Clone Wars Adventures, Loong, Allods, PWI, HKO, Vindictus, DDTank, Free Realms, Lords of Ultima, Bloodline:Champions, Order and Chaos, Wakfu... most any title, indie or AAA, that isn't targeting the jaded MMO gamer is doing well.
I know, I know... there's a reason why each one of those don't count, right?
Arent those F2P browser games?
Does Farmville count as an MMO now too?
You're too predictable.
Who cares if they are browser or F2P? That wasn't your question. You asked about AAA MMOs.
If by AAA, you mean backed by a publisher, then most of those qualify.
If by AAA, you mean the money spent, then most of those qualify.
Do you have some new definition of AAA? From your reply it seems that you're under the impression it must be subscription-based and have a windows client to qualify.
I really do want you to let me know how far down you want to refine the conditions for 'AAA' here. It will go a long way toward helping to show that making games for the jaded MMO gamer is, for the most part, a waste of time and money. It will really help show how that audience is doing its best to disenfranchise itself until MMOs are made for everyone but them.
So you're basically saying that in order for an MMO to succeed it needs to not be marketed towards MMO gamers.
Interesting take on things, to say the least.
So, would Farmville be considered an MMO in your eyes? How about online poker?
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
Clone Wars Adventures, Loong, Allods, PWI, HKO, Vindictus, DDTank, Free Realms, Lords of Ultima, Bloodline:Champions, Order and Chaos, Wakfu... most any title, indie or AAA, that isn't targeting the jaded MMO gamer is doing well.
I know, I know... there's a reason why each one of those don't count, right?
Arent those F2P browser games?
Does Farmville count as an MMO now too?
You're too predictable.
Who cares if they are browser or F2P? That wasn't your question. You asked about AAA MMOs.
If by AAA, you mean backed by a publisher, then most of those qualify.
If by AAA, you mean the money spent, then most of those qualify.
Do you have some new definition of AAA? From your reply it seems that you're under the impression it must be subscription-based and have a windows client to qualify.
I really do want you to let me know how far down you want to refine the conditions for 'AAA' here. It will go a long way toward helping to show that making games for the jaded MMO gamer is, for the most part, a waste of time and money. It will really help show how that audience is doing its best to disenfranchise itself until MMOs are made for everyone but them.
So you're basically saying that in order for an MMO to succeed it needs to not be marketed towards MMO gamers.
Interesting take on things, to say the least.
So, would Farmville be considered an MMO in your eyes? How about online poker?
You don't seem to want to recognize that "jaded MMO gamer" and "MMO gamers" are not the same thing. Farmville might be an MMO, but I thought you were talking specifically about AAA MMOs. If you want a list of recent successful MMOs that aren't AAA you can include
I kept most PBBGs out of there as you're making it clear you don't accept those.
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
Clone Wars Adventures, Loong, Allods, PWI, HKO, Vindictus, DDTank, Free Realms, Lords of Ultima, Bloodline:Champions, Order and Chaos, Wakfu... most any title, indie or AAA, that isn't targeting the jaded MMO gamer is doing well.
I know, I know... there's a reason why each one of those don't count, right?
Arent those F2P browser games?
Does Farmville count as an MMO now too?
You're too predictable.
Who cares if they are browser or F2P? That wasn't your question. You asked about AAA MMOs.
If by AAA, you mean backed by a publisher, then most of those qualify.
If by AAA, you mean the money spent, then most of those qualify.
Do you have some new definition of AAA? From your reply it seems that you're under the impression it must be subscription-based and have a windows client to qualify.
I really do want you to let me know how far down you want to refine the conditions for 'AAA' here. It will go a long way toward helping to show that making games for the jaded MMO gamer is, for the most part, a waste of time and money. It will really help show how that audience is doing its best to disenfranchise itself until MMOs are made for everyone but them.
So you're basically saying that in order for an MMO to succeed it needs to not be marketed towards MMO gamers.
Interesting take on things, to say the least.
So, would Farmville be considered an MMO in your eyes? How about online poker?
You don't seem to want to recognize that "jaded MMO gamer" and "MMO gamers" are not the same thing. Farmville might be an MMO, but I thought you were talking specifically about AAA MMOs. If you want a list of recent successful MMOs that aren't AAA you can include
I kept most PBBGs out of there as you're making it clear you don't accept those.
You listed some saying they are AAA and then some saying they are Indy, but I fail to see the difference.
Whats the difference between Free Realms and Wizard101 or why you say DDTank is an AAA game and WoT an Indy?
What makes an AAA MMO and what makes an Indy?
I always concidered an AAA MMO one of the "Big Boys Club" (UO/EQ/AC/WOW/etc), everything else is Indy
But its a great question. What defines a AAA MMO and what defines an Indy.
You will probably get about the same answers as you would get if you asked "What is Sandbox and what is Themepark"
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT Playing: Skyrim Following: The Repopulation I want a Virtual World, not just a Game. ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
I kept most PBBGs out of there as you're making it clear you don't accept those.
OK man, I get your point.
The only point I was trying to make was that there have been just as many AAA flops as indy flops in the MMO world recently, so saying indy games were full of fail would be a bit incorrect, Kickstarter hatred or no.
And now we're back ontopic. Booyah
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
Clone Wars Adventures, Loong, Allods, PWI, HKO, Vindictus, DDTank, Free Realms, Lords of Ultima, Bloodline:Champions, Order and Chaos, Wakfu... most any title, indie or AAA, that isn't targeting the jaded MMO gamer is doing well.
I know, I know... there's a reason why each one of those don't count, right?
Arent those F2P browser games?
Does Farmville count as an MMO now too?
You're too predictable.
Who cares if they are browser or F2P? That wasn't your question. You asked about AAA MMOs.
If by AAA, you mean backed by a publisher, then most of those qualify.
If by AAA, you mean the money spent, then most of those qualify.
Do you have some new definition of AAA? From your reply it seems that you're under the impression it must be subscription-based and have a windows client to qualify.
I really do want you to let me know how far down you want to refine the conditions for 'AAA' here. It will go a long way toward helping to show that making games for the jaded MMO gamer is, for the most part, a waste of time and money. It will really help show how that audience is doing its best to disenfranchise itself until MMOs are made for everyone but them.
So you're basically saying that in order for an MMO to succeed it needs to not be marketed towards MMO gamers.
Interesting take on things, to say the least.
So, would Farmville be considered an MMO in your eyes? How about online poker?
You don't seem to want to recognize that "jaded MMO gamer" and "MMO gamers" are not the same thing. Farmville might be an MMO, but I thought you were talking specifically about AAA MMOs. If you want a list of recent successful MMOs that aren't AAA you can include
I kept most PBBGs out of there as you're making it clear you don't accept those.
You listed some saying they are AAA and then some saying they are Indy, but I fail to see the difference.
Whats the difference between Free Realms and Wizard101 or why you say DDTank is an AAA game and WoT an Indy?
What makes an AAA MMO and what makes an Indy?
I always concidered an AAA MMO one of the "Big Boys Club" (UO/EQ/AC/WOW/etc), everything else is Indy
But its a great question. What defines a AAA MMO and what defines an Indy.
You will probably get about the same answers as you would get if you asked "What is Sandbox and what is Themepark"
Indy = independent
For example ArenaNet, developers of GW2, are owned by NCsoft, a gaming corporation, hence not indy
CCP, makers of Eve, not owned by anyone, hence are indy
Obviously some exceptions need to be made like Blizzard, even if it was NOT owned by activision, couldn't really be considered an indy company since by itself it would still be larger than many gaming/software corporations
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the srious backers are already a lot more discerning about where their money goes, so the presence of Hope-and-Dream projects that fail wouldn't really affect them to begin with as they'd already be avoiding them?
Interesting. That makes sense, actually. Thanks, Gd.
Yep, that is what I mean.
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
Last time I checked it wasn't bagels people were pledging to Kickstarter projects. If they didn't think the work/project was worthwhile, they wouldn't be pledging money on Kickstarter to help get it created now, would they? Q.E.D.
People don't think the project is going to work or is worthwhile, they WISH the project was working and worthwhile. That is a difference between investment and donation.
Also, people put hefty amounts of money into Ponzi schemes too...
You're talking about 2 ENTIRELY DIFFERENT things....
Investment = You are putting money in something because you hope to realize a financial return. You may LOATHE the thing you are investing or think it's a pile of crap, but you have the expectation that it will net you a financial return.
Patronage = You put your money into something because you ENJOY that thing. It gives you entertainment or pleasure...or you are hoping to derive entertainment and pleasure from that thing (or bring that entertainment or pleasure to others) by supporting it's existance.
Kickstarter is NOT for investors, it's for Patrons/Customers. They are directly funding something because they are interested in experiencing/enjoying that thing, not because they think they'll realize a financial return on it. In fact, one could even say that Kickstarter is the manifestation of the disconnect between patrons and investors. Investors fund things based upon what they PERCIEVE the potential level of customer interest in something might be. Kickstarter is a measure of the ACTUAL customer interest in something is. People take thier projects to Kickstarter either because they didn't WANT to share a piece of them with investors or because they couldn't find investors who perceived their was enough interest in them to be proffitable. When those projects get funded succesfully, it PROVES there is at least enough interest in them to cover the estimate cost of the project (or at least the portion of it that you are using Kickstarter to fund).
The ability to obtain investment is NOT even remotely a measure of a venture's viability. It's the level of PATRONAGE that determines a ventures viability. In fact most startups that obtain private equity end up FAILING. That's well known, it's why Angel investment is such a high risk game, and why they tend to demand such a large chunk of the ventures they investment. Conversely there many extremely succesfull companies (e.g. Microsoft) which experienced great difficulty in obtaining initial investment.
That's because investors are NOT omniscient. In fact, alot of times it's more about WHO you know then how good you're venture is. Why do you think Madoff managed what he did?
I have backed several projects on KS but not an MMO yet as I haven't found an MMO that I like.
Do people really 'care' about $25 for a KS project?
I spend more on food/coffee at work everyday.
It is interesting to see people put their money on what they want to see made though.
I care if i am getting my $25 worth ... if i took the kids to see a movie, at east i know i am getting a movie (well normally i also read reviews first .. but that is beside the point). Here, you don't even know if you are getting a game.
Surely you have the full right to spend your $25 anyway you want, including burning it for a laugh, but i also don't see any reason to express my opinion that i think "investing" in a KS project is at best like playing lottery, and at worse flushing money down the toilet.
Comments
So you're basically saying that in order for an MMO to succeed it needs to not be marketed towards MMO gamers.
Interesting take on things, to say the least.
So, would Farmville be considered an MMO in your eyes? How about online poker?
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
-The MMO Forum Community
You don't seem to want to recognize that "jaded MMO gamer" and "MMO gamers" are not the same thing. Farmville might be an MMO, but I thought you were talking specifically about AAA MMOs. If you want a list of recent successful MMOs that aren't AAA you can include
World of Tanks
Combat Arms
Wizard 101
Pirate Galaxy
Aika
Battle of the Immortals
Pocket Legends
Little Space Heroes
Nastale
Shanda
Dragonica / Dragon Saga
Florensia
Dofus
Canaan Online
and my personal favorite... http://www.die2nite.com/
I kept most PBBGs out of there as you're making it clear you don't accept those.
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
You listed some saying they are AAA and then some saying they are Indy, but I fail to see the difference.
Whats the difference between Free Realms and Wizard101 or why you say DDTank is an AAA game and WoT an Indy?
What makes an AAA MMO and what makes an Indy?
I always concidered an AAA MMO one of the "Big Boys Club" (UO/EQ/AC/WOW/etc), everything else is Indy
But its a great question. What defines a AAA MMO and what defines an Indy.
You will probably get about the same answers as you would get if you asked "What is Sandbox and what is Themepark"
Tried: EQ2 - AC - EU - HZ - TR - MxO - TTO - WURM - SL - VG:SoH - PotBS - PS - AoC - WAR - DDO - SWTOR
Played: UO - EQ1 - AO - DAoC - NC - CoH/CoV - SWG - WoW - EVE - AA - LotRO - DFO - STO - FE - MO - RIFT
Playing: Skyrim
Following: The Repopulation
I want a Virtual World, not just a Game.
ITS TOO HARD! - Matt Firor (ZeniMax)
OK man, I get your point.
The only point I was trying to make was that there have been just as many AAA flops as indy flops in the MMO world recently, so saying indy games were full of fail would be a bit incorrect, Kickstarter hatred or no.
And now we're back ontopic. Booyah
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
-The MMO Forum Community
Indy = independent
For example ArenaNet, developers of GW2, are owned by NCsoft, a gaming corporation, hence not indy
CCP, makers of Eve, not owned by anyone, hence are indy
Obviously some exceptions need to be made like Blizzard, even if it was NOT owned by activision, couldn't really be considered an indy company since by itself it would still be larger than many gaming/software corporations
The above is my personal opinion. Anyone displaying a view contrary to my opinion is obviously WRONG and should STHU. (neener neener)
-The MMO Forum Community
You're talking about 2 ENTIRELY DIFFERENT things....
Investment = You are putting money in something because you hope to realize a financial return. You may LOATHE the thing you are investing or think it's a pile of crap, but you have the expectation that it will net you a financial return.
Patronage = You put your money into something because you ENJOY that thing. It gives you entertainment or pleasure...or you are hoping to derive entertainment and pleasure from that thing (or bring that entertainment or pleasure to others) by supporting it's existance.
Kickstarter is NOT for investors, it's for Patrons/Customers. They are directly funding something because they are interested in experiencing/enjoying that thing, not because they think they'll realize a financial return on it. In fact, one could even say that Kickstarter is the manifestation of the disconnect between patrons and investors. Investors fund things based upon what they PERCIEVE the potential level of customer interest in something might be. Kickstarter is a measure of the ACTUAL customer interest in something is. People take thier projects to Kickstarter either because they didn't WANT to share a piece of them with investors or because they couldn't find investors who perceived their was enough interest in them to be proffitable. When those projects get funded succesfully, it PROVES there is at least enough interest in them to cover the estimate cost of the project (or at least the portion of it that you are using Kickstarter to fund).
The ability to obtain investment is NOT even remotely a measure of a venture's viability. It's the level of PATRONAGE that determines a ventures viability. In fact most startups that obtain private equity end up FAILING. That's well known, it's why Angel investment is such a high risk game, and why they tend to demand such a large chunk of the ventures they investment. Conversely there many extremely succesfull companies (e.g. Microsoft) which experienced great difficulty in obtaining initial investment.
That's because investors are NOT omniscient. In fact, alot of times it's more about WHO you know then how good you're venture is. Why do you think Madoff managed what he did?
You brought it up and started to mix up those two, not me.
I care if i am getting my $25 worth ... if i took the kids to see a movie, at east i know i am getting a movie (well normally i also read reviews first .. but that is beside the point). Here, you don't even know if you are getting a game.
Surely you have the full right to spend your $25 anyway you want, including burning it for a laugh, but i also don't see any reason to express my opinion that i think "investing" in a KS project is at best like playing lottery, and at worse flushing money down the toilet.