I think what we need is a definition of the genre.
It's about time to clearly know what defines a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. Clearly most of the recent titles I've played with that tag on the box are not Massive or Role Playing. They were just Multiplayer Online revolving around a Single Player experience. Is this an MMORPG?
What's an MMORPG? do we need sub-genres? Is the genre expanding too much it's hitting different demographics? I know for sure my taste is not like many who enjoys WoW. WoW openned this genre to the main stream back when it was a niche market. There's still a lot of people who feel left out because they've been disappointed about this "hijack" and misdirection of what's now so called MMORPGs.
If we can define the name of the genre then we can tell if the games being developed are what we hope they will be. I believe an MMORPG needs to offer tools for the players that makes sense. I shun linear, pre-defined, artificial experience. There are three major elements that must be included in what I (ME) consider an MMORPG. An MMORPG needs Sandbox Elements, Theme Park Elements and Social Elements. If an MMORPG is hardcore Sandbox it will be too boring for many people. If it was a themepark on rails it will be too restricting to many people. If it was a single player experience then why the heck you call it Massive?? So, adding these 3 elements; Sandbox, Themepark and Social all together will create the magic everyone wants. EverQuest was the closest to achieve such a thing and that's why it's praised.
Sandbox: Tools and Freedom; set the players free let them live the world by using these tools.
Themepark: Give them a goal to do. Like dungeons with lore and bosses, Epic Quests, Factions.. a lot of static content.
Social: You must realize you need to create a community; this part was left out. You need people to react with each other using the tools you provided. Examples are; Druid/Wizard teleport in EverQuest they were tools that the community used to create some form of communication. Buffs that last long (WTB SoW please!). Remove Auction Houses because it prevented player communication. Make shops and encourage player-to-player trade. And so forth.
Could be. Still, that's not a counter arguement. Why dont you tell me the definition of mmo used by the report? That would be a counter arguement.
? Where's your counter argument? The only thing I've seen so far from 'the MMO genre is dying' advocates is gut feeling and smart ass remarks, little research or facts and figures.
As for the survey: the way how they split the figures into P2P, F2P, browser and client driven, seems to me that they look at all kinds of games that could be considered MMO's, not only sandbox/oldschool/themepark ones. For those however who're only interested in the client based P2P MMO's, those figures are shown as well.
You called me out dude. I figured you would provide a counter point of some kind. So nevermind i guess.
This was fun a few posts back, now it's just boring. I pointed you towards solid facts and figures someone else provided, I even provided a better argument by pointing how their figures make a clear distinction between P2P, F2P, browser and client MMO's. If however all you're interested in is throwing out oneliners because you have nothing better, then feel free to keep yourself blinded and stuck in a doomsday's prophecy all by your own.
Cya around
It's boring because Im asking you what games are considered MMO's and you tell me there is F2P, P2P, browser and client MMOs.
Are facebook games MMO's?
Is Black Ops an MMO?
Is online poker an MMO?
Does your survey answer these kind of questions? If not then how does posting it point me anywhere or offer a better argument? You have offered no argument either.
It is CLEAR that the survey was done by a market firm called newzoo.com. Why don't you go to their website and read up on their methodology.
Just to give you a hint, they separate out Gaming on Social Network and MMOs. So the answer to your FIRST question is "no". You can even purchase a detailed report and see all the data.
Thank you very much.
Edit: It appears they survey 10ooo or so people and use math to determine the results based on answers from the survey.
2009 mmo revenue was 2.12 bil. 2010 mmo revenue was 2.275 bil and has 500k more people playing than 2009.
Growth appeared to come from mmo's geared towards children. Browser based mmo's seem to be healthy, and attracted the most new investment. Not much change otherwise.
So i'll rephrase my comment from earlier. If we call big wheels cars, we can say the automobile industry is growing. Better?
Great news for us huh?.
If people are willing to pay for "big wheels" and they are having fun driving it .... there is no problem calling them cars. All industry changes. The "PC" industry is quite different from 25 years ago (when there is no laptops to speak of). Why would you expect the MMO industry to stay stagnant and don't change?
The revenue has grown by 5% ... going back to the original post .. the industry is doing fine. All the doom & gloom is just a case of "they don't produce what i like .. they must be dying".
Could be. Still, that's not a counter arguement. Why dont you tell me the definition of mmo used by the report? That would be a counter arguement.
? Where's your counter argument? The only thing I've seen so far from 'the MMO genre is dying' advocates is gut feeling and smart ass remarks, little research or facts and figures.
As for the survey: the way how they split the figures into P2P, F2P, browser and client driven, seems to me that they look at all kinds of games that could be considered MMO's, not only sandbox/oldschool/themepark ones. For those however who're only interested in the client based P2P MMO's, those figures are shown as well.
You called me out dude. I figured you would provide a counter point of some kind. So nevermind i guess.
This was fun a few posts back, now it's just boring. I pointed you towards solid facts and figures someone else provided, I even provided a better argument by pointing how their figures make a clear distinction between P2P, F2P, browser and client MMO's. If however all you're interested in is throwing out oneliners because you have nothing better, then feel free to keep yourself blinded and stuck in a doomsday's prophecy all by your own.
Cya around
It's boring because Im asking you what games are considered MMO's and you tell me there is F2P, P2P, browser and client MMOs.
Are facebook games MMO's?
Is Black Ops an MMO?
Is online poker an MMO?
Does your survey answer these kind of questions? If not then how does posting it point me anywhere or offer a better argument? You have offered no argument either.
It is CLEAR that the survey was done by a market firm called newzoo.com. Why don't you go to their website and read up on their methodology.
Just to give you a hint, they separate out Gaming on Social Network and MMOs. So the answer to your FIRST question is "no". You can even purchase a detailed report and see all the data.
Thank you very much.
Edit: It appears they survey 10ooo or so people and use math to determine the results based on answers from the survey.
2009 mmo revenue was 2.12 bil. 2010 mmo revenue was 2.275 bil and has 500k more people playing than 2009.
Growth appeared to come from mmo's geared towards children. Browser based mmo's seem to be healthy, and attracted the most new investment. Not much change otherwise.
So i'll rephrase my comment from earlier. If we call big wheels cars, we can say the automobile industry is growing. Better?
Great news for us huh?.
If people are willing to pay for "big wheels" and they are having fun driving it .... there is no problem calling them cars. All industry changes. The "PC" industry is quite different from 25 years ago (when there is no laptops to speak of). Why would you expect the MMO industry to stay stagnant and don't change?
The revenue has grown by 5% ... going back to the original post .. the industry is doing fine. All the doom & gloom is just a case of "they don't produce what i like .. they must be dying".
I didnt say i disagree with any of that. I think it's a case of who cares about games like club penguin. If you do, then the future is bright for now. If you don't it's doom and gloom. The survey you posted seems to support that. Thanks.
See you in the dream.. The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
I didnt say i disagree with any of that. I think it's a case of who cares about games like club penguin. If you do, then the future is bright for now. If you don't it's doom and gloom. The survey you posted seems to support that. Thanks.
Can you show me in the report where it states that the financial situation of the traditional MMORPG's - just take a look at the MMO game list on this site - is deteriorating? Thank you.
If you can't, then the figures clearly show that the industry is doing quite alright.
Originally posted by yewsef
So, adding these 3 elements; Sandbox, Themepark and Social all together will create the magic everyone wants. EverQuest was the closest to achieve such a thing and that's why it's praised.
Sandbox: Tools and Freedom; set the players free let them live the world by using these tools.
EQ in no way had sandbox tools. The absence of some features that are seen as themepark, doesn't automatically make a a game have sandbox elements. Everything you could do in EQ, you can do in WoW, and other later MMO's.
UO had sandbox features, SWG had sandbox features, I give you that.
EQ with how its content was set up just gave you the illusion that it had more freedom to it, there's nothing more to it than that.
Originally posted by nariusseldon
The revenue has grown by 5% ... going back to the original post .. the industry is doing fine. All the doom & gloom is just a case of "they don't produce what i like .. they must be dying".
This.
Originally posted by Meugamer
All games since 2004 died slowly in players and subscriptions. It shows that the mmo scene is NOT offering long term playing value. That's a bad bad sign. Perhaps it is because Blizzard came to the scene, but every mmorpg that was launched since 2004 could not attain pre-2004 numbers 6 months after launch.
MMO's in the old days were doing well because there was hardly any choice with only a few MMO's that were around, and it was an emerging market, with steadily increasing numbers of players.
As for sub numbers, only EQ was hitting high with 400-500k at its peak. All other pre-2004 MMO's had signicantly less sub numbers and have been easily equaled or surpassed in sub numbers by post-2004 MMO's, even after 6 months to a year after their launch.
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."
So, considering all the disgruntled adn exhausted MMO gamers, the dozens of failing AAA MMOs, the companies that have gotten shut down, yeah I'd say the genre is in a horrible place.
Where do you geat your information from? As I've stated before just because you didn't like an MMO or you thought that it failed doesn't mean that it did. There's so much gossip going around this site about how MMO's have completely failed, but that's all it is, gossip. The fact is that MMO's are thriving and raking in more profit and popularity than ever before. You can't argue with numbers. Whether you like these new post WoW MMO's or not, the truth is that there doing great.
He meant 'the genre is in a horrible place for him', it's just opinion, nothing more weight to it than that.
Not really, I don't think anyone could make a solid argument that the genre is doing well, considering all the clones and rehashes we've gotten, and all the unsuccesful companies. The one argument (which has already been debunked) people keep falling back on is "But there's so many more people playing!" And well, if that were true, then why do many modern MMOs have equal or less subs than old MMOs? The stagnation is hurting everyone.
...other than people who base their argument on facts and data.
Which I have done, yet people seem to ignore for whatever reason. So basically, the argument you come to again is, "There's tons of people playing MMOs!" Well, aint that fantastic. Except, right now, there's only about 2 largely successful and growing MMOs on the entire market, and both are 6-8 years old. Why have new MMOs done so badly, and how come the only MMOs that ever have new ideas are the ones made by indie studios who don't have the funds to support their own ambition? The only people that may be happy right now with the MMO industry are those that like WoW, still enjoy playing WoW, and don't plan to leave WoW, because that's more or less all that's out there unless you want to slum with the indie MMOs.
The problem with your argument is that you have arbitrarily defined some personal subset of the MMO market inside of which there are only two large and growing MMOs. You also claim that new MMOs are doing badly which is also false unles you create an arbitrary subset to make it true. Actually, there isn't a single sentence you have written in the above post that can be supported with any kind of real data.
Except, right now, there's only about 2 largely successful and growing MMOs on the entire market, and both are 6-8 years old.
And what about DOFUS? League of Legends? Wizard 101? Puzzle PIrates? Combat Arms? AVA?None of those are Maple Story? None of those are MMORPGs LOTRO? DDO? Games that were doing so badly they had to go FTP to turn a profit...right. Besides, DDO isn't really an MMO, and LotRO hardly is.
how come the only MMOs that ever have new ideas are the ones made by indie studios who don't have the funds to support their own ambition?
Just because you don't like the innovations of mainstream MMOs doesn't mean they don't exist. What innovations? Also, just because a guy or group of guys list pie-in-the-sky ideas on their 'features' page doesn't mean there is anything to indicate they can make a solid game from it. Are you saying that Darkfall, Xsyon, Perpetuum and Mortal Online would have been more successful if someone threw more money at them? Yup. Darkfall is already one of the only growing successful MMOs to launch in recent memory, and with more money it could get where its going even faster. Would more money have changed the core gameplay of these games? Darkfall's skill system wouldn't have people currently running at rocks and swimming at cliffs if they had more money? People don't run at rocks or swim unless they're morons. This isn't a game design flaw that can be fixed really. People do that with any skill based leveling. Some people tape their controlers down and level running in Oblivion. Guess Oblivion is a terrible game. Xsyon would have had a more thoughtout resource system and endgame?
The only people that may be happy right now with the MMO industry are those that like WoW, still enjoy playing WoW, and don't plan to leave WoW, because that's more or less all that's out there unless you want to slum with the indie MMOs.
Again, if you want to ignore over 300+ titles and narrow 'the MMO industry' into a group of 2-3 dozen games then you are correct. Otherwise, your claim is simply baseless and, despite what you may believe in your heart, no amount of repeating it will suddenly make it true.
I use the classic definition of real MMORPGs. Big virtual world titles like EverQuest are MMORPGs. Things like Free Realms and League of Legends are not, stop trying to lump them in.
Sorry to break it to you, but you cant pick and choose what is and isnt an MMORPG just because you dont like it, or it doesnt fit your narrow opinion of what an MMORPG is. Just about all of those game smentioned are in fact MMORPGs, theyre just not the TYPE of MMORPG that you like.
Different game shave different features and designs. That doesnt mean theyre not part of a genre. Its especially sa dthat you try to argue them not being MMORPGs because of not having huge open worlds... newsflash kid, most original RPGs (videogame, not P&P), the fathers of the entire MMORPG genre, were not huge open worlds either. They were nothing more world maps with towns and dungeons that you walked your avatar to, then entered the town or dungeon (aka instance) to play the real meat of the game. Even the fights themselves were little instances where your screen would usually flash and make noise, then suddenly youre in a little instanced battle with your party vs X number of enemies at a time.
Hell even the original P&P RPGs were technically just an instance. There was no huge open world in most cases, just your little dungeon crawl with your buddies. Just look at the granddaddy of all P&P RPGs, its right in the damn name... DUNGEONS & Dragons. Why on earth would a game made up of dungeons just like the original P&P, which is a) Online and b) playable by thousands at a time somehow not be considered an MMORPG?
Just because a few games, which you happened to like, follow a certain design, doesnt mean anything that doesnt follow that exact same path down to every little detail is not a part of the same genre.
Everquest is Everquest.
Ultima is Ultima.
Everquest is NOT all MMORPGs.
Ultima is NOT all MMORPGs.
You understand the difference yet between individual games vs an entire genre?
Thank you, kaiser.
"And what about DOFUS? League of Legends? Wizard 101? Puzzle PIrates? Combat Arms? AVA?None of those are Maple Story?"
None of those are MMORPGs
"LOTRO? DDO?"
Games that were doing so badly they had to go FTP to turn a profit...right. Besides, DDO isn't really an MMO, and LotRO hardly is.
Garvon, no one said they were MMORPGs. From the title of the thread and through our discussion we were talking about MMOs. Trying to refine your argument down to a subset in order to prove your contention that "none of those are MMORPGs" is correct - which is still false even under that condition - is pretty much an indication that you concede that they are, in fact, MMOs.
The LOTRO/DDO comment would require some numbers to back it up since you are attempting to state this as fact. Do you have alink to anything indicating that LOTRO was doing poorly prior to the change to F2P? Or anything to explain how you've come to the comclusion that LOTRO is "hardly an MMO"?
The MMO industry is doing very well. There are more people playing MMOs and more people spending money on MMOs than ever before.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It all depends on how you define "fine"...is fine profits, number of subs, "quality" of game (this is subjective), numbers of companies making games, willingness of investors to keep pumping money into games? What is your time period for comparison...pre-WoW vs Post - WoW or by year comparisons? You can manipulate anything to show anything you want. Over all I would say the industry is still on the plus side because people are still willing to put money on games in subs, pre-orders, and hope in new games. I would give the genre a negative if people stop posting on sites like these about games and pre-orders do not sell.
You can say what you like about the quality of games, but *shrug* that is subjective concept. My dad still thinks there has not been a good car made since the 1970's and the car industry is in the shitter...but people keep buying new cars and keep wanting the next thing coming out. Thus I would say the industry is doing fine...not great, but fine.
Comments
I think what we need is a definition of the genre.
It's about time to clearly know what defines a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. Clearly most of the recent titles I've played with that tag on the box are not Massive or Role Playing. They were just Multiplayer Online revolving around a Single Player experience. Is this an MMORPG?
What's an MMORPG? do we need sub-genres? Is the genre expanding too much it's hitting different demographics? I know for sure my taste is not like many who enjoys WoW. WoW openned this genre to the main stream back when it was a niche market. There's still a lot of people who feel left out because they've been disappointed about this "hijack" and misdirection of what's now so called MMORPGs.
If we can define the name of the genre then we can tell if the games being developed are what we hope they will be. I believe an MMORPG needs to offer tools for the players that makes sense. I shun linear, pre-defined, artificial experience. There are three major elements that must be included in what I (ME) consider an MMORPG. An MMORPG needs Sandbox Elements, Theme Park Elements and Social Elements. If an MMORPG is hardcore Sandbox it will be too boring for many people. If it was a themepark on rails it will be too restricting to many people. If it was a single player experience then why the heck you call it Massive?? So, adding these 3 elements; Sandbox, Themepark and Social all together will create the magic everyone wants. EverQuest was the closest to achieve such a thing and that's why it's praised.
Sandbox: Tools and Freedom; set the players free let them live the world by using these tools.
Themepark: Give them a goal to do. Like dungeons with lore and bosses, Epic Quests, Factions.. a lot of static content.
Social: You must realize you need to create a community; this part was left out. You need people to react with each other using the tools you provided. Examples are; Druid/Wizard teleport in EverQuest they were tools that the community used to create some form of communication. Buffs that last long (WTB SoW please!). Remove Auction Houses because it prevented player communication. Make shops and encourage player-to-player trade. And so forth.
If people are willing to pay for "big wheels" and they are having fun driving it .... there is no problem calling them cars. All industry changes. The "PC" industry is quite different from 25 years ago (when there is no laptops to speak of). Why would you expect the MMO industry to stay stagnant and don't change?
The revenue has grown by 5% ... going back to the original post .. the industry is doing fine. All the doom & gloom is just a case of "they don't produce what i like .. they must be dying".
I didnt say i disagree with any of that. I think it's a case of who cares about games like club penguin. If you do, then the future is bright for now. If you don't it's doom and gloom. The survey you posted seems to support that. Thanks.
See you in the dream..
The Fires from heaven, now as cold as ice. A rapid ascension tolls a heavy price.
Can you show me in the report where it states that the financial situation of the traditional MMORPG's - just take a look at the MMO game list on this site - is deteriorating? Thank you.
If you can't, then the figures clearly show that the industry is doing quite alright.
EQ in no way had sandbox tools. The absence of some features that are seen as themepark, doesn't automatically make a a game have sandbox elements. Everything you could do in EQ, you can do in WoW, and other later MMO's.
UO had sandbox features, SWG had sandbox features, I give you that.
EQ with how its content was set up just gave you the illusion that it had more freedom to it, there's nothing more to it than that.
This.
MMO's in the old days were doing well because there was hardly any choice with only a few MMO's that were around, and it was an emerging market, with steadily increasing numbers of players.
As for sub numbers, only EQ was hitting high with 400-500k at its peak. All other pre-2004 MMO's had signicantly less sub numbers and have been easily equaled or surpassed in sub numbers by post-2004 MMO's, even after 6 months to a year after their launch.
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."
Thank you, kaiser.
"And what about DOFUS? League of Legends? Wizard 101? Puzzle PIrates? Combat Arms? AVA?None of those are Maple Story?"
None of those are MMORPGs
"LOTRO? DDO?"
Games that were doing so badly they had to go FTP to turn a profit...right. Besides, DDO isn't really an MMO, and LotRO hardly is.
Garvon, no one said they were MMORPGs. From the title of the thread and through our discussion we were talking about MMOs. Trying to refine your argument down to a subset in order to prove your contention that "none of those are MMORPGs" is correct - which is still false even under that condition - is pretty much an indication that you concede that they are, in fact, MMOs.
The LOTRO/DDO comment would require some numbers to back it up since you are attempting to state this as fact. Do you have alink to anything indicating that LOTRO was doing poorly prior to the change to F2P? Or anything to explain how you've come to the comclusion that LOTRO is "hardly an MMO"?
The MMO industry is doing very well. There are more people playing MMOs and more people spending money on MMOs than ever before.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
It all depends on how you define "fine"...is fine profits, number of subs, "quality" of game (this is subjective), numbers of companies making games, willingness of investors to keep pumping money into games? What is your time period for comparison...pre-WoW vs Post - WoW or by year comparisons? You can manipulate anything to show anything you want. Over all I would say the industry is still on the plus side because people are still willing to put money on games in subs, pre-orders, and hope in new games. I would give the genre a negative if people stop posting on sites like these about games and pre-orders do not sell.
You can say what you like about the quality of games, but *shrug* that is subjective concept. My dad still thinks there has not been a good car made since the 1970's and the car industry is in the shitter...but people keep buying new cars and keep wanting the next thing coming out. Thus I would say the industry is doing fine...not great, but fine.