Haven't you heard the news? Texas Holdem is where it's at. It's number's puts Moba's to shame. It's already taking over... you ever notice how pretty much every Moba features a deck of cards.
Your on the losing side man.... get with the times
MMORPGs did just fine before this massive influx of new players that never liked the genre in the first place.
If you consider 500k players for the most popular MMORPG at the time "fine".
There's a difference between having new players who adapt, and having dinosaurs who prefer only "old skool" and refuse to adapt, too.
Think about it..
500k was more than fine, hell, 100k was considered extremely successful (& profitable) at one point. You do realise older MMO's had MUCH lower development and ongoing costs than the 200 million dollar ones we see today? And that MMO's and even gaming was quite niche back then.
And i doubt any old school MMO gamers need to 'adapt' to anything today, as there's nothing to adapt to... unless 'putting up with' endless, boring, generic, themepark clones is what you mean by adapting? Then sure...
Candy Crush has more than both combined. Does that mean anything? Well yes, I guess it means, cows know how to play phone focused games now. I personally thought flappy bird was a game about bird masturbation... anyway.
I don't see where that makes either genre better or worse. Since when did popularity dictate quality? Candy Crush is more popular and is more profitable too.
It means something if the biggest MMORPG maker .. blizz take notice, and jump into the genre.
Originally posted by Xthos How can a mmo be 3x more popular than a mmo?
did you read the article? And i quote
"Over the last 10 financial quarters (June 2011 – December 2013), the MOBA community has been spending at least 600 million more hours playing per quarter than the MMO community. Even more alarming, the gap during the last year has widened dramatically, with MOBA players spending almost 4 times as many hours playing than MMO’s in Q4 2013."
500k was more than fine, hell, 100k was considered extremely successful (& profitable) at one point. You do realise older MMO's had MUCH lower development and ongoing costs than the 200 million dollar ones we see today? And that MMO's and even gaming was quite niche back then.
And i doubt any old school MMO gamers need to 'adapt' to anything today, as there's nothing to adapt to... unless 'putting up with' endless, boring, generic, themepark clones is what you mean by adapting? Then sure...
So? In the days of Ultima 6, selling 50k boxes of a game will be considered a success too. Why should we use way out of date measures for success?
TOR is making more than $200M a year in 2013 .. now that is a measure of success, even if you do not count WOW.
Sure .. if old school MMO gamers cannot appreciate the better, more convenient, more actiony MMO of today, they are out of luck. No one owes them a game. The market decides. And before you says popularity does not equate quality .. quality is subjective . and for those who are playing and enjoying the newer games, they have much higher "quality" than old school games.
Candy Crush has more than both combined. Does that mean anything? Well yes, I guess it means, cows know how to play phone focused games now. I personally thought flappy bird was a game about bird masturbation... anyway.
I don't see where that makes either genre better or worse. Since when did popularity dictate quality? Candy Crush is more popular and is more profitable too.
It means something if the biggest MMORPG maker .. blizz take notice, and jump into the genre.
Blizz is late to the party, LoL is very very popular and well established.
Here's a question for you:
Do you think Blizzard will be able to be the #1 Moba or do you think they will tarnish they're reputation trying to be.
500k was more than fine, hell, 100k was considered extremely successful (& profitable) at one point. You do realise older MMO's had MUCH lower development and ongoing costs than the 200 million dollar ones we see today? And that MMO's and even gaming was quite niche back then.
And i doubt any old school MMO gamers need to 'adapt' to anything today, as there's nothing to adapt to... unless 'putting up with' endless, boring, generic, themepark clones is what you mean by adapting? Then sure...
So? In the days of Ultima 6, selling 50k boxes of a game will be considered a success too. Why should we use way out of date measures for success?
TOR is making more than $200M a year in 2013 .. now that is a measure of success, even if you do not count WOW.
Sure .. if old school MMO gamers cannot appreciate the better, more convenient, more actiony MMO of today, they are out of luck. No one owes them a game. The market decides. And before you says popularity does not equate quality .. quality is subjective . and for those who are playing and enjoying the newer games, they have much higher "quality" than old school games.
So if in 10-15 years another MMO comes along with 40+ million players we should look back and say WOW was a failure, because it only had 10-15 million players.
Strong logic.
The fact is, olders MMO's like UO and EQ were hugely successful even if they didn't pull massive #'s like some of todays mainstream games. Though if you think they were failures to provide us with some facts, like um... data that shows you much of a loss they each made, or even let us know how quickly they were shutdown due to lack of players? Oh right....
Actiony MMO of today? Asherons Call had dodgable projectiles way back in 99, and had more skill based and complex gameplay than the vast majority of MMO's today. But hey, if you are happy playing WOW clone #58382 all the more power to you!
But yes, you are right, the market has decided (and a lot of old school mmo pvp players have already discovered) MOBA's are the way of the future, or at least that's what YOUR data seems to suggest.
Candy Crush has more than both combined. Does that mean anything? Well yes, I guess it means, cows know how to play phone focused games now. I personally thought flappy bird was a game about bird masturbation... anyway.
I don't see where that makes either genre better or worse. Since when did popularity dictate quality? Candy Crush is more popular and is more profitable too.
It means something if the biggest MMORPG maker .. blizz take notice, and jump into the genre.
It means that MOBAs was one moment of Blizz history when they dropped the ball, and, despite how everyone sees them as the most greedy entity these days, they did it because they believed in creations of their playerbase. Sure it may have been the old Blizzard that probably doesn't exist in same shape or form anymore...
Keep in mind the whole MOBA/Action RTS genre originated from their games, from the toolsets they provided and for very long time DoTA was huge part of WC3 community, eventually for many people becoming the main reason to have WC3 installed.
They could have easily capitalized on it back then, claim the trademark and do whatever they wanted with it. They didn't/. They let the genre evolve on it's own without their interference. After Valve took over the trademark (as Valve tends to do with many community projects) they felt they need to do their own spin on it.
Candy Crush has more than both combined. Does that mean anything? Well yes, I guess it means, cows know how to play phone focused games now. I personally thought flappy bird was a game about bird masturbation... anyway.
I don't see where that makes either genre better or worse. Since when did popularity dictate quality? Candy Crush is more popular and is more profitable too.
It means something if the biggest MMORPG maker .. blizz take notice, and jump into the genre.
Blizz is late to the party, LoL is very very popular and well established.
Here's a question for you:
Do you think Blizzard will be able to be the #1 Moba or do you think they will tarnish they're reputation trying to be.
Actually, Blizzard wasn't late to the party, there was "creative differences" with working with eSports or not (and with Blizzard it takes them 10 years to create a new game...).
Besides, Ghostcrawler is now working on LoL in the same capacity as he worked with WoW, and soon they'll see what WoW went through!!!
But yes, you are right, the market has decided (and a lot of old school mmo pvp players have already discovered) MOBA's are the way of the future, or at least that's what YOUR data seems to suggest.
Not *my* data. If you have a problem with that data, feel free to take it up with the author of the article. And nothing i have seen (particularly the earlier data that LoL has grown tremendously, or that it made $600M+ in 2013) contradicts data in this article.
And if you have data suggesting otherwise, please share it.
So if in 10-15 years another MMO comes along with 40+ million players we should look back and say WOW was a failure, because it only had 10-15 million players.
If that happens, certainly WOW would not be considered a big success in that time .. and fairly so.
Why would devs should for anything less using comparison that is decades old? Would anyone happen with a major SP RPGs selling 50k or even 100K units when that is the yardstick in the 80s during U6 time .. of course they would not.
Originally posted by Xthos How can a mmo be 3x more popular than a mmo?
did you read the article? And i quote
"Over the last 10 financial quarters (June 2011 December 2013), the MOBA community has been spending at least 600 million more hours playing per quarter than the MMO community. Even more alarming, the gap during the last year has widened dramatically, with MOBA players spending almost 4 times as many hours playing than MMOs in Q4 2013."
Have you ever read your posts? MOBAs ARE MMOs, so...... So did we jump to calling them MMOs too quickly? It is confusing, you post articles that group mobas with traditional mmos, and smash all the data...Now they are separate. So given that we have decided around here that mobas are mmos, and this source doesn't seem to understand current usage of terms, I do not trust their numbers.
After taking a look at the hour chart the hour comparison is indeed for western markets. I still contend that the numbers have a lot to do with MOBAs having a lower "barrier of entry" in terms of processing and bandwidth... but not that much lol. I'm surprised and I'm not at the same time. MOBAs are really fun though for myself not a mainstay.
What I find interesting is how gameplay in MOBAs harkens more toward what MMO gameplay was before it became faceroll easy. One has to ask why a genre based around 30+ min matches in the same handful of maps is so engaging. IMO it's because MOBAs have combat and strategies that really matter. No sea of buttons needed for mobs that drop with two
I hope to see MOBA combat, strategy and variety in open world MMOs. One seems to be doing this very thing...
"What I found intriguing about the interview was just how much time players are spending in MOBA titles now, compared to MMO games. Over the last 10 financial quarters (June 2011 – December 2013), the MOBA community has been spending at least 600 million more hours playing per quarter than the MMO community. Even more alarming, the gap during the last year has widened dramatically, with MOBA players spending almost 4 times as many hours playing than MMO’s in Q4 2013."
"It speaks a lot to just how the online PC market is headed, but also just to what companies are trying to capitalize on. Blizzard Entertainment are looking to jump in on the market with a MOBA called Heroes of the Storm with, at the very least, a beta this year. It is odd to see the kingmakers of the MMORPG following the trends instead of creating them. Additionally, it does not forebode well for upcoming PC and console MMORPG Elder Scrolls Online, which has been in development for years and with hundreds of millions of dollars in costs."
You can still OWN people in MOBAS with skill, Skill is important for most hardcore gamers. The MMOs of long days past used to be about skill and commitment...
Second Avrage joe casual gamer wont reach the upper echelon in a MOBA, they will gravel at the bottom..
Also MOBAS are fast you jump in and you play a match... so Joe Casual will play it, and be amazed at the skill of the top players.
Back in the day you respected the TOP players in MMOS also, because of their commitment and skill... But those days are gone..
Humans work best when they have something to strive for, when everything is handed out it soon becomes boring and repetitive... the Human VS Human is always more interesting then human vs computer...
The reason that EvE online is alone in growing its numbers concistantly is because it is PLayer(human) vs Player (human). That is what keeps it interesting..
Themepark is not interesting in the long run.... The industry has killed itself listening to mainstream joe Casual gamer...
Originally posted by Kevyne-Shandris Originally posted by AlBQuirkyMMORPGs did just fine before this massive influx of new players that never liked the genre in the first place.
If you consider 500k players for the most popular MMORPG at the time "fine".
There's a difference between having new players who adapt, and having dinosaurs who prefer only "old skool" and refuse to adapt, too.
Think about it..
EverQuest made money. BIG money. As did UO. Many of the "old MORPGs" made good money. Sure, nowhere NEAR what these pieces of crap rake in day after day these days, but good amounts.
Let's see... 500,000*15=7,5000,000 a month. Can you run an MMORPG on that budget? PLUS, many of those players stuck around for YEARS, not weeks or months. STEADY income there.
EQ is still kicking after 15 years, still making money, though it did go F2P. If companies shoot for "WoW numbers", they are ALWAYS disappointed. I, as a player, would LOVE to get MMORPGs shooting for smaller numbers again.
Adaptation. Funny word that. It fits when people LIKE the way something is. Funny that EVERYBODY has their personal "adaptation breaking point", in whatever subject is talked about. Yea for you. You like the adaptation that this mess called MMOs have become. Goody Goody.
It is most oft used as a "dig" at someone who PREFERS an older way of doing things. "If it isn't broke, don't fix it." One of the BEST philosophies to live by. If it IS broke, fix what is broken. What different people think is broke is where the debates come in. Old MMORPGs were NOT perfect. They had room to grow and, most importantly, IMPROVE. But they did NOT have to drop the last three letters of their own genre to do so.
I "choose" not to adapt in this particular case. I'll save that for when it is really needed to survive
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by AlBQuirkyMMORPGs did just fine before this massive influx of new players that never liked the genre in the first place.
If you consider 500k players for the most popular MMORPG at the time "fine".
There's a difference between having new players who adapt, and having dinosaurs who prefer only "old skool" and refuse to adapt, too.
Think about it..
EverQuest made money. BIG money. As did UO. Many of the "old MORPGs" made good money. Sure, nowhere NEAR what these pieces of crap rake in day after day these days, but good amounts.
Let's see... 500,000*15=7,5000,000 a month. Can you run an MMORPG on that budget? PLUS, many of those players stuck around for YEARS, not weeks or months. STEADY income there.
EQ is still kicking after 15 years, still making money, though it did go F2P. If companies shoot for "WoW numbers", they are ALWAYS disappointed. I, as a player, would LOVE to get MMORPGs shooting for smaller numbers again.
No they didn't. Their populations ( which never hit 500k btw ) where just as unstable as these new ones where they just lasted a bit longer because fewer mmos where made for the flock of sea gulls to migrate to.
You can google the population numbers for any one of them and see just how unstable they really were. It's like looking at a row of dominoes for mmo launches. Sure each one hit 250k-350k but it was the same people. There isn't a huge crossover where each one was sitting at it's peak at the same time.
the only reason they're considered a success is because back then 150k ( a more realistic sub number ) was still considered a big success for susstained numbers. Now it's red lights flashing, shred the files and get ready to shut things down territory.
You want to see an example of what happens to an old school game that shoots for EQ numbers, look at eldevin (sp?). It had a good start and good reviews. I saw a post today where someone said there was 150 people online.
People want to be in the big flashy popular game. the little campy flash backs are fun for a while be they don't have the magic of the old games. It's that old saying once you've seen the lights of the big city you can't go back to the farm....or in this case the cave.
You can still OWN people in MOBAS with skill, Skill is important for most hardcore gamers. The MMOs of long days past used to be about skill and commitment...
Get real.
Online games is like working at the office. How far you succeed equals how much you kiss ass, and who you know when, to succeed.
Zerg games work on who can crash a party the fastest with their own party, too.
You can still OWN people in MOBAS with skill, Skill is important for most hardcore gamers. The MMOs of long days past used to be about skill and commitment...
Get real.
Online games is like working at the office. How far you succeed equals how much you kiss ass, and who you know when, to succeed.
Zerg games work on who can crash a party the fastest with their own party, too.
Skills my ass.
There is skill in zerg.. Because you have to know were and when to zerg.... It is about strategi, and good strategi takes planing and skill... I have done alot of nasty rememberable things in both EvE and other old school MMOS like Linage2... Things people who play still remember to this day.... In a boring themepark Nobody remembers anything because nothing has any conequences.
Something you carebears never seem to get is that games come alive because of the community and a shared experince, for good or bad... that is what makes the game...
FPS games and MOBAS also have alot of skill in them and at the top level they compete for alot of money....
And you can kiss as much ass as you want if you suck you were kicked out of the old PVP MMO guilds, because if you constantly made the group lose and never got any better who needs you?? Also as you deleveld and lost items when you died in the old MMOS, LOSING WAS NOT FUN, it cost you.. and a weak link had to be cut, unless you wanted to keep losing and delevling and losing your itmes... Harsh penelties breeds another type of gameplay period...
Originally posted by DamonVile No they didn't. Their populations ( which never hit 500k btw ) where just as unstable as these new ones where they just lasted a bit longer because fewer mmos where made for the flock of sea gulls to migrate to.
Agreed that 500k is a generous number and happened for only a short while. However, MMO Data has EQ (the dark green circle symbol) peaking at about 550K in 2004. I have no idea how "accurate" this chart is, though.
Heck, even nariusseldon, an admitted hater of EQ, admitted to playing the game for sbout 1 year. I do not believe that he is a "special case."
EQ usually had a healthy 100K+ subscriber base (for about 8 years - 1999 through 2007 where it looks like the data drops off the chart). That is still 1,499,000 (100,000*14.99) per month minimum. That is almost 1.5 million PER MONTH, 60 Million per year minimum. That is not too shabby, but definitely lower than WoW's (or more recent MMOs) super-mega cash numbers. If efficiency is taken out of the games, the players stay longer, or simply never stop by.
The trouble begins when the eyes get HUGE dollar signs in them (like in the cartoons) and the publishers shoot for the volatile massive numbers instead of trying for the smaller, yet more stable numbers of old. I often wonder when the numbers get thrown about for F2P vs Subs, how many months F2P actually generates more money than subs. Usually, the numbers are presented in a "time period" of more than any given 30 day cycle, usually taking a 12 month period and averaging the numbers over 12 months. How much is generated by "Freemium" games comparing their subs to their cash shop purchases? Which method is generating most of their income, steadily? I don't know, so any info would be news to me
Because of this, I realize that MMOs will more than likely NEVER go back to how they were, with the RPG tag on the end of acronym. It is bad business sense. The only way I see it happening is if the whole industry blew up and had to "re-boot" itself. I just can not give up my dwindling, flickering, ember of hope that maybe, someday, MMOs will get their inefficient RPG aspect back.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Originally posted by DamonVile No they didn't. Their populations ( which never hit 500k btw ) where just as unstable as these new ones where they just lasted a bit longer because fewer mmos where made for the flock of sea gulls to migrate to.
Agreed that 500k is a generous number and happened for only a short while. However, MMO Data has EQ (the dark green circle symbol) peaking at about 550K in 2004. I have no idea how "accurate" this chart is, though.
Heck, even nariusseldon, an admitted hater of EQ, admitted to playing the game for sbout 1 year. I do not believe that he is a "special case."
EQ usually had a healthy 100K+ subscriber base (for about 8 years - 1999 through 2007 where it looks like the data drops off the chart). That is still 1,499,000 (100,000*14.99) per month minimum. That is almost 1.5 million PER MONTH, 60 Million per year minimum. That is not too shabby, but definitely lower than WoW's (or more recent MMOs) super-mega cash numbers. If efficiency is taken out of the games, the players stay longer, or simply never stop by.
The trouble begins when the eyes get HUGE dollar signs in them (like in the cartoons) and the publishers shoot for the volatile massive numbers instead of trying for the smaller, yet more stable numbers of old. I often wonder when the numbers get thrown about for F2P vs Subs, how many months F2P actually generates more money than subs. Usually, the numbers are presented in a "time period" of more than any given 30 day cycle, usually taking a 12 month period and averaging the numbers over 12 months. How much is generated by "Freemium" games comparing their subs to their cash shop purchases? Which method is generating most of their income, steadily? I don't know, so any info would be news to me
Because of this, I realize that MMOs will more than likely NEVER go back to how they were, with the RPG tag on the end of acronym. It is bad business sense. The only way I see it happening is if the whole industry blew up and had to "re-boot" itself. I just can not give up my dwindling, flickering, ember of hope that maybe, someday, MMOs will get their inefficient RPG aspect back.
There is no safer market than the mainstream. You simply don't know how much of the old school MMORPGs' success can be attributed to sheer novelty. You don't know how many people would actually play an old school game today.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Comments
If you consider 500k players for the most popular MMORPG at the time "fine".
There's a difference between having new players who adapt, and having dinosaurs who prefer only "old skool" and refuse to adapt, too.
Think about it..
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Heh Nari
Haven't you heard the news? Texas Holdem is where it's at. It's number's puts Moba's to shame. It's already taking over... you ever notice how pretty much every Moba features a deck of cards.
Your on the losing side man.... get with the times
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"Only those that adapt to changing circumstances remain standing"
500k was more than fine, hell, 100k was considered extremely successful (& profitable) at one point. You do realise older MMO's had MUCH lower development and ongoing costs than the 200 million dollar ones we see today? And that MMO's and even gaming was quite niche back then.
And i doubt any old school MMO gamers need to 'adapt' to anything today, as there's nothing to adapt to... unless 'putting up with' endless, boring, generic, themepark clones is what you mean by adapting? Then sure...
It means something if the biggest MMORPG maker .. blizz take notice, and jump into the genre.
did you read the article? And i quote
"Over the last 10 financial quarters (June 2011 – December 2013), the MOBA community has been spending at least 600 million more hours playing per quarter than the MMO community. Even more alarming, the gap during the last year has widened dramatically, with MOBA players spending almost 4 times as many hours playing than MMO’s in Q4 2013."
So? In the days of Ultima 6, selling 50k boxes of a game will be considered a success too. Why should we use way out of date measures for success?
TOR is making more than $200M a year in 2013 .. now that is a measure of success, even if you do not count WOW.
Sure .. if old school MMO gamers cannot appreciate the better, more convenient, more actiony MMO of today, they are out of luck. No one owes them a game. The market decides. And before you says popularity does not equate quality .. quality is subjective . and for those who are playing and enjoying the newer games, they have much higher "quality" than old school games.
Blizz is late to the party, LoL is very very popular and well established.
Here's a question for you:
Do you think Blizzard will be able to be the #1 Moba or do you think they will tarnish they're reputation trying to be.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
So if in 10-15 years another MMO comes along with 40+ million players we should look back and say WOW was a failure, because it only had 10-15 million players.
Strong logic.
The fact is, olders MMO's like UO and EQ were hugely successful even if they didn't pull massive #'s like some of todays mainstream games. Though if you think they were failures to provide us with some facts, like um... data that shows you much of a loss they each made, or even let us know how quickly they were shutdown due to lack of players? Oh right....
Actiony MMO of today? Asherons Call had dodgable projectiles way back in 99, and had more skill based and complex gameplay than the vast majority of MMO's today. But hey, if you are happy playing WOW clone #58382 all the more power to you!
But yes, you are right, the market has decided (and a lot of old school mmo pvp players have already discovered) MOBA's are the way of the future, or at least that's what YOUR data seems to suggest.
It means that MOBAs was one moment of Blizz history when they dropped the ball, and, despite how everyone sees them as the most greedy entity these days, they did it because they believed in creations of their playerbase. Sure it may have been the old Blizzard that probably doesn't exist in same shape or form anymore...
Keep in mind the whole MOBA/Action RTS genre originated from their games, from the toolsets they provided and for very long time DoTA was huge part of WC3 community, eventually for many people becoming the main reason to have WC3 installed.
They could have easily capitalized on it back then, claim the trademark and do whatever they wanted with it. They didn't/. They let the genre evolve on it's own without their interference. After Valve took over the trademark (as Valve tends to do with many community projects) they felt they need to do their own spin on it.
Actually, Blizzard wasn't late to the party, there was "creative differences" with working with eSports or not (and with Blizzard it takes them 10 years to create a new game...).
Besides, Ghostcrawler is now working on LoL in the same capacity as he worked with WoW, and soon they'll see what WoW went through!!!
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
Not *my* data. If you have a problem with that data, feel free to take it up with the author of the article. And nothing i have seen (particularly the earlier data that LoL has grown tremendously, or that it made $600M+ in 2013) contradicts data in this article.
And if you have data suggesting otherwise, please share it.
If that happens, certainly WOW would not be considered a big success in that time .. and fairly so.
Why would devs should for anything less using comparison that is decades old? Would anyone happen with a major SP RPGs selling 50k or even 100K units when that is the yardstick in the 80s during U6 time .. of course they would not.
did you read the article? And i quote
"Over the last 10 financial quarters (June 2011 December 2013), the MOBA community has been spending at least 600 million more hours playing per quarter than the MMO community. Even more alarming, the gap during the last year has widened dramatically, with MOBA players spending almost 4 times as many hours playing than MMOs in Q4 2013."
Have you ever read your posts? MOBAs ARE MMOs, so...... So did we jump to calling them MMOs too quickly? It is confusing, you post articles that group mobas with traditional mmos, and smash all the data...Now they are separate. So given that we have decided around here that mobas are mmos, and this source doesn't seem to understand current usage of terms, I do not trust their numbers.What I find interesting is how gameplay in MOBAs harkens more toward what MMO gameplay was before it became faceroll easy. One has to ask why a genre based around 30+ min matches in the same handful of maps is so engaging. IMO it's because MOBAs have combat and strategies that really matter. No sea of buttons needed for mobs that drop with two
I hope to see MOBA combat, strategy and variety in open world MMOs. One seems to be doing this very thing...
please you cannot even compare mobas to mmos.
I cant tell you its crap its your taste, that's a no thanks from me.
You can still OWN people in MOBAS with skill, Skill is important for most hardcore gamers. The MMOs of long days past used to be about skill and commitment...
Second Avrage joe casual gamer wont reach the upper echelon in a MOBA, they will gravel at the bottom..
Also MOBAS are fast you jump in and you play a match... so Joe Casual will play it, and be amazed at the skill of the top players.
Back in the day you respected the TOP players in MMOS also, because of their commitment and skill... But those days are gone..
Humans work best when they have something to strive for, when everything is handed out it soon becomes boring and repetitive... the Human VS Human is always more interesting then human vs computer...
The reason that EvE online is alone in growing its numbers concistantly is because it is PLayer(human) vs Player (human). That is what keeps it interesting..
Themepark is not interesting in the long run.... The industry has killed itself listening to mainstream joe Casual gamer...
There's a difference between having new players who adapt, and having dinosaurs who prefer only "old skool" and refuse to adapt, too.
Think about it..
EverQuest made money. BIG money. As did UO. Many of the "old MORPGs" made good money. Sure, nowhere NEAR what these pieces of crap rake in day after day these days, but good amounts.
Let's see... 500,000*15=7,5000,000 a month. Can you run an MMORPG on that budget? PLUS, many of those players stuck around for YEARS, not weeks or months. STEADY income there.
EQ is still kicking after 15 years, still making money, though it did go F2P. If companies shoot for "WoW numbers", they are ALWAYS disappointed. I, as a player, would LOVE to get MMORPGs shooting for smaller numbers again.
Adaptation. Funny word that. It fits when people LIKE the way something is. Funny that EVERYBODY has their personal "adaptation breaking point", in whatever subject is talked about. Yea for you. You like the adaptation that this mess called MMOs have become. Goody Goody.
It is most oft used as a "dig" at someone who PREFERS an older way of doing things. "If it isn't broke, don't fix it." One of the BEST philosophies to live by. If it IS broke, fix what is broken. What different people think is broke is where the debates come in. Old MMORPGs were NOT perfect. They had room to grow and, most importantly, IMPROVE. But they did NOT have to drop the last three letters of their own genre to do so.
I "choose" not to adapt in this particular case. I'll save that for when it is really needed to survive
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
No they didn't. Their populations ( which never hit 500k btw ) where just as unstable as these new ones where they just lasted a bit longer because fewer mmos where made for the flock of sea gulls to migrate to.
You can google the population numbers for any one of them and see just how unstable they really were. It's like looking at a row of dominoes for mmo launches. Sure each one hit 250k-350k but it was the same people. There isn't a huge crossover where each one was sitting at it's peak at the same time.
the only reason they're considered a success is because back then 150k ( a more realistic sub number ) was still considered a big success for susstained numbers. Now it's red lights flashing, shred the files and get ready to shut things down territory.
You want to see an example of what happens to an old school game that shoots for EQ numbers, look at eldevin (sp?). It had a good start and good reviews. I saw a post today where someone said there was 150 people online.
People want to be in the big flashy popular game. the little campy flash backs are fun for a while be they don't have the magic of the old games. It's that old saying once you've seen the lights of the big city you can't go back to the farm....or in this case the cave.
Get real.
Online games is like working at the office. How far you succeed equals how much you kiss ass, and who you know when, to succeed.
Zerg games work on who can crash a party the fastest with their own party, too.
Skills my ass.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
There is skill in zerg.. Because you have to know were and when to zerg.... It is about strategi, and good strategi takes planing and skill... I have done alot of nasty rememberable things in both EvE and other old school MMOS like Linage2... Things people who play still remember to this day.... In a boring themepark Nobody remembers anything because nothing has any conequences.
Something you carebears never seem to get is that games come alive because of the community and a shared experince, for good or bad... that is what makes the game...
FPS games and MOBAS also have alot of skill in them and at the top level they compete for alot of money....
And you can kiss as much ass as you want if you suck you were kicked out of the old PVP MMO guilds, because if you constantly made the group lose and never got any better who needs you?? Also as you deleveld and lost items when you died in the old MMOS, LOSING WAS NOT FUN, it cost you.. and a weak link had to be cut, unless you wanted to keep losing and delevling and losing your itmes... Harsh penelties breeds another type of gameplay period...
Heck, even nariusseldon, an admitted hater of EQ, admitted to playing the game for sbout 1 year. I do not believe that he is a "special case."
EQ usually had a healthy 100K+ subscriber base (for about 8 years - 1999 through 2007 where it looks like the data drops off the chart). That is still 1,499,000 (100,000*14.99) per month minimum. That is almost 1.5 million PER MONTH, 60 Million per year minimum. That is not too shabby, but definitely lower than WoW's (or more recent MMOs) super-mega cash numbers. If efficiency is taken out of the games, the players stay longer, or simply never stop by.
The trouble begins when the eyes get HUGE dollar signs in them (like in the cartoons) and the publishers shoot for the volatile massive numbers instead of trying for the smaller, yet more stable numbers of old. I often wonder when the numbers get thrown about for F2P vs Subs, how many months F2P actually generates more money than subs. Usually, the numbers are presented in a "time period" of more than any given 30 day cycle, usually taking a 12 month period and averaging the numbers over 12 months. How much is generated by "Freemium" games comparing their subs to their cash shop purchases? Which method is generating most of their income, steadily? I don't know, so any info would be news to me
Because of this, I realize that MMOs will more than likely NEVER go back to how they were, with the RPG tag on the end of acronym. It is bad business sense. The only way I see it happening is if the whole industry blew up and had to "re-boot" itself. I just can not give up my dwindling, flickering, ember of hope that maybe, someday, MMOs will get their inefficient RPG aspect back.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
So many people that have never played Dota (or any of the clones including LoL) that it's kind of shocking almost..
Some of the nonsense that's being said...
There is no safer market than the mainstream. You simply don't know how much of the old school MMORPGs' success can be attributed to sheer novelty. You don't know how many people would actually play an old school game today.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky