Viral marketing and viral advertising are buzzwords referring to marketing techniques that use pre-existing social networks to produce increases in brand awareness or to achieve other marketing objectives (such as product sales) through self-replicating viral processes, analogous to the spread of virus or computer viruses. It can be word-of-mouth delivered or enhanced by the network effects of the Internet.
Among the first to write about viral marketing on the Internet was media criticDouglas Rushkoff in his 1994 book Media Virus: Hidden Agendas in Popular Culture. The assumption is that if such an advertisement reaches a "susceptible" user, that user will become "infected" (i.e., accept the idea) and will then go on to share the idea with others "infecting them," in the viral analogy's terms. As long as each infected user shares the idea with more than one susceptible user on average (i.e., the basic reproductive rate is greater than one - the standard in epidemiology for qualifying something as an epidemic), the number of infected users will grow according to a logarithmic curve, whose initial segment appears exponential. Of course, the marketing campaign may be wildly successful even if the rate at which things are spread isn't of epidemic proportions, if this user-to-user sharing is sustained by other forms of marketing communications, such as public relations or advertising.
Marketing is used to identify the customer, to satisfy the customer, and to keep the customer.
Pre-existing social network = MMORPG.com
supplier = Starvault potential customer= anyone reading the article that may be interested in MO
reviewer= ???
There are 2 ways this review could be considered part of a viral marketing campaign. In one case the reviewer is a "susceptible user" and the viral marketing is SV allowing him to play and review the game. In the other case, the reviewer is acting as an agent of Starvault and the maketing is the production of the review. Which do you think is the case?
MMORPG giving MO a 7 and STO an 8 recently only shows how bad the rating system is. There is no standard to judge MMO's here, only the opinion of the people who got selected to review it. Both these games have been re-reviewed by
1. Someone who really loved those types of games and did not factor in the complete lack of content, excessive bugs or lack of main stream features like an auction house
or
2. They (MMORPG) were given something in compensation for a good review.
I know some of you like the game and it fits your play style and if rating only the potential then I would agree with the score but the reviewer clearly says the game is currently in a closed beta state, missing main-stream features like an auction house and had so many bugs he started to count them as they happened. To give this game almost a 7 is silly. Seriously, from a technical point of view, how could a game be any worse than MO? If the game was in an alpha state would it have gotten a 6?
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
The review appears to be nothing more than viral marketing.
The game needs to be reviewed for what it is currently, period!
Potential's been the one thing MO has/had, but month after month we dont seem any closer.
Marketing? Hardly. It's a pretty fair review.
The reviewer likes MO. It's fun to play already today so it's not about the potential. The reviewer writes:
"Regardless of the bugs and slight unfinished feel, Mortal Online is supremely enjoyable. There are enough developed class-types to keep you occupied while more updates roll out and the game is more than stable enough to play."
the agenda with the reviewer is that he actually played the game and found out he enjoyed it. I see nothing suprising about that really. Some people can look past bugs if the game is worth it. The game is enjoyable. It is fun and the most of the critics havent played the game or havent since open beta.
In no point of the review does he say the score was influenced by the potential MO has. So how on earth do people jump to the conclusion he must be reviewing the game on possibilities rather than what is actually playable? to not mention its potential somewhere in the review would be wrong because MO has more possibilities being a sanbox mmo with an open development and an adaptive engine. But to give its potential credit in its score would also be wrong thats why they have reviews later on when games have matured even more.
also MO i one of the lowest scroing games reviewed recently, with only f2p and other indie mmos scoring worse so how can you possibly say its review is wrong? the game is in a much better state now than darkfall was when it was originally reviewed. If MMORPG were to revist darkfall it would probably get a better review.
So the reviewer enjoyed UO and is a fan of sanox mmos how could that possibly be a bad thing. This game is aimed at people who enjoy a game like UO and not like WOW. It would be silly to have someone who hates strategy games review one and the same can be said for people who hate sandbox mmos to review one to. He was the right person to review it because he is part of the targeted market.
It comes down to personal taste but, Inovation with bugs over imitation with polish any day for me.
there are 2 types of mmo, imitators and innovaters.
I didnt find any potential in MO, at least not in my first 2hrs of play, started in noob zone, try to move foward, lagged, came out of lag dead from falling off a cliff. No idea how to get back alive. took me about 2hrs to finally rez back. Then i was lost, none to explain how game works no help bubles nothing ... After a week of frustrations, still boring as hell but now i knew there was nothing to do.
I didnt find any potential in MO, at least not in my first 2hrs of play, started in noob zone, try to move foward, lagged, came out of lag dead from falling off a cliff. No idea how to get back alive. took me about 2hrs to finally rez back. Then i was lost, none to explain how game works no help bubles nothing ... After a week of frustrations, still boring as hell but now i knew there was nothing to do.
I like sandboxes, simply this one sucks.
well considering the movement in MO is rendered client side, as in your movement is not dictated by the server meaning you move as if you were palying an offline game and lag never palys any part in how your character moves when you control it. I find it hard for you to accuse lag for falling off a cliff rather than your own player error. Either that or your pc isnt up to spec to play MO and you experienced grapgical lag, but considering my pv is close to 4 years old i run it fine.
I also wouldnt say theres nothing to do.
Thievery
Magery
Armor crafting
Weapon crafting
Slag hauling
Taming
Fishing
Archer
Warrior
House builder
and half of those can actually be combined into 1 character meaning you could be a thief/mage or a mage/tamer/ or fisherman/archer etc.
there are 2 types of mmo, imitators and innovaters.
I didnt find any potential in MO, at least not in my first 2hrs of play, started in noob zone, try to move foward, lagged, came out of lag dead from falling off a cliff. No idea how to get back alive. took me about 2hrs to finally rez back. Then i was lost, none to explain how game works no help bubles nothing ... After a week of frustrations, still boring as hell but now i knew there was nothing to do.
I like sandboxes, simply this one sucks.
well considering the movement in MO is rendered client side, as in your movement is not dictated by the server meaning you move as if you were palying an offline game and lag never palys any part in how your character moves when you control it. I find it hard for you to accuse lag for falling off a cliff rather than your own player error. Either that or your pc isnt up to spec to play MO and you experienced grapgical lag, but considering my pv is close to 4 years old i run it fine.
I also wouldnt say theres nothing to do.
Thievery
Magery
Armor crafting
Weapon crafting
Slag hauling
Taming
Fishing
Archer
Warrior
House builder
and half of those can actually be combined into 1 character meaning you could be a thief/mage or a mage/tamer/ or fisherman/archer etc.
This!
And oh, yeah, 2 hrs of game time is a good way to learn a game! 2 hrs of Eve and I was lost as well, after some time i understood it and still loves it!
In no point of the review does he say the score was influenced by the potential MO has. So how on earth do people jump to the conclusion he must be reviewing the game on possibilities rather than what is actually playable? to not mention its potential somewhere in the review would be wrong because MO has more possibilities being a sanbox mmo with an open development and an adaptive engine. But to give its potential credit in its score would also be wrong thats why they have reviews later on when games have matured even more.
The Author expands upon how he gave marks for "potential" and his reasoning here:
I do not know, I continue to enjoy the game due to several reasons. Most importantly, the community is more...mature in behavior, deeds and words. I like the ability of being able to change my toon without re-rolling and perhaps the feeling of accomplishment when I locate new area's to kill creters and such. The cap level on skills allows me to specialise my toons and the area can acually change with houses that can be used for manufacturing. To WoW this game would be a great loss which brings in the arrument of an AH. For me, the importance of having a well rounded clan class wise makes all the little problems go away.
My complaint is pretty standard, I do not care about potential because I pay real time money and thus...expect real time products. I do not buy the "its an independent company" gig, if they charge AAA price, better be able to produce AAA product. Unless I can pay potential money, everything else is BS.
Bottom line for me is that I like being part of my clan (Militarygamers or MG) who also enjoys playing the game as what it is. We are not a big clan but damn, when we get to working as a unit we have a ball and that my friends is what a game should provide. The review does address issues which is important to bring out for those who are seeking a WoW experience but for me the game provides what I seek.
The reviewer likes MO. It's fun to play already today so it's not about the potential. The reviewer writes:
"Regardless of the bugs and slight unfinished feel, Mortal Online is supremely enjoyable. There are enough developed class-types to keep you occupied while more updates roll out and the game is more than stable enough to play."
Some people also enjoy wacking their privates with a hammer, but its hardly the norm. Im sure the writer "enjoys" MO, but question MOs real appeal to those reading the review that havent played. But, theres something for everyone...
The reviewer likes MO. It's fun to play already today so it's not about the potential. The reviewer writes:
"Regardless of the bugs and slight unfinished feel, Mortal Online is supremely enjoyable. There are enough developed class-types to keep you occupied while more updates roll out and the game is more than stable enough to play."
Some people also enjoy wacking their privates with a hammer, but its hardly the norm.
Don't knock it till you've tried it.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
The reviewer likes MO. It's fun to play already today so it's not about the potential. The reviewer writes:
"Regardless of the bugs and slight unfinished feel, Mortal Online is supremely enjoyable. There are enough developed class-types to keep you occupied while more updates roll out and the game is more than stable enough to play."
Some people also enjoy wacking their privates with a hammer, but its hardly the norm.
Don't knock it till you've tried it.
LOL... I'm not knocking anything, just saying it isnt the norm in my circles.
MMORPG giving MO a 7 and STO an 8 recently only shows how bad the rating system is. There is no standard to judge MMO's here, only the opinion of the people who got selected to review it. Both these games have been re-reviewed by
1. Someone who really loved those types of games and did not factor in the complete lack of content, excessive bugs or lack of main stream features like an auction house
or
2. They (MMORPG) were given something in compensation for a good review.
I know some of you like the game and it fits your play style and if rating only the potential then I would agree with the score but the reviewer clearly says the game is currently in a closed beta state, missing main-stream features like an auction house and had so many bugs he started to count them as they happened. To give this game almost a 7 is silly. Seriously, from a technical point of view, how could a game be any worse than MO? If the game was in an alpha state would it have gotten a 6?
The "great post" that you quote argues that the results of the review scoring are either 1) the reviewer being blind to the flaws of the game in setting the score 2) MMORPG.COM or the reviewer being "on the take. I think it is neither. It is just evidence that scoring is highly subjective. A game can have graphics that are primitive by modern standard, yet have environmental interactions that offer compelling game play. (minecraft)
I hate to push Slapshot's line of thinking, but he did offer some perspective on the comments for the review
Again, the reviewer have fun playing MO. That is reflecting the score.
The "review" is clearly biased and I'm sure the writer had a score in mind before he even began. No ones questioing rather or not the "writer" enjoyed himself, thats already been touched on. I'm sure the majorirty of MMORPG.com members see the "review" for what it is.
Quote from the reviews author:
Originally posted by shakermaker0
In the grand scheme of things, is the score really that important that a debate should rage for this long?
I think after the whole darfall review fiasco people might be afraid to give a low score. Also the reviewer I don't think was biased vs. MO. . just enjoys playing most games that are different etc. My guess is you wouldn't see a review lower than 5 from him period.
Again, the reviewer have fun playing MO. That is reflecting the score.
The "review" is clearly biased and I'm sure the writer had a score in mind before he even began. No ones questioing rather or not the "writer" enjoyed himself, thats already been touched on. I'm sure the majorirty of MMORPG.com members see the "review" for what it is.
Quote from the reviews author:
Originally posted by shakermaker0
In the grand scheme of things, is the score really that important that a debate should rage for this long?
You know what. A game is all about having fun. Is a game worth a high score if it's not fun to play at all even thou it's free from bugs? No, then it should have a low score. If the game IS FUN, then it should have a higher score. This is not rocket science, it's basic stuff you should know of. People want to play fun games and games they don't like. But I really can't expect you to understand that, because you spend several hours every day here discussing a game you don't like instead of on a game you like and have real interest in.
The reviewer had fun playing MO and because of some bugs he set a lower score and still MO got 6.9. It will be much higher when the bugs get fixed and we get some more content, as we expect soon.
Funny how the anti-MO crowd here at mmorpg.com just can't accept that someone actually enjoyed playing MO. Just because they hate the game so much, it must be something fishy about a review listing both negative and positive things about the game.
I think the review was fair and honest. MO has many issues but it's playable and enjoyable - not for everyone perhaps, but is that really an issue? Talking about "norms" is just silly; no MMO can please everyone and MO has never claimed to be anything but a niche game for a pretty small audience.
Comments
Just a bit of analysis....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_marketing & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing
Viral marketing and viral advertising are buzzwords referring to marketing techniques that use pre-existing social networks to produce increases in brand awareness or to achieve other marketing objectives (such as product sales) through self-replicating viral processes, analogous to the spread of virus or computer viruses. It can be word-of-mouth delivered or enhanced by the network effects of the Internet.
Among the first to write about viral marketing on the Internet was media critic Douglas Rushkoff in his 1994 book Media Virus: Hidden Agendas in Popular Culture. The assumption is that if such an advertisement reaches a "susceptible" user, that user will become "infected" (i.e., accept the idea) and will then go on to share the idea with others "infecting them," in the viral analogy's terms. As long as each infected user shares the idea with more than one susceptible user on average (i.e., the basic reproductive rate is greater than one - the standard in epidemiology for qualifying something as an epidemic), the number of infected users will grow according to a logarithmic curve, whose initial segment appears exponential. Of course, the marketing campaign may be wildly successful even if the rate at which things are spread isn't of epidemic proportions, if this user-to-user sharing is sustained by other forms of marketing communications, such as public relations or advertising.
Marketing is used to identify the customer, to satisfy the customer, and to keep the customer.
Pre-existing social network = MMORPG.com
supplier = Starvault potential customer= anyone reading the article that may be interested in MO
reviewer= ???
There are 2 ways this review could be considered part of a viral marketing campaign. In one case the reviewer is a "susceptible user" and the viral marketing is SV allowing him to play and review the game. In the other case, the reviewer is acting as an agent of Starvault and the maketing is the production of the review. Which do you think is the case?
MMORPG giving MO a 7 and STO an 8 recently only shows how bad the rating system is. There is no standard to judge MMO's here, only the opinion of the people who got selected to review it. Both these games have been re-reviewed by
1. Someone who really loved those types of games and did not factor in the complete lack of content, excessive bugs or lack of main stream features like an auction house
or
2. They (MMORPG) were given something in compensation for a good review.
I know some of you like the game and it fits your play style and if rating only the potential then I would agree with the score but the reviewer clearly says the game is currently in a closed beta state, missing main-stream features like an auction house and had so many bugs he started to count them as they happened. To give this game almost a 7 is silly. Seriously, from a technical point of view, how could a game be any worse than MO? If the game was in an alpha state would it have gotten a 6?
Marketing? Hardly. It's a pretty fair review.
The reviewer likes MO. It's fun to play already today so it's not about the potential. The reviewer writes:
"Regardless of the bugs and slight unfinished feel, Mortal Online is supremely enjoyable. There are enough developed class-types to keep you occupied while more updates roll out and the game is more than stable enough to play."
the agenda with the reviewer is that he actually played the game and found out he enjoyed it. I see nothing suprising about that really. Some people can look past bugs if the game is worth it. The game is enjoyable. It is fun and the most of the critics havent played the game or havent since open beta.
In no point of the review does he say the score was influenced by the potential MO has. So how on earth do people jump to the conclusion he must be reviewing the game on possibilities rather than what is actually playable? to not mention its potential somewhere in the review would be wrong because MO has more possibilities being a sanbox mmo with an open development and an adaptive engine. But to give its potential credit in its score would also be wrong thats why they have reviews later on when games have matured even more.
also MO i one of the lowest scroing games reviewed recently, with only f2p and other indie mmos scoring worse so how can you possibly say its review is wrong? the game is in a much better state now than darkfall was when it was originally reviewed. If MMORPG were to revist darkfall it would probably get a better review.
So the reviewer enjoyed UO and is a fan of sanox mmos how could that possibly be a bad thing. This game is aimed at people who enjoy a game like UO and not like WOW. It would be silly to have someone who hates strategy games review one and the same can be said for people who hate sandbox mmos to review one to. He was the right person to review it because he is part of the targeted market.
It comes down to personal taste but, Inovation with bugs over imitation with polish any day for me.
there are 2 types of mmo, imitators and innovaters.
I didnt find any potential in MO, at least not in my first 2hrs of play, started in noob zone, try to move foward, lagged, came out of lag dead from falling off a cliff. No idea how to get back alive. took me about 2hrs to finally rez back. Then i was lost, none to explain how game works no help bubles nothing ... After a week of frustrations, still boring as hell but now i knew there was nothing to do.
I like sandboxes, simply this one sucks.
well considering the movement in MO is rendered client side, as in your movement is not dictated by the server meaning you move as if you were palying an offline game and lag never palys any part in how your character moves when you control it. I find it hard for you to accuse lag for falling off a cliff rather than your own player error. Either that or your pc isnt up to spec to play MO and you experienced grapgical lag, but considering my pv is close to 4 years old i run it fine.
I also wouldnt say theres nothing to do.
Thievery
Magery
Armor crafting
Weapon crafting
Slag hauling
Taming
Fishing
Archer
Warrior
House builder
and half of those can actually be combined into 1 character meaning you could be a thief/mage or a mage/tamer/ or fisherman/archer etc.
there are 2 types of mmo, imitators and innovaters.
This!
And oh, yeah, 2 hrs of game time is a good way to learn a game! 2 hrs of Eve and I was lost as well, after some time i understood it and still loves it!
Still a good review!
The review is fine, the score is fine. At that score the game is classed as 'Medicore' which is fair.
1.) There aren't that many bugs in the game anymore, most are superficial/minor
2.) We know we're getting content very soon.
This is an interesting time to be watching SV but don't expect the game to become perfect in one go.
The Author expands upon how he gave marks for "potential" and his reasoning here:
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3938393#3938393
So now I hope you still agree with your last sentence above (I certainly do). It is for that very reason that most have an issue with the review.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
This!
I sure want the next content patch as well!
I agree with this. Game feels better now.
When you have to write "classes" as something to do ingame, that is just.. sad.
I do not know, I continue to enjoy the game due to several reasons. Most importantly, the community is more...mature in behavior, deeds and words. I like the ability of being able to change my toon without re-rolling and perhaps the feeling of accomplishment when I locate new area's to kill creters and such. The cap level on skills allows me to specialise my toons and the area can acually change with houses that can be used for manufacturing. To WoW this game would be a great loss which brings in the arrument of an AH. For me, the importance of having a well rounded clan class wise makes all the little problems go away.
My complaint is pretty standard, I do not care about potential because I pay real time money and thus...expect real time products. I do not buy the "its an independent company" gig, if they charge AAA price, better be able to produce AAA product. Unless I can pay potential money, everything else is BS.
Bottom line for me is that I like being part of my clan (Militarygamers or MG) who also enjoys playing the game as what it is. We are not a big clan but damn, when we get to working as a unit we have a ball and that my friends is what a game should provide. The review does address issues which is important to bring out for those who are seeking a WoW experience but for me the game provides what I seek.
Don't hate me for this, but I can't help but think the review here was to stop the hatred to MMORPG.com that SV seems to have because of its members..
~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!
Come Join us at www.globalequestria.com - Meet other fans of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic!
Some people also enjoy wacking their privates with a hammer, but its hardly the norm. Im sure the writer "enjoys" MO, but question MOs real appeal to those reading the review that havent played. But, theres something for everyone...
I win!!! LOL@U
Don't knock it till you've tried it.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
LOL... I'm not knocking anything, just saying it isnt the norm in my circles.
I win!!! LOL@U
Great post , but whats STO?
I win!!! LOL@U
Again, the reviewer have fun playing MO. That is reflecting the score. It's not about the game got GREAT potential from here.
Star Trek Online.
The "great post" that you quote argues that the results of the review scoring are either 1) the reviewer being blind to the flaws of the game in setting the score 2) MMORPG.COM or the reviewer being "on the take. I think it is neither. It is just evidence that scoring is highly subjective. A game can have graphics that are primitive by modern standard, yet have environmental interactions that offer compelling game play. (minecraft)
I hate to push Slapshot's line of thinking, but he did offer some perspective on the comments for the review
Other games reviewed or re-reviewed in 2010
AoConan 8.5
Vindictus 8.0
Global Agenda 8.0
A tale in the Desert 7.8
Dragon oath 7.8
Lego universe 7.5
football manager live 7.5
DAoC 7.5
WAR 7.5
Ryzon 7.3
STO 7.0
Pirates of the Burning Sea 7.0
Runescape 7.0
Earth eternal 7.0
--------Mortal online------
APB 6.5 (cancelled)
2 moons 6.0
Soul of the Ultimate Nation 6.0
Alganon 5.8
Here is the post referenced above: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3939795
And the chart:
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The "review" is clearly biased and I'm sure the writer had a score in mind before he even began. No ones questioing rather or not the "writer" enjoyed himself, thats already been touched on. I'm sure the majorirty of MMORPG.com members see the "review" for what it is.
Quote from the reviews author:
I win!!! LOL@U
I think after the whole darfall review fiasco people might be afraid to give a low score. Also the reviewer I don't think was biased vs. MO. . just enjoys playing most games that are different etc. My guess is you wouldn't see a review lower than 5 from him period.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
You know what. A game is all about having fun. Is a game worth a high score if it's not fun to play at all even thou it's free from bugs? No, then it should have a low score. If the game IS FUN, then it should have a higher score. This is not rocket science, it's basic stuff you should know of. People want to play fun games and games they don't like. But I really can't expect you to understand that, because you spend several hours every day here discussing a game you don't like instead of on a game you like and have real interest in.
The reviewer had fun playing MO and because of some bugs he set a lower score and still MO got 6.9. It will be much higher when the bugs get fixed and we get some more content, as we expect soon.
Funny how the anti-MO crowd here at mmorpg.com just can't accept that someone actually enjoyed playing MO. Just because they hate the game so much, it must be something fishy about a review listing both negative and positive things about the game.
I think the review was fair and honest. MO has many issues but it's playable and enjoyable - not for everyone perhaps, but is that really an issue? Talking about "norms" is just silly; no MMO can please everyone and MO has never claimed to be anything but a niche game for a pretty small audience.