

So why are you talking about everything else which you can't even be specific about (like I am with the battle system) when barely anything else mattered?

So again, the reason I mention the battle system is because what the fuck else do you want to take from 1.0? Nothing, not even slightly. What the fuck else could even cause someone to consider it had a positive trend line?

Furthermore, whatever problems I have with the current battle system (mostly: rails) also existed in 1.23 (which had way more rails than 1.18, which itself had more rails than 1.17, etc.). "More rails" have been part of every trendline in every version of this game, so it's not a distinguishing factor.

And yet you haven't even slightly mentioned what these things you like or caused this "trend" are. I can hazard a guess why, because it's bullshit.

2 days for this? Really? lol

[Spider-Dan]

There was literally no where to go but up.

False. In point of fact, many bad games do not go up.

If you're wondering why 1.0 to 1.23 had more improvements than 2.3 to 3.15, it's because 1.0 was a broken, messy piece of shit and 2.0 comparatively had a million less issues to deal with.

Again, you miss the point.

2.0 was not a "broken, messy piece of shit," and yet 2.0-2.3's trendline was just fine: meaningful content was added and the game was making progress.

It's not about how bad the starting product is; it's about making a quality effort so that your players think, "Wow, this game is really getting better with each patch and I look forward to the next one." With the exception of the paid expansion, every patch since 2.3 has been a huge letdown (and 3.0 was more like a content dump that masked a lot of unsolved fundamental problems).

Let's add in another facet you didn't understand or consider: money. They weren't making any and they were losing customers and faith fast.

And now that they are making plenty of money, the updates suck. So maybe money is not the best argument to make.

So again, the reason I mention the battle system is because what the fuck else do you want to take from 1.0?

I hadn't realized that your obsession with fanatically defending XIV from any XI influence has now extended to defending it from any 1.x influence.

Try to understand this statement: I am not saying that 3.15 is bad because it is not 1.23, nor am I saying that it should be more like 1.23. While I may believe that 1.23 has some things to offer this game (to varying degrees), it is not what I am arguing for now, nor have I said it in this thread.

What I am saying is that XIV is currently stagnant because it is not receiving meaningful improvements, and instead of being stagnant it should be receiving better updates. As an example of prior games also named Final Fantasy XIV that received good updates, I have cited 1.0-1.23 and 2.0-2.3.

[ronin sparthos]

2.0-2.3 was an all hands on deck crisis resolution mode for ARR, it's natural that'd we would see alot of resources poured in then. The reality is that the game has settled and what we're getting now is the business plan as envisioned by management and Yoshi-P. What BG wants is an updated, more 'modern' Tanaka-esque title whereas SE is comfortable milking players with cash shops, quarterly patches and an industry standard approach to this MMO.

With how bad XIV flopped, you can't really blame the bean counters. The disaster was nearly enough to kill a main entry FF game and damage the brand in a time of weakness.

[Thiefami]

2.0-2.3 was an all hands on deck crisis resolution mode for ARR, it's natural that'd we would see alot of resources poured in then. The reality is that the game has settled and what we're getting now is the business plan as envisioned by management and Yoshi-P. What BG wants is an updated, more 'modern' Tanaka-esque title whereas SE is comfortable milking players with cash shops, quarterly patches and an industry standard approach to this MMO.

With how bad XIV flopped, you can't really blame the bean counters. The disaster was nearly enough to kill a main entry FF game and damage the brand in a time of weakness.

From a marketing standpoint they aren't out of the clear yet. Just like they felt they couldn't let 1.0 fail, they may not realize it but they really cannot risk allowing this game to slip either.

They've released rather poorly conceived products in the past 5 years. Exceptions outside of that statement, tomb raider, kingdom hearts and record keeper. I won't lie I've been mildly disappointed that I had to reconsider my stance as an SE fan boy.

At this point the pot has been stirred enough in regards to XIV and all it takes is a controversial implementation or miscalculated tweak to grab an all negative gaming headline. Something that can drive any new mmo players away and keep the ones away that have left due to lackluster updates and poor content implementation.

But listening to Elcura and Stef, you'd think this game was beaming.

[Spider-Dan]

From a marketing standpoint they aren't out of the clear yet. Just like they felt they couldn't let 1.0 fail, they may not realize it but they really cannot risk allowing this game to slip either.

At this point, they can stop this game any time they like. They don't owe anyone anything more, and the narrative of "miracle resurrected phoenix game" has already firmly taken root.

If they announced tomorrow that they were sunsetting this game, the overwhelming perception of the gaming community would be that XIV was successfully resurrected and even released an expansion before being sent to pasture.

That all being said: SE likely expects XIV to be the same kind of money tree that XI was, so there's no way this would happen.

[Elcura]

False. In point of fact, many bad games do not go up.

How is that false?

1.0 was terrible, the majority of changes to 1.0 made the game better. By that logic alone, the only way to make the game worse was to make it more 1.0. The fuck?

Though you can be obtuse and general (even XI went through the same thing LOL) but when you're starting at the bottom the only direction to go is up.

Again, you miss the point.

You don't have a point. That's basically what this is all about. You think you have a point, but you don't.

2.0 was not a "broken, messy piece of shit," and yet 2.0-2.3's trendline was just fine: meaningful content was added and the game was making progress.

Because they had less shit to emergency fix/change and could focus on making progress. Yet this is only progress as long as people (or you) consider it to be. The only reason you can say this is because it's easy to do in retrospect, but who thought the coil/CT rotation was changing before 2.5/FCOB?

It's not about how bad the starting product is; it's about making a quality effort so that your players think, "Wow, this game is really getting better with each patch and I look forward to the next one." With the exception of the paid expansion, every patch since 2.3 has been a huge letdown (and 3.0 was more like a content dump that masked a lot of unsolved fundamental problems).

It's exactly how bad your starting product is, what do you think prompted 100% of what FFXIV is today? And you realised the game was a letdown at 2.3 when it actually stabilized and you figured out what kind of game it was and who the target audience were.

You knew over a year ago this shit wasn't for you, but you continue to bitch and moan that it isn't for you.

And now that they are making plenty of money, the updates suck. So maybe money is not the best argument to make.

This isn't how you counter an argument and has very little to do with why you don't like updates.

I hadn't realized that your obsession with fanatically defending XIV from any XI influence has now extended to defending it from any 1.x influence.

Oh I'm sorry what parts of 1.23 that aren't the battle system would you like in 2.0. Also I didn't realise I was defending it from all 1.x influence when I said the only thing worth taking/liking was the battle system.

Oh wait.

Try to understand this statement: I am not saying that 3.15 is bad because it is not 1.23, nor am I saying that it should be more like 1.23. While I may believe that 1.23 has some things to offer this game (to varying degrees), it is not what I am arguing for now, nor have I said it in this thread.

What I am saying is that XIV is currently stagnant because it is not receiving meaningful improvements, and instead of being stagnant it should be receiving better updates. As an example of prior games also named Final Fantasy XIV that received good updates, I have cited 1.0-1.23 and 2.0-2.3.

Try to understand this statement:

following up unfair statements with a hard sell is dubious as fuck.

It's obvious why this is an unfair statement (having said that, I will explain again). We've come full circle, congratulations.

Again, lack of consequences and imminent change along with unknown future made 2.0 (and even 1.17+) very shiny and attractive. The longer you've been playing the more you know to expect and the higher your expectations or selfishness. That's fine and all, but again comparing 1.23's growth is unfair because the game was in a very different situation back then.

[Spider-Dan]

How is that false?

You claim that the only possible thing that could happen is that the game had to get better. The overwhelming majority of bad games do not get (substantially) better; they simply wither and die.

And you realised the game was a letdown at 2.3 when it actually stabilized and you figured out what kind of game it was and who the target audience were.

Please explain how 2.3 (not 2.1, not 2.5, not 3.1, but exactly 2.3) is the moment when XIV "stabilized." Because otherwise, you're making an arbitrary excuse for why the patches stopped being compelling.

The only way one can arrive at the conclusion that the game "stabilized" at 2.3 is that that's when the patches stopped being good, which is circular reasoning at it's finest.

Oh I'm sorry what parts of 1.23 that aren't the battle system would you like in 2.0.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

You are so fanatically devoted to protecting this game from any influence from 1.x (or XI) that you are completely incapable of discussing those games outside the context of how current XIV might or might not borrow from them. Any time you see them mentioned, you immediately start shouting that they shouldn't be in this game, even when no one is saying they should.

Once again: this has NOTHING to do with putting more of 1.x in 2.0, or 3.15, or anything of the sort. This has to do with 1.x (and early 2.x) receiving meaningful, substantive updates, and 2.4+ receiving bad, lazy updates that don't address major problems.

[Elcura]

You claim that the only possible thing that could happen is that the game had to get better. The overwhelming majority of bad games do not get (substantially) better; they simply wither and die.

If you can update a game you can make it better. If the game is terrible then updates are only really going to be positive. If you don't update the game who gives a fuck why are you talking about that? MMOs have the possibility and I'm not sure what MMO doesn't update for the better. You're starting to use some clarifications when you know exactly what I mean and are just being difficult for the sake of talking more.

Please explain how 2.3 (not 2.1, not 2.5, not 3.1, but exactly 2.3) is the moment when XIV "stabilized." Because otherwise, you're making an arbitrary excuse for why the patches stopped being compelling.

The only way one can arrive at the conclusion that the game "stabilized" at 2.3 is that that's when the patches stopped being good, which is circular reasoning at it's finest.

I'm not making up anything and you're just putting words into my mouth. Don't use your reasoning to argue with me, because that's just hilarious. You're the one saying patches stopped getting interesting and that has nothing to do with me.

The only reason I think 2.3 was the stabilizing point was that was when they had gotten their rhythm down, the CT mistake was firmly in place and the way shit alternated would continue until 3.0. I don't remember why I thought it would, but the only other time I thought things could change was 3.0.

You are so fanatically devoted to protecting this game from any influence from 1.x (or XI) that you are completely incapable of discussing those games outside the context of how current XIV might or might not borrow from them. Any time you see them mentioned, you immediately start shouting that they shouldn't be in this game, even when no one is saying they should.

Once again: this has NOTHING to do with putting more of 1.x in 2.0, or 3.15, or anything of the sort. This has to do with 1.x (and early 2.x) receiving meaningful, substantive updates, and 2.4+ receiving bad, lazy updates that don't address major problems.

Again, you're forcing your view of me on me while still avoiding the question, not that I really care because anything of worth is already in 2.0 in some form or has been changed for the better.

You can say once again all you want, but I've literally answered you completely like 3 times already. At this point you're just making shit up.

[haroldsaxon]

If you can update a game you can make it better. If the game is terrible then updates are only really going to be positive.

I wish I lived in this fairy land that every game update always going to be positive.

[Destinye]

I think at this point even Yoshi P is adamant about keeping this game protected from evolving, let alone adapting from other MMOs properly.

I wish I lived in this fairy land that every game update always going to be positive.

I mean..the guy even admitted they had no time to properly balance 3.0/3.1 and they can't do any content or certain QoL changes without fear of crashing the servers and no manpower/funding. It's legit the first time I've heard that ever said, even from MMOs ran by like a bunch of highschoolers in China never had trouble doing things.

So idk, I guess the fact nothing really changed with 3.0 and later 3.1..and then 3.15 (even sub patches can offer big changes to lighten the load on bigger patches) really seems like in comparison, 1.x had so much more going for it. Throw in the fact they were working on TWO versions of XIV at the same time..I really wonder if the overall goal was to bait and switch with ARR since that's essentially what happened lol.

[Prothescar]

I'ma trigger at least 90% of the XIV whiteknights when I say this but idgaf: a post-decade-old game is getting significantly more updates and significantly more content additions than the "current gen" gem of the desert alpha super awesome MMO of the century.

Pls let that sink in. And don't tell me "it's 10+ years old and easier to develop for". Cheaper, probably, but easier, extremely unlikely. Anyone who has ever looked at a wall of old code before would know why.

I'll never understand why so many people are happy with the fact that the money they're spending on a product on a monthly basis is not going back in to the thing that they're spending money on.

[Spider-Dan]

I'ma trigger at least 90% of the XIV whiteknights when I say this but idgaf: a post-decade-old game is getting significantly more updates and significantly more content additions than the "current gen" gem of the desert alpha super awesome MMO of the century.

This.

I'm not sure why anyone would think that only terrible games can receive good updates or only games in flailing newborn stage can receive good updates.

When your best defense of the game's current state is, "well, the game is stable now so of course the updates are going to be mediocre," you have left the realm of reality.

I wish I lived in this fairy land that every game update always going to be positive.

I, too, would love to hear of these great updates to The War Z or Matrix Online.

[BaneTheBrawler]

When your best defense of the game's current state is, "well, the game is stable now so of course the updates are going to be mediocre," you have left the realm of reality.

you must be new to SE's MO.

Make game, pack it full of references. Rake in money. Rest on laurels. Rake in more money. Take another nap on those laurels, you earned it.