It's because millions of people believe they want to play an MMORPG, but in reality they don't. You cannot have a successful long term MMORPG without meaningful grinding. And meaningful grinding isn't fun. But it is rewarding.
So you suggest that MMORPG should be games designed to be NOT fun.
No wonder that games designed for people who think like that utterly fail...
But he is absolutely right.
You kill a mob and get a reward,you are rewarded all the time.
Edvin Moses runs 400 meters and his reward is the time he gets.
Conan trains his muscles few years and his muscles is the reward he gets.
But what happens if we remove this "grinding part"
Do people really feel happiness if they get reward without killinng that mob,they get world record time without running a single meter or gets muscles without training ?
What kind of people are those ?
gamers ?
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014. **On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
It's because millions of people believe they want to play an MMORPG, but in reality they don't. You cannot have a successful long term MMORPG without meaningful grinding. And meaningful grinding isn't fun. But it is rewarding.
So you suggest that MMORPG should be games designed to be NOT fun.
No wonder that games designed for people who think like that utterly fail...
In fact I do. No matter how much you think otherwise. An MMO based around the "fun factor", it simply wears off after a few times though. The current limitations in technology preclude a never ending stream of new content. And GW2 at best, has mediocre success with it's Living Story. Even where players enjoy it, many come in once every 2 weeks play it through and are gone for a week and a half. There are many many of it's former fans who have admitted to leaving the game because of this shallow content. I'm one of them. I enjoyed GW2 for a while, but the LS did not appeal to me.
There really is no way to avoid looping content in an MMORPG. And looped "fun factor" content simply gets old and boring after several runs through. So, that's where MMORPGs aren't supposed to be as much about fun as they are about rewards.
It's because millions of people believe they want to play an MMORPG, but in reality they don't. You cannot have a successful long term MMORPG without meaningful grinding. And meaningful grinding isn't fun. But it is rewarding.
So you suggest that MMORPG should be games designed to be NOT fun.
No wonder that games designed for people who think like that utterly fail...
In fact I do. No matter how much you think otherwise. An MMO based around the "fun factor", it simply wears off after a few times though. The current limitations in technology preclude a never ending stream of new content. And GW2 at best, has mediocre success with it's Living Story. Even where players enjoy it, many come in once every 2 weeks play it through and are gone for a week and a half. There are many many of it's former fans who have admitted to leaving the game because of this shallow content.
There really is no way to avoid looping content in an MMORPG. And looped "fun factor" content simply gets old and boring after several runs through. So, that's where MMORPGs aren't supposed to be as much about fun as they are about rewards.
Well .. make combat fun. Many ARPGs seem to be successful, and can be played for months, even years because of that.
Secondly, so what if it wears off. No one need to play one game only.
Personally, i don't play non-fun games. That is not why i play games. And certainly some MMOs are fun, and i can play them, move on after i finish the content.
I understand and even empathize with the OP in that he feels like the genre has left him behind, but he certainly does not represent nor speak for the majority of gamers with his viewpoints. Yes, I think you guys deserve a new MMO that caters to you every few years, but if you think the genre needs to make a complete shift in that direction, you are not only sadly mistaken, you are going to be perpetually disappointed as well.
I think it will be readily apparent to anyone reviewing the facts and the situation that the current formula, changed slightly (GW2), such as that used by SWTOR/FF14/RIFT and so many others; is in need of a direction change.
Further, in my experience challenge is the one thing that developers seem to consistently underestimate in the gaming community. There are plenty of games will serious challenge that are very popular, especially on the PC. Reducing content difficulty to the ability of the lowest common denominator is a recipe for a short lived game. I think we've seen a lot of that recently, and Blizzard would probably even admit to it negatively impacting their success over the last couple of expansions.
My number 1 curiosity for this next wave of MMOs: Wildstar, EQ Next, and ESO are they challenging, or more of the roflstomp, afk run-thru that Square Enix recently perpetrated on the gamer population.
Especially EQ Next, I look at this game has what may define the next generation of MMOs 5-8 years out. If they find a formula for success, and there is not real challenge in the environment, it will likely be many more years before we see a game of the caliber many in this thread seek.
I think it will be readily apparent to anyone reviewing the facts and the situation that the current formula, changed slightly (GW2), such as that used by SWTOR/FF14/RIFT and so many others; is in need of a direction change.
Why? GW2 sold 3.5M copies in a short time, and it is the fastest selling MMO.
So if i am a dev and look at that, why change direction when it works (as in making a ton of money)?
Originally posted by Cephus404 Originally posted by HolophonistDo you think developers should always give players exactly what they ask for? Or do you think some decisions are best left out of the hands of players?
Since the players pay the developer's salary and put food on their table, the customer is always right, even when they are wrong.
I think the more accurate response would be that developers should give the players what they want, what they will buy, whether or not it's what they've asked for or what they are complaining about.
The trick is creating what players want, whether they've asked for it or not.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
It's because millions of people believe they want to play an MMORPG, but in reality they don't. You cannot have a successful long term MMORPG without meaningful grinding. And meaningful grinding isn't fun. But it is rewarding.
So you suggest that MMORPG should be games designed to be NOT fun.
No wonder that games designed for people who think like that utterly fail...
In fact I do. No matter how much you think otherwise. An MMO based around the "fun factor", it simply wears off after a few times though. The current limitations in technology preclude a never ending stream of new content. And GW2 at best, has mediocre success with it's Living Story. Even where players enjoy it, many come in once every 2 weeks play it through and are gone for a week and a half. There are many many of it's former fans who have admitted to leaving the game because of this shallow content.
There really is no way to avoid looping content in an MMORPG. And looped "fun factor" content simply gets old and boring after several runs through. So, that's where MMORPGs aren't supposed to be as much about fun as they are about rewards.
Well .. make combat fun. Many ARPGs seem to be successful, and can be played for months, even years because of that.
Secondly, so what if it wears off. No one need to play one game only.
Personally, i don't play non-fun games. That is not why i play games. And certainly some MMOs are fun, and i can play them, move on after i finish the content.
You actually make my case. You move from game to game. You play it through once or twice and are on to the next. It's fine that you can do this. It's not a criticism, but there is a difference in what you, and those like you want from your games from what I and others like me want in ours. You play a game knowing you have little to no investment into the progress you make in it since you'll be onto a new one in a week or two after it stops being fun.
Let me clarify something. I am not suggesting there should not be fun content in MMOs. But you cannot avoid a grind in an online game and expect players to invest months if not years into it.
Traditionally, MMOs have always been a 2 sided coin. Successfull MMOs of the past were about playing the game you have to play in order to get to the game you want to play. It's the game you have to play (preparation) that makes the game you want to play better (seeing the results of preparation).
Edit. Even after reading over this post again, I was reminded of TBC. The opening cinematic: "You are not prepared" The whole concept of TBC was getting prepared.
Having spent a lot of money in MMO, I don't believe at all that the developers should do everything players want simply because that's the money source. There are a lot of things to consider when creating contents for a game, and in my experience I find players' demands often unreasonable and thoughtless. I think the developers should do whatever they feel is best. We all know that the whole "customers are always right" thing is crap. There are too many idiots in the world for that.
Originally posted by HolophonistDo you think developers should always give players exactly what they ask for? Or do you think some decisions are best left out of the hands of players?
Since the players pay the developer's salary and put food on their table, the customer is always right, even when they are wrong.
I think the more accurate response would be that developers should give the players what they want, what they will buy, whether or not it's what they've asked for or what they are complaining about.
The trick is creating what players want, whether they've asked for it or not.
True. And some companies like Blizz is really good at it. Look at D3 .. even with all the criticism, it sold 12M+ boxes. Think about what will happen if it is universally acclaimed.
You may have a point but your choice of games as examples of failure invalidate your whole post.
AoC or TsW has a good launch? No FC game has a good launch ever. Lotro was gone in 3 to 6 months?! Maybe so if you were born a year ago. I did not played many other games but I personally know ppl who still enjoy Aion or GW2 and they say those games are far from "having no staying power".
Please take some time and read about the games you are calling before some one start making jokes of you.
P.S. If it is just another attempt to say "Vanila WoW or bust" - thats a real fail.
How is that fail ? I bet the majority would agree it has been WoW or bust. Can the genre be great again ? Sure it can but not the path they have chosen.
Why? Because players like you don't like it? There are more people in the world than so-called 'hardcore' players, many more. This is the truth of it. A game will NEVER make money based on 'hardcore' players. You need to bring new players into the game and MMO's in general. If you don't do that - the industry will die.
No, the industry as we currently know it will die... and a lot of us are fine with that. We want the industry to go back to the way it was. We want smaller budgets, more niche games with deeper gameplay. The industry WE knew already has died.
Let me clarify something. I am not suggesting there should not be fun content in MMOs. But you cannot avoid a grind in an online game and expect players to invest months if not years into it.
I agree.
The point i was trying to make is that i get around this problem because i do not desire to "invest" years nor months into a game. I will only play it long it is naturally fun.
But if you really need to have a long term game, then i sympathize. Everything gets boring when you play it enough time. WOW is a great game. It kept me interested for years. Now it does not. D3 is a great game but i don't expect to play it forever.
So are any of the people who claim that MMOs have been increasing their playerbase as of lately going to speak to the possibility that those numbers may include MOBAs? I pointed that out a couple pages ago and it seems like everybody who was claiming that just kind of... stopped talking about it. If the MMO genre is increasing its playerbase largely thanks to MOBAs.... that doesn't really seem to help the argument that people want these modern easy, shallow themeparks.
Do you think developers should always give players exactly what they ask for? Or do you think some decisions are best left out of the hands of players?
Since the players pay the developer's salary and put food on their table, the customer is always right, even when they are wrong.
What if what the customers want are things that make the game more enjoyable in the short run, but ultimately make it worse/less satisfying etc? Think of using cheat codes in an oldschool single player game.
Then they do. You have to remember that the overwhelming majority of the profit that comes of any game comes right around release. If putting in cheat codes (and virtually all single-player PC games have them) into the game gets them millions more sales, I say go ahead and do it.
Originally posted by Holophonist So are any of the people who claim that MMOs have been increasing their playerbase as of lately going to speak to the possibility that those numbers may include MOBAs? I pointed that out a couple pages ago and it seems like everybody who was claiming that just kind of... stopped talking about it. If the MMO genre is increasing its playerbase largely thanks to MOBAs.... that doesn't really seem to help the argument that people want these modern easy, shallow themeparks.
I think the conclusion is that players don't want MMOs at all. MOBAs, instanced pvp games, even ARPGs all have bigger successes than MMOs recently.
What if what the customers want are things that make the game more enjoyable in the short run, but ultimately make it worse/less satisfying etc? Think of using cheat codes in an oldschool single player game.
Then they do. You have to remember that the overwhelming majority of the profit that comes of any game comes right around release. If putting in cheat codes (and virtually all single-player PC games have them) into the game gets them millions more sales, I say go ahead and do it.
Yeah. Enjoyable in the short run is not a bad thing.
In fact, games are already much longer, in terms of entertainment time, compared to movies, and novels.
Originally posted by HolophonistDo you think developers should always give players exactly what they ask for? Or do you think some decisions are best left out of the hands of players?
Since the players pay the developer's salary and put food on their table, the customer is always right, even when they are wrong.
I think the more accurate response would be that developers should give the players what they want, what they will buy, whether or not it's what they've asked for or what they are complaining about.
The trick is creating what players want, whether they've asked for it or not.
The trick is making a game that will make the maximum amount of money for the developer and garner the greatest amount of sales and enjoyment for as many customers as possible. It is catering to the largest playerbase available. It is not catering to the niche audiences who really don't make a bit of difference.
What if what the customers want are things that make the game more enjoyable in the short run, but ultimately make it worse/less satisfying etc? Think of using cheat codes in an oldschool single player game.
Then they do. You have to remember that the overwhelming majority of the profit that comes of any game comes right around release. If putting in cheat codes (and virtually all single-player PC games have them) into the game gets them millions more sales, I say go ahead and do it.
Yeah. Enjoyable in the short run is not a bad thing.
In fact, games are already much longer, in terms of entertainment time, compared to movies, and novels.
MMOs are not long-term investments anymore, most people stick with an MMO for 3-4 months and then move on.
Originally posted by Holophonist So are any of the people who claim that MMOs have been increasing their playerbase as of lately going to speak to the possibility that those numbers may include MOBAs? I pointed that out a couple pages ago and it seems like everybody who was claiming that just kind of... stopped talking about it. If the MMO genre is increasing its playerbase largely thanks to MOBAs.... that doesn't really seem to help the argument that people want these modern easy, shallow themeparks.
I think the conclusion is that players don't want MMOs at all. MOBAs, instanced pvp games, even ARPGs all have bigger successes than MMOs recently.
But you guys bring it up in discussions about MMOs, not about MOBAs. If you want to make the case that more people want to play MOBAs than MMOs, I don't think many people would argue with you. But you guys bring up that "fact" in arguments trying to make the case that people actually are satisfied with these shallow themeparks. I point out that these numbers may not be accurate and you change the subject to "maybe people don't want MMOs"? That's my whole point, that these themepark games don't have longevity.
Do you think developers should always give players exactly what they ask for? Or do you think some decisions are best left out of the hands of players?
Since the players pay the developer's salary and put food on their table, the customer is always right, even when they are wrong.
What if what the customers want are things that make the game more enjoyable in the short run, but ultimately make it worse/less satisfying etc? Think of using cheat codes in an oldschool single player game.
Then they do. You have to remember that the overwhelming majority of the profit that comes of any game comes right around release. If putting in cheat codes (and virtually all single-player PC games have them) into the game gets them millions more sales, I say go ahead and do it.
They're currently designed like that and that's the problem many of us are talking about. We're saying by catering to the whims of players you're gonna end up with games that are fun for a relatively short while and then get boring. And you're basically saying "of course that's the case, cause that's how it currently is."
Do you think the majority of EVE's total profits came in around release?
But you guys bring it up in discussions about MMOs, not about MOBAs. If you want to make the case that more people want to play MOBAs than MMOs, I don't think many people would argue with you. But you guys bring up that "fact" in arguments trying to make the case that people actually are satisfied with these shallow themeparks. I point out that these numbers may not be accurate and you change the subject to "maybe people don't want MMOs"? That's my whole point, that these themepark games don't have longevity.
wait .. when did i disagree that "themepark games don't have longevity"? In fact, i stated many times that i play MMOs for short term and move on.
But you guys bring it up in discussions about MMOs, not about MOBAs. If you want to make the case that more people want to play MOBAs than MMOs, I don't think many people would argue with you. But you guys bring up that "fact" in arguments trying to make the case that people actually are satisfied with these shallow themeparks. I point out that these numbers may not be accurate and you change the subject to "maybe people don't want MMOs"? That's my whole point, that these themepark games don't have longevity.
wait .. when did i disagree that "themepark games don't have longevity"? In fact, i stated many times that i play MMOs for short term and move on.
Let me rephrase then: what do you think you're proving or providing evidence for when you say that the mmo market is increasing?
Originally posted by Holophonist So are any of the people who claim that MMOs have been increasing their playerbase as of lately going to speak to the possibility that those numbers may include MOBAs? I pointed that out a couple pages ago and it seems like everybody who was claiming that just kind of... stopped talking about it. If the MMO genre is increasing its playerbase largely thanks to MOBAs.... that doesn't really seem to help the argument that people want these modern easy, shallow themeparks.
I think the conclusion is that players don't want MMOs at all. MOBAs, instanced pvp games, even ARPGs all have bigger successes than MMOs recently.
But you guys bring it up in discussions about MMOs, not about MOBAs. If you want to make the case that more people want to play MOBAs than MMOs, I don't think many people would argue with you. But you guys bring up that "fact" in arguments trying to make the case that people actually are satisfied with these shallow themeparks. I point out that these numbers may not be accurate and you change the subject to "maybe people don't want MMOs"? That's my whole point, that these themepark games don't have longevity.
+1
They just dont want to think "What if this casual model is the problem?
Let me rephrase then: what do you think you're proving or providing evidence for when you say that the mmo market is increasing?
I think "the market of games that have some features commonalities, and that share a large common audience which include traditional MMOs, MOBAs, and some other online games" is growing.
And btw, many industry market research firm call this market "the MMO market".
They just dont want to think "What if this casual model is the problem?
Problem of what?
I certainly don't have a problem finding games i like to play. This group of games certainly seem to be able to generate enough money for a lot of devs.
Sure, some people don't get their preferences, but no market serves every preferences.
Let me rephrase then: what do you think you're proving or providing evidence for when you say that the mmo market is increasing?
I think "the market of games that have some features commonalities, and that share a large common audience which include traditional MMOs, MOBAs, and some other online games" is growing.
And btw, many industry market research firm call this market "the MMO market".
This is such a dishonest way of arguing and you have to know what you're doing here. The many arguments that go on around these forums are in regard to MMORPGs. Using numbers that include HUGE influences from games from a different genre is completely pointless. The games that you and the rest of the themepark crowd are defending are not... I repeat NOT LoL or any other MOBA.
Comments
But he is absolutely right.
You kill a mob and get a reward,you are rewarded all the time.
Edvin Moses runs 400 meters and his reward is the time he gets.
Conan trains his muscles few years and his muscles is the reward he gets.
But what happens if we remove this "grinding part"
Do people really feel happiness if they get reward without killinng that mob,they get world record time without running a single meter or gets muscles without training ?
What kind of people are those ?
gamers ?
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
In fact I do. No matter how much you think otherwise. An MMO based around the "fun factor", it simply wears off after a few times though. The current limitations in technology preclude a never ending stream of new content. And GW2 at best, has mediocre success with it's Living Story. Even where players enjoy it, many come in once every 2 weeks play it through and are gone for a week and a half. There are many many of it's former fans who have admitted to leaving the game because of this shallow content. I'm one of them. I enjoyed GW2 for a while, but the LS did not appeal to me.
There really is no way to avoid looping content in an MMORPG. And looped "fun factor" content simply gets old and boring after several runs through. So, that's where MMORPGs aren't supposed to be as much about fun as they are about rewards.
Well .. make combat fun. Many ARPGs seem to be successful, and can be played for months, even years because of that.
Secondly, so what if it wears off. No one need to play one game only.
Personally, i don't play non-fun games. That is not why i play games. And certainly some MMOs are fun, and i can play them, move on after i finish the content.
I think it will be readily apparent to anyone reviewing the facts and the situation that the current formula, changed slightly (GW2), such as that used by SWTOR/FF14/RIFT and so many others; is in need of a direction change.
Further, in my experience challenge is the one thing that developers seem to consistently underestimate in the gaming community. There are plenty of games will serious challenge that are very popular, especially on the PC. Reducing content difficulty to the ability of the lowest common denominator is a recipe for a short lived game. I think we've seen a lot of that recently, and Blizzard would probably even admit to it negatively impacting their success over the last couple of expansions.
My number 1 curiosity for this next wave of MMOs: Wildstar, EQ Next, and ESO are they challenging, or more of the roflstomp, afk run-thru that Square Enix recently perpetrated on the gamer population.
Especially EQ Next, I look at this game has what may define the next generation of MMOs 5-8 years out. If they find a formula for success, and there is not real challenge in the environment, it will likely be many more years before we see a game of the caliber many in this thread seek.
Why? GW2 sold 3.5M copies in a short time, and it is the fastest selling MMO.
So if i am a dev and look at that, why change direction when it works (as in making a ton of money)?
I think the more accurate response would be that developers should give the players what they want, what they will buy, whether or not it's what they've asked for or what they are complaining about.
The trick is creating what players want, whether they've asked for it or not.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You actually make my case. You move from game to game. You play it through once or twice and are on to the next. It's fine that you can do this. It's not a criticism, but there is a difference in what you, and those like you want from your games from what I and others like me want in ours. You play a game knowing you have little to no investment into the progress you make in it since you'll be onto a new one in a week or two after it stops being fun.
Let me clarify something. I am not suggesting there should not be fun content in MMOs. But you cannot avoid a grind in an online game and expect players to invest months if not years into it.
Traditionally, MMOs have always been a 2 sided coin. Successfull MMOs of the past were about playing the game you have to play in order to get to the game you want to play. It's the game you have to play (preparation) that makes the game you want to play better (seeing the results of preparation).
Edit. Even after reading over this post again, I was reminded of TBC. The opening cinematic: "You are not prepared" The whole concept of TBC was getting prepared.
True. And some companies like Blizz is really good at it. Look at D3 .. even with all the criticism, it sold 12M+ boxes. Think about what will happen if it is universally acclaimed.
No, the industry as we currently know it will die... and a lot of us are fine with that. We want the industry to go back to the way it was. We want smaller budgets, more niche games with deeper gameplay. The industry WE knew already has died.
I agree.
The point i was trying to make is that i get around this problem because i do not desire to "invest" years nor months into a game. I will only play it long it is naturally fun.
But if you really need to have a long term game, then i sympathize. Everything gets boring when you play it enough time. WOW is a great game. It kept me interested for years. Now it does not. D3 is a great game but i don't expect to play it forever.
Then they do. You have to remember that the overwhelming majority of the profit that comes of any game comes right around release. If putting in cheat codes (and virtually all single-player PC games have them) into the game gets them millions more sales, I say go ahead and do it.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I think the conclusion is that players don't want MMOs at all. MOBAs, instanced pvp games, even ARPGs all have bigger successes than MMOs recently.
Yeah. Enjoyable in the short run is not a bad thing.
In fact, games are already much longer, in terms of entertainment time, compared to movies, and novels.
The trick is making a game that will make the maximum amount of money for the developer and garner the greatest amount of sales and enjoyment for as many customers as possible. It is catering to the largest playerbase available. It is not catering to the niche audiences who really don't make a bit of difference.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
MMOs are not long-term investments anymore, most people stick with an MMO for 3-4 months and then move on.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
But you guys bring it up in discussions about MMOs, not about MOBAs. If you want to make the case that more people want to play MOBAs than MMOs, I don't think many people would argue with you. But you guys bring up that "fact" in arguments trying to make the case that people actually are satisfied with these shallow themeparks. I point out that these numbers may not be accurate and you change the subject to "maybe people don't want MMOs"? That's my whole point, that these themepark games don't have longevity.
They're currently designed like that and that's the problem many of us are talking about. We're saying by catering to the whims of players you're gonna end up with games that are fun for a relatively short while and then get boring. And you're basically saying "of course that's the case, cause that's how it currently is."
Do you think the majority of EVE's total profits came in around release?
wait .. when did i disagree that "themepark games don't have longevity"? In fact, i stated many times that i play MMOs for short term and move on.
Let me rephrase then: what do you think you're proving or providing evidence for when you say that the mmo market is increasing?
+1
They just dont want to think "What if this casual model is the problem?
But, but, but he attacked me when I was low life!
Yes, HE DID, why you cant do the same to him?
Uf that will take me a lot of time...
HERE IS YOUR QUEST!
I think "the market of games that have some features commonalities, and that share a large common audience which include traditional MMOs, MOBAs, and some other online games" is growing.
And btw, many industry market research firm call this market "the MMO market".
Problem of what?
I certainly don't have a problem finding games i like to play. This group of games certainly seem to be able to generate enough money for a lot of devs.
Sure, some people don't get their preferences, but no market serves every preferences.
This is such a dishonest way of arguing and you have to know what you're doing here. The many arguments that go on around these forums are in regard to MMORPGs. Using numbers that include HUGE influences from games from a different genre is completely pointless. The games that you and the rest of the themepark crowd are defending are not... I repeat NOT LoL or any other MOBA.