I agree completely with the Dana. What’s the point of having requirements that only a few can run, unless you want to focus on that small market. That does not mean that your mmo has to be "simple" or unchallenging. System requirements do not make for good development and well thought out stories. I think the real problem is that developers throwing out garbage because enough sheep keep covering the developmental costs.
solve graphics problems. what if having a dynamic way of detecting hardware then setting up a range of graphic options within that along with not so lagy elements such as in WOW.
UT3: does what im talking about but lags so much anyway that the mim req will look worse then ps1 games.
Fury( No-More): had a high Graphic and Low Graphic EXE
Assassin Creed/ Crysis..etc: Has 2 exe's for DX9, And DX10. which have selective graphics option.
I agree whole heartedly man. People who can't run or play your game arn't going to buy it. People are not going to pay 500-1000 bucks everytime a new MMO comes out just to play it. Couple that with the fact that every configuration is different and you see why consoles are doing better than the PC. It's not piracy it's barriers to entry. Give me SW:TOR that will play (at over 15fps) and look nice on a $500 laptop and you have a winner. If it only runs at 15fps on with 4gb of ram and a quad core processor... well.. .you'll sell 5 copies. This is why free trials are so important, and also why people want into betas so bad. Most want to try to see if the game's fun, sure, but if it's fun and it runs like shit they either don't spend the money or try and justify spending the cost of the game, monthly fees, AND the massive upgrade costs. I don't care what game it is. If I have to spend $500 just to play it... i'm not going to. Now all you "hardcore" gamers are thinking "well quit playing on an intellivision" but you are the same people that whine and cry like premature babies when the servers are empty on the biggest baddest games... and then quit 2 months later.
Is that why a recent EA study put Pc as the top gaming platform with a user base larger than the Wii, Xbox360 and PS3? Consoles are not doing better than Pc gaming. Pc gaming is thriving in the digital downloads sales charts.
The average Pc gamer can afford to keep their Rig updated every two years because the average age of a Pc gamer is in their mid 30's. You don't have to blow the bank to build a rig to handle Bioshock or Farcry 2 like you would have 5 years ago to play the latest and greatest, saying otherwise is an exaggeration. So do get your fact straight before making baseless claims based on misinformed hearsay that the Pc is doomed. That BS is started by the consoles companies with viral in the first place. I've included a link to relieve your ignorance.
I agree whole heartedly man. People who can't run or play your game arn't going to buy it. People are not going to pay 500-1000 bucks everytime a new MMO comes out just to play it. Couple that with the fact that every configuration is different and you see why consoles are doing better than the PC. It's not piracy it's barriers to entry. Give me SW:TOR that will play (at over 15fps) and look nice on a $500 laptop and you have a winner. If it only runs at 15fps on with 4gb of ram and a quad core processor... well.. .you'll sell 5 copies. This is why free trials are so important, and also why people want into betas so bad. Most want to try to see if the game's fun, sure, but if it's fun and it runs like shit they either don't spend the money or try and justify spending the cost of the game, monthly fees, AND the massive upgrade costs. I don't care what game it is. If I have to spend $500 just to play it... i'm not going to. Now all you "hardcore" gamers are thinking "well quit playing on an intellivision" but you are the same people that whine and cry like premature babies when the servers are empty on the biggest baddest games... and then quit 2 months later.
Is that why a recent EA study put Pc as the top gaming platform with a user base larger than the Wii, Xbox360 and PS3? Consoles are not doing better than Pc gaming. Pc gaming is thriving in the digital downloads sales charts.
The average Pc gamer can afford to keep their Rig updated every two years because the average age of a Pc gamer is in their mid 30's. You don't have to blow the bank to build a rig to handle Bioshock or Farcry 2 like you would have 5 years ago to play the latest and greatest, saying otherwise is an exaggeration. So do get your fact straight before making baseless claims based on misinformed hearsay that the Pc is doomed. That BS is started by the consoles companies with viral in the first place. I've included a link to relieve your ignorance.
And EA would never, EVER use such tactics itself? Of course the PC isn't doomed. Consoles and PC's tend to attract different classes of players. There is some overlap(of course), and current trend lines MAY mark some future convergence of the two device types, but for now they appeal to different types of gamers. But that still doesn't mean that attention doesn't have to be paid to the fact that WAY too many people are still using PC relics, rather than decent systems. Its getting better, but SLOWLY. Look at these stats from steams hardware survey(keeping in mind that they self select for on line players)
I agree, a good game that will run on an average PC is a game that includes a lot more of the available market.
Pay to play model is extremely expensive if you want to rejoin a game you quit more than a year in the past. If there have have been 2 or more expansions since you left the game, you are up for the cost of 2 games just to get the game up and running again. The purchase cost of the missing expansions may or may not include the first 2 weeks or month of subscription. That is very expensive and risky proposition for a game you left because you were bored and all you really want to do is try it out to see if the added content makes it worth playing again. It is also a slap in the face considering that you have already purchased the original game and may even have purchased several of the older expansions. Pay through the nose is a better description than pay to play!
In contrast, I can usually start a new game, that is a completely new and novel experience, for the purchase cost of a single game, or less if it is free to play or has free trial.
Sorry, but I am massively annoyed by the fact that you just compare all the games to WoW. It's really annoying, especially since the fact that most people these days say the WoW was the first MMO. Umm, hello? Anyone in that empty shell you call a head? Have you not heard of Everquest, nor Dark Age of Camelot? I've never played Everquest my own self, but DAoC was my very first MMO, and from what little time I have spent on my friends WoW character, I have to say, it really disappoints in comparison with DAoC. I know, I'm taking what you, Dana, said in comparing games with WoW, and just comparing WoW with DAoC, but really, what else is there I can do. DAoC and Mythic know how to keep their players entertained. DAoC may have some more realistic graphics, but you know what, they run really well on Windows 95, and if I'm not mistaken, that would be the kind of computer thrown off the back of a truck in the past 5 years. So please, in your next rant about games or whatever, don't compare everything to a half-good game like WoW. They didn't create the generation, they just popularized it with Blizzards many followers. Take a note from the old school. Give love to Everquest, DAoC, UO, and any other pre-WoW games.
I am not trivializing DAoC, far from it. Check the credits on the original game and you'll find my name (testing, but hey, I was 16 or so!) Also, Sanya proofed the thing for me and she was their Community person! Trust me, we remember DAoC.
I loved that game as well, but it's a bit old to make a valid comparison about how to do modern graphics on a low end machine.
Originally posted by Thradar
"Heck, Blizzard’s next two games are isometric. No one has released an isometric title in years, everything must be 3D, right?"
Sigh. Please do a little research before posting something like this. Starcraft 2 is fully rendered in 3D. It just happens to have an isometric view. Isometric doesn't mean the game isn't rendered in 3D.
That has to do with what exactly? It's still an isometric perspective, no one much cares what the techncial specs are. The point is, they dared to select the view that fits best with their style of gaming, whereas every other huge RPG franchise has shifted to 3rd person in recent years.
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
I agree completely with the Dana. What’s the point of having requirements that only a few can run, unless you want to focus on that small market. That does not mean that your mmo has to be "simple" or unchallenging. System requirements do not make for good development and well thought out stories. I think the real problem is that developers throwing out garbage because enough sheep keep covering the developmental costs.
The reasoning for releasing such a high graphic game is Marketing reasons. Like when EQ2 came out. They KNEW people were going to play it. But they also KNEW people would need to upgrade there towers to play in a world that dident look like mashed potatos. Sony not only has there own computers but they used to be in league with falcon northwest.
This obsession for latest graphics basically is what pushed me out of EVE. Before EVE had 2 clients, the premium one, with all the bells and whistles and the classic one, which did not look as good but ran well on older machines. Then lo and behold they decided to drop the classic one.
As upgrading my machine, especially in this economy was not an option, I was faced with 2 options: quit or try to play the game which ran in some instances at 2 FPS. So I quit, started playing Perfect World (in which i have spent pretty much the same as I would have on an EVE subscription) and trying other F2P games as well.
Now I do understand sometime later I will have to upgrade my rig, and trust me, I do want to upgrade my rig so bad it hurts. But I also have other RL responsabilities, and right now dishing out $500 + for a new computer is not in the cards. I'm sure there are a lot who are also in my boat.
Also, as a webdesigner myself I have always subscribed to the idea that making a huge file look good is no big thing. The real masters of design, be it in webpages, Flash or Games are the ones that can pull off the most graphic impact with the smallest size possible.
And just to think if EVE had kept their classic client, I would have still been paying my monthly subscritption...
Graphics clearly play a role. Being someone who still plays AC to this day, when I try to convince others to play one of the first questions is usually "What are the graphics like?". Then when people see the graphics are older (the game was made 10 years ago) they often times back away from the game and say that Turbine should rerelease AC with modern graphics. Even long time veterans of AC who finally left always say they'd come back if the graphics were cutting edge.
Sadly too many people really do care about the graphics. The people you get who don't care about graphics now a days are either hardcore fans of that particular game, and have been since the graphics were modern. Or you get people who are completly casual gamers and don't care about much other then that the game is easy and always makes you feel like you won. Sadly I just don't want that type of casual game, and is why I play so few of the MMOs (WoW included). I want challenge and I want to have to figure things out.
The key for a company to make a lot of money is make the game play on a lot of systems, and make it simple. Simple in both playing, leveling and understanding. Sadly I can't stand games that are so easy, but it's where the big bucks are.
What we need are the companies who are happy with only 100,000 players and make a game to target specific audiences. No more wanting to make the next 10 million player bore-fest of a game. Give me a company that wants to create fun and some nice profits. Not a company who wants to make no fun but more profits then they need.
I could not agree more with you. This obsession for latest graphics basically is what pushed me out of EVE. Before EVE had 2 clients, the premium one, with all the bells and whistles and the classic one, which did not look as good but ran well on older machines. Then lo and behold they decided to drop the classic one. As upgrading my machine, especially in this economy was not an option, I was faced with 2 options: quit or try to play the game which ran in some instances at 2 FPS. So I quit, started playing Perfect World (in which i have spent pretty much the same as I would have on an EVE subscription) and trying other F2P games as well. Now I do understand sometime later I will have to upgrade my rig, and trust me, I do want to upgrade my rig so bad it hurts. But I also have other RL responsabilities, and right now dishing out $500 + for a new computer is not in the cards. I'm sure there are a lot who are also in my boat. Also, as a webdesigner myself I have always subscribed to the idea that making a huge file look good is no big thing. The real masters of design, be it in webpages, Flash or Games are the ones that can pull off the most graphic impact with the smallest size possible. And just to think if EVE had kept their classic client, I would have still been paying my monthly subscritption...
Eve went to one client for several reasons. One, its easier to code one and QA it than two. Second, while there is now only one client, it can be set to operate like the old classic(in the configuration settings). I have a level 36 fighter in Perfect World, and while its not a bad game, its not nearly as fun as some like Cabal to me(level 118 warrior currently). I agree that CCp's timing could have been better... But thats CCP for you.
Low graphics opens new worlds to those with note books er i mean laptops, Thinking that cellphone (mobilephone) providers are virtually giving away notebooks with crap specs and the ability to get on the net no wonder there are more people on WoW today, but i bet if you look for the guys that have had access to the internet for over 8-9 years they are either playing EvE or some other mmo nowadays.
Originally posted by DanaOriginally posted by Thradar
"Heck, Blizzard’s next two games are isometric. No one has released an isometric title in years, everything must be 3D, right?"
Sigh. Please do a little research before posting something like this. Starcraft 2 is fully rendered in 3D. It just happens to have an isometric view. Isometric doesn't mean the game isn't rendered in 3D.
That has to do with what exactly? It's still an isometric perspective, no one much cares what the techncial specs are. The point is, they dared to select the view that fits best with their style of gaming, whereas every other huge RPG franchise has shifted to 3rd person in recent years.
Dana, I can't help but log in and say I think your article is complete Rubbish. Now I'm not trying to insult you, but its nothing more than a glorified assumption. It reminded me of a Star Trek fan going on about why they think Captain Piccard was bald. It's just fan talk, nothing more.
The point I'm trying to make is that your article is based on nothing factual. It comes across as a nerd's ramblings. Which is fine, we all do it, but there are just too many inconsistencies, loop holes, in your hypothesis.
Furthermore, your comment on the isometric views... are you serious? Have you considered for one moment that Blizzard is merely staying consistent with their sequels, which all have their roots in 2d sprite based isometric games? You are picking out straw men here.
Diablo 3, Starcraft 2 are completely 3D, they can require some much updated computer hardware, but the sole reason they are isometric is because they are SEQUELS. You use the isometric perspective as a means to connote low system spec requirements.
Now I wont disagree with you that accessibility is important, but its not the reason for which you claim sub based mmorpgs are going. First you must look at the target audience. Most f2p titles that are doing well are what? childish cartoons. They take advantage of this kiddy cartoon market, children and teens who are infatuated with anime. Sure they can get a lot of players, but players are not equal to actual profit. This means recent sub based western mmo's can still make more profit but have much fewer active subs than a f2p title.
The real issue isnt the system specs, sure it plays a role depending on your target audience, mainly children, but rather it has to do with the recent disappointments in game play and quality. Hype has the opposite effect for a title if the title cannot live up to its marketing department. Games like Age of Conan were incomplete and broken in many ways. The system requirements didnt hurt the MATURE title, rather the quality of the game itself. WARHAMMER online's issue is similar, the gameplay was subpar, the end game was horribly designed, and over all the game was nothing more than a glorified battle ground. You mentioned you have tested DAoC, then you should know that fans had DAoC expectations for a title like WAR, which turned out to be fairly linear in nature, a shallow shadow of Mythics previous title.
Gaming is not a cheap hobby, it never has been. History has proven that if quality games exist, gamers will be more inclined to upgrade. Remember, an upgrade doesnt mean a new computer all the time, it could be more RAM or a new GPU. These have gone down in price of late, there is no excuse. There are far more expensive hobbies out there. A gamer has to stay up with the times or accept that their computer is only as good as the year it was made for.
Quality games with smart design is the answer, not accessibility.
I would agree with every single thing Dana Massey said.
I would add that I don't want an online game that requires full-time play to be fun. I hate the drop-envy that arises in these games and the ridiculous caste-systems which arise which seem so inversely proportional to the real life quality of persons, in that the unemployed or kids are the only ones who have time to ascend to the gaming nirvana of best loot. I have a real job which is hugely rewarding, and I also like games. So when I'm confronted with games which only reward those who put far too much time into them than I ever could manage, I lose interest in the game. Though some might argue that this is to be expected and possibly even in the best interest of the game's community, in the context of Massey's column, that argument is myopic, as the terrible result for the development company is that it loses a customer.
Which, in a nutshell, if you ask me, is precisely why so many games have generated disappointing sales.
Low graphics opens new worlds to those with note books er i mean laptops, Thinking that cellphone (mobilephone) providers are virtually giving away notebooks with crap specs and the ability to get on the net no wonder there are more people on WoW today, but i bet if you look for the guys that have had access to the internet for over 8-9 years they are either playing EvE or some other mmo nowadays.
I've been on the internet since before it was called that (the early 80s). I still play WOW. I also play City of Heroes, which has terrific limited graphics. Though I use state-of-the-moment gpus and love to tinker with my computer, I still ike the games that let me play.
Unlike those who lack employment, I don't want a game that is a job. And let's face it, the employed are the lifeblood of online gaming. So I'm guessing there are more people who are like me than who are not.
I didn't have time to read all the post's as i was in a rush but i read everything else and just wanted to say I have been waiting for years for someone to say this games are getting too need too much power to run and the fun of playing them is lacking i rather play a game with good game play that look ok than play a bad game that look great people put FFXI and WOW down for the cartoony look but there both still out there where will conan be in 7 years people who want to play an easy to get into game don't have 1,000's to spen on lates graphics cards and more gig's of ram than nasa use's just to find out the next one needs double.
lets go old school get back to what gaming means fun and enjoyment where we can pick up and play.
Mir 2 linage everquest FFXI WOW and many more games out there are still running and will be for many more years because we can play them with out having to morgae the house just to put a new graphics card in or buy a 68" hd widescreen monitor with supre dolby 24.1 sound.
Comments
I like good graphics and artwork. I like a more challenging game than WoW.
F2p games are successful because people get curious and can try them for free.
In the end though, people will pay thousands of dollars for a game they have fun in, good graphics or not.
I say, all games should be free for a month to get people to try them and then have a monthly subscription.
i agree thats a very good point
madnessman
I agree completely with the Dana. What’s the point of having requirements that only a few can run, unless you want to focus on that small market. That does not mean that your mmo has to be "simple" or unchallenging. System requirements do not make for good development and well thought out stories. I think the real problem is that developers throwing out garbage because enough sheep keep covering the developmental costs.
solve graphics problems. what if having a dynamic way of detecting hardware then setting up a range of graphic options within that along with not so lagy elements such as in WOW.
UT3: does what im talking about but lags so much anyway that the mim req will look worse then ps1 games.
Fury( No-More): had a high Graphic and Low Graphic EXE
Assassin Creed/ Crysis..etc: Has 2 exe's for DX9, And DX10. which have selective graphics option.
Is that why a recent EA study put Pc as the top gaming platform with a user base larger than the Wii, Xbox360 and PS3? Consoles are not doing better than Pc gaming. Pc gaming is thriving in the digital downloads sales charts.
The average Pc gamer can afford to keep their Rig updated every two years because the average age of a Pc gamer is in their mid 30's. You don't have to blow the bank to build a rig to handle Bioshock or Farcry 2 like you would have 5 years ago to play the latest and greatest, saying otherwise is an exaggeration. So do get your fact straight before making baseless claims based on misinformed hearsay that the Pc is doomed. That BS is started by the consoles companies with viral in the first place. I've included a link to relieve your ignorance.
www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/58497
Is that why a recent EA study put Pc as the top gaming platform with a user base larger than the Wii, Xbox360 and PS3? Consoles are not doing better than Pc gaming. Pc gaming is thriving in the digital downloads sales charts.
The average Pc gamer can afford to keep their Rig updated every two years because the average age of a Pc gamer is in their mid 30's. You don't have to blow the bank to build a rig to handle Bioshock or Farcry 2 like you would have 5 years ago to play the latest and greatest, saying otherwise is an exaggeration. So do get your fact straight before making baseless claims based on misinformed hearsay that the Pc is doomed. That BS is started by the consoles companies with viral in the first place. I've included a link to relieve your ignorance.
www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/58497
And EA would never, EVER use such tactics itself?
Of course the PC isn't doomed. Consoles and PC's tend to attract different classes of players. There is some overlap(of course), and current trend lines MAY mark some future convergence of the two device types, but for now they appeal to different types of gamers. But that still doesn't mean that attention doesn't have to be paid to the fact that WAY too many people are still using PC relics, rather than decent systems. Its getting better, but SLOWLY. Look at these stats from steams hardware survey(keeping in mind that they self select for on line players)
store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
I agree, a good game that will run on an average PC is a game that includes a lot more of the available market.
Pay to play model is extremely expensive if you want to rejoin a game you quit more than a year in the past. If there have have been 2 or more expansions since you left the game, you are up for the cost of 2 games just to get the game up and running again. The purchase cost of the missing expansions may or may not include the first 2 weeks or month of subscription. That is very expensive and risky proposition for a game you left because you were bored and all you really want to do is try it out to see if the added content makes it worth playing again. It is also a slap in the face considering that you have already purchased the original game and may even have purchased several of the older expansions. Pay through the nose is a better description than pay to play!
In contrast, I can usually start a new game, that is a completely new and novel experience, for the purchase cost of a single game, or less if it is free to play or has free trial.
I am not trivializing DAoC, far from it. Check the credits on the original game and you'll find my name (testing, but hey, I was 16 or so!) Also, Sanya proofed the thing for me and she was their Community person! Trust me, we remember DAoC.
I loved that game as well, but it's a bit old to make a valid comparison about how to do modern graphics on a low end machine.
That has to do with what exactly? It's still an isometric perspective, no one much cares what the techncial specs are. The point is, they dared to select the view that fits best with their style of gaming, whereas every other huge RPG franchise has shifted to 3rd person in recent years.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
The reasoning for releasing such a high graphic game is Marketing reasons. Like when EQ2 came out. They KNEW people were going to play it. But they also KNEW people would need to upgrade there towers to play in a world that dident look like mashed potatos. Sony not only has there own computers but they used to be in league with falcon northwest.
I could not agree more with you.
This obsession for latest graphics basically is what pushed me out of EVE. Before EVE had 2 clients, the premium one, with all the bells and whistles and the classic one, which did not look as good but ran well on older machines. Then lo and behold they decided to drop the classic one.
As upgrading my machine, especially in this economy was not an option, I was faced with 2 options: quit or try to play the game which ran in some instances at 2 FPS. So I quit, started playing Perfect World (in which i have spent pretty much the same as I would have on an EVE subscription) and trying other F2P games as well.
Now I do understand sometime later I will have to upgrade my rig, and trust me, I do want to upgrade my rig so bad it hurts. But I also have other RL responsabilities, and right now dishing out $500 + for a new computer is not in the cards. I'm sure there are a lot who are also in my boat.
Also, as a webdesigner myself I have always subscribed to the idea that making a huge file look good is no big thing. The real masters of design, be it in webpages, Flash or Games are the ones that can pull off the most graphic impact with the smallest size possible.
And just to think if EVE had kept their classic client, I would have still been paying my monthly subscritption...
Graphics clearly play a role. Being someone who still plays AC to this day, when I try to convince others to play one of the first questions is usually "What are the graphics like?". Then when people see the graphics are older (the game was made 10 years ago) they often times back away from the game and say that Turbine should rerelease AC with modern graphics. Even long time veterans of AC who finally left always say they'd come back if the graphics were cutting edge.
Sadly too many people really do care about the graphics. The people you get who don't care about graphics now a days are either hardcore fans of that particular game, and have been since the graphics were modern. Or you get people who are completly casual gamers and don't care about much other then that the game is easy and always makes you feel like you won. Sadly I just don't want that type of casual game, and is why I play so few of the MMOs (WoW included). I want challenge and I want to have to figure things out.
The key for a company to make a lot of money is make the game play on a lot of systems, and make it simple. Simple in both playing, leveling and understanding. Sadly I can't stand games that are so easy, but it's where the big bucks are.
What we need are the companies who are happy with only 100,000 players and make a game to target specific audiences. No more wanting to make the next 10 million player bore-fest of a game. Give me a company that wants to create fun and some nice profits. Not a company who wants to make no fun but more profits then they need.
Eve went to one client for several reasons. One, its easier to code one and QA it than two. Second, while there is now only one client, it can be set to operate like the old classic(in the configuration settings). I have a level 36 fighter in Perfect World, and while its not a bad game, its not nearly as fun as some like Cabal to me(level 118 warrior currently). I agree that CCp's timing could have been better... But thats CCP for you.
Low graphics opens new worlds to those with note books er i mean laptops, Thinking that cellphone (mobilephone) providers are virtually giving away notebooks with crap specs and the ability to get on the net no wonder there are more people on WoW today, but i bet if you look for the guys that have had access to the internet for over 8-9 years they are either playing EvE or some other mmo nowadays.
That has to do with what exactly? It's still an isometric perspective, no one much cares what the techncial specs are. The point is, they dared to select the view that fits best with their style of gaming, whereas every other huge RPG franchise has shifted to 3rd person in recent years.
Dana, I can't help but log in and say I think your article is complete Rubbish. Now I'm not trying to insult you, but its nothing more than a glorified assumption. It reminded me of a Star Trek fan going on about why they think Captain Piccard was bald. It's just fan talk, nothing more.
The point I'm trying to make is that your article is based on nothing factual. It comes across as a nerd's ramblings. Which is fine, we all do it, but there are just too many inconsistencies, loop holes, in your hypothesis.
Furthermore, your comment on the isometric views... are you serious? Have you considered for one moment that Blizzard is merely staying consistent with their sequels, which all have their roots in 2d sprite based isometric games? You are picking out straw men here.
Diablo 3, Starcraft 2 are completely 3D, they can require some much updated computer hardware, but the sole reason they are isometric is because they are SEQUELS. You use the isometric perspective as a means to connote low system spec requirements.
Now I wont disagree with you that accessibility is important, but its not the reason for which you claim sub based mmorpgs are going. First you must look at the target audience. Most f2p titles that are doing well are what? childish cartoons. They take advantage of this kiddy cartoon market, children and teens who are infatuated with anime. Sure they can get a lot of players, but players are not equal to actual profit. This means recent sub based western mmo's can still make more profit but have much fewer active subs than a f2p title.
The real issue isnt the system specs, sure it plays a role depending on your target audience, mainly children, but rather it has to do with the recent disappointments in game play and quality. Hype has the opposite effect for a title if the title cannot live up to its marketing department. Games like Age of Conan were incomplete and broken in many ways. The system requirements didnt hurt the MATURE title, rather the quality of the game itself. WARHAMMER online's issue is similar, the gameplay was subpar, the end game was horribly designed, and over all the game was nothing more than a glorified battle ground. You mentioned you have tested DAoC, then you should know that fans had DAoC expectations for a title like WAR, which turned out to be fairly linear in nature, a shallow shadow of Mythics previous title.
Gaming is not a cheap hobby, it never has been. History has proven that if quality games exist, gamers will be more inclined to upgrade. Remember, an upgrade doesnt mean a new computer all the time, it could be more RAM or a new GPU. These have gone down in price of late, there is no excuse. There are far more expensive hobbies out there. A gamer has to stay up with the times or accept that their computer is only as good as the year it was made for.
Quality games with smart design is the answer, not accessibility.
I would agree with every single thing Dana Massey said.
I would add that I don't want an online game that requires full-time play to be fun. I hate the drop-envy that arises in these games and the ridiculous caste-systems which arise which seem so inversely proportional to the real life quality of persons, in that the unemployed or kids are the only ones who have time to ascend to the gaming nirvana of best loot. I have a real job which is hugely rewarding, and I also like games. So when I'm confronted with games which only reward those who put far too much time into them than I ever could manage, I lose interest in the game. Though some might argue that this is to be expected and possibly even in the best interest of the game's community, in the context of Massey's column, that argument is myopic, as the terrible result for the development company is that it loses a customer.
Which, in a nutshell, if you ask me, is precisely why so many games have generated disappointing sales.
I've been on the internet since before it was called that (the early 80s). I still play WOW. I also play City of Heroes, which has terrific limited graphics. Though I use state-of-the-moment gpus and love to tinker with my computer, I still ike the games that let me play.
Unlike those who lack employment, I don't want a game that is a job. And let's face it, the employed are the lifeblood of online gaming. So I'm guessing there are more people who are like me than who are not.
I didn't have time to read all the post's as i was in a rush but i read everything else and just wanted to say I have been waiting for years for someone to say this games are getting too need too much power to run and the fun of playing them is lacking i rather play a game with good game play that look ok than play a bad game that look great people put FFXI and WOW down for the cartoony look but there both still out there where will conan be in 7 years people who want to play an easy to get into game don't have 1,000's to spen on lates graphics cards and more gig's of ram than nasa use's just to find out the next one needs double.
lets go old school get back to what gaming means fun and enjoyment where we can pick up and play.
Mir 2 linage everquest FFXI WOW and many more games out there are still running and will be for many more years because we can play them with out having to morgae the house just to put a new graphics card in or buy a 68" hd widescreen monitor with supre dolby 24.1 sound.
I am just here to applaud the article. I think that is one of the best assesments of gaming I have read in a long time. Thank you.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7