MMOs don't "fail" very often. People on forums quit playing them and they think everyone else does too.
What sould you say the biggest successes in MMOs are other than WoW? UO? Maybe SWG? Maybe EQ? The classics right?
Well news flash. None of those had the numbers that Rift has. None of them had 1/3 the numbers that Aion has. They are not failures by any stretch of the word.
Keep in mind that you are not a new gamer. You've seen it all before - well guess what - new gamers haven't seen it yet and they love it. 500k subs is not a failure.
SWG had 300k subs in it's hayday. UO never even made it that high. It only takes a couple hundred thousand subs to make an awesome game experience with packed servers and active guilds; and if you're new to MMOs there are more choices out there than ever before. AAA themepark deviations (Rift, Aion), quality Indy sandboxes (EVE, Darkfall, Planet Calypso), innovative F2P titles (Vindictus, Atlantica)... there are some good games out there.
All the last MMO that failed did so for 2 reasons.
They're P2P.
They're WoW clones.
pretty much agree, need to add leak of original content, and small size of new games,
as well as lot of grind and need of high graphic resolution.
Khm .... after years have decided that only NON F2P games are worth serious investment in game time, development of chars, .... etc. P2P is the way to go. Problem are games that should not exist not even as f2p immagine then as p2p.
Wow clones? Is problem being "clone" of the best of the best? Is problem is company makes car that has all good attributes of R&R just looks different? Sure not.
Wow hater? Get shrink, game is not problem.
Well, if you're going to make a clone, you should make sure it's actually BETTER than the item you're cloning, otherwise people would just go back to the superior original. Which is exactly what has happened.
Not at all. I love pizza "quatrostaggioni". But still can not eat it for 20 years every single day and still enjoy. So will try alternatives. Even if NOT better. Will enjoy. But if original was better will eventually go back and start eating again my original pizza.
problem is if somebody want to sell me WORSE pizza for SAME money.
I guess a better comparison is, with WOW, it's like having 20 different toppings to choose from. The new MMO on the block only has 5 toppings, but they say those 5 toppings are better than the 20 toppings from the WoW pizza. You try it out, and while the new pizza is good, only 1 or 2 of the toppings are better than the toppings from the WoW pizza, and the rest are about the same or not as great. After a while you get tired of only having 5 toppings, and you decide to go back to having 20 toppings instead.
WoW's dominance will fade eventually, but 7 years of absolute, total genre domination is hilarious. It just shows the competition is incompetent and never has been able to figure it out.
SOE dominated the mmo market for FIVE years with Everquest with their 500k subs before WOW came along
just because you are top dog does not mean you are best at mmos
SOE did have competiton preWOW
- even Microsoft cancelled their Mythica MMO because they didnt want to compete w Everquest
Boston Globe article from Feb 2004 (before wow existed)
Spurred by the success of EverQuest, lots of companies began launching persistent online role-playing games, without thinking through the demands of the market. "Too many products got created, to be used by too few customers," said Jeffrey Anderson, CEO of Westwood-based Turbine Entertainment Software, developer of another successful online game, Asheron's Call. "It's like we all decided we all wanted to create our own version of MTV."
Please reread the first portion of my first sentence. We're not arguing in actuality.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
New MMOs fail because they're trying to armwrestle the 600 lb gorilla.
They're trying to beat WoW by playing to its rules... trying to be like it. But the plain fact of the matter is WoW's better at it, has had ages to be fleshed out, and has been doing it for 7 years now.
The boys at Blizzard must have had years worth of laughter from watching the competition try to topple them at their own game and failing miserably.
WoW's dominance will fade eventually, but 7 years of absolute, total genre domination is hilarious. It just shows the competition is incompetent and never has been able to figure it out.
This.
Agree as well. Developers need to actually segment the market. Instead of trying to appeal to everyone who plays WoW by making a WoW clone, they should find out what a certain segment of MMORPG players really want and make a game that caters to them specifically.
If there is a significant percentage of WoW players that really prefer MMORPG-esque PvP, but they are playing WoW just because there's nothing better...then why not make a game that really caters to them? If you can satisfy their specific interest better than WoW can, then they're move likely to leave WoW permanently.
I think that Mythic tried to do this with WAR, but they kind of fell flat on their face by messing up RvR terribly.
Here's the problem: If you're going to pump money into a soon-to-be-developed MMORPG, what kind of gaming elements would you want in it?
Do you want to do something that appeals to the masses or something more niche?
You of course want good money back from your investment. Which is why WoW's game features are so hard to resist. Which is why you never really see anyone (esp. with a big name) dare to be different.
It was about '04, maybe mid '05 at the latest, when it became blatantly clear how absolutely dominating WoW had become, that some players grew big concerns about it. The big fear was that WoW's clear domination would force the whole genre into a certain, very specific direction, killing off variety in the genre. Everything developed afterwards copied after WoW's elements. Even SOE completely changed an already existing title to crudely mimic WoW, believing those features would let them get a good chunk of WoW's pie (WoW Gameplay + Star Wars, was their frame of mind)
And seeing how things have developed since then, it became true.
And I don't see this changing anytime soon. Especially if TOR becomes successful, because BioWare is scared to step away from Blizzard / WoW's shadow. It will just further reinforce the problem of a lack of diversity in the genre.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
And I don't see this changing anytime soon. Especially if TOR becomes successful, because BioWare is scared to step away from Blizzard / WoW's shadow. It will just further reinforce the problem of a lack of diversity in the genre.
on the PC side, I largely agree with you -- unless GW2 shakes things up (which I doubt)
I hyped for GW2 as many others but I dont believe its going the change the direction of future mmos
consoles dont have any influential mmos
EQOA, Freerealms, DCUO, FinalFantasy XI all exist but I woudnt call them challenging competition on consoles
with any luck, Jeff Strains sandbox apocalypse mmo can help shake things up
Sandbox? Oh please. I played SWG from shortly after launch until a little while after the CU. SWG was full of bugs and exploits, but more importantly it was full of people who were interested in winning or achieving goals (like unlocking the force sensitive slot) instead of contributing to the game experience.
The people will ruin a sandbox every time if you let them in and give them a chance. I can't stress this enough.. people suck.
...
As has been said, SWG had a player base that was willing to continue playing. SOE had continued to update with content and fixes. True, that the pursuit of Jedi really changed the culture of the game negatively. But you must have been owned in PVP to state how the community ruined your experiance. The BH system must have butt-hurt your Jedi? There are all types of folks and obviously you were not willing to make friends or invest further in that community.
The NGE was bad for SWG as it tryed to make the game more friendly in your desired direction. So you went and played WoW. Thats fine for you; hows that community?
SWG survived 5 years after you left. Folks came and went and some stayed. SWG didn't live in stasis with the NGE and had many fun additions. YES the profession system was gone but there was more attention to GCW, Space and other features (though much like WoW) that were fun. Did it bring the pop back? Nope. but we dedicated core played it for what it had.
Why is SWG closing? TOR. What is that common saying around here ... Wow Clone?
Blizzard is currently enjoying MASSIVE success from World of Warcraft because it broke down the conventional MMORPG barriers to entry in the genere, thereby allowing all walks and types of gamers to play in the MMORPG space.
Where formerly games like Ultima Online & EverQuest presented a very specific objective with a steep learning curve, that only people fans of the "Virtual World" type of gaming would stick out.....games like World of Warcaft make MMO gaming and easier or more palatable experience for First Person Shooters, Console Gamers, Social Media Gamers, and other casual gaming types.
And why not? Casual gamers make up the largest piece of the Gamer Pie....move in and exploit.
Don't get me wrong....Blizzard couldn't have pulled this off by just making WOW easy to play. Their production value is top notch, and they have a world class organization firing on all cylinders right now. Again, they couldn't have achieved the success they have now without having a Gold Standard product.....but they drasticly increased their subscription base (like no other game before them) BECAUSE they were able to dumb down the game enough to appeal to the casual gamer market.
So whats the fallout of this "Big Tent" approach to MMO gaming? What are the consequences of creating a game for folks that don't neccessarily like to group, explore, or spend more than 20 minutes doing any one particular thing?
You end up with a burnt out development cycle, with the majority of the endgame content creation falling on the backs of the developers. This means they have to churn out new content every 4-6 months unless they start bleeding subscribers. This extremely short cycle development schedule means the players are going to get burnt on your Quest / Raid - Rince - Repeat model rather quickly. The downfall of Themepark gaming...but I digress.
You also end up with a very fragmented and fickle community. Since Blizzard has tried so hard to market their game to the casual playerbase (that doesn't typically enjoy social gaming), you have a large majority of the game population that has little interest on themes that we associate with traditional MMORPG gaming (exploring, grouping, player generated content). No wonder the general chat rooms are filled with the crap you see on any given day. Is it any supprise the community is a bunch of degenrates when over half the community doesn't give a crap about community???
Smaller Niche games with a higher learning curve (traditionaly sandbox games) generally means the only people that are going to stick around are probably like minded in what sort of game they like as you. As a result, your more likely to have a better community experience when you get to play with other like minded people.
With that said, if a game releases full of bugs and half promised content, then you have a fail game....regardless of the model. Ultima Online was one of the best sandbox MMOs out, and its still limping along with 2D graphics and 13 years later.
People are tired of the MMO on rails....the console gamers that want story are heading in the direction of StarWars:TOR and the traditional MMO gamers are looking forward to something more similar to Arche Age. The MMO market will get back to it's niche roots once the big publishers realize it's just costing too much money to put up big block buster titles in a highly competitive & fickle market.
New MMOs fail because they're trying to armwrestle the 600 lb gorilla.
They're trying to beat WoW by playing to its rules... trying to be like it. But the plain fact of the matter is WoW's better at it, has had ages to be fleshed out, and has been doing it for 7 years now.
The boys at Blizzard must have had years worth of laughter from watching the competition try to topple them at their own game and failing miserably.
WoW's dominance will fade eventually, but 7 years of absolute, total genre domination is hilarious. It just shows the competition is incompetent and never has been able to figure it out.
This.
Agree as well. Developers need to actually segment the market. Instead of trying to appeal to everyone who plays WoW by making a WoW clone, they should find out what a certain segment of MMORPG players really want and make a game that caters to them specifically.
If there is a significant percentage of WoW players that really prefer MMORPG-esque PvP, but they are playing WoW just because there's nothing better...then why not make a game that really caters to them? If you can satisfy their specific interest better than WoW can, then they're move likely to leave WoW permanently.
I think that Mythic tried to do this with WAR, but they kind of fell flat on their face by messing up RvR terribly.
Here's the problem: If you're going to pump money into a soon-to-be-developed MMORPG, what kind of gaming elements would you want in it?
Do you want to do something that appeals to the masses or something more niche?
You of course want good money back from your investment. Which is why WoW's game features are so hard to resist. Which is why you never really see anyone (esp. with a big name) dare to be different.
And I don't see this changing anytime soon. Especially if TOR becomes successful, because BioWare is scared to step away from Blizzard / WoW's shadow. It will just further reinforce the problem of a lack of diversity in the genre.
I see the direction of the genere sitting on the shoulders of SW:TOR. They spent what...like 300-400 million on this game? For comparison purposes, Avatar cost 500 million to make.
If SW:TOR doesn't grab a substantial piece of the market from WOW....I don't really see another big publisher coming over the top of 400 million to make it work. I think if SW:TOR fails after spending that kind of money.....the developers will start looking for ways to cut costs and appeal to smaller niche markets.
For what its worth, Blizz's new MMO is expected to be another casual themepark MMO on rails and cost between 100-200 million. So we'll see.
People are tired of the MMO on rails....the console gamers that want story are heading in the direction of StarWars:TOR and the traditional MMO gamers are looking forward to something more similar to Arche Age. The MMO market will get back to it's niche roots once the big publishers realize it's just costing too much money to put up big block buster titles in a highly competitive & fickle market.
Meh, it's this kind of attitude I've become familiar with and grown to despise since visiting these forums. I mean, classifying everyone who likes themepark styled MMO's like SWTOR as 'console gamers' and only MMO gamers who look forward to AA as 'traditional MMO gamers', the sheer fucking blind arrogance and intolerance that speaks of that kind of mindset that a number of burnt out MMO vets or themepark haters have on this site
I have played MMO's since UO and EQ, yet I still look forward to SWTOR. Just like I look forward to GW2 and TSW or other MMO's. That's because I'm in the first place an MMO gamer, someone who loves all kinds of MMO's, not only a specific subset of MMO's.
As for the OP: I agree on the part where some MMO gamers will never reach that satisfaction again that they achieved those early years when they started playing MMO's, they've just played MMO's for so many thousands of hours that they've burnt themselves out on certain aspects of it. However, the MMO genre is constantly in motion just like other gaming genres, and the same applies to the MMO playerbase, old MMO gamers leaving, new MMO gamers arriving etc.
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."
MMOs don't "fail" very often. People on forums quit playing them and they think everyone else does too.
What sould you say the biggest successes in MMOs are other than WoW? UO? Maybe SWG? Maybe EQ? The classics right?
Well news flash. None of those had the numbers that Rift has. None of them had 1/3 the numbers that Aion has. They are not failures by any stretch of the word.
Keep in mind that you are not a new gamer. You've seen it all before - well guess what - new gamers haven't seen it yet and they love it. 500k subs is not a failure.
SWG had 300k subs in it's hayday. UO never even made it that high. It only takes a couple hundred thousand subs to make an awesome game experience with packed servers and active guilds; and if you're new to MMOs there are more choices out there than ever before. AAA themepark deviations (Rift, Aion), quality Indy sandboxes (EVE, Darkfall, Planet Calypso), innovative F2P titles (Vindictus, Atlantica)... there are some good games out there.
The doomsday threads have got to stop.
This is a man who should be listened to.
His analysis ignores the cost involved in creating these games, competition for marketshare with other companies, and the changes made in the games that opend the doors to the kind of sub numbers we are seeing today.
While 500,000 subscribers might be a comfortable number for you...as a player.....I can assure you 500,000 subs will NOT be enough to keep SW:TOR afloat.
Ultima Online made the guiness book of world records in 2000 by racking up 200,000 subscribers. Today WOW advertises 11.5-12 million subs.
11 million people just didn't decide they liked MMORPGs from 2000 to 2008. WOW made changes in their game to appeal toa more casual gaming market base.
What determines success is more than just subscriber numbers....you have to look at their Return on Investment (how many subs you have vs. your costs) and what your future looks like when comparing marketshare with other competitors.
I can assure you....even if SW:TOR pulls in a million subscribers, there will be disapointment if they are not able to wrestle a substantial piece of the market share pie from WOW given the money they spent to get that market position.
While 500,000 subscribers might be a comfortable number for you...as a player.....I can assure you 500,000 subs will NOT be enough to keep SW:TOR afloat.
They already stated that 500k subs would make SWTOR financially profitable, although it wouldn't be something they would be proud of, it would still make a profit.
Of course they're aiming for more than 500k, but that doesn't mean that 500k subs won't keep them good.
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."
People are tired of the MMO on rails....the console gamers that want story are heading in the direction of StarWars:TOR and the traditional MMO gamers are looking forward to something more similar to Arche Age. The MMO market will get back to it's niche roots once the big publishers realize it's just costing too much money to put up big block buster titles in a highly competitive & fickle market.
Meh, it's this kind of attitude I've become familiar with and grown to despise since visiting these forums. I mean, classifying everyone who likes themepark styled MMO's like SWTOR as 'console gamers' and only MMO gamers who look forward to AA as 'traditional MMO gamers', the sheer fucking blind arrogance and intolerance that speaks of that kind of mindset that a number of burnt out MMO vets or themepark haters have on this site
I have played MMO's since UO and EQ, yet I still look forward to SWTOR. Just like I look forward to GW2 and TSW or other MMO's. That's because I'm in the first place an MMO gamer, someone who loves all kinds of MMO's, not only a specific subset of MMO's.
As for the OP: I agree on the part where some MMO gamers will never reach that satisfaction again that they achieved those early years when they started playing MMO's, they've just played MMO's for so many thousands of hours that they've burnt themselves out on certain aspects of it. However, the MMO genre is constantly in motion just like other gaming genres, and the same applies to the MMO playerbase, old MMO gamers leaving, new MMO gamers arriving etc.
Take it easy pal.....when discussion these high level ideas, its easier to talk about trends and things if we don't have to make sure that 2% of the population we are refering to doesn't fit in the box. Yes there are outliers....but you can't have a conversation about where the market is heading if you have to account for every single person in a market of 30 million gamers.
It's your kind of attitude that keeps people from addressing and discussion trends in large pouplations because a minority out outliers gets their panties in a bunch.
The main reason why MMO's are failures for so many people is simple... Designers have lost sight of the 'MM' in MMORPG. Every year they design more and more features that make player interaction less necessary to succeed. It started with auction houses and fast travel and has been a very slippery slope ever since. Pretty soon if things keep going the way they seem everyone will be playing in their own little instanced worlds and won't even see other players at all. With Dungeon Finders, whole areas that are instanced and no need to actually talk to crafters to find the gear you need player interaction has become almost non existant in modern MMOs. I can't count how many newer MMOs I've tried where players didn't even use the 'say' channel at all. It's sad really but MMOs have become single-player games with other people running around... Period.
MMOs don't "fail" very often. People on forums quit playing them and they think everyone else does too.
What sould you say the biggest successes in MMOs are other than WoW? UO? Maybe SWG? Maybe EQ? The classics right?
Well news flash. None of those had the numbers that Rift has. None of them had 1/3 the numbers that Aion has. They are not failures by any stretch of the word.
Keep in mind that you are not a new gamer. You've seen it all before - well guess what - new gamers haven't seen it yet and they love it. 500k subs is not a failure.
SWG had 300k subs in it's hayday. UO never even made it that high. It only takes a couple hundred thousand subs to make an awesome game experience with packed servers and active guilds; and if you're new to MMOs there are more choices out there than ever before. AAA themepark deviations (Rift, Aion), quality Indy sandboxes (EVE, Darkfall, Planet Calypso), innovative F2P titles (Vindictus, Atlantica)... there are some good games out there.
The doomsday threads have got to stop.
This is a man who should be listened to.
His analysis ignores the cost involved in creating these games, competition for marketshare with other companies, and the changes made in the games that opend the doors to the kind of sub numbers we are seeing today.
While 500,000 subscribers might be a comfortable number for you...as a player.....I can assure you 500,000 subs will NOT be enough to keep SW:TOR afloat.
Ultima Online made the guiness book of world records in 2000 by racking up 200,000 subscribers. Today WOW advertises 11.5-12 million subs.
11 million people just didn't decide they liked MMORPGs from 2000 to 2008. WOW made changes in their game to appeal toa more casual gaming market base.
What determines success is more than just subscriber numbers....you have to look at their Return on Investment (how many subs you have vs. your costs) and what your future looks like when comparing marketshare with other competitors.
I can assure you....even if SW:TOR pulls in a million subscribers, there will be disapointment if they are not able to wrestle a substantial piece of the market share pie from WOW given the money they spent to get that market position.
You are leaving box sales out of the equation. Let's say that SWTOR did in fact cost the 400 million to make that some people have been throwing around (I seriously doubt it). That means that SWTOR could sell ~7 mil boxes at $60 (or any combination of the other editions) and make that initial cost back, any subscriptions they retain after the first month will then go first to paying the cost of maintaining servers and pay for their employees. If they only maintain 1 mil subscribers for let's say the first 6 months they will still have ~90 mil (1 mil * 15 * 6) to play with to meet their costs and report as profits.
Box sales are a huge revenue maker for MMO's but they are usually a huge influx of revune around launch and quickly drop off, this is actually why you see games for cheap 6-12 months after their release because the box sales
For anyone just arriving, here's a summary of the entire thread.
Point: "I don't like playing any MMO's right now. These MMO's are obviously fail games."
Point Addendum: "Those games didn't make nearly as much money as the advertising around those games said they would. These MMO's are obviously fail games."
Counterpoint: "They are making a profit and there are people playing the games because they enjoy playing them. They aren't being shutdown and they are leading to the development of even more MMO's. These MMO's are obviously not fail."
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Just recycle those statements over and over again.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Take it easy pal.....when discussion these high level ideas, its easier to talk about trends and things if we don't have to make sure that 2% of the population we are refering to doesn't fit in the box. Yes there are outliers....but you can't have a conversation about where the market is heading if you have to account for every single person in a market of 30 million gamers.
It's your kind of attitude that keeps people from addressing and discussion trends in large pouplations because a minority out outliers gets their panties in a bunch.
The assumption you're making is wrong at its core, not in the exceptions.
You assume that all old MMO gamers, say the pre-WoW kind, are fans of sandbox MMO's and haters of themepark MMO's.
That this is why 'traditional MMO gamers' are looking forward to AA, and that all others are 'console gamers' that like games like SWTOR.
That argument is flawed in its basics: a very large contingent of pre-WoW MMO gamers isn't just sandbox oriented but also or more likes themepark MMO's, I'd say the majority even, in fact you're insulting those people by stating that they're 'console gamers'.
It's actually your kind of attitude, when you keep stating that 'real MMO gamers' like sandbox type of MMO's and insulting MMO gamers who dare to like themepark oriented MMO's, that keeps polarizing debates. Like I said, that kind of arrogance and intolerance should be avoided, imo
If you want to have more constructive debates, then just acknowledge the simple fact that large groups of MMO gamers, also the first generation of MMO gamers, like the kind of MMO's that you might not like, but that doesn't make them any less genuine and pure MMO gamers.
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."
For anyone just arriving, here's a summary of the entire thread.
Point: "I don't like playing any MMO's right now. These MMO's are obviously fail games."
Point Addendum: "Those games didn't make nearly as much money as the advertising around those games said they would. These MMO's are obviously fail games."
Counterpoint: "They are making a profit and there are people playing the games because they enjoy playing them. They aren't being shutdown and they are leading to the development of even more MMO's. These MMO's are obviously not fail."
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Just recycle those statements over and over again.
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."
My question is what exactly is a failure to the op?
While I do think most mmorpg's have underperformed from the developers expectations I wouldn't call that a "fail".
Failing to me is being unable to stay open and I think far more than half the mmo's ever developed may still be active.
As we move on mmorpg's have in fact been moving more and more into the mainstream, for as little interest as I have in the game I think AOC was well on it's way to breaking sales records at release and STO seemed to sell pretty well for a game that so many already thought would be a turd (and for many turned out to be just that).
Some of your points are pretty legit just about any AAA console game outsells many times over most mmorp's for a reason, the vast majority of people are not into the style of gameplay that many mmorpg's push and for the few mmo's that have moved away from that style of gaming like DCUO and CO those same players are not going to pay full price for a game then a subscription fee when there are umpteen games they can just buy and have that same type of fun without the dev reaching back in the pocketbook.
While I am only eagerly anticipating one of the mmo's in the pipeline I have faith that this could possibly be the year where most mmo's released finally start to correctly serve the audiences they intend to cater to. TOR fans will be happy with the game BW releases GW2 fans will love ANets release with TSW Funcom may finally buck the trend of releasing games so broken they have no chance to shine and there are a few others I haven't followed at all but have heard positive things about.
Ive played WoW at launch and after few months i quit becouse i just did not like the game i thought it was terible and not becouse of its succes, so your wrong there.
i never went back to wow in all those years. And that WoW is succes thats great for them and for all fans but it coused an effect on developers to produce alot mmo"s similar to WoW also becouse of whole gaming community and many big ones and small ones failed but also sandbox declined becouse more and more want easy casual themepark and hold there hand, not a hardcore mmo where they realy have to work for there character and surviving.
I see the direction of the genere sitting on the shoulders of SW:TOR. They spent what...like 300-400 million on this game? For comparison purposes, Avatar cost 500 million to make.
If SW:TOR doesn't grab a substantial piece of the market from WOW....I don't really see another big publisher coming over the top of 400 million to make it work. I think if SW:TOR fails after spending that kind of money.....the developers will start looking for ways to cut costs and appeal to smaller niche markets.
For what its worth, Blizz's new MMO is expected to be another casual themepark MMO on rails and cost between 100-200 million. So we'll see.
offtopic but the 300m has been denied by EA to be only a rumor
Take it easy pal.....when discussion these high level ideas, its easier to talk about trends and things if we don't have to make sure that 2% of the population we are refering to doesn't fit in the box. Yes there are outliers....but you can't have a conversation about where the market is heading if you have to account for every single person in a market of 30 million gamers.
It's your kind of attitude that keeps people from addressing and discussion trends in large pouplations because a minority out outliers gets their panties in a bunch.
The assumption you're making is wrong at its core, not in the exceptions.
You assume that all old MMO gamers, say the pre-WoW kind, are fans of sandbox MMO's and haters of themepark MMO's.
That this is why 'traditional MMO gamers' are looking forward to AA, and that all others are 'console gamers' that like games like SWTOR.
That argument is flawed in its basics: a very large contingent of pre-WoW MMO gamers isn't just sandbox oriented but also or more likes themepark MMO's, I'd say the majority even, in fact you're insulting those people by stating that they're 'console gamers'.
It's actually your kind of attitude, when you keep stating that 'real MMO gamers' like sandbox type of MMO's and insulting MMO gamers who dare to like themepark oriented MMO's, that keeps polarizing debates. Like I said, that kind of arrogance and intolerance should be avoided, imo
If you want to have more constructive debates, then just acknowledge the simple fact that large groups of MMO gamers, also the first generation of MMO gamers, like the kind of MMO's that you might not like, but that doesn't make them any less genuine and pure MMO gamers.
I understand your point, and acknowledge that there are some older MMO gamers that find the current themepark model of MMORPGs appealing because of all the additional adult responsibilities we've taken over the years.
HOWEVER, I still maintain that the majority of the current MMORPG playerbase is as a result of things Blizzard did to World of Warcraft that would make MMO gaming more palatable for casual gamer types.
Where older MMORPG games took atleast 1-2 hours to get something done, new MMORPG games have shortented their average play cycles to around 30 minutes. (How long does an average dungeon crawl or battleground last in WOW?)
Where older MMORPG games forced people to band together out of neccessity to progress, new MMORPG games have removed just about all dependency on other players for your own personal progression. If you don't like to socialize....no problem, we have a place for you too.
Where older MMORPG games had more of a hard knocks, risk vs reward play environment, new MMORPG games seem to remove all pain points possible and generally try to lead everyone around with carrots.
So lets see.....they've reduced the learning curve for MMORPGs drasticlly (and some would even say it's been dumbed down)
They've reduced the amount of time it takes to get stuff done in the game...often times at the cost of depth in game play.
They've reduced the burdon (both time & effort) associated with finding groups of people to help get stuff done....at the expense of developing social skills & relationships.
And they've reduced most of the punative aspects of the game that drive behavior, and instead tried to supplament with non punative measures that ulimtately end up getting abused.
Sounds like they're really appealing to a specific market of gamers huh? And what do you know, the largest section of gamers, out of the whole gamer pie, is the casual gaming market. Oh way...not done yet, MMORPG games (unlike most other generes) get to charge a monthly fee ontop of box sales!
Can anyone really not invision the Blizzard marketing team licking their chops when presented with this opprotunity. Hell, go look at the early interviews with the development team....their express intention WAS to create a MMORPG for the "every gamer"
The growth in the industry was not organic, just within the MMORPG space....many of the players now playing MMORPGs (more specifically games like WOW) ARE former console gamers, FPS gamers, single player PC gamers, Social Media Gamers......and NOT former MMORPG players. Some YES......but not the vast majority of the 20-30 million MMO gamers that exist in the MMO market space.
@raj cal - You may be right in your assessment of old games. I disagree though and believe there was nothing in depth, complicated, or hard about any of those games.
However those issues that you mention (1-2 hours to get something done, forced to band together) were complained about loud and long back in those games.
I state that the majority of those old school gamers relished the chance to do something in shorter time frames, that did not involve needless complication, aggravation or timesinks.
And that is flaw in your logic, and mine I admit, the assumption that the majority of people that played those games liked it that way. I purport they didn't like that but they do like MMO's, however all the games were like that and so there were no other options, the very minute another option came up, they jumped ship.
Therefore games today may be appealing to console games but I state that they also appeal to the majority of old school because the majority of old-school did not like a lot of the old school systems.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
@raj cal - You may be right in your assessment of old games. I disagree though and believe there was nothing in depth, complicated, or hard about any of those games.
However those issues that you mention (1-2 hours to get something done, forced to band together) were complained about loud and long back in those games.
I state that the majority of those old school gamers relished the chance to do something in shorter time frames, that did not involve needless complication, aggravation or timesinks.
And that is flaw in your logic, and mine I admit, the assumption that the majority of people that played those games liked it that way. I purport they didn't like that but they do like MMO's, however all the games were like that and so there were no other options, the very minute another option came up, they jumped ship.
Therefore games today may be appealing to console games but I state that they also appeal to the majority of old school because the majority of old-school did not like a lot of the old school systems.
Venge
Fair assessment, but I think some of those hard knocks that old MMORPG gamers were sort of forced into dealing with (cause there wasn't much else out there) yielded, albiet unintended, positive aspects of playing MMORPGs.
I just think about to my early experience playing Ultima Online. The fact that you could get so much more done as a group than by yourself got me looking for a guild....which lead to some really great and long lasting relationships. Socializing in games might not be comfortable for some people, but the fact that people relied so much on it in the older games seemed to strengthen the communities.
Sure, there were jerks back then, just as there are now.....but the UO community I was a part of PALED in comparision to much of what I've experienced in modern MMOs.
The folks that didn't like the play style quit, and the ones that liked it (or atleast liked it enough to tolerate it) stayed and you had a better community for it. You didn't have such a fragmented set of people all calling for different (and competing) objectives.
The fact that old MMORPGs were more punative and risky meant that the people that continued to play were pretty darn good at playing their character....they had to be!
I can't tell you how much MORE FUN it is to play with competent players that you don't have to baby sit. The "lead by the carrot, not chase with the stick" approach never causes players to critically think about what they did wrong....they just plow ahead. (Visit any random WOW Battleground for reference)
So yea....there were definately pain points, and MMORPG gaming wasn't for everyone. But those that chose to stay benefited and learned lessons from some of those hard knocks....and in my personal opinion, the community benefited.
Hows the new model working for communities these days?
There's nothing "new" in "new MMOs, that's why they fail. The originals that everyone still loves were so great because they were new, with new concepts, new features, new new new. Since about 2004 there hasn't really been a "new" idea, just new IPs using old game mechanics.
@raj cal - You may be right in your assessment of old games. I disagree though and believe there was nothing in depth, complicated, or hard about any of those games.
However those issues that you mention (1-2 hours to get something done, forced to band together) were complained about loud and long back in those games.
I state that the majority of those old school gamers relished the chance to do something in shorter time frames, that did not involve needless complication, aggravation or timesinks.
And that is flaw in your logic, and mine I admit, the assumption that the majority of people that played those games liked it that way. I purport they didn't like that but they do like MMO's, however all the games were like that and so there were no other options, the very minute another option came up, they jumped ship.
Therefore games today may be appealing to console games but I state that they also appeal to the majority of old school because the majority of old-school did not like a lot of the old school systems.
Venge
Fair assessment, but I think some of those hard knocks that old MMORPG gamers were sort of forced into dealing with (cause there wasn't much else out there) yielded, albiet unintended, positive aspects of playing MMORPGs.
I just think about to my early experience playing Ultima Online. The fact that you could get so much more done as a group than by yourself got me looking for a guild....which lead to some really great and long lasting relationships. Socializing in games might not be comfortable for some people, but the fact that people relied so much on it in the older games seemed to strengthen the communities.
Sure, there were jerks back then, just as there are now.....but the UO community I was a part of PALED in comparision to much of what I've experienced in modern MMOs.
The folks that didn't like the play style quit, and the ones that liked it (or atleast liked it enough to tolerate it) stayed and you had a better community for it. You didn't have such a fragmented set of people all calling for different (and competing) objectives.
The fact that old MMORPGs were more punative and risky meant that the people that continued to play were pretty darn good at playing their character....they had to be!
I can't tell you how much MORE FUN it is to play with competent players that you don't have to baby sit. The "lead by the carrot, not chase with the stick" approach never causes players to critically think about what they did wrong....they just plow ahead. (Visit any random WOW Battleground for reference)
So yea....there were definately pain points, and MMORPG gaming wasn't for everyone. But those that chose to stay benefited and learned lessons from some of those hard knocks....and in my personal opinion, the community benefited.
Hows the new model working for communities these days?
I have no issues with the new model. Istaria is almost completely soloed and is one of the nicest communities I have ever seen.
Even in WoW I had a great group of friends and community that was a real joy to be with. Yes, the cities were often a pain for their chat but I just made sure I didn't spend a lot of time in those cities.
And really the city chat isn't any worse than the EC tunnel in EQ was.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
This is a man who should be listened to.
Ardwulf's Lair | Ardwulf's YouTube Channel | Ardwulf on Twitter
In any case you got the point. :-)
Please reread the first portion of my first sentence. We're not arguing in actuality.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
Here's the problem: If you're going to pump money into a soon-to-be-developed MMORPG, what kind of gaming elements would you want in it?
Do you want to do something that appeals to the masses or something more niche?
You of course want good money back from your investment. Which is why WoW's game features are so hard to resist. Which is why you never really see anyone (esp. with a big name) dare to be different.
It was about '04, maybe mid '05 at the latest, when it became blatantly clear how absolutely dominating WoW had become, that some players grew big concerns about it. The big fear was that WoW's clear domination would force the whole genre into a certain, very specific direction, killing off variety in the genre. Everything developed afterwards copied after WoW's elements. Even SOE completely changed an already existing title to crudely mimic WoW, believing those features would let them get a good chunk of WoW's pie (WoW Gameplay + Star Wars, was their frame of mind)
And seeing how things have developed since then, it became true.
And I don't see this changing anytime soon. Especially if TOR becomes successful, because BioWare is scared to step away from Blizzard / WoW's shadow. It will just further reinforce the problem of a lack of diversity in the genre.
"I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)
on the PC side, I largely agree with you -- unless GW2 shakes things up (which I doubt)
I hyped for GW2 as many others but I dont believe its going the change the direction of future mmos
consoles dont have any influential mmos
EQOA, Freerealms, DCUO, FinalFantasy XI all exist but I woudnt call them challenging competition on consoles
with any luck, Jeff Strains sandbox apocalypse mmo can help shake things up
EQ2 fan sites
As has been said, SWG had a player base that was willing to continue playing. SOE had continued to update with content and fixes. True, that the pursuit of Jedi really changed the culture of the game negatively. But you must have been owned in PVP to state how the community ruined your experiance. The BH system must have butt-hurt your Jedi? There are all types of folks and obviously you were not willing to make friends or invest further in that community.
The NGE was bad for SWG as it tryed to make the game more friendly in your desired direction. So you went and played WoW. Thats fine for you; hows that community?
SWG survived 5 years after you left. Folks came and went and some stayed. SWG didn't live in stasis with the NGE and had many fun additions. YES the profession system was gone but there was more attention to GCW, Space and other features (though much like WoW) that were fun. Did it bring the pop back? Nope. but we dedicated core played it for what it had.
Why is SWG closing? TOR. What is that common saying around here ... Wow Clone?
Sorry but I have to disagree....
Blizzard is currently enjoying MASSIVE success from World of Warcraft because it broke down the conventional MMORPG barriers to entry in the genere, thereby allowing all walks and types of gamers to play in the MMORPG space.
Where formerly games like Ultima Online & EverQuest presented a very specific objective with a steep learning curve, that only people fans of the "Virtual World" type of gaming would stick out.....games like World of Warcaft make MMO gaming and easier or more palatable experience for First Person Shooters, Console Gamers, Social Media Gamers, and other casual gaming types.
And why not? Casual gamers make up the largest piece of the Gamer Pie....move in and exploit.
Don't get me wrong....Blizzard couldn't have pulled this off by just making WOW easy to play. Their production value is top notch, and they have a world class organization firing on all cylinders right now. Again, they couldn't have achieved the success they have now without having a Gold Standard product.....but they drasticly increased their subscription base (like no other game before them) BECAUSE they were able to dumb down the game enough to appeal to the casual gamer market.
So whats the fallout of this "Big Tent" approach to MMO gaming? What are the consequences of creating a game for folks that don't neccessarily like to group, explore, or spend more than 20 minutes doing any one particular thing?
You end up with a burnt out development cycle, with the majority of the endgame content creation falling on the backs of the developers. This means they have to churn out new content every 4-6 months unless they start bleeding subscribers. This extremely short cycle development schedule means the players are going to get burnt on your Quest / Raid - Rince - Repeat model rather quickly. The downfall of Themepark gaming...but I digress.
You also end up with a very fragmented and fickle community. Since Blizzard has tried so hard to market their game to the casual playerbase (that doesn't typically enjoy social gaming), you have a large majority of the game population that has little interest on themes that we associate with traditional MMORPG gaming (exploring, grouping, player generated content). No wonder the general chat rooms are filled with the crap you see on any given day. Is it any supprise the community is a bunch of degenrates when over half the community doesn't give a crap about community???
Smaller Niche games with a higher learning curve (traditionaly sandbox games) generally means the only people that are going to stick around are probably like minded in what sort of game they like as you. As a result, your more likely to have a better community experience when you get to play with other like minded people.
With that said, if a game releases full of bugs and half promised content, then you have a fail game....regardless of the model. Ultima Online was one of the best sandbox MMOs out, and its still limping along with 2D graphics and 13 years later.
People are tired of the MMO on rails....the console gamers that want story are heading in the direction of StarWars:TOR and the traditional MMO gamers are looking forward to something more similar to Arche Age. The MMO market will get back to it's niche roots once the big publishers realize it's just costing too much money to put up big block buster titles in a highly competitive & fickle market.
I see the direction of the genere sitting on the shoulders of SW:TOR. They spent what...like 300-400 million on this game? For comparison purposes, Avatar cost 500 million to make.
If SW:TOR doesn't grab a substantial piece of the market from WOW....I don't really see another big publisher coming over the top of 400 million to make it work. I think if SW:TOR fails after spending that kind of money.....the developers will start looking for ways to cut costs and appeal to smaller niche markets.
For what its worth, Blizz's new MMO is expected to be another casual themepark MMO on rails and cost between 100-200 million. So we'll see.
Meh, it's this kind of attitude I've become familiar with and grown to despise since visiting these forums. I mean, classifying everyone who likes themepark styled MMO's like SWTOR as 'console gamers' and only MMO gamers who look forward to AA as 'traditional MMO gamers', the sheer fucking blind arrogance and intolerance that speaks of that kind of mindset that a number of burnt out MMO vets or themepark haters have on this site
I have played MMO's since UO and EQ, yet I still look forward to SWTOR. Just like I look forward to GW2 and TSW or other MMO's. That's because I'm in the first place an MMO gamer, someone who loves all kinds of MMO's, not only a specific subset of MMO's.
As for the OP: I agree on the part where some MMO gamers will never reach that satisfaction again that they achieved those early years when they started playing MMO's, they've just played MMO's for so many thousands of hours that they've burnt themselves out on certain aspects of it. However, the MMO genre is constantly in motion just like other gaming genres, and the same applies to the MMO playerbase, old MMO gamers leaving, new MMO gamers arriving etc.
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."
His analysis ignores the cost involved in creating these games, competition for marketshare with other companies, and the changes made in the games that opend the doors to the kind of sub numbers we are seeing today.
While 500,000 subscribers might be a comfortable number for you...as a player.....I can assure you 500,000 subs will NOT be enough to keep SW:TOR afloat.
Ultima Online made the guiness book of world records in 2000 by racking up 200,000 subscribers. Today WOW advertises 11.5-12 million subs.
11 million people just didn't decide they liked MMORPGs from 2000 to 2008. WOW made changes in their game to appeal toa more casual gaming market base.
What determines success is more than just subscriber numbers....you have to look at their Return on Investment (how many subs you have vs. your costs) and what your future looks like when comparing marketshare with other competitors.
I can assure you....even if SW:TOR pulls in a million subscribers, there will be disapointment if they are not able to wrestle a substantial piece of the market share pie from WOW given the money they spent to get that market position.
They already stated that 500k subs would make SWTOR financially profitable, although it wouldn't be something they would be proud of, it would still make a profit.
Of course they're aiming for more than 500k, but that doesn't mean that 500k subs won't keep them good.
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."
Take it easy pal.....when discussion these high level ideas, its easier to talk about trends and things if we don't have to make sure that 2% of the population we are refering to doesn't fit in the box. Yes there are outliers....but you can't have a conversation about where the market is heading if you have to account for every single person in a market of 30 million gamers.
It's your kind of attitude that keeps people from addressing and discussion trends in large pouplations because a minority out outliers gets their panties in a bunch.
The main reason why MMO's are failures for so many people is simple... Designers have lost sight of the 'MM' in MMORPG. Every year they design more and more features that make player interaction less necessary to succeed. It started with auction houses and fast travel and has been a very slippery slope ever since. Pretty soon if things keep going the way they seem everyone will be playing in their own little instanced worlds and won't even see other players at all. With Dungeon Finders, whole areas that are instanced and no need to actually talk to crafters to find the gear you need player interaction has become almost non existant in modern MMOs. I can't count how many newer MMOs I've tried where players didn't even use the 'say' channel at all. It's sad really but MMOs have become single-player games with other people running around... Period.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
You are leaving box sales out of the equation. Let's say that SWTOR did in fact cost the 400 million to make that some people have been throwing around (I seriously doubt it). That means that SWTOR could sell ~7 mil boxes at $60 (or any combination of the other editions) and make that initial cost back, any subscriptions they retain after the first month will then go first to paying the cost of maintaining servers and pay for their employees. If they only maintain 1 mil subscribers for let's say the first 6 months they will still have ~90 mil (1 mil * 15 * 6) to play with to meet their costs and report as profits.
Box sales are a huge revenue maker for MMO's but they are usually a huge influx of revune around launch and quickly drop off, this is actually why you see games for cheap 6-12 months after their release because the box sales
For anyone just arriving, here's a summary of the entire thread.
Point: "I don't like playing any MMO's right now. These MMO's are obviously fail games."
Point Addendum: "Those games didn't make nearly as much money as the advertising around those games said they would. These MMO's are obviously fail games."
Counterpoint: "They are making a profit and there are people playing the games because they enjoy playing them. They aren't being shutdown and they are leading to the development of even more MMO's. These MMO's are obviously not fail."
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Just recycle those statements over and over again.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The assumption you're making is wrong at its core, not in the exceptions.
You assume that all old MMO gamers, say the pre-WoW kind, are fans of sandbox MMO's and haters of themepark MMO's.
That this is why 'traditional MMO gamers' are looking forward to AA, and that all others are 'console gamers' that like games like SWTOR.
That argument is flawed in its basics: a very large contingent of pre-WoW MMO gamers isn't just sandbox oriented but also or more likes themepark MMO's, I'd say the majority even, in fact you're insulting those people by stating that they're 'console gamers'.
It's actually your kind of attitude, when you keep stating that 'real MMO gamers' like sandbox type of MMO's and insulting MMO gamers who dare to like themepark oriented MMO's, that keeps polarizing debates. Like I said, that kind of arrogance and intolerance should be avoided, imo
If you want to have more constructive debates, then just acknowledge the simple fact that large groups of MMO gamers, also the first generation of MMO gamers, like the kind of MMO's that you might not like, but that doesn't make them any less genuine and pure MMO gamers.
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."
+1
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."
My question is what exactly is a failure to the op?
While I do think most mmorpg's have underperformed from the developers expectations I wouldn't call that a "fail".
Failing to me is being unable to stay open and I think far more than half the mmo's ever developed may still be active.
As we move on mmorpg's have in fact been moving more and more into the mainstream, for as little interest as I have in the game I think AOC was well on it's way to breaking sales records at release and STO seemed to sell pretty well for a game that so many already thought would be a turd (and for many turned out to be just that).
Some of your points are pretty legit just about any AAA console game outsells many times over most mmorp's for a reason, the vast majority of people are not into the style of gameplay that many mmorpg's push and for the few mmo's that have moved away from that style of gaming like DCUO and CO those same players are not going to pay full price for a game then a subscription fee when there are umpteen games they can just buy and have that same type of fun without the dev reaching back in the pocketbook.
While I am only eagerly anticipating one of the mmo's in the pipeline I have faith that this could possibly be the year where most mmo's released finally start to correctly serve the audiences they intend to cater to. TOR fans will be happy with the game BW releases GW2 fans will love ANets release with TSW Funcom may finally buck the trend of releasing games so broken they have no chance to shine and there are a few others I haven't followed at all but have heard positive things about.
Ive played WoW at launch and after few months i quit becouse i just did not like the game i thought it was terible and not becouse of its succes, so your wrong there.
i never went back to wow in all those years. And that WoW is succes thats great for them and for all fans but it coused an effect on developers to produce alot mmo"s similar to WoW also becouse of whole gaming community and many big ones and small ones failed but also sandbox declined becouse more and more want easy casual themepark and hold there hand, not a hardcore mmo where they realy have to work for there character and surviving.
offtopic but the 300m has been denied by EA to be only a rumor
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/02/02/ea-star-wars-tor-did-not-cost-300-million/1
SWTOR has been estimated to be around 80m
http://www.vg247.com/2011/05/05/analyst-swtor-could-cost-ea-as-much-as-80-million-to-develop/
EQ2 fan sites
I understand your point, and acknowledge that there are some older MMO gamers that find the current themepark model of MMORPGs appealing because of all the additional adult responsibilities we've taken over the years.
HOWEVER, I still maintain that the majority of the current MMORPG playerbase is as a result of things Blizzard did to World of Warcraft that would make MMO gaming more palatable for casual gamer types.
Where older MMORPG games took atleast 1-2 hours to get something done, new MMORPG games have shortented their average play cycles to around 30 minutes. (How long does an average dungeon crawl or battleground last in WOW?)
Where older MMORPG games forced people to band together out of neccessity to progress, new MMORPG games have removed just about all dependency on other players for your own personal progression. If you don't like to socialize....no problem, we have a place for you too.
Where older MMORPG games had more of a hard knocks, risk vs reward play environment, new MMORPG games seem to remove all pain points possible and generally try to lead everyone around with carrots.
So lets see.....they've reduced the learning curve for MMORPGs drasticlly (and some would even say it's been dumbed down)
They've reduced the amount of time it takes to get stuff done in the game...often times at the cost of depth in game play.
They've reduced the burdon (both time & effort) associated with finding groups of people to help get stuff done....at the expense of developing social skills & relationships.
And they've reduced most of the punative aspects of the game that drive behavior, and instead tried to supplament with non punative measures that ulimtately end up getting abused.
Sounds like they're really appealing to a specific market of gamers huh? And what do you know, the largest section of gamers, out of the whole gamer pie, is the casual gaming market. Oh way...not done yet, MMORPG games (unlike most other generes) get to charge a monthly fee ontop of box sales!
Can anyone really not invision the Blizzard marketing team licking their chops when presented with this opprotunity. Hell, go look at the early interviews with the development team....their express intention WAS to create a MMORPG for the "every gamer"
The growth in the industry was not organic, just within the MMORPG space....many of the players now playing MMORPGs (more specifically games like WOW) ARE former console gamers, FPS gamers, single player PC gamers, Social Media Gamers......and NOT former MMORPG players. Some YES......but not the vast majority of the 20-30 million MMO gamers that exist in the MMO market space.
@raj cal - You may be right in your assessment of old games. I disagree though and believe there was nothing in depth, complicated, or hard about any of those games.
However those issues that you mention (1-2 hours to get something done, forced to band together) were complained about loud and long back in those games.
I state that the majority of those old school gamers relished the chance to do something in shorter time frames, that did not involve needless complication, aggravation or timesinks.
And that is flaw in your logic, and mine I admit, the assumption that the majority of people that played those games liked it that way. I purport they didn't like that but they do like MMO's, however all the games were like that and so there were no other options, the very minute another option came up, they jumped ship.
Therefore games today may be appealing to console games but I state that they also appeal to the majority of old school because the majority of old-school did not like a lot of the old school systems.
Venge
Fair assessment, but I think some of those hard knocks that old MMORPG gamers were sort of forced into dealing with (cause there wasn't much else out there) yielded, albiet unintended, positive aspects of playing MMORPGs.
I just think about to my early experience playing Ultima Online. The fact that you could get so much more done as a group than by yourself got me looking for a guild....which lead to some really great and long lasting relationships. Socializing in games might not be comfortable for some people, but the fact that people relied so much on it in the older games seemed to strengthen the communities.
Sure, there were jerks back then, just as there are now.....but the UO community I was a part of PALED in comparision to much of what I've experienced in modern MMOs.
The folks that didn't like the play style quit, and the ones that liked it (or atleast liked it enough to tolerate it) stayed and you had a better community for it. You didn't have such a fragmented set of people all calling for different (and competing) objectives.
The fact that old MMORPGs were more punative and risky meant that the people that continued to play were pretty darn good at playing their character....they had to be!
I can't tell you how much MORE FUN it is to play with competent players that you don't have to baby sit. The "lead by the carrot, not chase with the stick" approach never causes players to critically think about what they did wrong....they just plow ahead. (Visit any random WOW Battleground for reference)
So yea....there were definately pain points, and MMORPG gaming wasn't for everyone. But those that chose to stay benefited and learned lessons from some of those hard knocks....and in my personal opinion, the community benefited.
Hows the new model working for communities these days?
There's nothing "new" in "new MMOs, that's why they fail. The originals that everyone still loves were so great because they were new, with new concepts, new features, new new new. Since about 2004 there hasn't really been a "new" idea, just new IPs using old game mechanics.
I have no issues with the new model. Istaria is almost completely soloed and is one of the nicest communities I have ever seen.
Even in WoW I had a great group of friends and community that was a real joy to be with. Yes, the cities were often a pain for their chat but I just made sure I didn't spend a lot of time in those cities.
And really the city chat isn't any worse than the EC tunnel in EQ was.
Venge