I think the market would have remained small, because people were trying mmos and leaving. They were not as niche as people want to think they were. There were virtually millions of active paying mmo players in the market prior to wow. That doesn't even take into account how many people tried mmos and just didn't enjoy them.
Lets face it. It took a certain amount of patience just to deal with some mmos. "give it 12 months to get going", "the game doesn't get fun until max level", "you need to upgrade your computer to get the game to run". The barrier to entry was so high on so many levels that the genre was excluding people for all the wrong reasons. Not by engaging concepts and difficult gameplay, but bad design, poor performance and tedious gameplay.
What I find strange is how often people say wow is nothing but pieces of other mmos put together as you have echoed, but somehow it is singlehandedly responsible for all these negative aspects of the genre. From "forcing" other companies to make their games like wow or any number of other claims that contradict the next statement.
Wow didn't do anything new, but it somehow influenced the entire genre to ruination and forcing them to emulate their emulation? If one game took the building blocks of other mmos and built a superior product then I somehow don't think the past market was some utopia that people keep reminiscing about.
I don't deny that wow had an impact on the genre, but a few posts back I listed 20 other mmos that have recently tried to do something else.
I just prefer to put blame where blame is deserved. If other companies are releasing crap, then I blame those companies. I am not sure what would have been better, because companies were not taking their time. That is the whole problem in a nutshell. Games are continually forced to market before they are ready and then dieing painful deaths and players watch in horror and anger for wasting $50.
Companies have simply shifted gears with the same busted mentality of "we can finish the game after release" in a post wow market. That might have worked 6 years ago, but not anymore. Seeing how many companies continue this trend, I very seriously doubt they would change their methods in a market without wow.
DDO Tabula Rasa Auto Assault Dark and Light Darkfall AgeofConan Seed Gods and Heroes Crimecraft RomaVictor Wish Mythica Vanguard The Chronicles of spellborn Metaplace Hellgate:london Prates of the burning sea Fallen earth Wizard101 Toon Town etc etc etc
EA, SOE, Turbine, microsoft, NCSoft, etc. These are not all indi companies either. There are an plenty of other games on the horizon that are heading different directions as well. You are assuming that just because there are no huge stand out games that break the EQ mold that no one is trying. Lack of success is not an indicator that companies have given up trying. Companies are trying different game formula, but they are not succeeding. You need to figure out why that is instead of trying to blame one game for the failures of so many other games.
"Success" is relative.
Once again, you demonstrate that mentality that a game without 11 million subs is not "successful".
As long as these games are making a profit, and still running, they are doing fine.
Problem is, most companies aren't satisfied with doing fine...they want to be WoW....they want 11 million subs. So they change their game over time, trying to lure in that easy-mode, instant gratification crowd.
And in the process alienate the "true" MMORPG gamer....and many times alienating the fans that got them there to begin with.
SWG would still be going strong and the NGE would have never happened. WAR would have been designed first around open world RVR instead of battleground scenarios with the former tacked on. EQ2 would still be difficult and challenging. More games would have placed value on items such as deep crafting systems and player housing. Balance between all classes wouldn't have been such an issue as it is today. No wait, yes it still would, people like to whine. EVE would have ....300,000 paid subs.
Your post reads like what those people who stalk movie stars say.
You don't know if WoW had an impact on your favorite games or not.
My theory is that companies made changes to games like swg and eq2 to cut customer service costs.
umm..when a game as complex as SWG was is stripped down, over-simplified, and turned into a quest grind, it's pretty fucking obvious what happened.
AND when reps are quoted as saying things such as "This is Star Wars....why doesn't it have more subs than WoW??" It's DAMN obvious what happened.
SWG was losing 10,000 subs a month prior to the NGE, so as much as people have a rose tinted view of things, people werent sticking with the game for whatever reason.
I agree that blame is mainly placed on these other companies for releasing unfinished garbage, but it also boggles my mind that some seem to dismiss that because of WoW's massive success in making MMO's not MMO's anymore, or at least not in the sense I explained in my last post, that it didn't have any effect on making these other companies go gaga for mounds of cash and influence some of there terrible decisions in one way or another, even if to a small degree.
And WoW did do something fairly new, it added lots of console elements to a genre that stood out at one point because it didn't have a lot of those elements, which is what made it a completely different genre from console gaming. But lately, they are blending into one and the same, and personally it is sad because being a different experience from console gaming is what attracted me, and I'm sure many others, to the genre in the first place.
DDO Tabula Rasa Auto Assault Dark and Light Darkfall AgeofConan Seed Gods and Heroes Crimecraft RomaVictor Wish Mythica Vanguard The Chronicles of spellborn Metaplace Hellgate:london Prates of the burning sea Fallen earth Wizard101 Toon Town etc etc etc
EA, SOE, Turbine, microsoft, NCSoft, etc. These are not all indi companies either. There are an plenty of other games on the horizon that are heading different directions as well. You are assuming that just because there are no huge stand out games that break the EQ mold that no one is trying. Lack of success is not an indicator that companies have given up trying. Companies are trying different game formula, but they are not succeeding. You need to figure out why that is instead of trying to blame one game for the failures of so many other games.
"Success" is relative.
Once again, you demonstrate that mentality that a game without 11 million subs is not "successful".
As long as these games are making a profit, and still running, they are doing fine.
Problem is, most companies aren't satisfied with doing fine...they want to be WoW....they want 11 million subs. So they change their game over time, trying to lure in that easy-mode, instant gratification crowd.
And in the process alienate the "true" MMORPG gamer....and many times alienating the fans that got them there to begin with.
12 of the games I listed either died before release, were liquidating in bankruptcy, scheduled for closure or underwent massive restructuring due to shrinking playerbase. Don't try to pin some "11 million player or failure" mentality on me. Many of those games were perfectly content aiming for niche markets and were not trying to beat wow.
You said companies have given up on making anything but wow clones and I easily found 20 games post wow that were something different and could most likely find another 20 just browsing the lists to the left.
As for your "true mmorpg game" comments, please. Your 15 dollars a month are not any better than the next persons. You and I are both customers and the length of time we have played mmos doesn't make us some sort of gaming nobility compared to the next person. Everyone was new to mmos at one point, even you.
The problem with a game as massively successful as WoW is that it reaches a "Critical Mass". At the point where one game reaches 7+ Million players you have to consider the simple "Gravity" a game exudes.
If your new to the MMO genre, and something new comes out, and then you have WoW, you have a choice to make. This new game, or the massive WoW. What it comes down to is this: With WoW's 7 million+ subscribers you may have 14 friends playing WoW, but only two friends in this new game. It doesn't matter how good the new game is, it could be better then WoW in every way. The simple fact that you have 14 friends to play with in WoW instead of the two in the new game will drive players new and old to/back to WoW like clockwork.
I would like to go off on a tangent about how WoW is the devil and all but...I can't as its an entertaining game. Soul sucking, but entertaining. The point is, while WoW has this gravity well going for it, it won't matter how good a game is, they won't have any chance to compete with it. Less subscriptions means less money to development. Less development means a worse game in the long haul.
No, the problem is that company keep releasing half baked game and expect people to pay for it. If you look back at all the MMO releases, the only 3 major MMO with relative success so far is EQ2, LOTRO, and FFXI. If my memory serve me correctly, FFXI was in development after WoW. FFXI was a success because SQE did what it did best and that was making a game with fighting mechanic that is slow enough that it could be considered to be turn based. By doing to, they have a much easier time predicting what player would do in certain situation and with some cooldown of 30 minutes to 20 ours long, Balancing it wasn't that big of a problem neither.
EQ2 was released somewhat underdeveloped but got an easy pass at the time because WoW was still new at that time. Honestly, I think EQ2 screw the pooch by changing it games to resemble it more like WoW but only less polished. If they were to stick to their guns and make a pure PvE game like they intended, it would have turn out to be a greater success than what it is today.
LOTRO succeeded because it put major emphasis on releasing a functional game with well developed content. The original plan for LOTRO was to release a game that is similar to WoW but have a more define classed and better story telling. Like WoW, it was planned to be released with content and max level of 60. However during the even, the developer realize the amount of work it takes create that much content and release it in time. So instead of releasing it half-assed like AoC did, what LOTRO decide to do is limit the initial player level to only 40 focus on polishing it in time for release. It is only after release and some major bug and balance issue were solved that Turbine decide to start working on creating content again. It is this decision of releasing limited but very polished game that save LOTRO from entering dust bin like the rest other MMO. Furthermore, Turbine decide to forgot PvP all together and focus on dukeing it out with WoW on the PvE aspect alone. This too I think contribute to LOTRO limited success that it have today.
So really, the key to making a successful game is not to be like WoW. To make a successful all you really have to do is give people what you say you are giving to people. If anyone need further proof, just look at Eve Online. That game couldn't be more different from WoW and it succeed because not only that it dare to e different but also because it was playable from the first day.
LotRO would have 8 million subs. Everyone would hate on LotRO saying it killed their precious game.
You could also argue that without WoW, LotRO wouldn't be as popular as it is today. A lot of the items LotRO features have been recycled from the very same features that EQ and WoW created.
LotRO would have 8 million subs. Everyone would hate on LotRO saying it killed their precious game.
You could also argue that without WoW, LotRO wouldn't be as popular as it is today. A lot of the items LotRO features have been recycled from the very same features that EQ and WoW created.
I would argue that without WOW, LOTRO simply would not exist as we know it. I'd bet it would be a radically different beast altogether.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
SWG would still be going strong and the NGE would have never happened. WAR would have been designed first around open world RVR instead of battleground scenarios with the former tacked on. EQ2 would still be difficult and challenging. More games would have placed value on items such as deep crafting systems and player housing. Balance between all classes wouldn't have been such an issue as it is today. No wait, yes it still would, people like to whine. EVE would have ....300,000 paid subs.
A skilled man jumps off a cliff and does a perfect dive into the ocean. TV cameras are there along with girls, fame and everything. This guy becomes a star.
You decide to do the same thing, you jump, and hit the side of a cliff. You barely survive and are paralyzed for life.
And you want to blame HIM?
man sticks his wiener in a bee hive and it doesn't get stung, another man does the same thing and gets it stung. point of this story dont stick you wiener in a bee hive.
Ok, I got the first analogy, but the second one doesn't make sense. What do beehives and penises have to do with MMOs?
Beehives are present in at least EQ and as a hairdo in WAR I believe.
Penises have been playing a large role in mmo's since the beginning.
LotRO would have 8 million subs. Everyone would hate on LotRO saying it killed their precious game.
You could also argue that without WoW, LotRO wouldn't be as popular as it is today. A lot of the items LotRO features have been recycled from the very same features that EQ and WoW created.
I would argue that without WOW, LOTRO simply would not exist as we know it. I'd bet it would be a radically different beast altogether.
The answer is easy. There wouldnt be any mmo's if it wasent for wow.
And you know this how?
because no mmo has come even remotely close to matching wow success?
Common sense really.
The new MMos didnt fail because they didnt have enough subscribers they failed because they were terrible.
Outside of a very select few MMOs, not many have failed. What is failure? Closing down or not making profit. If it's still running, it's still making money. Gaming and Technology in general are pretty much free markets, so it is safe to say that if a game isn't making you money or is just breaking even, you aren't going to be successful.
The answer is easy. There wouldnt be any mmo's if it wasent for wow.
And you know this how?
because no mmo has come even remotely close to matching wow success?
Common sense really.
The new MMos didnt fail because they didnt have enough subscribers they failed because they were terrible.
Outside of a very select few MMOs, not many have failed. What is failure? Closing down or not making profit. If it's still running, it's still making money. Gaming and Technology in general are pretty much free markets, so it is safe to say that if a game isn't making you money or is just breaking even, you aren't going to be successful.
You gotta remember that "fail" can be interpreted as many different things. Not just that it is "dead".
The answer is easy. There wouldnt be any mmo's if it wasent for wow.
And you know this how?
because no mmo has come even remotely close to matching wow success?
Common sense really.
The new MMos didnt fail because they didnt have enough subscribers they failed because they were terrible.
Outside of a very select few MMOs, not many have failed. What is failure? Closing down or not making profit. If it's still running, it's still making money. Gaming and Technology in general are pretty much free markets, so it is safe to say that if a game isn't making you money or is just breaking even, you aren't going to be successful.
You gotta remember that "fail" can be interpreted as many different things. Not just that it is "dead".
Failure is what, though? When you go to make a product in a market, the goal is to make a profit, not to surpass WoW, or maybe not even to compete with it, although that is definitely a good goal, it should not be the main goal. Fail can be -interpreted- to mean something it doesn't, sure, but that's a poor interpretation. Failure in a market is going bankrupt or not making a good profit, the MMO and gaming markets are no different.
The main difference in a world without WoW is that fail games like AoC, WAR and Aion wouldn't have been able to benefit from the massive growth of the MMORPG market to unload a hefty number of box sales before settling down to their correct (small) number of subscribers.
Ask yourself, in absolute honesty: do you really think any MMORPG released since November 2004 could have been a massive success, if only it didn't have to compete with WoW? No. The industry would be the same now as it was prior to November 2004 - a number of games, with subscriber bases in the low six figures, forming a pretty niche hobby.
Edit: and that's not to say this would be a bad thing, as such. Obviously hundreds of thousands of people enjoyed playing those pre-WoW MMOs, and would continue enjoying the hobby. Obviously those games were profitable. I'm sure quite a few people would be happier if MMOs remained a small "underground" scene - lord knows that's the case with music scenes etc.
The answer is easy. There wouldnt be any mmo's if it wasent for wow.
And you know this how?
because no mmo has come even remotely close to matching wow success?
Common sense really.
The new MMos didnt fail because they didnt have enough subscribers they failed because they were terrible.
Outside of a very select few MMOs, not many have failed. What is failure? Closing down or not making profit. If it's still running, it's still making money. Gaming and Technology in general are pretty much free markets, so it is safe to say that if a game isn't making you money or is just breaking even, you aren't going to be successful.
You gotta remember that "fail" can be interpreted as many different things. Not just that it is "dead".
Failure is what, though? When you go to make a product in a market, the goal is to make a profit, not to surpass WoW, or maybe not even to compete with it, although that is definitely a good goal, it should not be the main goal. Fail can be -interpreted- to mean something it doesn't, sure, but that's a poor interpretation. Failure in a market is going bankrupt or not making a good profit, the MMO and gaming markets are no different.
Failure/success need to be looked at on a scale instead of two black and white states.
So when a game releases with 20 servers and puts 250k boxes for sale, they are expecting to retain enough players to fill 20 servers. Meeting those expectations is success, because that was the goal. That is what the developers think their game will settle and how well it will do on the market. Not an exact science of course.
Going above that is even more success. Adding more servers, selling out of copies, etc.
When a game doesn't meet those expectations it fails. It may only be a small failure, but most games don't show signs at that range. Closing servers shortly after release, firing staff (especially major leadership), changing revenue models, etc. All of those are signs of big failure in a new game, because the project is falling so short of expectations that cost cutting measures are the only option. Cost cutting measures like that are not something that is associated with success, even it if gets a project back into the black.
Any game can cut enough to get somewhere into the black, but that really isn't a success is it?
The answer is easy. There wouldnt be any mmo's if it wasent for wow.
And you know this how?
because no mmo has come even remotely close to matching wow success?
Common sense really.
The new MMos didnt fail because they didnt have enough subscribers they failed because they were terrible.
Outside of a very select few MMOs, not many have failed. What is failure? Closing down or not making profit. If it's still running, it's still making money. Gaming and Technology in general are pretty much free markets, so it is safe to say that if a game isn't making you money or is just breaking even, you aren't going to be successful.
You gotta remember that "fail" can be interpreted as many different things. Not just that it is "dead".
Failure is what, though? When you go to make a product in a market, the goal is to make a profit, not to surpass WoW, or maybe not even to compete with it, although that is definitely a good goal, it should not be the main goal. Fail can be -interpreted- to mean something it doesn't, sure, but that's a poor interpretation. Failure in a market is going bankrupt or not making a good profit, the MMO and gaming markets are no different.
Failure/success need to be looked at on a scale instead of two black and white states.
So when a game releases with 20 servers and puts 250k boxes for sale, they are expecting to retain enough players to fill 20 servers. Meeting those expectations is success, because that was the goal. That is what the developers think their game will settle and how well it will do on the market. Not an exact science of course.
Going above that is even more success. Adding more servers, selling out of copies, etc.
When a game doesn't meet those expectations it fails. It may only be a small failure, but most games don't show signs at that range. Closing servers shortly after release, firing staff (especially major leadership), changing revenue models, etc. All of those are signs of big failure in a new game, because the project is falling so short of expectations that cost cutting measures are the only option. Cost cutting measures like that are not something that is associated with success, even it if gets a project back into the black.
Any game can cut enough to get somewhere into the black, but that really isn't a success is it?
I'm talking in terms of when people say "X game failed". I know what you mean, when companies make too many servers and don't keep enough players to fill them and that is a terrible decision, that comes with it's consequences. However, most games don't fail in the sense most users on this forum and most MMO gamers in general think of.
I agree with you, completely, on that there are different degrees of failure, but I'm not sure everyone on this forum can understand that.
The answer is easy. There wouldnt be any mmo's if it wasent for wow.
And you know this how?
Because wow was the reason the normal gamer learned about mmos.
NO. WoW was the reason YOUNG gamers learned about MMOs. Some of us have been playing MMOs for 3 times as long as WoW has EXISTED.
If Blizzard had never made an MMO....there would still be multiple running MMOs:
Ultima Online
Everquest
Everquest 2
Dark Age of Camelot
Anarchy Online
EVE
SWG
and the list could go on and on and on.
Would MMOs have AS MANY players as they do today? Probably not. But there definitely would still have been MMOs. It's not like Blizzard created the concept of the MMO. THAT....is laughable.
And my prediction as to what game would have been the "king" of MMOs.....probably either EQ2 or DAoC, depending on whether you are talking a PvP centric MMO or PvE. EQ2 was going to happen whether WoW did or NOT. My bet is that EQ2 would have been the leading MMO in subscriber numbers IF WoW had never been. Would it have as many subs as WoW, no. Primarily because when EQ2 was released, it required a MONSTER of a machine to play with the graphics cranked up. They didn't even MAKE a computer yet (that you could buy in a store) that could run it at max settings. People bought brand new computers to be able to play it.
I think WoW is the reason NON-gamers learned about mmo's. Not 'normal' gamers, young gamers, or any other type of gamer. Gamers weren't mainstream, being a nerd wasn't as trendy, and gaming wasn't as socially acceptable before WoW (and later the Wii) came along and started pulling in droves of professionals, homemakers, etc.
LOL Opinions are like assholes, everyones got one. I play MMO's to have fun. You know fun. The thing that makes you happy and have good memories. Instead we have another thread on how WOW destroyed civilization. Sad.
(BBBBWWWWAAAAAAAHHHHHH dances with Bayonetta!)
All my opinions are just that..opinions. If you like my opinions..coolness.If you dont like my opinion....I really dont care. Playing: ESO, WOT, Smite, and Marvel Heroes
Actually, MMOs were a niche part of the gaming community. The gaming industry was already pretty big, far bigger than the MMO industry, especially in 2004. FPS, RTS, RPG, Simulations, Sports, etc. were far bigger than MMOs, and MMOs were really frowned upon by most gamers.
Comments
@goatgod
I think the market would have remained small, because people were trying mmos and leaving. They were not as niche as people want to think they were. There were virtually millions of active paying mmo players in the market prior to wow. That doesn't even take into account how many people tried mmos and just didn't enjoy them.
Lets face it. It took a certain amount of patience just to deal with some mmos. "give it 12 months to get going", "the game doesn't get fun until max level", "you need to upgrade your computer to get the game to run". The barrier to entry was so high on so many levels that the genre was excluding people for all the wrong reasons. Not by engaging concepts and difficult gameplay, but bad design, poor performance and tedious gameplay.
What I find strange is how often people say wow is nothing but pieces of other mmos put together as you have echoed, but somehow it is singlehandedly responsible for all these negative aspects of the genre. From "forcing" other companies to make their games like wow or any number of other claims that contradict the next statement.
Wow didn't do anything new, but it somehow influenced the entire genre to ruination and forcing them to emulate their emulation? If one game took the building blocks of other mmos and built a superior product then I somehow don't think the past market was some utopia that people keep reminiscing about.
I don't deny that wow had an impact on the genre, but a few posts back I listed 20 other mmos that have recently tried to do something else.
I just prefer to put blame where blame is deserved. If other companies are releasing crap, then I blame those companies. I am not sure what would have been better, because companies were not taking their time. That is the whole problem in a nutshell. Games are continually forced to market before they are ready and then dieing painful deaths and players watch in horror and anger for wasting $50.
Companies have simply shifted gears with the same busted mentality of "we can finish the game after release" in a post wow market. That might have worked 6 years ago, but not anymore. Seeing how many companies continue this trend, I very seriously doubt they would change their methods in a market without wow.
"Success" is relative.
Once again, you demonstrate that mentality that a game without 11 million subs is not "successful".
As long as these games are making a profit, and still running, they are doing fine.
Problem is, most companies aren't satisfied with doing fine...they want to be WoW....they want 11 million subs. So they change their game over time, trying to lure in that easy-mode, instant gratification crowd.
And in the process alienate the "true" MMORPG gamer....and many times alienating the fans that got them there to begin with.
you say dr pepper i say DR THUNDER!!!!!!!!!!!! you say mountain dew i saw MOUNTAIN LIGHTNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your post reads like what those people who stalk movie stars say.
You don't know if WoW had an impact on your favorite games or not.
My theory is that companies made changes to games like swg and eq2 to cut customer service costs.
umm..when a game as complex as SWG was is stripped down, over-simplified, and turned into a quest grind, it's pretty fucking obvious what happened.
AND when reps are quoted as saying things such as "This is Star Wars....why doesn't it have more subs than WoW??" It's DAMN obvious what happened.
SWG was losing 10,000 subs a month prior to the NGE, so as much as people have a rose tinted view of things, people werent sticking with the game for whatever reason.
@Daffid01,
I agree that blame is mainly placed on these other companies for releasing unfinished garbage, but it also boggles my mind that some seem to dismiss that because of WoW's massive success in making MMO's not MMO's anymore, or at least not in the sense I explained in my last post, that it didn't have any effect on making these other companies go gaga for mounds of cash and influence some of there terrible decisions in one way or another, even if to a small degree.
And WoW did do something fairly new, it added lots of console elements to a genre that stood out at one point because it didn't have a lot of those elements, which is what made it a completely different genre from console gaming. But lately, they are blending into one and the same, and personally it is sad because being a different experience from console gaming is what attracted me, and I'm sure many others, to the genre in the first place.
"Success" is relative.
Once again, you demonstrate that mentality that a game without 11 million subs is not "successful".
As long as these games are making a profit, and still running, they are doing fine.
Problem is, most companies aren't satisfied with doing fine...they want to be WoW....they want 11 million subs. So they change their game over time, trying to lure in that easy-mode, instant gratification crowd.
And in the process alienate the "true" MMORPG gamer....and many times alienating the fans that got them there to begin with.
12 of the games I listed either died before release, were liquidating in bankruptcy, scheduled for closure or underwent massive restructuring due to shrinking playerbase. Don't try to pin some "11 million player or failure" mentality on me. Many of those games were perfectly content aiming for niche markets and were not trying to beat wow.
You said companies have given up on making anything but wow clones and I easily found 20 games post wow that were something different and could most likely find another 20 just browsing the lists to the left.
As for your "true mmorpg game" comments, please. Your 15 dollars a month are not any better than the next persons. You and I are both customers and the length of time we have played mmos doesn't make us some sort of gaming nobility compared to the next person. Everyone was new to mmos at one point, even you.
The problem with a game as massively successful as WoW is that it reaches a "Critical Mass". At the point where one game reaches 7+ Million players you have to consider the simple "Gravity" a game exudes.
If your new to the MMO genre, and something new comes out, and then you have WoW, you have a choice to make. This new game, or the massive WoW. What it comes down to is this: With WoW's 7 million+ subscribers you may have 14 friends playing WoW, but only two friends in this new game. It doesn't matter how good the new game is, it could be better then WoW in every way. The simple fact that you have 14 friends to play with in WoW instead of the two in the new game will drive players new and old to/back to WoW like clockwork.
I would like to go off on a tangent about how WoW is the devil and all but...I can't as its an entertaining game. Soul sucking, but entertaining. The point is, while WoW has this gravity well going for it, it won't matter how good a game is, they won't have any chance to compete with it. Less subscriptions means less money to development. Less development means a worse game in the long haul.
Yea, I didn't hear about Ultima Online til WoW came out, so I got in my time machine and subbed when UO released
No, the problem is that company keep releasing half baked game and expect people to pay for it. If you look back at all the MMO releases, the only 3 major MMO with relative success so far is EQ2, LOTRO, and FFXI. If my memory serve me correctly, FFXI was in development after WoW. FFXI was a success because SQE did what it did best and that was making a game with fighting mechanic that is slow enough that it could be considered to be turn based. By doing to, they have a much easier time predicting what player would do in certain situation and with some cooldown of 30 minutes to 20 ours long, Balancing it wasn't that big of a problem neither.
EQ2 was released somewhat underdeveloped but got an easy pass at the time because WoW was still new at that time. Honestly, I think EQ2 screw the pooch by changing it games to resemble it more like WoW but only less polished. If they were to stick to their guns and make a pure PvE game like they intended, it would have turn out to be a greater success than what it is today.
LOTRO succeeded because it put major emphasis on releasing a functional game with well developed content. The original plan for LOTRO was to release a game that is similar to WoW but have a more define classed and better story telling. Like WoW, it was planned to be released with content and max level of 60. However during the even, the developer realize the amount of work it takes create that much content and release it in time. So instead of releasing it half-assed like AoC did, what LOTRO decide to do is limit the initial player level to only 40 focus on polishing it in time for release. It is only after release and some major bug and balance issue were solved that Turbine decide to start working on creating content again. It is this decision of releasing limited but very polished game that save LOTRO from entering dust bin like the rest other MMO. Furthermore, Turbine decide to forgot PvP all together and focus on dukeing it out with WoW on the PvE aspect alone. This too I think contribute to LOTRO limited success that it have today.
So really, the key to making a successful game is not to be like WoW. To make a successful all you really have to do is give people what you say you are giving to people. If anyone need further proof, just look at Eve Online. That game couldn't be more different from WoW and it succeed because not only that it dare to e different but also because it was playable from the first day.
LotRO would have 8 million subs.
Everyone would hate on LotRO saying it killed their precious game.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
You could also argue that without WoW, LotRO wouldn't be as popular as it is today. A lot of the items LotRO features have been recycled from the very same features that EQ and WoW created.
You could also argue that without WoW, LotRO wouldn't be as popular as it is today. A lot of the items LotRO features have been recycled from the very same features that EQ and WoW created.
I would argue that without WOW, LOTRO simply would not exist as we know it. I'd bet it would be a radically different beast altogether.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
A skilled man jumps off a cliff and does a perfect dive into the ocean. TV cameras are there along with girls, fame and everything. This guy becomes a star.
You decide to do the same thing, you jump, and hit the side of a cliff. You barely survive and are paralyzed for life.
And you want to blame HIM?
man sticks his wiener in a bee hive and it doesn't get stung, another man does the same thing and gets it stung. point of this story dont stick you wiener in a bee hive.
Ok, I got the first analogy, but the second one doesn't make sense. What do beehives and penises have to do with MMOs?
Beehives are present in at least EQ and as a hairdo in WAR I believe.
Penises have been playing a large role in mmo's since the beginning.
You could also argue that without WoW, LotRO wouldn't be as popular as it is today. A lot of the items LotRO features have been recycled from the very same features that EQ and WoW created.
I would argue that without WOW, LOTRO simply would not exist as we know it. I'd bet it would be a radically different beast altogether.
That's basically what I said! *wags finger*
And you know this how?
because no mmo has come even remotely close to matching wow success?
Common sense really.
The new MMos didnt fail because they didnt have enough subscribers they failed because they were terrible.
Outside of a very select few MMOs, not many have failed. What is failure? Closing down or not making profit. If it's still running, it's still making money. Gaming and Technology in general are pretty much free markets, so it is safe to say that if a game isn't making you money or is just breaking even, you aren't going to be successful.
And you know this how?
because no mmo has come even remotely close to matching wow success?
Common sense really.
The new MMos didnt fail because they didnt have enough subscribers they failed because they were terrible.
Outside of a very select few MMOs, not many have failed. What is failure? Closing down or not making profit. If it's still running, it's still making money. Gaming and Technology in general are pretty much free markets, so it is safe to say that if a game isn't making you money or is just breaking even, you aren't going to be successful.
You gotta remember that "fail" can be interpreted as many different things. Not just that it is "dead".
And you know this how?
because no mmo has come even remotely close to matching wow success?
Common sense really.
The new MMos didnt fail because they didnt have enough subscribers they failed because they were terrible.
Outside of a very select few MMOs, not many have failed. What is failure? Closing down or not making profit. If it's still running, it's still making money. Gaming and Technology in general are pretty much free markets, so it is safe to say that if a game isn't making you money or is just breaking even, you aren't going to be successful.
You gotta remember that "fail" can be interpreted as many different things. Not just that it is "dead".
Failure is what, though? When you go to make a product in a market, the goal is to make a profit, not to surpass WoW, or maybe not even to compete with it, although that is definitely a good goal, it should not be the main goal. Fail can be -interpreted- to mean something it doesn't, sure, but that's a poor interpretation. Failure in a market is going bankrupt or not making a good profit, the MMO and gaming markets are no different.
The main difference in a world without WoW is that fail games like AoC, WAR and Aion wouldn't have been able to benefit from the massive growth of the MMORPG market to unload a hefty number of box sales before settling down to their correct (small) number of subscribers.
Ask yourself, in absolute honesty: do you really think any MMORPG released since November 2004 could have been a massive success, if only it didn't have to compete with WoW? No. The industry would be the same now as it was prior to November 2004 - a number of games, with subscriber bases in the low six figures, forming a pretty niche hobby.
Edit: and that's not to say this would be a bad thing, as such. Obviously hundreds of thousands of people enjoyed playing those pre-WoW MMOs, and would continue enjoying the hobby. Obviously those games were profitable. I'm sure quite a few people would be happier if MMOs remained a small "underground" scene - lord knows that's the case with music scenes etc.
And you know this how?
because no mmo has come even remotely close to matching wow success?
Common sense really.
The new MMos didnt fail because they didnt have enough subscribers they failed because they were terrible.
Outside of a very select few MMOs, not many have failed. What is failure? Closing down or not making profit. If it's still running, it's still making money. Gaming and Technology in general are pretty much free markets, so it is safe to say that if a game isn't making you money or is just breaking even, you aren't going to be successful.
You gotta remember that "fail" can be interpreted as many different things. Not just that it is "dead".
Failure is what, though? When you go to make a product in a market, the goal is to make a profit, not to surpass WoW, or maybe not even to compete with it, although that is definitely a good goal, it should not be the main goal. Fail can be -interpreted- to mean something it doesn't, sure, but that's a poor interpretation. Failure in a market is going bankrupt or not making a good profit, the MMO and gaming markets are no different.
Failure/success need to be looked at on a scale instead of two black and white states.
Complete failure <-----------expectations-----------> Runaway success
So when a game releases with 20 servers and puts 250k boxes for sale, they are expecting to retain enough players to fill 20 servers. Meeting those expectations is success, because that was the goal. That is what the developers think their game will settle and how well it will do on the market. Not an exact science of course.
Going above that is even more success. Adding more servers, selling out of copies, etc.
When a game doesn't meet those expectations it fails. It may only be a small failure, but most games don't show signs at that range. Closing servers shortly after release, firing staff (especially major leadership), changing revenue models, etc. All of those are signs of big failure in a new game, because the project is falling so short of expectations that cost cutting measures are the only option. Cost cutting measures like that are not something that is associated with success, even it if gets a project back into the black.
Any game can cut enough to get somewhere into the black, but that really isn't a success is it?
And you know this how?
because no mmo has come even remotely close to matching wow success?
Common sense really.
The new MMos didnt fail because they didnt have enough subscribers they failed because they were terrible.
Outside of a very select few MMOs, not many have failed. What is failure? Closing down or not making profit. If it's still running, it's still making money. Gaming and Technology in general are pretty much free markets, so it is safe to say that if a game isn't making you money or is just breaking even, you aren't going to be successful.
You gotta remember that "fail" can be interpreted as many different things. Not just that it is "dead".
Failure is what, though? When you go to make a product in a market, the goal is to make a profit, not to surpass WoW, or maybe not even to compete with it, although that is definitely a good goal, it should not be the main goal. Fail can be -interpreted- to mean something it doesn't, sure, but that's a poor interpretation. Failure in a market is going bankrupt or not making a good profit, the MMO and gaming markets are no different.
Failure/success need to be looked at on a scale instead of two black and white states.
Complete failure <-----------expectations-----------> Runaway success
So when a game releases with 20 servers and puts 250k boxes for sale, they are expecting to retain enough players to fill 20 servers. Meeting those expectations is success, because that was the goal. That is what the developers think their game will settle and how well it will do on the market. Not an exact science of course.
Going above that is even more success. Adding more servers, selling out of copies, etc.
When a game doesn't meet those expectations it fails. It may only be a small failure, but most games don't show signs at that range. Closing servers shortly after release, firing staff (especially major leadership), changing revenue models, etc. All of those are signs of big failure in a new game, because the project is falling so short of expectations that cost cutting measures are the only option. Cost cutting measures like that are not something that is associated with success, even it if gets a project back into the black.
Any game can cut enough to get somewhere into the black, but that really isn't a success is it?
I'm talking in terms of when people say "X game failed". I know what you mean, when companies make too many servers and don't keep enough players to fill them and that is a terrible decision, that comes with it's consequences. However, most games don't fail in the sense most users on this forum and most MMO gamers in general think of.
I agree with you, completely, on that there are different degrees of failure, but I'm not sure everyone on this forum can understand that.
And you know this how?
Because wow was the reason the normal gamer learned about mmos.
NO. WoW was the reason YOUNG gamers learned about MMOs. Some of us have been playing MMOs for 3 times as long as WoW has EXISTED.
If Blizzard had never made an MMO....there would still be multiple running MMOs:
Ultima Online
Everquest
Everquest 2
Dark Age of Camelot
Anarchy Online
EVE
SWG
and the list could go on and on and on.
Would MMOs have AS MANY players as they do today? Probably not. But there definitely would still have been MMOs. It's not like Blizzard created the concept of the MMO. THAT....is laughable.
And my prediction as to what game would have been the "king" of MMOs.....probably either EQ2 or DAoC, depending on whether you are talking a PvP centric MMO or PvE. EQ2 was going to happen whether WoW did or NOT. My bet is that EQ2 would have been the leading MMO in subscriber numbers IF WoW had never been. Would it have as many subs as WoW, no. Primarily because when EQ2 was released, it required a MONSTER of a machine to play with the graphics cranked up. They didn't even MAKE a computer yet (that you could buy in a store) that could run it at max settings. People bought brand new computers to be able to play it.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
I think WoW is the reason NON-gamers learned about mmo's. Not 'normal' gamers, young gamers, or any other type of gamer. Gamers weren't mainstream, being a nerd wasn't as trendy, and gaming wasn't as socially acceptable before WoW (and later the Wii) came along and started pulling in droves of professionals, homemakers, etc.
Other than that, completely agree with girlgeek.
...
LOL Opinions are like assholes, everyones got one. I play MMO's to have fun. You know fun. The thing that makes you happy and have good memories. Instead we have another thread on how WOW destroyed civilization. Sad.
(BBBBWWWWAAAAAAAHHHHHH dances with Bayonetta!)
All my opinions are just that..opinions. If you like my opinions..coolness.If you dont like my opinion....I really dont care.
Playing: ESO, WOT, Smite, and Marvel Heroes
Actually, MMOs were a niche part of the gaming community. The gaming industry was already pretty big, far bigger than the MMO industry, especially in 2004. FPS, RTS, RPG, Simulations, Sports, etc. were far bigger than MMOs, and MMOs were really frowned upon by most gamers.
WoW changed a lot of that.
IF THERE WAS NO WORLD OF WARCRAFT...
um...mmos wouldn't be quite as popular, that's about it?