If MMO gamers crave innovation and something different so much, then why do the innovative MMO's fai

MMO.Maverick

Something I've been wondering about for a while now, especially since I started reading the mmorpg.com forums where you hear the cry for innovation and the branding of 'WoW clone' of every themepark MMO so much more than on other sites.

 

I mean, everyone wants to be pleasantly surprised by something different or new, especially after playing years of MMO's. I have it myself, only not to the point that I started disliking themepark MMO's.

But I am puzzled by the discrepancy, the gap between reality and perceived preferences of the MMO playerbase:

if so many MMO gamers really want something new, innovative and/or different, then why is it that the really different MMO's failed?

And why is it that MMO gamers craving for something different aren't playing them now? Except for TCOS ofc that has been cancelled.

 

Look at Ryzom, The Chronicles of Spellborn or Vanguard. They all had features and mechanics that were different from the current themepark model. Then why did they fail?

Was it because of the time they were released in? People weren't as saturated yet with themepark mechanics like they are these days? So, would that mean that if these games would've been released now as brand new instead of years ago and with upgraded graphics, then MMO gamers would flock to these games for the different MMO gameplay they have to offer?

 

Or was it because of advertising and polish that both were lacking for these MMO's, that if those two aspects would've taken care of, then these MMO's would've been far more successful?

 

Or is it that most of the complaints about something new and different is just an illusion, something you'll only hear on gathering places for the jaded, burnt out MMO gamers as here, while the majority of the MMO gamers is happily playing MMO's with the same themepark game mechanics and features that they've been playing for years?

 

I haven't yet been able to figure out what of those reasons is the main one, but the gap between the numerous voiced wishes for some innovation or something different with the reality that different MMO's are hardly played is hard to ignore.

whilan

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

Something I've been wondering about for a while now, especially since I started reading the mmorpg.com forums where you hear the cry for innovation and the branding of 'WoW clone' of every themepark MMO so much more than on other sites.

 

I mean, everyone wants to be pleasantly surprised by something different or new, especially after playing years of MMO's. I have it myself, only not to the point that I started disliking themepark MMO's.

But I am puzzled by the discrepancy, the gap between reality and perceived preferences of the MMO playerbase:

if so many MMO gamers really want something new, innovative and/or different, then why is it that the really different MMO's failed?

And why is it that MMO gamers craving for something different aren't playing them now? Except for TCOS ofc that has been cancelled.

 

Look at Ryzom, The Chronicles of Spellborn or Vanguard. They all had features and mechanics that were different from the current themepark model. Then why did they fail?

Was it because of the time they were released in? People weren't as saturated yet with themepark mechanics like they are these days? So, would that mean that if these games would've been released now as brand new instead of years ago and with upgraded graphics, then MMO gamers would flock to these games for the different MMO gameplay they have to offer?

 

Or was it because of advertising and polish that both were lacking for these MMO's, that if those two aspects would've taken care of, then these MMO's would've been far more successful?

 

Or is it that most of the complaint's about something new and different is just an illusion, something you'll only hear on gathering places for the jaded, burnt out MMO gamers as here, while the majority of the MMO gamers is happily playing MMO's with the same themepark game mechanics and features that they've been playing for years?

 

I haven't yet been able to figure out what of those reasons is the main one, but the gap between the numerous voiced wishes for some innovation or something different with the reality that different MMO's are hardly played is hard to ignore.

After visiting many forums.  I think this is close to what is the truth. Least from what i've seen.

Most people are fine with a game as long as it feels fun.  They don't care if it's sandbox/theme park brings something new or not. a repeat of something else. As long as it looks cool and plays well they don't care.

Swanea

I think this is fairly obvious. 

Most people don't frequent forums such as this.  How many people use this forum? There are 1+ million members, yet maybe 100-500 use this forum normally. How many people use the Warcraft forums in a game filled with 12 million people?  Couple ten thousand?  Maybe 100,000 use it normally?

Go to TTH forums.  Do they want what people here want?  Doubtful.  Go to Massively or Steam.  It's different.  But there are just not that many people.

 

People posting are in a minority.  Just the ones that are vocal.  Does that make you right or wrong?  Yes and no. :P.

Loke666

I don't think that the devs and the players want the same thing, most devs just want the game to be as simple as possible to make and the current model is simple. 

There are also 2 kinds of MMO players, the ones that played several MMOs or more and the ones that only played a single (usually Wow). The ones that just play one game and never bothered to play another is not a good target group for any new game, new thinking or not. They might be the largest group of players but they just don't move.

As for the games you mention, I dunno about Ryzom but Vanguard fail because of terrible coding while TCoS failed because it had no content whatsoever and the idea behind the combat system was sound but it was too simple and not fun enough.

Both those games had potential but never delivered due to simple mistakes.

All "innovative" MMOs have been done by small and inexperienced indie devs. And they usually fail no matter if they do standard themeparks or innovative games. They lack the experience even if they have the vision.

There are coming MMOs with innovation from team with experienced devs soon, like GW2 from ANET and WoDO from CCP. I think they will do a lot better.

Saying that innovative games will fail because SIGIL failed is unfair, it is like saying that regular themepark games always fail based on Cryptic.

Kyleran

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

if so many MMO gamers really want something new, innovative and/or different, then why is it that the really different MMO's failed?

And why is it that MMO gamers craving for something different aren't playing them now? 

Look at Ryzom, The Chronicles of Spellborn or Vanguard. They all had features and mechanics that were different from the current themepark model. Then why did they fail?

 

I haven't yet been able to figure out what of those reasons is the main one, but the gap between the numerous voiced wishes for some innovation or something different with the reality that different MMO's are hardly played is hard to ignore.

The games you listed might have been somewhat innovative, but they all came with baggage that held them back from real success.

Vanguard.  Had levels, classes, standard character advancement via questing, a better than average selection of races/classes however, which was a plus.  Toss in a fairly deep crafting system and the diplomaccy system and the game had a shot to be great. Except they released it as a bug filled mess,and although I and my guild mates really enjoyed it ultimately we grew tired of fighting to play it.  Toss in all ill thought out PVP model, perhaps too many starting areas, poor grouping mechanics coupled with long travel distances and you  had a pefect storm of failure.

Ryzom is an odd game, and if it ever could have been properly funded it might have done much better.  Every time I thought to try the game the people who owned it went broke and the game's future was in doubt.  I eventually did give it a gon during one of its free to play phases, and while I thought it was interesting, I never really got past the starter area nor managed to hook up with anyone who would show me the ropes in "the real game" which I'm told was quite different once you hit the mainland.  Still, when someone finally bought them I might have gone back, but no, they asked for standard sub model which was a big mistake if they really wanted to draw people back.  (should have been at a reduced rate, such as 9.95 or so)

TCOS, can't tell you much, only played it one night during its free to play phase but that was another game that had a screwy launch, was split between EU and US customers, and it never seemed to gain any traction.  I suspect that game was a diamond in the rough however poor management and distirbution may have brought that one to an untimely death.

Right now the problem is the companies with the resources to bring a smooth, polished MMORPG out are all tied to the standard theme park model leaving any attempts at real innovation to underfunded indie developers who can't bring to bear enough resources to make a truely engaging game.  (outside of the Citadel of Sorcery team who claims to have virtually unlimited funding and are allegedly developing an MMORPG that is totally different from anything else out there.  We'll see)

Combine that with a player base that has very high expectations (I sometimes think if UO, EQ1, AC, and AO launched today as they did originally they all would have failed) in terms of polish, controls and the like and its really difficult to bring innovation to the market today.

Markusan

Vanguard died mostly due to SOE. I believe it would have fluorished under mostly any other developer.

In general, the 'innovative' games have not gotten the formula entirely right and often the games launch unpolished, incomplete, lack of content, poor GUIs etc. I still believe small indie developers should be able to release games that will be successful if they just can come up with a really good game idea. Most games are not that very creative..

MMO.Maverick

Originally posted by Loke666

As for the games you mention, I dunno about Ryzom but Vanguard fail because of terrible coding while TCoS failed because it had no content whatsoever and the idea behind the combat system was sound but it was too simple and not fun enough.

But that's the thing indeed. I think that the vast majority of MMO gamers, not only the ones who played WoW, want content and polish above innovation, no matter what's being said on forums like these.

Content and polish are the primary wish of most MMO gamers, innovation maybe a second or tertiary.

At least, that's what the past years have shown.

If that priority list was different than it really is with innovation on top of the wishlist, then those different MMO's would have fared a lot better and people would've stuck out and coped with the lack in content or the bugs, just because of what the game else had to offer that was a different experience from the 'WoW clone' model.

 

Originally posted by Kyleran

Right now the problem is the companies with the resources to bring a smooth, polished MMORPG out are all tied to the standard theme park model leaving any attempts at real innovation to underfunded indie developers who can't bring to bear enough resources to make a truely engaging game.  (outside of the Citadel of Sorcery team who claims to have virtually unlimited funding and are allegedly developing an MMORPG that is totally different from anything else out there.  We'll see)

Good point. There WAS more experimenting in the 1997-2005 period, with a lot more variation in the MMO's even if there were fewer of them.

Main problem is also that the cost of making an MMO has risen compared to when relatively small companies as Verant and others could jump in and make an MMORPG. The ones that do have the money all seemed tied up to the themepark model. Luckily there are a number of high-resource companies who're trying something different, like ArcheAge, GW2, Firefall, TSW, WoD and such seem to promise.

fivoroth

Vanguard was ridiculously buggy/not optimised/not polished etc.

Innovation is great. But the problem is that I won't be playing an innovative game which is not stable or fun. Companies should ask themselves this simple question - Is my new innovative feature fun and superior to  what's on the market or is it innovative simply for the sake of innovation? People need to like your new ideas. If they don't, they won't play it. The fact that is new and different does not make it a winner right away. Look at Command and Conquer 4. It tried to be innovative but it failed miserably. It was different but it was crap. There are many examples of innovations for the sake of innovation and not fun! This in my book is very wrong.

 

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

Originally posted by Loke666

As for the games you mention, I dunno about Ryzom but Vanguard fail because of terrible coding while TCoS failed because it had no content whatsoever and the idea behind the combat system was sound but it was too simple and not fun enough.

But that's the thing indeed. I think that the vast majority of MMO gamers, not only the ones who played WoW, want content and polish above innovation, no matter what's being said on forums like these.

Content and polish are the primary wish of most MMO gamers, innovation maybe a second or tertiary.

At least, that's what the past years have shown.

If that priority list was different than it really is with innovation on top of the wishlist, then those different MMO's would have fared a lot better and people would've stuck out and coped with the lack in content or the bugs, just because of what the game else had to offer that was a different experience from the 'WoW clone' model.

Innovation is not more important than polish! If your game is barely playable, I will not support you for 6 months to develop it properly.

TribeofOne

innovation is only good if it works. being different just for the sake of being different isnt enough. look at DCUO

Loke666

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

But that's the thing indeed. I think that the vast majority of MMO gamers, not only the ones who played WoW, want content and polish above innovation, no matter what's being said on forums like these.

Content and polish are the primary wish of most MMO gamers, innovation maybe a second or tertiary.

At least, that's what the past years have shown.

If that priority list was different than it really is with innovation on top of the wishlist, then those different MMO's would have fared a lot better and people would've stuck out and coped with the lack in content or the bugs, just because of what the game else had to offer that was a different experience from the 'WoW clone' model.

Actually, I think most MMO players (not counting one game only players) want polish, content and innovation.

Innovation by itself is worthless, but just polish will get you nowhere either.

Polish and content is something any successful MMO needs so you might say that they are more important than innovation. Badly coded games wont become big no matter what.

But that does not mean that the genre doesn't need innovation, we have played the same combats since Meridian 59 in '96 and dungeons have changed close to nothing since EQ in '99.

Just polish and lots of content isnot enough anymore, it was enough when Wow released because no other game at the time truly had it. Now there is actually several games, like Wow, LOTRO, GW and a few more.

The next big game will have to add innovation to it's list.

Kyleran

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

Originally posted by Loke666

As for the games you mention, I dunno about Ryzom but Vanguard fail because of terrible coding while TCoS failed because it had no content whatsoever and the idea behind the combat system was sound but it was too simple and not fun enough.

But that's the thing indeed. I think that the vast majority of MMO gamers, not only the ones who played WoW, want content and polish above innovation, no matter what's being said on forums like these.

Content and polish are the primary wish of most MMO gamers, innovation maybe a second or tertiary.

At least, that's what the past years have shown.

If that priority list was different than it really is with innovation on top of the wishlist, then those different MMO's would have fared a lot better and people would've stuck out and coped with the lack in content or the bugs, just because of what the game else had to offer that was a different experience from the 'WoW clone' model.

 

Originally posted by Kyleran

Right now the problem is the companies with the resources to bring a smooth, polished MMORPG out are all tied to the standard theme park model leaving any attempts at real innovation to underfunded indie developers who can't bring to bear enough resources to make a truely engaging game.  (outside of the Citadel of Sorcery team who claims to have virtually unlimited funding and are allegedly developing an MMORPG that is totally different from anything else out there.  We'll see)

Good point. There WAS more experimenting in the 1997-2005 period, with a lot more variation in the MMO's even if there were fewer of them.

Main problem is also that the cost of making an MMO has risen compared to when relatively small companies as Verant and others could jump in and make an MMORPG. The ones that do have the money all seemed tied up to the themepark model. Luckily there are a number of high-resource companies who're trying something different, like ArcheAge, GW2, Firefall, TSW, WoD and such seem to promise.

I agree, if we're every going to see another game that captures a large number of sustainable subs its more likely to come from this group of folks rather than those firms who attempt to keep building a better WOW.

MMO.Maverick

Originally posted by Kyleran

Combine that with a player base that has very high expectations (I sometimes think if UO, EQ1, AC, and AO launched today as they did originally they all would have failed) in terms of polish, controls and the like and its really difficult to bring innovation to the market today.

I was thinking the same thing. The MMO playerbase has changed, the expectations of MMO gamers in the time of UO and EQ differs a lot from the expectations of MMO gamers these days.

UO, EQ1, AC and AO managed to flourish when the MMO gamers were more forgiving and accepting towards a number of gameplay mechanics and lack of polish than they are today. It was an MMO climate that lent itself more for experimentation with different models and mechanics than current day.

 

Originally posted by fivoroth

Innovation is not more important than polish! If your game is barely playable, I will not support you for 6 months to develop it properly.

Like this. There was a lot of experimenting and lack of polish in those early years, still the MMO gamers of those times, most of them, managed to cope with it and still had a great fun time despite things like polish lacking.

TribeofOne

I honestly think we are at the limit of gaming(mmo) innovation until major tech advances are made. The best we ca hope for are "gimmicks" or games where the same old same old are better.

anemo

TCoS was my favorite game.   They essentially did something to get the pacing of combat just  right so it wasn't a button masher, brawler, or pure strategy game.   Just had the perfect balance.

You could also freely travel up and down the content curve by something like 10 or 15% of your real level/tier just because player option/strategy/intuition mattered so much.   

MMO.Maverick

Originally posted by Kyleran

I agree, if we're every going to see another game that captures a large number of sustainable subs its more likely to come from this group of folks rather than those firms who attempt to keep building a better WOW.

Well, that's the thing I disagree with, as my OP goes: if innovation equaled success, then those innovative MMO's would've been more successful. So far, it looks as if the majority of MMO gamers - outside of this forum - still has fun with current themepark mechanics.

So the ones that innovate less like Rift, TERA, SWTOR, I think that they'll be as successful as the ones that has more innovation in them. In the end it's the total sum of content, polish and innovation that counts to retain player interest, not just the innovation part.

ScrimMaltese

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Kyleran

Right now the problem is the companies with the resources to bring a smooth, polished MMORPG out are all tied to the standard theme park model leaving any attempts at real innovation to underfunded indie developers who can't bring to bear enough resources to make a truely engaging game.  (outside of the Citadel of Sorcery team who claims to have virtually unlimited funding and are allegedly developing an MMORPG that is totally different from anything else out there.  We'll see)

Good point. There WAS more experimenting in the 1997-2005 period, with a lot more variation in the MMO's even if there were fewer of them.

Main problem is also that the cost of making an MMO has risen compared to when relatively small companies as Verant and others could jump in and make an MMORPG. The ones that do have the money all seemed tied up to the themepark model. Luckily there are a number of high-resource companies who're trying something different, like ArcheAge, GW2, Firefall, TSW, WoD and such seem to promise.

I agree, if we're every going to see another game that captures a large number of sustainable subs its more likely to come from this group of folks rather than those firms who attempt to keep building a better WOW.

DCUO did well, while the gameplay itself isn't entirely innovative, the fact that it is an Action MMO, is pretty innovative. Personally, I thought they pulled it off quite well and was pleasantly surprised. 

I think this is the main point in why games who try to innovate fail. MMOs are just massive projects and they take alot of money to produce. I mean, look at Vanguard, it cost $40mil and when it was release it was well over the budget of any other game before it, including WoW. The game was released buggy and had no client optimization what so ever. 

Then you see other companies, like Realtime Worlds, who actually get proper funding and have the ambition to do something that nobody has really seen before, and they get a scam artist for a CEO who completely pissed away $100mil. 

 

I think alot of the problem isn't nessisarily the games themselves, but the whole Startup Culture that exists in SIlicon Valley. If you really look at how the Startup culture works, it's pretty sickening. Billions upon billions of dollars just pissed away into the wind. People don't really care about making money, they just care about what investments they can get.

Quirhid

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

Actually, I think most MMO players (not counting one game only players) want polish, content and innovation.

Innovation by itself is worthless, but just polish will get you nowhere either.

Polish and content is something any successful MMO needs so you might say that they are more important than innovation. Badly coded games wont become big no matter what.

But that does not mean that the genre doesn't need innovation, we have played the same combats since Meridian 59 in '96 and dungeons have changed close to nothing since EQ in '99.

Just polish and lots of content isnot enough anymore, it was enough when Wow released because no other game at the time truly had it. Now there is actually several games, like Wow, LOTRO, GW and a few more.

The next big game will have to add innovation to it's list.

I agree. Some success can be achieved with either but more will come with both.

fivoroth

Originally posted by TribeofOne

I honestly think we are at the limit of gaming(mmo) innovation until major tech advances are made. The best we ca hope for are "gimmicks" or games where the same old same old are better.

Not true. There is always room for innovation. Someone in this thread said they also thought that there isn't much you can do about innovation and he even couldn't think of anything new and different. It's not easy to come up with something new and innovative. If it was, everybody would innovate. It can take years to come up with some great ideas.

 

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

Originally posted by Kyleran

Combine that with a player base that has very high expectations (I sometimes think if UO, EQ1, AC, and AO launched today as they did originally they all would have failed) in terms of polish, controls and the like and its really difficult to bring innovation to the market today.

I was thinking the same thing. The MMO playerbase has changed, the expectations of MMO gamers in the time of UO and EQ differs a lot from the expectations of MMO gamers these days.

UO, EQ1, AC and AO managed to flourish when the MMO gamers were more forgiving and accepting towards a number of gameplay mechanics and lack of polish than they are today. It was an MMO climate that lent itself more for experimentation with different models and mechanics than current day.

 Consumer expectations can rise over time. This is not something that you should put the blame on them. Companies have to be able to adapt and change. This is true of any market not only the gaming one. WoW has set a new standard for polish and content that is expected from an MMO and this has become sort of a requirement for this industry. When launching a new product, you can't ignore some of the things consumers want simply because 10 years ago you could get away withiout much polish and content. 

Originally posted by fivoroth

Innovation is not more important than polish! If your game is barely playable, I will not support you for 6 months to develop it properly.

Like this. There was a lot of experimenting and lack of polish in those early years, still the MMO gamers of those times, most of them, managed to cope with it and still had a great fun time despite things like polish lacking.

It's like saying people liked to use MS Dos and still managed to have fun with it, why do we need new Operating systems to have this new interface/design/accessibility which Windows has set.

As I said innovation for the sake of being different is not a good thing. This is the case in any market. Why should MMOs be treated differently? E.g. if there is this new soft drink which has a very unique and different taste but its taste is awful, what do you think will happen? People will try it because it's new but then if they are not satisfied they will not buy it again.

Simple marketing formula => if consumers expectations are met, they are satisfied. If they are exceeded, the consumer is delighted. However, when you fail to meet consumers expectations, they are dissatisfied and they will not use your product again. If MMO players are expecting innovation, polish and content, and if you do not deliver these, guess what happens? There usually more than 1 requirement for a product. So you can't say innovation on its own is enough.

donkeys

The list of failures that didn't innovate is likely much higher than the list of games that did innovate.

ste2000

To the OP.

The answer to your question is that it is not true that people wants innovation.

In fact it's been ages that players are begging developers to make an Ultima Online remake and an Everquest real sequel.

Since WoW came out, players are asking only that.

 

In my view in the game Industry there are 5 distinctive genres:

- The UO genre = Pure Sandbox, Fantasy themed

-The EVE genre = Sandboxish, SCI-FI themed (not full sandbox but close enough)

- The EQ genre = Pure Cooperative PvE with no Theme Park features (Battlegrounds, Arenas, cross server LFG)

-The WoW genre = Pure Competitive Theme Park

-Darkfall genre = Full PvP MMOs (those are no sandboxes)

No one made an attempt to make an UO sequel, Sigil was inspired by EQ but the game was unfinished and unplayable for almost a year after release and EVE genre and Darkfall  are probably quite niche to have competition.

Everything else is WoW copies.

 

Innovation is obviously welcome, but this is not what the player base crave for, they want more choice in the other MMO subgenres, in an industry which is dominated by WoW clones.

fivoroth

@ste2000

People always want new and innovative things because people want to have new experiences. This is what WoW gave to the market, a new experience. However, this new experience needs to be a good one. No one likes to have a bad experience even if it's different.

Loke666

Originally posted by fivoroth

@ste2000

People always want new and innovative things because people want to have new experiences. This is what WoW gave to the market, a new experience. However, this new experience needs to be a good one. No one likes to have a bad experience even if it's different.

Wow really didn't offer that different experience from EQ and M59. It actually did offer the same things but with different time sinks and good coding.

That was enough in 2004 but it isn't enough today,

Wow released 5 years after EQ and 8 years after M59. The world and the genre was different now. While a good copy of Wow still could do fine a good innovative game would do better.

Sadly can I only think of 4 innovative MMOs ever: Meridian 59 (first classic themepark game, invented the holy triad), Ultima online (grandfather of sandboxes), Everquest( invented raids and many other things that are now standard) and Eve online (took sandboxes to a new level).

The rest of the games are good or bad copies on those games. And since the last of those games re 8 years old now it is time to give us something new. 15 years of the holy triad and rat catching is far too long.

Maybe Arenanets GW2 will be innovative and fun enough, maybe CCPs WoDO will be, or maybe something else but it is time for a change now.

Dredphyre

Originally posted by Markusan

Vanguard died mostly due to SOE. I believe it would have fluorished under mostly any other developer.

In general, the 'innovative' games have not gotten the formula entirely right and often the games launch unpolished, incomplete, lack of content, poor GUIs etc. I still believe small indie developers should be able to release games that will be successful if they just can come up with a really good game idea. Most games are not that very creative..

Sorry, but this is a bit of revisionist history here. I'm not a fan of either Vanguard nor SOE, but Vanguard was thoroughly screwed before SOE ever bought them -- the dev team made sure of that.  SOE in fact injected a bit of cash into Vanguard in order to get the thing launched. You can blame SOE for a lot of evils, and I'd be right there with you. But Vanguard isn't one of them.

 

Loke666

Originally posted by Dredphyre

Originally posted by Markusan

Vanguard died mostly due to SOE. I believe it would have fluorished under mostly any other developer.

In general, the 'innovative' games have not gotten the formula entirely right and often the games launch unpolished, incomplete, lack of content, poor GUIs etc. I still believe small indie developers should be able to release games that will be successful if they just can come up with a really good game idea. Most games are not that very creative..

Sorry, but this is a bit of revisionist history here. I'm not a fan of either Vanguard nor SOE, but Vanguard was thoroughly screwed before SOE ever bought them -- the dev team made sure of that.  SOE in fact injected a bit of cash into Vanguard in order to get the thing launched. You can blame SOE for a lot of evils, and I'd be right there with you. But Vanguard isn't one of them.

Agreed. While I think it was a huge misstake by SOE to just release the game instead of fixing it up first the whole thing was SIGILs fault.

SIGIL had the right vision but not the technical competence to make a MMO and Brad should have known that. A single experienced lead programmer in SIGIL would have saved the game and made it bigger than EQ2.

Dredphyre

Players do want innovation. What your premise fails to realize, OP, is that innovation is inherently risky. Innovation in and of itself isn't instrinsically desireable. The question is, how are you innovating? What innovations are you making? A game could be innovative by allowing us all to play rolling blobs of putty.  Does that make it worthy?

Because innovation is risky, a lot of indie games that try to innovate in various ways will fail, not because innovation is bad, but because what these companies tried to innovate failed to capture the imagination of consumers.

This is why some companies like Turbine have a solid mainstream game, but try to push boundaries in innovative ways within their successful game.  Hedging their innovation against the security of the mainstream aspects of their game.  Radiance, legendary items, monster play were, to some degree or another, innovative systems.  Some were more successful than others, but none by itself will sink the entire game if it fails.

Contrast this to an MMO that tries to be completely innovative, all of its systems new and untried, all its graphics, its UI -- all new.  Each innovative system is risky, and now risk is compounded by stacking all these new systems one on top the other.

Is it any wonder innovation is so difficult?!

This doesn't even touch on the average person's resistance to change in general. How many cried when SOE change SWG? I know I cried. In fact, I howled with rage.  But people like the familiar. That is average human nature.

Garvon3

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by Dredphyre

Originally posted by Markusan

Vanguard died mostly due to SOE. I believe it would have fluorished under mostly any other developer.

In general, the 'innovative' games have not gotten the formula entirely right and often the games launch unpolished, incomplete, lack of content, poor GUIs etc. I still believe small indie developers should be able to release games that will be successful if they just can come up with a really good game idea. Most games are not that very creative..

Sorry, but this is a bit of revisionist history here. I'm not a fan of either Vanguard nor SOE, but Vanguard was thoroughly screwed before SOE ever bought them -- the dev team made sure of that.  SOE in fact injected a bit of cash into Vanguard in order to get the thing launched. You can blame SOE for a lot of evils, and I'd be right there with you. But Vanguard isn't one of them.

Agreed. While I think it was a huge misstake by SOE to just release the game instead of fixing it up first the whole thing was SIGILs fault.

SIGIL had the right vision but not the technical competence to make a MMO and Brad should have known that. A single experienced lead programmer in SIGIL would have saved the game and made it bigger than EQ2.

I disagree. SoE forced Vanguard to launch about 8 months earlier than originally agreed upon, right behind the launch of the first WoW expansion. They then proceeded to lay off most of the development staff, and have since made absolutely no effort to promote the game, as it would just take subs away from EQ1 and 2, and they know it. So yes, Vanguard is SoE's fault.

As for other innovative games... Eve and Darkfall are both expanding, dev teams and subscribers alike are growing larger and larger. The same can't be said for LotRO, AoC, Aion, or WAR.