Again, you don't have any market research to the contrary. If so, please do show it. COurse you'll probably take the cop out of "I'm not the one having to prove anything here", in which case if you do take that route, let's just agree not to respond to each other's posts anymore as for me it cements a certain idea I have.
I'm not taking sides on the arguement here, but I'd like to point out that what you describe as a "cop out" here is actually called the "burden of proof" - a very basic rule of argumentation. Someone who makes a claim against the status quo must shoulder the burden of proof to back up their claim with evidence, or it could quite reasonably be dismissed. In this case, the popularly accepted view is that "old school" gamers comprise a very small part of the greater mmo player community and thus it is the status quo in this case. Whether or not he would be able to find said research is irrelevant to the statement you are trying to make. Also, you've committed an ad hominem fallacy by insulting him personally. That's generally not a good idea if you expect to be taken seriously.
Someone feel free to correct me if this is not the case.
You're absolutely right, as I've pointed out time and time again, only to get ignored. It's much easier to just make baseless claims, refuse to back them up with evidence, and get upset when people don't blindly accept your claims as gospel truth. It just shows that the people who are making these claims are incapable of debating rationally, nor are they interested in finding the truth of the matter, only in supporting their own preconceived notions.
No real surprise there.
Your posts are always highly ironic. You're one of the crowd who makes the backless claim of 'what you want is in the minority' referencing 'old school' preferences. Despite countless challenges on backing your claims by many different posters, you always fail to deliver.
Ignorance, sometimes, is earned. (Fun lil' play on words there)
And if you're well-read, consider Bradbury's 'The Dwarf' to better understand the concept of preaching something and neglected to 'look into the mirror' as it were, as Ralph so aptly demonstrates.
Doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is still on the ones claiming that an old school MMO would be successful and the elements they present are wanted...
And doesn't change the fact that the 'present status quo' should be able to refute challenges. One argumentative fallacy is not any less than another.
The current MMO industry represents the majority makeup of the gaming marketplace, just as the market 10 years ago represented the makeup of the then gaming marketplace. In order to assert that there's a huge untapped market that MMO developers ought to be going after requires evidence. It takes no evidence to show that people are playing the current batch of MMOs, apparently happily.
Of course, since most of the old-school whiners are also out playing modern MMOs, they don't represent an untapped market, they're already paying for modern games and developers are already getting their money. So why should developers alienate current players when they don't stand to make any more money by doing it?
Doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is still on the ones claiming that an old school MMO would be successful and the elements they present are wanted...
And doesn't change the fact that the 'present status quo' should be able to refute challenges. One argumentative fallacy is not any less than another.
It is a fair assumption that game developers conduct market research, though I can not offer any actual piece of market research (it's usually classified), logic dictates that it happens. It is also quite commonly taught in investment courses that knowing your market is important and investors generally do not invest in projects which is not founded in market research. These factors contribute to the claim that companies perform market research being a fact.
An extention to this claim is that companies use the lessons learned in their market research when they make their games, otherwise the market research would be a wasted exercise and management would mislead the owners. As this is illegal in western countries, and lawsuits are a matter of public record and would definately make the headlines here, it can be claimed as a fact.
As old school enthusiasts claim that no new game includes the aspects of 'what made old school games great' it can therefore, by extention, be claimed as fact that the market research did not support the evidence that these aspects indeed are as popular as the enthusiasts claim.
Thus, by the use of strong assumptions and a chain of logic, one can conlude that it is a fact that old school mmorpg's and the elements they had which are not present in newer games, is not supported by market research.
Agreed. It happens. But I would highly argue its benefit or accuracy. The 'trends' that have been studied have proven unpredictable and not able to be duplicated. WoW was a victim of its own success, others have tried what worked, in many different ways, and have failed miserably. EVE and FFXI mark two games of an 'old school' era that have done nothing but climb in subscriber counts since their launches (FFXI after an initial bleeding). The facts of the market are ever-changing, and where mass-consumers are concerned, the trends become increasingly difficult to identify, if they even exist at all.
It happens, that much I do not entirely refute. I do, however, argue that the market research being done is very inaccurate, especially considering the sample size of the audience in which they are 'targetting'. I can sample a 'reasonable enough' amount of consumers in my town for my coffee shop, I cannot sample 10k consumers in my MMO being targetting at 1 million.
The 'lessons learned' that you speak of are clearly not 'learnt'. What AAA title has broken the 1 million mark since WoW (other than L2/Aion which achieved through means suitable for another thread)? And yet, what titles have absolutely failed trying? NGE, WAR, Alganon(LOL?).... the list goes on. All of which make/have made explicit reference either to the industry titan, or to a seemingly 'magic target' of 1 million or more?
Someone can still pay for a product, while wishing it still used a former ingredient. How many times has McD changed it hamburger recipe in its history? Does McD have the time or interest to give the best product possible if people are still purchasing it? You speak of wasted resources, this would be one such example. The cash flow still exists, and the research involved with generating a 'better product' would not yield a 'better profit'. See how easily market research is influenced by its own agenda?
Thus, through logical refutes of your claims, I can conclude that market research being done does not indicate in any way shape or form its own accuracy nor its validity. Where you have made logical assumptions that I will hand to you on some topics, I have made direct references to actual occurances. Which holds more weight?
As I posted to C404, I could do research on my own and count easily a thousand screen names of people who have desired more 'meaning' (buzzword) in their MMO gaming experience. This is just on previously viewed forums, without diving into a more accurate sample size.
Through proper marketting, and knowing how MMORPGs are social beasts, I could target key players in key positions that have expressed those desires for increased meaning. Win them over, and they win over their clans/guilds etc. Mussolini, as an example, understood this perfectly with his ability to win over entire crowds and thus, the common citizen. (Obviously many factors are applied to the defining of his legacy, the knowledge of social fluxuations being one of them). If done properly I could potentially uproot 100k consumers from their current smatterings of F2P, P2P games and have them stop by, if not settle, onto my 'old school' game. In an industry arguably in excess of 20million people (simple tally of subs from AAA titles and guesstimate of F2P non-subbers), I would be hard-pressed to defend the view that 'market research says there is no room for old school elements to gain a market share'. I would be hard-pressed indeed, to claim such a wild assumption.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
And people keep saying Eve as proof and you guys keep ignoring it. So, ultimately you don't want to hear any proof is what it seems to be. You say "give me proof" when in fact nothing that could ever be said will be accepted.
Which means you'd be asked to demonstrate that people are playing EvE for it's supposed old-school aspects and not for other reasons, like it's the only real sci-fi game on the market. Can you do that?
Can I what, continue to jump through the endless set of hoops you'll keep manufacturing if I do answer each point? No. As I said above no matter what answers are giving and how true they ring you and others will never accept them. So there's no point.
I'm not manufacturing anything, you keep making claims. You said that people are playing EvE for it's old-school elements. I asked you to prove that. You cannot. You just keep getting upset that someone dares to question your bald-faced assertions. I'm not asking you to back up anything more than you've claimed as reality. If you can't do so, at least be honest and admit it.
From my empirical experience and from what I've heard from the people who play EVE Online, many of them play it because it's the only fully functioning and polished sandbox out right now. Of course, there's the people who play it because it's the closest thing to an actual Freelancer MMO, but I'd dare to say that they're a minority. And Freelancer is a sandbox. Basing the following statement on what I said, I think that people don't play it simply and solely because it's a Sci-Fi. EVE Online is not the only Sci-Fi MMO, or spaceship MMO for that mater, yet it is easily one of the most popular ones right now.
It has definitely not gathered all the audience a sandbox could take in, because of its very slow pace and learning curve. I've seen a lot of people criticize those features on the Internet. Just about every time an EVE thread pops up, actually. Also, some don't like playing a spaceship all the time. There's still a quite the amount of people who'd be up for a sandbox MMO and this thread is part of the proof.
I also think that WoW distorted the way people regard the MMO market. Before WoW a subscription number of 100k-500k was a healthy number for a MMO - Everquest got in its days as good attention from the media as WoW, Second Life and Farmville get - and there was a large diversity of MMO's upcoming already between 2000-2005 who had sub numbers between 50k-500.000k that were doing fine. But since WoW those numbers are suddenly not enough and for many a sign that a game is just "niche" (in my eyes "niche" is a term to describe a specific brand of gameplay, not of sub numbers, but ok).
Distortion? That is called PROGRESS.
Take SP games for examples. 20 years ago, a game which sells 50-100k copies are good. Now you need a few million copies to be a hit. Distortion by DOOM, Diablo and other blockbuster?
No it is just progress. Just like movies. Bigger market, bigger audience, bigger productions. You cannot turn back the clock and use criterion 10 years ago to define success.
And of course 100k is no longer enough. Production costs is much higher. Look at how much EQ cost and how much a modern AAA MMO cost and tell me you can use the same criterion.
Look at TOR, it needs a lot more than 100k to just break even.
Progress doesn't always mean that the best paths are chosen, as things as the invention of atom bombs or the global sole dependancy on oil show.
Some game companies are investing so much in MMO development because they're aiming towards the large playerbases, which is an illusion: Wow sub numbers is the exception, not the baseline.
Most (not everyone of them, but most) of that large group of current and former WoW players came into the MMO market with WoW, they will stick with WoW and they will leave the MMO market again with WoW. Trying to make MMO's that will draw that specific group in is an exercise in futility, because they're more WoW players than MMORPG players, they have little to no interest in other MMO's.
That doesn't mean that the overall MMORPG game market isn't growing, it is, but gradually and not in the explosion that many investors and game companies are dreaming of (and lusting for). Unless games as Dofus and Farmville will be counted among the MMO market as well, then yes, the MMO market is growing exponentially, a playerbase of 80+ million is without a doubt impressive.
'Just like movies': that is very true, and just like with movies, there'll be the high budget movies and the lower budget movies, which doesn't mean that the blockbusters will be automatically the best movies as The Hurt Locker proved by beating Avatar at the Oscars. And while Iron Man 2 scored fantastically at the box office, one could argue for Kick Ass being the better 'superhero' movie or as good as, even if it scored far less at the box office.
As said before, sub numbers of 100k - 500k was good for MMO companies between 2000-2005 and it still is healthy enough for a game company nowadays (maybe not for shareholders and investors, but that's maybe the problem: greed) to keep running and developing, if you aren't investing as much money into development as EA Bioware is doing for ToR. Which most of the game companies aren't doing.
As for the question in the OP: no, I don't want the old school back, the 'old school' MMO's are being looked upon with rosy nostalgia tinted glasses while the 'current school' MMO's are suffereing from complacency and are stagnant and repetitive.
I'm looking for next-gen MMO's where the lessons learnt from 'old school' gameplay, sandbox gameplay and themepark gameplay are being used to evolve the MMO genre into new areas, maybe mixes of those gameplay styles with new elements added.
I think that MMO's like GW2 and TSW are already exploring into that area.
PS: looking upon the last pages of this thread, it starts to become the equivalent of dogs chasing eachother's tails
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
And doesn't change the fact that the 'present status quo' should be able to refute challenges. One argumentative fallacy is not any less than another.
The current MMO industry represents the majority makeup of the gaming marketplace, just as the market 10 years ago represented the makeup of the then gaming marketplace. In order to assert that there's a huge untapped market that MMO developers ought to be going after requires evidence. It takes no evidence to show that people are playing the current batch of MMOs, apparently happily.
Of course, since most of the old-school whiners are also out playing modern MMOs, they don't represent an untapped market, they're already paying for modern games and developers are already getting their money. So why should developers alienate current players when they don't stand to make any more money by doing it?
Two boo-boo's in each paragraph that you make, which I will attempt to point out, and hoping ignorance doesn't blind you.
First paragraph:
1. The MMO industry represents nowhere close to the majority of the gaming marketplace. Farmville alone puts this issue to bed. Consoles, tallied into this, further this point. You're entirely off your rocker.
2. Untapped markets do not 'sit around' waiting for the right product to come their way. Many 'untapped markets' are consuming something else, but would much prefer an product that was more inline with what their desires are. To paint untapped markets as being idle is sheer ignorance.
Second paragraph:
3. If I am a developper, and I have a current batch of consumers, I obviously don't need to change my tune if they're already consuming. But, mind you, if I'm a developper that doesn't have a batch of consumers, or seeks to grow my numbers, I need to offer something that is currently not offered elsewhere at competitive pricing.
4. Markets are 'untapped' from two viewpoints: the profit, the product. As a developper, I win my profit from you through a product that isn't already being offered at the price I've set. Untapped is not 0s versus 1s, as previously mentioned.
Markets are compounded matrices of criteria. If there is a criterium that isn't being covered, it represents an untapped market. And, math be thanked, this requires no evidence to support. It is simple fact.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is still on the ones claiming that an old school MMO would be successful and the elements they present are wanted...
And doesn't change the fact that the 'present status quo' should be able to refute challenges. One argumentative fallacy is not any less than another.
It is a fair assumption that game developers conduct market research, though I can not offer any actual piece of market research (it's usually classified), logic dictates that it happens. It is also quite commonly taught in investment courses that knowing your market is important and investors generally do not invest in projects which is not founded in market research. These factors contribute to the claim that companies perform market research being a fact.
An extention to this claim is that companies use the lessons learned in their market research when they make their games, otherwise the market research would be a wasted exercise and management would mislead the owners. As this is illegal in western countries, and lawsuits are a matter of public record and would definately make the headlines here, it can be claimed as a fact.
As old school enthusiasts claim that no new game includes the aspects of 'what made old school games great' it can therefore, by extention, be claimed as fact that the market research did not support the evidence that these aspects indeed are as popular as the enthusiasts claim.
Thus, by the use of strong assumptions and a chain of logic, one can conlude that it is a fact that old school mmorpg's and the elements they had which are not present in newer games, is not supported by market research.
Agreed. It happens. But I would highly argue its benefit or accuracy. The 'trends' that have been studied have proven unpredictable and not able to be duplicated. WoW was a victim of its own success, others have tried what worked, in many different ways, and have failed miserably. EVE and FFXI mark two games of an 'old school' era that have done nothing but climb in subscriber counts since their launches (FFXI after an initial bleeding). The facts of the market are ever-changing, and where mass-consumers are concerned, the trends become increasingly difficult to identify, if they even exist at all.
It happens, that much I do not entirely refute. I do, however, argue that the market research being done is very inaccurate, especially considering the sample size of the audience in which they are 'targetting'. I can sample a 'reasonable enough' amount of consumers in my town for my coffee shop, I cannot sample 10k consumers in my MMO being targetting at 1 million.
The 'lessons learned' that you speak of are clearly not 'learnt'. What AAA title has broken the 1 million mark since WoW (other than L2/Aion which achieved through means suitable for another thread)? And yet, what titles have absolutely failed trying? NGE, WAR, Alganon(LOL?).... the list goes on. All of which make/have made explicit reference either to the industry titan, or to a seemingly 'magic target' of 1 million or more?
Someone can still pay for a product, while wishing it still used a former ingredient. How many times has McD changed it hamburger recipe in its history? Does McD have the time or interest to give the best product possible if people are still purchasing it? You speak of wasted resources, this would be one such example. The cash flow still exists, and the research involved with generating a 'better product' would not yield a 'better profit'. See how easily market research is influenced by its own agenda?
Thus, through logical refutes of your claims, I can conclude that market research being done does not indicate in any way shape or form its own accuracy nor its validity. Where you have made logical assumptions that I will hand to you on some topics, I have made direct references to actual occurances. Which holds more weight?
As I posted to C404, I could do research on my own and count easily a thousand screen names of people who have desired more 'meaning' (buzzword) in their MMO gaming experience. This is just on previously viewed forums, without diving into a more accurate sample size.
Through proper marketting, and knowing how MMORPGs are social beasts, I could target key players in key positions that have expressed those desires for increased meaning. Win them over, and they win over their clans/guilds etc. Mussolini, as an example, understood this perfectly with his ability to win over entire crowds and thus, the common citizen. (Obviously many factors are applied to the defining of his legacy, the knowledge of social fluxuations being one of them). If done properly I could potentially uproot 100k consumers from their current smatterings of F2P, P2P games and have them stop by, if not settle, onto my 'old school' game. In an industry arguably in excess of 20million people (simple tally of subs from AAA titles and guesstimate of F2P non-subbers), I would be hard-pressed to defend the view that 'market research says there is no room for old school elements to gain a market share'. I would be hard-pressed indeed, to claim such a wild assumption.
A couple of things to note. Market research is usually conducted by a limited number (~50) of deep interviews or larger scale questionaire type format (500+, rule of thumb at least 300 to make it statistically valid).
If it is accurate or not is actually a completely different topic; the point is that companies trust this research and it is quite common to base decision on the results gained from them. It is far from a perfect tool, evidenced by the massive failure rate, but there is no better alternative. If you find one, bring it to me
But as we seem to agree to the fact that companies indeed use market research, along with my promises to you that they definitely use it, combined the fact that there is no true old school MMORPG, does support the conclusion that old school elements are not supported by said research.
But as we seem to agree to the fact that companies indeed use market research, along with my promises to you that they definitely use it, combined the fact that there is no true old school MMORPG, does support the conclusion that old school elements are not supported by said research.
True. However, many of the people being interviewed may very well not have plaid an old-school MMO actively or even be truly familiar with the features of the old big titles. Hence, they can't vote for the unknown, but it does definitely not mean that they wouldn't enjoy it if they did get an appropriate chance to have a slice of it.
I led my conclusion of a large portion of them not being old-school MMO players, because the games weren't truly mainstream before WoW hit the shelves. Also, just about all of the people who have played an old-school MMO actively link extremely positive feelings to the game.
Ironically, it seems like market research is the true killer of innovation and has actually made more than one of the big titles flop. Most of the western people who play MMOs, play WoW and when they get interviewed, their opinions support a game that walks and talks like WoW. No surprise. However, that doesn't mean they want or need another WoW. They don't.
A couple of things to note. Market research is usually conducted by a limited number (~50) of deep interviews or larger scale questionaire type format (500+, rule of thumb at least 300 to make it statistically valid).
If it is accurate or not is actually a completely different topic; the point is that companies trust this research and it is quite common to base decision on the results gained from them. It is far from a perfect tool, evidenced by the massive failure rate, but there is no better alternative. If you find one, bring it to me
But as we seem to agree to the fact that companies indeed use market research, along with my promises to you that they definitely use it, combined the fact that there is no true old school MMORPG, does support the conclusion that old school elements are not supported by said research.
Limited number of deep interviews? For your figureheads, sure. For your average consumer, absolutely not. Instead: polls- widely used. Problem with polls? They paint black and white for the questions they ask. To properly gather *feedback*, which is what market research attempts to do, you need direct input. The larger your consumer base, the more inaccurate your readings. No one has the time or resources to generate deep, meaningful data- those man-hours are better spent elsewhere in development, on product delivery etc. Most companies spend an astounding more amount of finances on marketting products than researching their market. It's far simpler to broadcast a product, knowing that broadcast will reach the eyes and ears of the market you're targetting, than trying to develop a well-defined concept of what your market actually will be.
The research that *is* done, obviously is trusted. While not representative of an entire market, it is representative of the demographic that was polled/questioned. It provides *an* insight into product development and delivery.
The final paragraph feels ... professional. It rather goes without saying, and doesn't add any new angle to the discussion, but is often used in a CYA manner. Are you perhaps directly involved with this sort of field? My only guess on the matter.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
A couple of things to note. Market research is usually conducted by a limited number (~50) of deep interviews or larger scale questionaire type format (500+, rule of thumb at least 300 to make it statistically valid).
If it is accurate or not is actually a completely different topic; the point is that companies trust this research and it is quite common to base decision on the results gained from them. It is far from a perfect tool, evidenced by the massive failure rate, but there is no better alternative. If you find one, bring it to me
But as we seem to agree to the fact that companies indeed use market research, along with my promises to you that they definitely use it, combined the fact that there is no true old school MMORPG, does support the conclusion that old school elements are not supported by said research.
Market research is an often used and as you said a far from perfect tool: it won't guarantee you success, and a lot of the popular trends many market researchers didn't see coming at all until they'd arrived and set a standard.
Most often marketing and market research just leads to following the market leaders and trying to imitate aspects of it in hope of the same success. But a lot of those market leaders didn't become like that by just blindly following market research but making their own path. Funny story: JK Rowling was refused by the 5 most renownded publlishing companies when she tried to get her first Harry Potter book published, because according to teir findings "there was no market for that kind of books"
As we've seen the last few years: many MMO companies sacrificed innovation and went to trying to emulate gameplay elements of WoW - often maybe pushed by investors or management boards to go that way in order to get the funds they needed. We've also seen that that didn't work for them.
There'll be more companies that will continue on that path, but the smart ones will have learnt the lessons of the failures of the last few years and are following their own path. Some of which you see slowly emerging.
If those are successful I've no doubt that market research will "suddenly" point out towards that type of games being the ones the customers want, leading to a lot of imitations of those MMO's.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
The MMO community needs to take the phrase "You can't have your cake and eat it to" to heart. If you want old school, you will have some things you won't like (travel times, death pentalties, etc...). I've tried every MMO that has came out since EQ1 and I have been disappointed everytime.
FFXIV and SWTOR will be too WoWified to be worthwhile, as the past 20 MMOs i've played have been. I've given up hope, found an old school EQ Server (Everquest for Mac, Which is stuck back in 2003 PoP days), and subbed for it. I now remember why I love old school. As stated here many many times over the course of this 8 page long thread.
In Closing, you guys are wishing for the same thing I am, but over the past decade I have learned, this will never happen. The simple fact is it isn't bankable from a business prospective. WoW achieved 11 Million Subs!! EQ, SWG, EQ2, FFXI, etc... Achieved 500k subs in its prime!!! We all need to realize, that even though an old school MMO would be perfect, it will never happen from a major company. They need something bankable to take to there stockholders. Its sad, but i'm over it. Now back to logging in to EQ for Mac... Lvl 50 CLR LFG PST (Grouped in PoI last night, hoping for a repeat, because im tired of Velks... damn spiders screeches are killing me... With any luck i'll be lvl 51 tonight!)
Who would like to see some of the old school MMO features come back to MMOs today? Does anyone even care?
I mean features like Ultima Online offered. I think nowadays MMOs are to instaned and not enough World play. Does anyone know, miss, or want to see a MMO make a livley world where you are free to do w/e and create your own story?
How does everyone else feel about MMOs today and how the used to be? Are you happy with how they are or would you like to see them good ol' features come back to life?
I wish they'd have kept the old games like EQ and UO the way they were originally, or at least kept the same spirit. My understanding is that these games have been changed significantly from the games they were, and those that liked the "old school game" didn't like them, anymore. Personally, methinx there's an element of rose colored hindsight involved as well. Either way, had the games had some classic servers, the "old schoolers" would have the opportunity to have the gameplay they loved, or would have no argument. Thus, we'd all be happy.
It didn't really make sense to change them radically. You risked losing the subbers that loved the game, and folks like me that didn't ever like them, never went back to try them again.
Far as the OP goes, I'm not sure what features you're referring to. Perhaps this is why others later in the thread point to the negative features without any positives. You didn't list any positives. Just some vague references to world play and "no instances"(that's not a "feature", by the way. actually, quite the opposite. "Introducing the new Big Mac, featuring no beef patties"). Also, most modern MMO's HAVE a lively world where you are free to do w/e and create your own story. At least, they have those things in every bit the same way that old school MMO's had. Just because they often have stories of their own that doesn't mean you can't create your own story.
Finally, the only "feature" I've seen in old MMO's that most new ones lack is complex crafting like you'd find in SWG. Fallen Earth tries, and does pretty well, but I loved how in SWG, the same ingredients could have different properties based on which planet you harvest them from. This would lead to crafted items of the same type with different stats and stuff.
That would be something I'd like to see in a newer MMO.
The removal of instancing, aka the only specific thing you mentioned, would be a step backward. They were put in place to solve problems. Some games have overused them(CoX, CO, STO, among many), but they are still a positive advancement in comparison to the griefing, ninja looting, mob camping and other nonsense that they alleviated.
Why are you the only person here making an arguement out of a thread of peoples personal feelings? lol, and trying to get all technical for no reason. dude, this is a disscussion about people who would like to see some old school features come back or not. and how they feel just in general about mmos. calm down and go argue on a different thread thats asking for it.
Welcome to a forum, where everyone doesn't agree with you. You're going to get all types and if you didn't want to debate with me, then why single me out. We're not all going to sit here and be like "yeah yeah vote +1". I disagree and here are my reasons.
My posts are written in pretty plain english and its not really technical. I point out people look back at the old games because MMO's were a new thing and a big deal to people looking to share their RPG experiences with others. We live in a time where it has progressed and now the simple concept of MMO isn't new anymore and it moved on, even the old games moved on. Some for better, others for worse.
Again, in the grand scheme of things, what features do not exist in todays current MMO's that existed in older MMO's? Was it lost in a great catastrophe and buried with the dinosaurs? I cannot think of a single one and I challenge others to try and find something that might truyl have been lost.
Welcome to the forum where everyone isn't going to agree with me? What's to agree or disagree about? I asked a question of peoples feelings. How is that something to disagre with? If you don't feel that there is any good qualitys in older mmos just say that and end of discussion. Also this thread wasen't about how i felt. It was about me seeing how other people felt. So why do i have to explain anything or "prove points". Well since you are so presistent about it.
1) I think they need to bring back a more "Lively World" style play. Which would truely make the game a MMO
2) The abiltiy to build a house in the Open world. Which like in UO created a player drivin enviroment.
3) less gear dependent. More about skill
4) Jobs having more meaning. Jobs being truely a nessesity to have.
5) World bosses
Anyways those are things i would love to see in a MMO.
Ah, here's some detail...
1. I'm guessing... by that you mean events that occur real-time in the real world. My understanding is that GW2 is going in this direction.
2. I wouldn't mind this either, but I get why it's not done this way, anymore. It has nothing to do with lower quality.
3. AoC tried that. Most people didn't like it. thus came patch 1.05
4. Could be good. I'd like to see your job being how crafting is utilized. But if you mean you want a "job" minigame which requires you to grind said minigame for a time... I wouldn't like that much.
5. I assume this also relates to #1? Where "the great world dragon" drops in on a town here and there and decimates it, lest some 200 players are around to defeat it/drive it off?
Glad that you added some detail to your OP. It was much needed.
MMOs are just another fashion piece that go through its cycles of popularity and then decrease to where sometimes old fashion comes back into play again to be more of the popularity.
I also say its with the current gen developers/gamers (new to gaming in the last 5-10 ~ so years) where they influence the scene on what is popular and what not.
I think alot of people who are truely MMO fans/Gaming fans are doing courses for developing games in uni/school etc. The next gen developers and or gamers who get into the industry and push out the old will bring with them new ideas and old ideas that worked and to know what the community wants.
I'm so sick of hearing the yes but Wow has xxxxxx subs argument its so flawed not even funny. This game can't be an example for so many reasons. To sum it up: right place, right (enough) time, huge fanbase AND huge money. Wowplayers already made their bed they aren't gonna leave it. This is the biggest reason why so many games are failing all trying to go the ez-mode route and then fail, why? Its simple they can't attract the Wowplayers because well they are playing Wow, the old school players don't want another Wow and refuse playing the 1000 copy out there its a devils circel.
If others can have their crap, we should get our "crap" (in the mind of the "me now instant fun" crowd. It shouldn't be a big surprise that the best MMORPG's came recently from independent companies: Sigil, Aventurine and CCP oh and yes Ncsoft's Aion great ideas.
Everquest 2 is failing for a simple reason: Sony screwed the ex Everquest 1 players and didn't get the "me now crowd" plus adding RMT --->doomed to ~ 150k.
Companies should care about creating a good game and not about the damn shareholders, this isn't a business its GAMING guys like Smedley, Kotick, Riccitello and the Cryptic Bosses shouldn't have a say in GAMING because they are bad.
A game doesn't need to have 1000k of subscribers sometimes even 50k are enough and if its a good game who cares? A well made, polished so called oldschool game could easily grab 500k! Vanguard proved theres still a market 200k in just 7 days isn't bad its real nice. With another publisher and one more year of development time this game would have become our new home.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
Thing is back in the day each company tried to make things differently from what was already out there. We had MMOs where each game was built on different principles and mechanics. Each company aimed to innovate over what was already done.
Now fast forward to today where each game coming out is nothing more than WoW in a new skin. Innovation has been replaced by stagnation. Where companies would once try something new and different, they now just take what the giant makes, slap a new name on it and change the actors a bit and call it 'New' or 'Next Gen'.
I agree, the period 2000-2005 was a more innovative period than the period 2006-2010: we already hard UO and EQ, it brought us the RvR of a DAoC, the tactical skills based combat of GW that had a Magic the Gathering-touch, massive warfare of Planetside and a lot of other flavors and styles.
The success of WoW and the increasing risks of bigger budgets caused game companies to try too hard to deliver a WoW successor which hampered serious innovation or breaking away from the strain for many a MMO title.
But I predict 2011-2012 will see a number of titles that'll finally manage to do their own thing, and very successfully.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
1. The MMO industry represents nowhere close to the majority of the gaming marketplace. Farmville alone puts this issue to bed. Consoles, tallied into this, further this point. You're entirely off your rocker.
Granted, I meant MMO gaming marketplace, not the entire gaming marketplace, thanks for the catch. MMOs don't come close to beating out most other gaming genres, both electronic and otherwise.
2. Untapped markets do not 'sit around' waiting for the right product to come their way. Many 'untapped markets' are consuming something else, but would much prefer an product that was more inline with what their desires are. To paint untapped markets as being idle is sheer ignorance.
The point was, most people who are complaining that they are an untapped market are still playing existing MMOs, thus they are not untapped, they are already contributing to the current marketplace. If you think there are entirely untapped markets, people who are not playing any MMO at all, which can be drawn in by a particularly clever developer, more power to you, I wish you luck. You still have to convince a developer that such a market actually exists though.
3. If I am a developper, and I have a current batch of consumers, I obviously don't need to change my tune if they're already consuming. But, mind you, if I'm a developper that doesn't have a batch of consumers, or seeks to grow my numbers, I need to offer something that is currently not offered elsewhere at competitive pricing.
In general, yes, but you need to offer something that is going to attract new customers while not driving the old ones away at the same time. It does you no good to sacrifice everything you have if you can gain no more than an equivalent number of new customers. However, if you're a new producer who doesn't have any customers, you still have to decide how to best tap into the existing market and you're going to look at what everyone else is doing that makes them successful and, at least hopefully, try to do it better than they are doing it. Granted, that's not usually the case in the MMO marketplace, but then again, it's rarely the case in *ANY* marketplace. Movies just copy each other endlessly, TV shows are just "same shit, different channel," video games do the same.
What you're actually asking for is a fundamental change in the way all business, everywhere, works. Is it a good idea? Sure. Is it going to happen? No.
4. Markets are 'untapped' from two viewpoints: the profit, the product. As a developper, I win my profit from you through a product that isn't already being offered at the price I've set. Untapped is not 0s versus 1s, as previously mentioned.
Or by offering a product that's already being offered at a better quality or price, or by convincing the public to buy your product at the same price as everyone else, but being able to produce it cheaper.
Markets are compounded matrices of criteria. If there is a criterium that isn't being covered, it represents an untapped market. And, math be thanked, this requires no evidence to support. It is simple fact.
Only if it's significant and frankly, I don't know that the people who are only willing to play old-school games are that significant of a market, especially since it appears that the majority of them are willing to play modern games as well. You're not really generating new revenue for companies, only shuffling it around. Game shuffling is a big enough problem as it is today without adding to it.
Granted, I meant MMO gaming marketplace, not the entire gaming marketplace, thanks for the catch. MMOs don't come close to beating out most other gaming genres, both electronic and otherwise.
The point was, most people who are complaining that they are an untapped market are still playing existing MMOs, thus they are not untapped, they are already contributing to the current marketplace. If you think there are entirely untapped markets, people who are not playing any MMO at all, which can be drawn in by a particularly clever developer, more power to you, I wish you luck. You still have to convince a developer that such a market actually exists though.
In general, yes, but you need to offer something that is going to attract new customers while not driving the old ones away at the same time. It does you no good to sacrifice everything you have if you can gain no more than an equivalent number of new customers. However, if you're a new producer who doesn't have any customers, you still have to decide how to best tap into the existing market and you're going to look at what everyone else is doing that makes them successful and, at least hopefully, try to do it better than they are doing it. Granted, that's not usually the case in the MMO marketplace, but then again, it's rarely the case in *ANY* marketplace. Movies just copy each other endlessly, TV shows are just "same shit, different channel," video games do the same.
What you're actually asking for is a fundamental change in the way all business, everywhere, works. Is it a good idea? Sure. Is it going to happen? No.
Or by offering a product that's already being offered at a better quality or price, or by convincing the public to buy your product at the same price as everyone else, but being able to produce it cheaper.
Only if it's significant and frankly, I don't know that the people who are only willing to play old-school games are that significant of a market, especially since it appears that the majority of them are willing to play modern games as well. You're not really generating new revenue for companies, only shuffling it around. Game shuffling is a big enough problem as it is today without adding to it.
Gaming markets- cleared that up.
Those that are currently spending their cash doesn't mean in any way, shape or form that they don't want to, or won't, spend their cash elsewhere. Markets overlap both between industries, and inside of industry proper. Competition is always the name of the game. As far as proof that a 'market exists' for 'old school' games, I could very casually point to two very telling factors:
- Every game since WoW that has cited targetting WoW's audience via their mechanics, or achieving WoW's sub numbers through the same, has failed. This is evidenced through AOC, Algalon, WAR, STO... and changes in games such as NGE, EQ etc. Changes to games that make them more 'new school' or games that launch that *are* 'new school' are failing to meet their targetted goals. This is across the board mind you. ADDITIONALLY, people are tired of WoW and the 'new school' that it represents (being the titan of the industry and all) as evidenced through a simple posting of who is resubbing for CAT on these very forums. Now, while that might be an isolated posting on a backwater forum, it's important to note that ALL MARKET RESEARCH is flawed by those very same criteria if not others. It stands to show that while it happens here, it is absolutely happening elsewhere.
- EVE and FFXI are two titles that never went the NGE route, and have arguably stayed 'true-to-form' from their launch through all expansions to present-day. Why, then, are these the ONLY TWO AAA TITLES to continuously grow in sub counts from their launch to present-day (FFXI after an initial release drop)? Clearly, where in the first point we see populace changes when the target 'is new school' in their approach, we see here an *STEADY AND GROWING* trend for games with 'old school elements'.
Through these two references alone, I can safely conclude without a shadow of a doubt that there is easily 100k subs to be spoken for in an 'old school' approach AAA title, based on the numbers lost through NGE, Tabula R, WAR dropouts etc. Properly marketted, you could strip many borderline players from the titan as well, who continue to play because their friends do, and just need a reason to jump ship. Hell, Ensidia themselves have expressed disinterest from WoW, but due to sponsorships and 'lack of other options' they stick with what they know. The market for a 'niche' 'old school' AAA title is not only out there, it's screaming to be tapped into. Feel free to attempt to poke holes into the points made herein- I've got the data working on my side, not wild assumptions with no grounding.
Attracting new customers while not driving the old ones away are what many, if not all, 'new school' MMOs are guilty of. NGE, as previously mentioned, WoW themselves through raid size changes and consistent and never-ending FOTM class balancing etc etc. It stands to reason that any and every developper must maintain a pursuit for more consumers. Because in this industry like any other, if you're bringing something fresh to the table, you're only maintaining. If you're not, you're stagnant which means you're falling behind.
Movies copy each other, just like every industry is crowded with only a handful of true pioneers with a plethora if mimics. But along the way people do something new, break a mold, and every time it yields benefits. Reference: Avatar. What came of this? Expect the movie industry to change to being entirely 3D in the next year or two. MMORPGs, as you know, are no different than any other industry. Be the first to 'bring back challenge of the old school' and you'll 'break a mold' that has been established since 2004. How would it be any different? Innovation is both forward progress, and craftfully bringing back the retro in present-day. Hell, the car industry is ALL ABOUT the retro look these days.
Countrary to your point of view, I'm not proposing a change to how business is done. I'm evidencing that the suggestions herein ARE what is commonplace in the industry where seeking out new markets is concerned. My examples support this.
You can offer a product that is either superior or a product that is identical at a better price. Or both. As has been stated before, progress forward is merely standing still with viewed under a lens of competition. The point being, and I assume you got it, that you must offer incentive to consume your product over someone else's.
Your final paragraph is probably your best. You have gone from stating outright and unsupported that 'old school' is 'gone' and those 'interests are a niche' that 'won't yield any AAA developper any profit to write home about' ... to stating that you 'don't know if' there is such a market. Obviously, the hardest part of identifying this 'old school potential' crowd is that they are NOT black and white in their product consumption. Some play present-day titles, some quit the genre altogether because of lack of what they seek. But what we do *know* based on games and game changes since 2004 is that there is a significant amount of gamers who didn't find what they seek outside of WoW and that things that sing to that tune are not desired. The thing is- you ARE generating revenue for companies that don't currently have it. By 'shuffling it around' you don't change the industry earnings, but individual companies aren't interested in that anyway. They're interested in themselves, their employees, their consumers. By 'shuffling it around' you in effect generate a cash flow into that corperation where one previously did not exist. It's all about how and where you define your system limits (thank you, fluid mechanics!) to best understand and solve your problem.
The problem isn't in the shuffling itself, it's in the constant shuffling. Which is still NOT the problem: it's the effect of it. The PROBLEM is that companies aren't getting 'IT' 'right'. If they were, the shuffling wouldn't happen.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
And people keep saying Eve as proof and you guys keep ignoring it. So, ultimately you don't want to hear any proof is what it seems to be. You say "give me proof" when in fact nothing that could ever be said will be accepted.
Which means you'd be asked to demonstrate that people are playing EvE for it's supposed old-school aspects and not for other reasons, like it's the only real sci-fi game on the market. Can you do that?
Can I what, continue to jump through the endless set of hoops you'll keep manufacturing if I do answer each point? No. As I said above no matter what answers are giving and how true they ring you and others will never accept them. So there's no point.
I'm not manufacturing anything, you keep making claims. You said that people are playing EvE for it's old-school elements. I asked you to prove that. You cannot. You just keep getting upset that someone dares to question your bald-faced assertions. I'm not asking you to back up anything more than you've claimed as reality. If you can't do so, at least be honest and admit it.
From my empirical experience and from what I've heard from the people who play EVE Online, many of them play it because it's the only fully functioning and polished sandbox out right now. Of course, there's the people who play it because it's the closest thing to an actual Freelancer MMO, but I'd dare to say that they're a minority. And Freelancer is a sandbox. Basing the following statement on what I said, I think that people don't play it simply and solely because it's a Sci-Fi. EVE Online is not the only Sci-Fi MMO, or spaceship MMO for that mater, yet it is easily one of the most popular ones right now.
It has definitely not gathered all the audience a sandbox could take in, because of its very slow pace and learning curve. I've seen a lot of people criticize those features on the Internet. Just about every time an EVE thread pops up, actually. Also, some don't like playing a spaceship all the time. There's still a quite the amount of people who'd be up for a sandbox MMO and this thread is part of the proof.
Yet do not be surprised to see that he does not take your word for it. I'd truly be shocked if he did. Yet taking his word, on the other hand, is such the no-brainer because he says so. If he does take your word then I'll have no problem admitting I was wrong about this point. Having not read the rest of the posts after this one I'm believing he didn't.
But yes, the majority of people who talk about Eve say they like it for the reasons you describe. One only has to go to their official forums to read such comments. One can also look to the Eve forums here and other MMO sites as well. WHy he's getting upset over people enjoying those elements is beyond me. It's like those elements have scarred him as a child or something, lol.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Granted, I meant MMO gaming marketplace, not the entire gaming marketplace, thanks for the catch. MMOs don't come close to beating out most other gaming genres, both electronic and otherwise.
The point was, most people who are complaining that they are an untapped market are still playing existing MMOs, thus they are not untapped, they are already contributing to the current marketplace. If you think there are entirely untapped markets, people who are not playing any MMO at all, which can be drawn in by a particularly clever developer, more power to you, I wish you luck. You still have to convince a developer that such a market actually exists though.
In general, yes, but you need to offer something that is going to attract new customers while not driving the old ones away at the same time. It does you no good to sacrifice everything you have if you can gain no more than an equivalent number of new customers. However, if you're a new producer who doesn't have any customers, you still have to decide how to best tap into the existing market and you're going to look at what everyone else is doing that makes them successful and, at least hopefully, try to do it better than they are doing it. Granted, that's not usually the case in the MMO marketplace, but then again, it's rarely the case in *ANY* marketplace. Movies just copy each other endlessly, TV shows are just "same shit, different channel," video games do the same.
What you're actually asking for is a fundamental change in the way all business, everywhere, works. Is it a good idea? Sure. Is it going to happen? No.
Or by offering a product that's already being offered at a better quality or price, or by convincing the public to buy your product at the same price as everyone else, but being able to produce it cheaper.
Only if it's significant and frankly, I don't know that the people who are only willing to play old-school games are that significant of a market, especially since it appears that the majority of them are willing to play modern games as well. You're not really generating new revenue for companies, only shuffling it around. Game shuffling is a big enough problem as it is today without adding to it.
Gaming markets- cleared that up.
Those that are currently spending their cash doesn't mean in any way, shape or form that they don't want to, or won't, spend their cash elsewhere. Markets overlap both between industries, and inside of industry proper. Competition is always the name of the game. As far as proof that a 'market exists' for 'old school' games, I could very casually point to two very telling factors:
- Every game since WoW that has cited targetting WoW's audience via their mechanics, or achieving WoW's sub numbers through the same, has failed. This is evidenced through AOC, Algalon, WAR, STO... and changes in games such as NGE, EQ etc. Changes to games that make them more 'new school' or games that launch that *are* 'new school' are failing to meet their targetted goals. This is across the board mind you. ADDITIONALLY, people are tired of WoW and the 'new school' that it represents (being the titan of the industry and all) as evidenced through a simple posting of who is resubbing for CAT on these very forums. Now, while that might be an isolated posting on a backwater forum, it's important to note that ALL MARKET RESEARCH is flawed by those very same criteria if not others. It stands to show that while it happens here, it is absolutely happening elsewhere.
- EVE and FFXI are two titles that never went the NGE route, and have arguably stayed 'true-to-form' from their launch through all expansions to present-day. Why, then, are these the ONLY TWO AAA TITLES to continuously grow in sub counts from their launch to present-day (FFXI after an initial release drop)? Clearly, where in the first point we see populace changes when the target 'is new school' in their approach, we see here an *STEADY AND GROWING* trend for games with 'old school elements'.
Through these two references alone, I can safely conclude without a shadow of a doubt that there is easily 100k subs to be spoken for in an 'old school' approach AAA title, based on the numbers lost through NGE, Tabula R, WAR dropouts etc. Properly marketted, you could strip many borderline players from the titan as well, who continue to play because their friends do, and just need a reason to jump ship. Hell, Ensidia themselves have expressed disinterest from WoW, but due to sponsorships and 'lack of other options' they stick with what they know. The market for a 'niche' 'old school' AAA title is not only out there, it's screaming to be tapped into. Feel free to attempt to poke holes into the points made herein- I've got the data working on my side, not wild assumptions with no grounding.
Attracting new customers while not driving the old ones away are what many, if not all, 'new school' MMOs are guilty of. NGE, as previously mentioned, WoW themselves through raid size changes and consistent and never-ending FOTM class balancing etc etc. It stands to reason that any and every developper must maintain a pursuit for more consumers. Because in this industry like any other, if you're bringing something fresh to the table, you're only maintaining. If you're not, you're stagnant which means you're falling behind.
Movies copy each other, just like every industry is crowded with only a handful of true pioneers with a plethora if mimics. But along the way people do something new, break a mold, and every time it yields benefits. Reference: Avatar. What came of this? Expect the movie industry to change to being entirely 3D in the next year or two. MMORPGs, as you know, are no different than any other industry. Be the first to 'bring back challenge of the old school' and you'll 'break a mold' that has been established since 2004. How would it be any different? Innovation is both forward progress, and craftfully bringing back the retro in present-day. Hell, the car industry is ALL ABOUT the retro look these days.
Countrary to your point of view, I'm not proposing a change to how business is done. I'm evidencing that the suggestions herein ARE what is commonplace in the industry where seeking out new markets is concerned. My examples support this.
You can offer a product that is either superior or a product that is identical at a better price. Or both. As has been stated before, progress forward is merely standing still with viewed under a lens of competition. The point being, and I assume you got it, that you must offer incentive to consume your product over someone else's.
Your final paragraph is probably your best. You have gone from stating outright and unsupported that 'old school' is 'gone' and those 'interests are a niche' that 'won't yield any AAA developper any profit to write home about' ... to stating that you 'don't know if' there is such a market. Obviously, the hardest part of identifying this 'old school potential' crowd is that they are NOT black and white in their product consumption. Some play present-day titles, some quit the genre altogether because of lack of what they seek. But what we do *know* based on games and game changes since 2004 is that there is a significant amount of gamers who didn't find what they seek outside of WoW and that things that sing to that tune are not desired. The thing is- you ARE generating revenue for companies that don't currently have it. By 'shuffling it around' you don't change the industry earnings, but individual companies aren't interested in that anyway. They're interested in themselves, their employees, their consumers. By 'shuffling it around' you in effect generate a cash flow into that corperation where one previously did not exist. It's all about how and where you define your system limits (thank you, fluid mechanics!) to best understand and solve your problem.
The problem isn't in the shuffling itself, it's in the constant shuffling. Which is still NOT the problem: it's the effect of it. The PROBLEM is that companies aren't getting 'IT' 'right'. If they were, the shuffling wouldn't happen.
Nicely done Po. You have done what I have not be able to successfully do. Apparently he doesn't like me (hehe) such that no matter what I say I could have never gotten him to say this. Oh well, isn't the first and sure won't be the last to harbor hate for meh, muhahahaha!
Kudos Po, more the diplomat than I this round.
Cephus, no hard feelings, keep on rockin. Cheers.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
What started as an interesting topic has really transgressed into a mob-ridden, almost political conflagration of disturbing proportions. You lawyers and business geniuses, don't you have anything better to do? Like suing some hapless company for millions or starting a conglomerate, and thus showing us your prowess and knowledge of all you spew forth here?
No? Oh, so it's ALL opinionated. one-sided logic using premises and conclusions that are fabricated to suit your own views...
Based upon the current MMO games being played I'd say the market for 'old school' and/or 'sandbox' is easily 1-2 million. The fact that EVE Online, a space based MMO with a steep learning curve and without any humanoid avatars but only ships, on itself has managed to attract 400k-500k subs is saying enough. Next to that, this thread shows that there's enough people interested in such games, as well as the large group of (ex) WoW players who're complaining about the too-easy mode of current WoW and are wishing for an experience as they had in WoW vanilla.
But maybe I should rephrase that: there are enough people who aren't as much interested in themepark/casual MMO's but more in 'challenging' MMO's. Upcoming MMO's that manage that balance right, that can incorporate 'old school' and sandbox elements besides some of the themepark-style benefits (like also catering to casual players who dont have time for a whole evening but want a quick hour of fun), will see a huge popularity for their game.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Take a look at all the failed games. Warhammer, Lotro, Age of Conan, Everquest 2, Champions Online, Star Trek Online (not a MMO), Tabula Rasa, Hellgate London ... all are as easy as it gets and failed to succeed. Oldschool will bring you a good healthy loyal playerbase without the scum the post 2005 era brought into the genre.
-A small note on that: I would not consider LOTRO and EQ2 "failures". Lotro has lost some players, because the most recent expansion was a bit too much "More of the same". EverQuest 2 has a solid and loyal fan-base, and to me, still provides the closest thing to the feeling of the old Games. Both, I feel, are puttering along nicely.
Sigil and Vanguard makes me cry...potentially the best MMORPG of the decade, with a staggeringly well-crafted inter-balance of classes. But they killed it...
(I started playing MMORPGs in 1999...happy to see that I'm not "Scum")
Based upon the current MMO games being played I'd say the market for 'old school' and/or 'sandbox' is easily 1-2 million. The fact that EVE Online, a space based MMO with a steep learning curve and without any humanoid avatars but only ships, on itself has managed to attract 400k-500k subs is saying enough. Next to that, this thread shows that there's enough people interested in such games, as well as the large group of (ex) WoW players who're complaining about the too-easy mode of current WoW and are wishing for an experience as they had in WoW vanilla.
But maybe I should rephrase that: there are enough people who aren't as much interested in themepark/casual MMO's but more in 'challenging' MMO's. Upcoming MMO's that manage that balance right, that can incorporate 'old school' and sandbox elements besides some of the themepark-style benefits (like also catering to casual players who dont have time for a whole evening but want a quick hour of fun), will see a huge popularity for their game.
Those that are currently spending their cash doesn't mean in any way, shape or form that they don't want to, or won't, spend their cash elsewhere. Markets overlap both between industries, and inside of industry proper. Competition is always the name of the game. As far as proof that a 'market exists' for 'old school' games, I could very casually point to two very telling factors:
- Every game since WoW that has cited targetting WoW's audience via their mechanics, or achieving WoW's sub numbers through the same, has failed. This is evidenced through AOC, Algalon, WAR, STO... and changes in games such as NGE, EQ etc. Changes to games that make them more 'new school' or games that launch that *are* 'new school' are failing to meet their targetted goals. This is across the board mind you. ADDITIONALLY, people are tired of WoW and the 'new school' that it represents (being the titan of the industry and all) as evidenced through a simple posting of who is resubbing for CAT on these very forums. Now, while that might be an isolated posting on a backwater forum, it's important to note that ALL MARKET RESEARCH is flawed by those very same criteria if not others. It stands to show that while it happens here, it is absolutely happening elsewhere.
For the same reason, after American Idol came on TV, there came a ton of other similar shows trying desperately to siphon off AI's audience. That's how *ALL* markets work, like it or not! Everyone wants a piece of what's popular, they always have and always will. If something hits it big, all the other networks or studios or whatnot will come out with a clone right after. It's the way business works, not only in the U.S. but worldwide.
Apparently people are not tired of WoW, it's still the biggest MMO out there by far. You may have some people who are, especially on a forum like this, but this forum represents jack shit in the real world. I do think that it's very misguided for companies to just make WoW clones and have said so before. If you're targetting people who are already satisfied with WoW, making an identical game isn't going to attract them away from WoW, they already have it. If you're targetting people who are dissatisfied with WoW, making another WoW isn't going to attract them, they already don't like it. However, that's not what investors think and developers have to fight hard to get any funding at all, they'd rather eat than be innovative and I don't really blame them. Starvation isn't fun.
What you're talking is the ideal. I'm talking reality. Reality eats idealism for breakfast.
- EVE and FFXI are two titles that never went the NGE route, and have arguably stayed 'true-to-form' from their launch through all expansions to present-day. Why, then, are these the ONLY TWO AAA TITLES to continuously grow in sub counts from their launch to present-day (FFXI after an initial release drop)? Clearly, where in the first point we see populace changes when the target 'is new school' in their approach, we see here an *STEADY AND GROWING* trend for games with 'old school elements'.
I don't know. EvE is the only real sci-fi game out there so I can see people who are getting sick and tired of the fantasy genre moving there because they have no real choice. Of course, while EvE does have some old school elements, you'd have to demonstrate that those elements in particular are part of the draw for new players, instead of things like genre, PvP, etc.
Through these two references alone, I can safely conclude without a shadow of a doubt that there is easily 100k subs to be spoken for in an 'old school' approach AAA title, based on the numbers lost through NGE, Tabula R, WAR dropouts etc. Properly marketted, you could strip many borderline players from the titan as well, who continue to play because their friends do, and just need a reason to jump ship. Hell, Ensidia themselves have expressed disinterest from WoW, but due to sponsorships and 'lack of other options' they stick with what they know. The market for a 'niche' 'old school' AAA title is not only out there, it's screaming to be tapped into. Feel free to attempt to poke holes into the points made herein- I've got the data working on my side, not wild assumptions with no grounding.
I doubt you're going to find a AAA studio willing to make a game with a potential audience of 100k. They couldn't find investors who would be willing to throw the money into the project, especially in this economy, for just 100k. Everyone shoots for 500k+ and would want a potential pool of players much, much larger. If your potential pool is only 100k, then the number of players who are actually going to join and stay playing is going to be much smaller. You might end up with 50k who actually pay a continuing fee month after month. That's why people keep making mindless fantasy games, they know that most people like fantasy and will play them. That gives them a potential market of millions, even if their end-result is only 100k or so.
Movies copy each other, just like every industry is crowded with only a handful of true pioneers with a plethora if mimics. But along the way people do something new, break a mold, and every time it yields benefits. Reference: Avatar. What came of this? Expect the movie industry to change to being entirely 3D in the next year or two. MMORPGs, as you know, are no different than any other industry. Be the first to 'bring back challenge of the old school' and you'll 'break a mold' that has been established since 2004. How would it be any different? Innovation is both forward progress, and craftfully bringing back the retro in present-day. Hell, the car industry is ALL ABOUT the retro look these days.
James Cameron made a ton of money off Avatar, but honestly it was nothing but eye candy with virtially no substance. But you can expect tons of new Avatar-clones to come out because everyone wants a piece of the action. Hopefully Cameron, like Lucas, owns the rights to all of the technical aspects of the process so he can laugh all the way to the bank like Lucas did back in the 80s. But had it not been James Cameron with his track record of making absurd amounts of money, nobody would have given him the hundreds of millions of dollars (and decades of time to develop the technology) he needed. Joe Blow wouldn't have gotten the funding because he didn't have the track record. Right now, the only company in the MMO marketplace that has the record for making that kind of cash is Blizzard. Nobody else would get the funding.
Your final paragraph is probably your best. You have gone from stating outright and unsupported that 'old school' is 'gone' and those 'interests are a niche' that 'won't yield any AAA developper any profit to write home about' ... to stating that you 'don't know if' there is such a market. Obviously, the hardest part of identifying this 'old school potential' crowd is that they are NOT black and white in their product consumption. Some play present-day titles, some quit the genre altogether because of lack of what they seek. But what we do *know* based on games and game changes since 2004 is that there is a significant amount of gamers who didn't find what they seek outside of WoW and that things that sing to that tune are not desired. The thing is- you ARE generating revenue for companies that don't currently have it. By 'shuffling it around' you don't change the industry earnings, but individual companies aren't interested in that anyway. They're interested in themselves, their employees, their consumers. By 'shuffling it around' you in effect generate a cash flow into that corperation where one previously did not exist. It's all about how and where you define your system limits (thank you, fluid mechanics!) to best understand and solve your problem.
Nobody knows for certain if there is a market or not. If there is, great, find a developer to capitalize on it. If not, don't. However, there are lots of people arguing that there is a market when they've done nothing to justify that claim. Developers are going to need hard data that indicates that spending the next 5 years and $50 million dollars is worthwhile and so far, nobody has done more than wave their arms around and screaming "It's true, it's true!" That's just not impressive. You want to know what would be impressive to developers? If 500k "old-school fans" wrote to a developer and asked for a game. Or an online poll that had 500k independent voters asked for an old school game. That would be impressive, but it's not happening. If you expect anyone to act, you need to put up your evidence that they ought to act. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Comments
The current MMO industry represents the majority makeup of the gaming marketplace, just as the market 10 years ago represented the makeup of the then gaming marketplace. In order to assert that there's a huge untapped market that MMO developers ought to be going after requires evidence. It takes no evidence to show that people are playing the current batch of MMOs, apparently happily.
Of course, since most of the old-school whiners are also out playing modern MMOs, they don't represent an untapped market, they're already paying for modern games and developers are already getting their money. So why should developers alienate current players when they don't stand to make any more money by doing it?
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Agreed. It happens. But I would highly argue its benefit or accuracy. The 'trends' that have been studied have proven unpredictable and not able to be duplicated. WoW was a victim of its own success, others have tried what worked, in many different ways, and have failed miserably. EVE and FFXI mark two games of an 'old school' era that have done nothing but climb in subscriber counts since their launches (FFXI after an initial bleeding). The facts of the market are ever-changing, and where mass-consumers are concerned, the trends become increasingly difficult to identify, if they even exist at all.
It happens, that much I do not entirely refute. I do, however, argue that the market research being done is very inaccurate, especially considering the sample size of the audience in which they are 'targetting'. I can sample a 'reasonable enough' amount of consumers in my town for my coffee shop, I cannot sample 10k consumers in my MMO being targetting at 1 million.
The 'lessons learned' that you speak of are clearly not 'learnt'. What AAA title has broken the 1 million mark since WoW (other than L2/Aion which achieved through means suitable for another thread)? And yet, what titles have absolutely failed trying? NGE, WAR, Alganon(LOL?).... the list goes on. All of which make/have made explicit reference either to the industry titan, or to a seemingly 'magic target' of 1 million or more?
Someone can still pay for a product, while wishing it still used a former ingredient. How many times has McD changed it hamburger recipe in its history? Does McD have the time or interest to give the best product possible if people are still purchasing it? You speak of wasted resources, this would be one such example. The cash flow still exists, and the research involved with generating a 'better product' would not yield a 'better profit'. See how easily market research is influenced by its own agenda?
Thus, through logical refutes of your claims, I can conclude that market research being done does not indicate in any way shape or form its own accuracy nor its validity. Where you have made logical assumptions that I will hand to you on some topics, I have made direct references to actual occurances. Which holds more weight?
As I posted to C404, I could do research on my own and count easily a thousand screen names of people who have desired more 'meaning' (buzzword) in their MMO gaming experience. This is just on previously viewed forums, without diving into a more accurate sample size.
Through proper marketting, and knowing how MMORPGs are social beasts, I could target key players in key positions that have expressed those desires for increased meaning. Win them over, and they win over their clans/guilds etc. Mussolini, as an example, understood this perfectly with his ability to win over entire crowds and thus, the common citizen. (Obviously many factors are applied to the defining of his legacy, the knowledge of social fluxuations being one of them). If done properly I could potentially uproot 100k consumers from their current smatterings of F2P, P2P games and have them stop by, if not settle, onto my 'old school' game. In an industry arguably in excess of 20million people (simple tally of subs from AAA titles and guesstimate of F2P non-subbers), I would be hard-pressed to defend the view that 'market research says there is no room for old school elements to gain a market share'. I would be hard-pressed indeed, to claim such a wild assumption.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
From my empirical experience and from what I've heard from the people who play EVE Online, many of them play it because it's the only fully functioning and polished sandbox out right now. Of course, there's the people who play it because it's the closest thing to an actual Freelancer MMO, but I'd dare to say that they're a minority. And Freelancer is a sandbox. Basing the following statement on what I said, I think that people don't play it simply and solely because it's a Sci-Fi. EVE Online is not the only Sci-Fi MMO, or spaceship MMO for that mater, yet it is easily one of the most popular ones right now.
It has definitely not gathered all the audience a sandbox could take in, because of its very slow pace and learning curve. I've seen a lot of people criticize those features on the Internet. Just about every time an EVE thread pops up, actually. Also, some don't like playing a spaceship all the time. There's still a quite the amount of people who'd be up for a sandbox MMO and this thread is part of the proof.
http://knucklecloud.blogspot.com/
Progress doesn't always mean that the best paths are chosen, as things as the invention of atom bombs or the global sole dependancy on oil show.
Some game companies are investing so much in MMO development because they're aiming towards the large playerbases, which is an illusion: Wow sub numbers is the exception, not the baseline.
Most (not everyone of them, but most) of that large group of current and former WoW players came into the MMO market with WoW, they will stick with WoW and they will leave the MMO market again with WoW. Trying to make MMO's that will draw that specific group in is an exercise in futility, because they're more WoW players than MMORPG players, they have little to no interest in other MMO's.
That doesn't mean that the overall MMORPG game market isn't growing, it is, but gradually and not in the explosion that many investors and game companies are dreaming of (and lusting for). Unless games as Dofus and Farmville will be counted among the MMO market as well, then yes, the MMO market is growing exponentially, a playerbase of 80+ million is without a doubt impressive.
'Just like movies': that is very true, and just like with movies, there'll be the high budget movies and the lower budget movies, which doesn't mean that the blockbusters will be automatically the best movies as The Hurt Locker proved by beating Avatar at the Oscars. And while Iron Man 2 scored fantastically at the box office, one could argue for Kick Ass being the better 'superhero' movie or as good as, even if it scored far less at the box office.
As said before, sub numbers of 100k - 500k was good for MMO companies between 2000-2005 and it still is healthy enough for a game company nowadays (maybe not for shareholders and investors, but that's maybe the problem: greed) to keep running and developing, if you aren't investing as much money into development as EA Bioware is doing for ToR. Which most of the game companies aren't doing.
As for the question in the OP: no, I don't want the old school back, the 'old school' MMO's are being looked upon with rosy nostalgia tinted glasses while the 'current school' MMO's are suffereing from complacency and are stagnant and repetitive.
I'm looking for next-gen MMO's where the lessons learnt from 'old school' gameplay, sandbox gameplay and themepark gameplay are being used to evolve the MMO genre into new areas, maybe mixes of those gameplay styles with new elements added.
I think that MMO's like GW2 and TSW are already exploring into that area.
PS: looking upon the last pages of this thread, it starts to become the equivalent of dogs chasing eachother's tails
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Two boo-boo's in each paragraph that you make, which I will attempt to point out, and hoping ignorance doesn't blind you.
First paragraph:
1. The MMO industry represents nowhere close to the majority of the gaming marketplace. Farmville alone puts this issue to bed. Consoles, tallied into this, further this point. You're entirely off your rocker.
2. Untapped markets do not 'sit around' waiting for the right product to come their way. Many 'untapped markets' are consuming something else, but would much prefer an product that was more inline with what their desires are. To paint untapped markets as being idle is sheer ignorance.
Second paragraph:
3. If I am a developper, and I have a current batch of consumers, I obviously don't need to change my tune if they're already consuming. But, mind you, if I'm a developper that doesn't have a batch of consumers, or seeks to grow my numbers, I need to offer something that is currently not offered elsewhere at competitive pricing.
4. Markets are 'untapped' from two viewpoints: the profit, the product. As a developper, I win my profit from you through a product that isn't already being offered at the price I've set. Untapped is not 0s versus 1s, as previously mentioned.
Markets are compounded matrices of criteria. If there is a criterium that isn't being covered, it represents an untapped market. And, math be thanked, this requires no evidence to support. It is simple fact.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
A couple of things to note. Market research is usually conducted by a limited number (~50) of deep interviews or larger scale questionaire type format (500+, rule of thumb at least 300 to make it statistically valid).
If it is accurate or not is actually a completely different topic; the point is that companies trust this research and it is quite common to base decision on the results gained from them. It is far from a perfect tool, evidenced by the massive failure rate, but there is no better alternative. If you find one, bring it to me
But as we seem to agree to the fact that companies indeed use market research, along with my promises to you that they definitely use it, combined the fact that there is no true old school MMORPG, does support the conclusion that old school elements are not supported by said research.
True. However, many of the people being interviewed may very well not have plaid an old-school MMO actively or even be truly familiar with the features of the old big titles. Hence, they can't vote for the unknown, but it does definitely not mean that they wouldn't enjoy it if they did get an appropriate chance to have a slice of it.
I led my conclusion of a large portion of them not being old-school MMO players, because the games weren't truly mainstream before WoW hit the shelves. Also, just about all of the people who have played an old-school MMO actively link extremely positive feelings to the game.
Ironically, it seems like market research is the true killer of innovation and has actually made more than one of the big titles flop. Most of the western people who play MMOs, play WoW and when they get interviewed, their opinions support a game that walks and talks like WoW. No surprise. However, that doesn't mean they want or need another WoW. They don't.
http://knucklecloud.blogspot.com/
Limited number of deep interviews? For your figureheads, sure. For your average consumer, absolutely not. Instead: polls- widely used. Problem with polls? They paint black and white for the questions they ask. To properly gather *feedback*, which is what market research attempts to do, you need direct input. The larger your consumer base, the more inaccurate your readings. No one has the time or resources to generate deep, meaningful data- those man-hours are better spent elsewhere in development, on product delivery etc. Most companies spend an astounding more amount of finances on marketting products than researching their market. It's far simpler to broadcast a product, knowing that broadcast will reach the eyes and ears of the market you're targetting, than trying to develop a well-defined concept of what your market actually will be.
The research that *is* done, obviously is trusted. While not representative of an entire market, it is representative of the demographic that was polled/questioned. It provides *an* insight into product development and delivery.
The final paragraph feels ... professional. It rather goes without saying, and doesn't add any new angle to the discussion, but is often used in a CYA manner. Are you perhaps directly involved with this sort of field? My only guess on the matter.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Market research is an often used and as you said a far from perfect tool: it won't guarantee you success, and a lot of the popular trends many market researchers didn't see coming at all until they'd arrived and set a standard.
Most often marketing and market research just leads to following the market leaders and trying to imitate aspects of it in hope of the same success. But a lot of those market leaders didn't become like that by just blindly following market research but making their own path. Funny story: JK Rowling was refused by the 5 most renownded publlishing companies when she tried to get her first Harry Potter book published, because according to teir findings "there was no market for that kind of books"
As we've seen the last few years: many MMO companies sacrificed innovation and went to trying to emulate gameplay elements of WoW - often maybe pushed by investors or management boards to go that way in order to get the funds they needed. We've also seen that that didn't work for them.
There'll be more companies that will continue on that path, but the smart ones will have learnt the lessons of the failures of the last few years and are following their own path. Some of which you see slowly emerging.
If those are successful I've no doubt that market research will "suddenly" point out towards that type of games being the ones the customers want, leading to a lot of imitations of those MMO's.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
The MMO community needs to take the phrase "You can't have your cake and eat it to" to heart. If you want old school, you will have some things you won't like (travel times, death pentalties, etc...). I've tried every MMO that has came out since EQ1 and I have been disappointed everytime.
FFXIV and SWTOR will be too WoWified to be worthwhile, as the past 20 MMOs i've played have been. I've given up hope, found an old school EQ Server (Everquest for Mac, Which is stuck back in 2003 PoP days), and subbed for it. I now remember why I love old school. As stated here many many times over the course of this 8 page long thread.
In Closing, you guys are wishing for the same thing I am, but over the past decade I have learned, this will never happen. The simple fact is it isn't bankable from a business prospective. WoW achieved 11 Million Subs!! EQ, SWG, EQ2, FFXI, etc... Achieved 500k subs in its prime!!! We all need to realize, that even though an old school MMO would be perfect, it will never happen from a major company. They need something bankable to take to there stockholders. Its sad, but i'm over it. Now back to logging in to EQ for Mac... Lvl 50 CLR LFG PST (Grouped in PoI last night, hoping for a repeat, because im tired of Velks... damn spiders screeches are killing me... With any luck i'll be lvl 51 tonight!)
I wish they'd have kept the old games like EQ and UO the way they were originally, or at least kept the same spirit. My understanding is that these games have been changed significantly from the games they were, and those that liked the "old school game" didn't like them, anymore. Personally, methinx there's an element of rose colored hindsight involved as well. Either way, had the games had some classic servers, the "old schoolers" would have the opportunity to have the gameplay they loved, or would have no argument. Thus, we'd all be happy.
It didn't really make sense to change them radically. You risked losing the subbers that loved the game, and folks like me that didn't ever like them, never went back to try them again.
Far as the OP goes, I'm not sure what features you're referring to. Perhaps this is why others later in the thread point to the negative features without any positives. You didn't list any positives. Just some vague references to world play and "no instances"(that's not a "feature", by the way. actually, quite the opposite. "Introducing the new Big Mac, featuring no beef patties"). Also, most modern MMO's HAVE a lively world where you are free to do w/e and create your own story. At least, they have those things in every bit the same way that old school MMO's had. Just because they often have stories of their own that doesn't mean you can't create your own story.
Finally, the only "feature" I've seen in old MMO's that most new ones lack is complex crafting like you'd find in SWG. Fallen Earth tries, and does pretty well, but I loved how in SWG, the same ingredients could have different properties based on which planet you harvest them from. This would lead to crafted items of the same type with different stats and stuff.
That would be something I'd like to see in a newer MMO.
The removal of instancing, aka the only specific thing you mentioned, would be a step backward. They were put in place to solve problems. Some games have overused them(CoX, CO, STO, among many), but they are still a positive advancement in comparison to the griefing, ninja looting, mob camping and other nonsense that they alleviated.
Ah, here's some detail...
1. I'm guessing... by that you mean events that occur real-time in the real world. My understanding is that GW2 is going in this direction.
2. I wouldn't mind this either, but I get why it's not done this way, anymore. It has nothing to do with lower quality.
3. AoC tried that. Most people didn't like it. thus came patch 1.05
4. Could be good. I'd like to see your job being how crafting is utilized. But if you mean you want a "job" minigame which requires you to grind said minigame for a time... I wouldn't like that much.
5. I assume this also relates to #1? Where "the great world dragon" drops in on a town here and there and decimates it, lest some 200 players are around to defeat it/drive it off?
Glad that you added some detail to your OP. It was much needed.
MMOs are just another fashion piece that go through its cycles of popularity and then decrease to where sometimes old fashion comes back into play again to be more of the popularity.
I also say its with the current gen developers/gamers (new to gaming in the last 5-10 ~ so years) where they influence the scene on what is popular and what not.
I think alot of people who are truely MMO fans/Gaming fans are doing courses for developing games in uni/school etc. The next gen developers and or gamers who get into the industry and push out the old will bring with them new ideas and old ideas that worked and to know what the community wants.
I'm so sick of hearing the yes but Wow has xxxxxx subs argument its so flawed not even funny. This game can't be an example for so many reasons. To sum it up: right place, right (enough) time, huge fanbase AND huge money. Wowplayers already made their bed they aren't gonna leave it. This is the biggest reason why so many games are failing all trying to go the ez-mode route and then fail, why? Its simple they can't attract the Wowplayers because well they are playing Wow, the old school players don't want another Wow and refuse playing the 1000 copy out there its a devils circel.
If others can have their crap, we should get our "crap" (in the mind of the "me now instant fun" crowd. It shouldn't be a big surprise that the best MMORPG's came recently from independent companies: Sigil, Aventurine and CCP oh and yes Ncsoft's Aion great ideas.
Everquest 2 is failing for a simple reason: Sony screwed the ex Everquest 1 players and didn't get the "me now crowd" plus adding RMT --->doomed to ~ 150k.
Companies should care about creating a good game and not about the damn shareholders, this isn't a business its GAMING guys like Smedley, Kotick, Riccitello and the Cryptic Bosses shouldn't have a say in GAMING because they are bad.
A game doesn't need to have 1000k of subscribers sometimes even 50k are enough and if its a good game who cares? A well made, polished so called oldschool game could easily grab 500k! Vanguard proved theres still a market 200k in just 7 days isn't bad its real nice. With another publisher and one more year of development time this game would have become our new home.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
I agree, the period 2000-2005 was a more innovative period than the period 2006-2010: we already hard UO and EQ, it brought us the RvR of a DAoC, the tactical skills based combat of GW that had a Magic the Gathering-touch, massive warfare of Planetside and a lot of other flavors and styles.
The success of WoW and the increasing risks of bigger budgets caused game companies to try too hard to deliver a WoW successor which hampered serious innovation or breaking away from the strain for many a MMO title.
But I predict 2011-2012 will see a number of titles that'll finally manage to do their own thing, and very successfully.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Gaming markets- cleared that up.
Those that are currently spending their cash doesn't mean in any way, shape or form that they don't want to, or won't, spend their cash elsewhere. Markets overlap both between industries, and inside of industry proper. Competition is always the name of the game. As far as proof that a 'market exists' for 'old school' games, I could very casually point to two very telling factors:
- Every game since WoW that has cited targetting WoW's audience via their mechanics, or achieving WoW's sub numbers through the same, has failed. This is evidenced through AOC, Algalon, WAR, STO... and changes in games such as NGE, EQ etc. Changes to games that make them more 'new school' or games that launch that *are* 'new school' are failing to meet their targetted goals. This is across the board mind you. ADDITIONALLY, people are tired of WoW and the 'new school' that it represents (being the titan of the industry and all) as evidenced through a simple posting of who is resubbing for CAT on these very forums. Now, while that might be an isolated posting on a backwater forum, it's important to note that ALL MARKET RESEARCH is flawed by those very same criteria if not others. It stands to show that while it happens here, it is absolutely happening elsewhere.
- EVE and FFXI are two titles that never went the NGE route, and have arguably stayed 'true-to-form' from their launch through all expansions to present-day. Why, then, are these the ONLY TWO AAA TITLES to continuously grow in sub counts from their launch to present-day (FFXI after an initial release drop)? Clearly, where in the first point we see populace changes when the target 'is new school' in their approach, we see here an *STEADY AND GROWING* trend for games with 'old school elements'.
Through these two references alone, I can safely conclude without a shadow of a doubt that there is easily 100k subs to be spoken for in an 'old school' approach AAA title, based on the numbers lost through NGE, Tabula R, WAR dropouts etc. Properly marketted, you could strip many borderline players from the titan as well, who continue to play because their friends do, and just need a reason to jump ship. Hell, Ensidia themselves have expressed disinterest from WoW, but due to sponsorships and 'lack of other options' they stick with what they know. The market for a 'niche' 'old school' AAA title is not only out there, it's screaming to be tapped into. Feel free to attempt to poke holes into the points made herein- I've got the data working on my side, not wild assumptions with no grounding.
Attracting new customers while not driving the old ones away are what many, if not all, 'new school' MMOs are guilty of. NGE, as previously mentioned, WoW themselves through raid size changes and consistent and never-ending FOTM class balancing etc etc. It stands to reason that any and every developper must maintain a pursuit for more consumers. Because in this industry like any other, if you're bringing something fresh to the table, you're only maintaining. If you're not, you're stagnant which means you're falling behind.
Movies copy each other, just like every industry is crowded with only a handful of true pioneers with a plethora if mimics. But along the way people do something new, break a mold, and every time it yields benefits. Reference: Avatar. What came of this? Expect the movie industry to change to being entirely 3D in the next year or two. MMORPGs, as you know, are no different than any other industry. Be the first to 'bring back challenge of the old school' and you'll 'break a mold' that has been established since 2004. How would it be any different? Innovation is both forward progress, and craftfully bringing back the retro in present-day. Hell, the car industry is ALL ABOUT the retro look these days.
Countrary to your point of view, I'm not proposing a change to how business is done. I'm evidencing that the suggestions herein ARE what is commonplace in the industry where seeking out new markets is concerned. My examples support this.
You can offer a product that is either superior or a product that is identical at a better price. Or both. As has been stated before, progress forward is merely standing still with viewed under a lens of competition. The point being, and I assume you got it, that you must offer incentive to consume your product over someone else's.
Your final paragraph is probably your best. You have gone from stating outright and unsupported that 'old school' is 'gone' and those 'interests are a niche' that 'won't yield any AAA developper any profit to write home about' ... to stating that you 'don't know if' there is such a market. Obviously, the hardest part of identifying this 'old school potential' crowd is that they are NOT black and white in their product consumption. Some play present-day titles, some quit the genre altogether because of lack of what they seek. But what we do *know* based on games and game changes since 2004 is that there is a significant amount of gamers who didn't find what they seek outside of WoW and that things that sing to that tune are not desired. The thing is- you ARE generating revenue for companies that don't currently have it. By 'shuffling it around' you don't change the industry earnings, but individual companies aren't interested in that anyway. They're interested in themselves, their employees, their consumers. By 'shuffling it around' you in effect generate a cash flow into that corperation where one previously did not exist. It's all about how and where you define your system limits (thank you, fluid mechanics!) to best understand and solve your problem.
The problem isn't in the shuffling itself, it's in the constant shuffling. Which is still NOT the problem: it's the effect of it. The PROBLEM is that companies aren't getting 'IT' 'right'. If they were, the shuffling wouldn't happen.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Yet do not be surprised to see that he does not take your word for it. I'd truly be shocked if he did. Yet taking his word, on the other hand, is such the no-brainer because he says so. If he does take your word then I'll have no problem admitting I was wrong about this point. Having not read the rest of the posts after this one I'm believing he didn't.
But yes, the majority of people who talk about Eve say they like it for the reasons you describe. One only has to go to their official forums to read such comments. One can also look to the Eve forums here and other MMO sites as well. WHy he's getting upset over people enjoying those elements is beyond me. It's like those elements have scarred him as a child or something, lol.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Nicely done Po. You have done what I have not be able to successfully do. Apparently he doesn't like me (hehe) such that no matter what I say I could have never gotten him to say this. Oh well, isn't the first and sure won't be the last to harbor hate for meh, muhahahaha!
Kudos Po, more the diplomat than I this round.
Cephus, no hard feelings, keep on rockin. Cheers.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Wow, that's all I can say.
What started as an interesting topic has really transgressed into a mob-ridden, almost political conflagration of disturbing proportions. You lawyers and business geniuses, don't you have anything better to do? Like suing some hapless company for millions or starting a conglomerate, and thus showing us your prowess and knowledge of all you spew forth here?
No? Oh, so it's ALL opinionated. one-sided logic using premises and conclusions that are fabricated to suit your own views...
Let this thread die plz...
Excellent post, Pojung. Sadly I fear there will be attempts to counter it with nonsense and hurr durr WoW sub numbers.
Based upon the current MMO games being played I'd say the market for 'old school' and/or 'sandbox' is easily 1-2 million. The fact that EVE Online, a space based MMO with a steep learning curve and without any humanoid avatars but only ships, on itself has managed to attract 400k-500k subs is saying enough. Next to that, this thread shows that there's enough people interested in such games, as well as the large group of (ex) WoW players who're complaining about the too-easy mode of current WoW and are wishing for an experience as they had in WoW vanilla.
But maybe I should rephrase that: there are enough people who aren't as much interested in themepark/casual MMO's but more in 'challenging' MMO's. Upcoming MMO's that manage that balance right, that can incorporate 'old school' and sandbox elements besides some of the themepark-style benefits (like also catering to casual players who dont have time for a whole evening but want a quick hour of fun), will see a huge popularity for their game.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
-A small note on that: I would not consider LOTRO and EQ2 "failures". Lotro has lost some players, because the most recent expansion was a bit too much "More of the same". EverQuest 2 has a solid and loyal fan-base, and to me, still provides the closest thing to the feeling of the old Games. Both, I feel, are puttering along nicely.
Sigil and Vanguard makes me cry...potentially the best MMORPG of the decade, with a staggeringly well-crafted inter-balance of classes. But they killed it...
(I started playing MMORPGs in 1999...happy to see that I'm not "Scum")
Precisely.
http://knucklecloud.blogspot.com/
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None