Originally posted by VengeSunsoar this forum represents a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the general MMO population. It is not representative of the average MMO gamer in any way shape or form
your view represents a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of this forum's viewpoint...which you pointed out how small is compared to the average MMo gamer.
You're nowhere near a representative of the average MMO gamer.
On top of that, I'd ask what data he's collected to show exactly where the average gamer's opinions actually lie. How far off or how close to those who post here. Because I think he just said that to add some hyperbole while sounding authentic. How does anyone know how accurate a sample size this forum is to opinions at large?
The "average gamer" is going to be largely driven by the most common games purchased and played. Technically, the "average gamer" doesn't exist. It's a mash-up of preferences that are themselves averages or most common.
The average MMORPG player has played or is playing WoW, and did so or has been doing so for years. The average gamer has played or is probably playing MOBAs. The average gamer spends $4.53 in F2P games, of which they play many. The average gamer has played far more single player games than MMORPGs or MMOs and has been very happy to do so.
And so on.
Just look at the biggest selling games. There's your "average gamer".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by sethman75 No dev in their right mind would make a game today that forces you to group and the reason is simple....there are not enough players that like that game style to make the game profitable.
The sooner people stop thinking it's 1997 when devs forced this on everybody because they were lazy and did not have the capacity create actual content are long gone.
Good riddance to that archaic and totally mind numbing style of game play.
Deal with the reality and enjoy what we have.
Man seems like you guys are pulling this out of thin air. Where are you getting this? It's comical that you know exactly what happened in 1997 and 1999 when mmo's first started to emerge. Actually you don't know what your talking about. Nothing happened in 1997. In 1995 Meridian 59 released and in 1997 EQ released. You have no idea what you're talking about. It's completely fine if the old game design elements are not for you. Do you comprehend what niche means? You have no idea if this type of niche market is profitable. I don't know either. But I can tell you based off the 100 something votes more people want this style of gameplay than you do.
The only one who made an attempt is Pantheon. McQuiad was essentially almost copying EQ but with different game design elements and some game play features. In my thread I am not even wanting to create a EQ clone. Mmorpgs have evolved. The game design features I have listed in my thread are simply principles that where taken from the old school mmo era. Let's use those principles as a foundation for the game and still allow the innovations of today.
Not once did I say force grouping. I said group content is king. A group could be 2 players. It could be 4 or 6. Sure this could still incorporate classes with the trinity but with the combat mechanics, you don't have to have a full group to survive. Will that make the content more challenged? Yes sir.
Just think out side of the box before you come on here and blow your gasket and post lol
Originally posted by sethman75 No dev in their right mind would make a game today that forces you to group and the reason is simple....there are not enough players that like that game style to make the game profitable.
The sooner people stop thinking it's 1997 when devs forced this on everybody because they were lazy and did not have the capacity create actual content are long gone.
Good riddance to that archaic and totally mind numbing style of game play.
Deal with the reality and enjoy what we have.
Man seems like you guys are pulling this out of thin air. Where are you getting this? It's comical that you know exactly what happened in 1997 and 1999 when mmo's first started to emerge. Actually you don't know what your talking about. Nothing happened in 1997. In 1995 Meridian 59 released and in 1997 EQ released. You have no idea what you're talking about. It's completely fine if the old game design elements are not for you. Do you comprehend what niche means? You have no idea if this type of niche market is profitable. I don't know either. But I can tell you based off the 100 something votes more people want this style of gameplay than you do.
The only one who made an attempt is Pantheon. McQuiad was essentially almost copying EQ but with different game design elements and some game play features. In my thread I am not even wanting to create a EQ clone. Mmorpgs have evolved. The game design features I have listed in my thread are simply principles that where taken from the old school mmo era. Let's use those principles as a foundation for the game and still allow the innovations of today.
Not once did I say force grouping. I said group content is king. A group could be 2 players. It could be 4 or 6. Sure this could still incorporate classes with the trinity but with the combat mechanics, you don't have to have a full group to survive. Will that make the content more challenged? Yes sir.
Just think out side of the box before you come on here and blow your gasket and post lol
And again, he is assuming all those players that casually play MMOs where solo progress is most efficient (read: almost every "modern" MMO) play alone simply because they hate playing online multiplayer games with other gamers.
"Mind numbing." What an incredibly appropriate term. Because running from one waypoint to the next alone to clear quests, only "interacting" with other players randomly to do dungeons (where, incidentally, any talking is as minimal as it can possibly be to complete said dungeon) is very "mind numbing" for me. Personally, if I'm not interested in interaction with other players, I'm going to load up a singleplayer RPG, where it's created around there not being any social interaction and thus, isn't so "mind numbing" to play by myself.
Originally posted by sethman75 No dev in their right mind would make a game today that forces you to group and the reason is simple....there are not enough players that like that game style to make the game profitable.
The sooner people stop thinking it's 1997 when devs forced this on everybody because they were lazy and did not have the capacity create actual content are long gone.
Good riddance to that archaic and totally mind numbing style of game play.
Deal with the reality and enjoy what we have.
Man seems like you guys are pulling this out of thin air. Where are you getting this? It's comical that you know exactly what happened in 1997 and 1999 when mmo's first started to emerge. Actually you don't know what your talking about. Nothing happened in 1997. In 1995 Meridian 59 released and in 1997 EQ released. You have no idea what you're talking about. It's completely fine if the old game design elements are not for you. Do you comprehend what niche means? You have no idea if this type of niche market is profitable. I don't know either. But I can tell you based off the 100 something votes more people want this style of gameplay than you do.
The only one who made an attempt is Pantheon. McQuiad was essentially almost copying EQ but with different game design elements and some game play features. In my thread I am not even wanting to create a EQ clone. Mmorpgs have evolved. The game design features I have listed in my thread are simply principles that where taken from the old school mmo era. Let's use those principles as a foundation for the game and still allow the innovations of today.
Not once did I say force grouping. I said group content is king. A group could be 2 players. It could be 4 or 6. Sure this could still incorporate classes with the trinity but with the combat mechanics, you don't have to have a full group to survive. Will that make the content more challenged? Yes sir.
Just think out side of the box before you come on here and blow your gasket and post lol
And again, he is assuming all those players that casually play MMOs where solo progress is most efficient (read: almost every "modern" MMO) play alone simply because they hate playing online multiplayer games with other gamers.
"Mind numbing." What an incredibly appropriate term. Because running from one waypoint to the next alone to clear quests, only "interacting" with other players randomly to do dungeons (where, incidentally, any talking is as minimal as it can possibly be to complete said dungeon) is very "mind numbing" for me. Personally, if I'm not interested in interaction with other players, I'm going to load up a singleplayer RPG, where it's created around there not being any social interaction and thus, isn't so "mind numbing" to play by myself.
And you wonder why themeparks are dying? Because people with a fixed, combat orientated, mentality cannot agree on what they like but the majority hate guided experiences and the majority hate being forced to do one thing (solo) or another (group). This is why sandboxes will win in the end because solo players can be solo (with all the testicle twisting pleasure of that difficulty curve), group players can group and a good portion of the player base (much like EVE) will be non-combatants: merchants, transporters, miners, explorers, etc because even with the flux in either of the two combat playstyles the non-combatants if satisfied (item deg, good crafting, meaningful exploration, trade routes or trade hubs far enough apart, etc) will merrily chug along doing their thing supplying goods and services at competitive rates (if the economy is balanced right) and also consuming loot items brought back by the combatants (skins, crystals, organic ore, whatever you can imagine).
And you wonder why themeparks are dying? Because people with a fixed, combat orientated, mentality cannot agree on what they like but the majority hate guided experiences and the majority hate being forced to do one thing (solo) or another (group). This is why sandboxes will win in the end because solo players can be solo (with all the testicle twisting pleasure of that difficulty curve), group players can group and a good portion of the player base (much like EVE) will be non-combatants: merchants, transporters, miners, explorers, etc because even with the flux in either of the two combat playstyles the non-combatants if satisfied (item deg, good crafting, meaningful exploration, trade routes or trade hubs far enough apart, etc) will merrily chug along doing their thing supplying goods and services at competitive rates (if the economy is balanced right) and also consuming loot items brought back by the combatants (skins, crystals, organic ore, whatever you can imagine).
I agree with you. Other than the radical outlier that is WoW, themepark MMOs tend to burn bright but die down. EVE Online is just the most notable and most AAA sandbox title released at the moment. And it's been chugging along supporting CCP (even through CCP's failed development of an entirely new MMO) for over a decade now. I see no signs of it dying, as there are at least twenty thousand players online at any given point in any given day (that I've seen, and I've logged in at 5 AM CST to find that number still holding). All the talk about Elite: Dangerous or Star Citizen killing it is just that until it happens.
Sure, that sandbox did not begin so comprehensively or polished. No MMO will. But constant improvements and additions (such as implementing deep and specific systems to support meaningful exploration) have kept the game fresh enough and deep enough to retain a respectable playerbase. They've also did a commendable job supplying and refining missions and tutorials to help acclimate players to each profession (a better job than any other sandbox ever released in my opinion).
Yes they burn bright and die down. But what they die down to either adjust as high, as high, or higher populations than the most successful sandbox.
I do think that in the very long term sandbox will win but not before it starts offering more choices such as giving me the choice to decide whether I want a guided path or do whatever. There is no reason they can't offer both.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Yes they burn bright and die down. But what they die down to either adjust as high, as high, or higher populations than the most successful sandbox.
I do think that in the very long term sandbox will win but not before it starts offering more choices such as giving me the choice to decide whether I want a guided path or do whatever. There is no reason they can't offer both.
I don't even think traditional MMORPG will "win" in the long term. There are more streamlined, focused, and new online game ideas (like Destiny).
Oh I have no doubt the idea of a world that people pay and adventure in will always be immensely popular. Perhaps not the most popular but always very popular. With new tech they will get bigger and more expansive allowing us to do more. Then VR will give us new ways to interface and it will exclude again. Then btl games. ... And then were all chip heads and screwed
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar Yes they burn bright and die down. But what they die down to either adjust as high, as high, or higher populations than the most successful sandbox.
I do think that in the very long term sandbox will win but not before it starts offering more choices such as giving me the choice to decide whether I want a guided path or do whatever. There is no reason they can't offer both.
While I can agree somewhat with this, I guess it depends on how long you the "died down" period lasts before the MMO goes with a F2P model. Once it hits F2P, it's an entirely different ballgame that I don't think can be compared with sub games.
Unfortunately, that makes an objective comparison of the two much more difficult, as there are only a handful of MMOs with a subscription model or any kind of real barrier to entry (such as a significant box price).
Take a look at the poll. Last time I checked more people want this style of game versus who don't. I know it's a very minute sample but still. Like I have mentioned before. I have no idea how big the market is. That's why I am seeing how big it would be based on these forums alone. It be nice if more people would vote.
If your assertions were true Pantheon's Kickstarter would have successfully funded.
Take a look at the poll. Last time I checked more people want this style of game versus who don't. I know it's a very minute sample but still. Like I have mentioned before. I have no idea how big the market is. That's why I am seeing how big it would be based on these forums alone. It be nice if more people would vote.
If your assertions were true Pantheon's Kickstarter would have successfully funded.
Not saying the original poster is correct in his argument either, but you're using a logical fallacy to assert that his assertions are wrong.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar this forum represents a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the general MMO population. It is not representative of the average MMO gamer in any way shape or form
your view represents a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of this forum's viewpoint...which you pointed out how small is compared to the average MMo gamer.
You're nowhere near a representative of the average MMO gamer.
On top of that, I'd ask what data he's collected to show exactly where the average gamer's opinions actually lie. How far off or how close to those who post here. Because I think he just said that to add some hyperbole while sounding authentic. How does anyone know how accurate a sample size this forum is to opinions at large?
The "average gamer" is going to be largely driven by the most common games purchased and played. Technically, the "average gamer" doesn't exist. It's a mash-up of preferences that are themselves averages or most common.
The average MMORPG player has played or is playing WoW, and did so or has been doing so for years. The average gamer has played or is probably playing MOBAs. The average gamer spends $4.53 in F2P games, of which they play many. The average gamer has played far more single player games than MMORPGs or MMOs and has been very happy to do so.
And so on.
Just look at the biggest selling games. There's your "average gamer".
And what are their opinions regarding WoW? Do they still play it? If so, why? Is WoW better or worse for them than it used to be? Do they play it because it's the best of the best or do they play it because it's the best of the worst?
It's one thing to quote the facts. It's another to make assumptions about opinions where nothing is really known.
Most MMORPG gamers have played WoW at one time or another. But that has little to do with this forum's voice and how big or small it is compared to that larger base.
The poster I initially quoted stated how small this forum's voice is compared to the larger player base as a whole. How do you know who and how many among that larger base share similar opinions as those expressed here?
We don't know how similar it is. That's why it isn't valid. Because we don't know. And err dint know because it it is such a small sample size and is in effect a targeted group (those that go to s particular forum and answer polls)
Both of which break the first rules of valid credible and reliable polling.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Take a look at the poll. Last time I checked more people want this style of game versus who don't. I know it's a very minute sample but still. Like I have mentioned before. I have no idea how big the market is. That's why I am seeing how big it would be based on these forums alone. It be nice if more people would vote.
If your assertions were true Pantheon's Kickstarter would have successfully funded.
Not saying the original poster is correct in his argument either, but you're using a logical fallacy to assert that his assertions are wrong.
I apologize if I worded my statement in such a way that it came across as such. I was just in a hurry and attempting to be brief. Yes it's true that Pantheon not funding is not in and of itself proof that the OP's assertion is entirely wrong. Especially considering Brad McQuaid's involvement but I do think it is some evidence for the fact that the supposed market for this type of game is not as large as some forum posters would have you believe. It's not like Pantheon even came any where near close to funding or had 100's of thousands of backers.
Out of 150 votes the majority of voters would rather have the niche game I have described rather than the same saturated gameplay we have today. The purpose of this was to only sample this mmorpg forum as a whole. The poll does mean something on here because you come to this forum because you've played or are playing an mmo right now. However, it can't be taken an account of the whole mmo genre as a whole. Perhaps Pantheon wasn't enough for the this niche to sustain to back it. Maybe one day a good quality game will appear and this niche market of gamers can go to it and be a loyal fan base to sustain it.
I couldn't make it past the first 2 pages before I had to respond to some of these posts.
Specifically the, "You don't really want this, history has proven you don't really want this, etc." posts that we are seeing.
Lets see what history has shown. History has shown that Asherons Call and Everquest are still running despite being some of the first graphical MMO's released. History has shown that EVE online has been wrecking face. History has shown that poorly released and poorly made games that attempt to be what is on this list will fail. History has shown that there has been a clear lack of these games being made.
Ok, so we have a few of these games made with quality that BUILT the genre, are still running, and were considered good/solid games. We have some of these games that were crap and failed. Only a handful of these games have been made and none of them have released as AAA titles (recently).
I'm sorry but this whole "you don't want that" thing is sounding a bit like "our menu only ever has chocolate cake, you dont want strawberry shortcake though, we know that because even though we've only ever served chocolate cake you've never ordered anything differently."
When a few AAA eq-remake/sandbox/etc. games come out RECENTLY and they fail miserably, THEN AND ONLY THEN can you say that they aren't what we want. But as someone who plays the crap coming out now for about 5 minutes before alt-f4/uninstall and then pining for these old games I can PROMISE you that I AM admitting the truth to myself about what I want.
Originally posted by mmoguy43 Those are the things that brought me into this genre, were a unique part of it, and would be the only way to convince me to return.
Quoted for truth. +1
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
Another error I'm starting to see with this thread is the assumption that being the top game, being a great game, or being successful has something to do with having overly ridiculous subscription numbers or box sales and I'm sorry but this really just isn't true at all.
From a company standpoint they want to make money, so this is certainly understandable. But this doesnt prevent niche or "not the most popular" from being successful. Look at beer, the most drank beer in the world is bud-light....fecking-yuck...barf in mouth disgusting bud light. But they are the most selling beer in the world and because they meet what consumers want then of course they are only successful company.
OR....you could realize that maybe they just have the best advertisers in the market and that the "GENERAL" population is better at being told what they want then deciding for themselves, this of course still leaves more than enough of the remaining population to make a successful non-bud-light beer.
OR...you could realize that there are in fact several non-bud-light beer companies that are extremely successful.
Being the best in the eyes of the general population has generally meant falling short of top tier quality, and a product being niche has never necessarily meant that it was so niche that it wouldn't be successful.
It has tended to be my opinion, and the opinions of of the more passionate people throughout history that the niche market creates higher quality. This higher quality typically comes at a price that the general population isn't willing to spend (money, time, etc.) as they aren't as passionate
(I don't care about expensive beer because I need to have wings and cigarettes, and the nice car, and name brand clothes, and I don't make enough to buy the more expensive niche beer because I'd rather do x, y, and z than get a better paying job) VS (I'll go with crappier clothes and not get wings/etc. so that i can have this better beer.)
So what I can't understand, for the life of me, is why some people seem to think that just because the general population wants wow-clones that they also seem to think that the niche-market-gamers aren't allowed to want what we want. Or, for that matter, why game companies won't make these games. I get that companies are always trying to make money, but money can be made without always shooting for the top 1% of earning potential. In fact, most people that know anything about making money know that shooting to be the top 1% of earners is one of the worst ways to make money.
At this point we aren't even sure if a AAA niche-market game can be successful because there hasn't been one released in 14 years (short of vanguard which was so buggy that I don't think it should be called AAA). BUT with this we also aren't sure that they are guaranteed to fail. All we do know is that they aren't being made.
Comments
The "average gamer" is going to be largely driven by the most common games purchased and played. Technically, the "average gamer" doesn't exist. It's a mash-up of preferences that are themselves averages or most common.
The average MMORPG player has played or is playing WoW, and did so or has been doing so for years. The average gamer has played or is probably playing MOBAs. The average gamer spends $4.53 in F2P games, of which they play many. The average gamer has played far more single player games than MMORPGs or MMOs and has been very happy to do so.
And so on.
Just look at the biggest selling games. There's your "average gamer".
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Man seems like you guys are pulling this out of thin air. Where are you getting this? It's comical that you know exactly what happened in 1997 and 1999 when mmo's first started to emerge. Actually you don't know what your talking about. Nothing happened in 1997. In 1995 Meridian 59 released and in 1997 EQ released. You have no idea what you're talking about. It's completely fine if the old game design elements are not for you. Do you comprehend what niche means? You have no idea if this type of niche market is profitable. I don't know either. But I can tell you based off the 100 something votes more people want this style of gameplay than you do.
The only one who made an attempt is Pantheon. McQuiad was essentially almost copying EQ but with different game design elements and some game play features. In my thread I am not even wanting to create a EQ clone. Mmorpgs have evolved. The game design features I have listed in my thread are simply principles that where taken from the old school mmo era. Let's use those principles as a foundation for the game and still allow the innovations of today.
Not once did I say force grouping. I said group content is king. A group could be 2 players. It could be 4 or 6. Sure this could still incorporate classes with the trinity but with the combat mechanics, you don't have to have a full group to survive. Will that make the content more challenged? Yes sir.
Just think out side of the box before you come on here and blow your gasket and post lol
And again, he is assuming all those players that casually play MMOs where solo progress is most efficient (read: almost every "modern" MMO) play alone simply because they hate playing online multiplayer games with other gamers.
"Mind numbing." What an incredibly appropriate term. Because running from one waypoint to the next alone to clear quests, only "interacting" with other players randomly to do dungeons (where, incidentally, any talking is as minimal as it can possibly be to complete said dungeon) is very "mind numbing" for me. Personally, if I'm not interested in interaction with other players, I'm going to load up a singleplayer RPG, where it's created around there not being any social interaction and thus, isn't so "mind numbing" to play by myself.
And you wonder why themeparks are dying? Because people with a fixed, combat orientated, mentality cannot agree on what they like but the majority hate guided experiences and the majority hate being forced to do one thing (solo) or another (group). This is why sandboxes will win in the end because solo players can be solo (with all the testicle twisting pleasure of that difficulty curve), group players can group and a good portion of the player base (much like EVE) will be non-combatants: merchants, transporters, miners, explorers, etc because even with the flux in either of the two combat playstyles the non-combatants if satisfied (item deg, good crafting, meaningful exploration, trade routes or trade hubs far enough apart, etc) will merrily chug along doing their thing supplying goods and services at competitive rates (if the economy is balanced right) and also consuming loot items brought back by the combatants (skins, crystals, organic ore, whatever you can imagine).
I agree with you. Other than the radical outlier that is WoW, themepark MMOs tend to burn bright but die down. EVE Online is just the most notable and most AAA sandbox title released at the moment. And it's been chugging along supporting CCP (even through CCP's failed development of an entirely new MMO) for over a decade now. I see no signs of it dying, as there are at least twenty thousand players online at any given point in any given day (that I've seen, and I've logged in at 5 AM CST to find that number still holding). All the talk about Elite: Dangerous or Star Citizen killing it is just that until it happens.
Sure, that sandbox did not begin so comprehensively or polished. No MMO will. But constant improvements and additions (such as implementing deep and specific systems to support meaningful exploration) have kept the game fresh enough and deep enough to retain a respectable playerbase. They've also did a commendable job supplying and refining missions and tutorials to help acclimate players to each profession (a better job than any other sandbox ever released in my opinion).
Really?
Is that why linear SP games sell millions and millions?
You don't think MMO devs are putting in linear experiences because they want a piece of that big market?
I do think that in the very long term sandbox will win but not before it starts offering more choices such as giving me the choice to decide whether I want a guided path or do whatever. There is no reason they can't offer both.
I don't even think traditional MMORPG will "win" in the long term. There are more streamlined, focused, and new online game ideas (like Destiny).
While I can agree somewhat with this, I guess it depends on how long you the "died down" period lasts before the MMO goes with a F2P model. Once it hits F2P, it's an entirely different ballgame that I don't think can be compared with sub games.
Unfortunately, that makes an objective comparison of the two much more difficult, as there are only a handful of MMOs with a subscription model or any kind of real barrier to entry (such as a significant box price).
If your assertions were true Pantheon's Kickstarter would have successfully funded.
Steam: Neph
Not saying the original poster is correct in his argument either, but you're using a logical fallacy to assert that his assertions are wrong.
And what are their opinions regarding WoW? Do they still play it? If so, why? Is WoW better or worse for them than it used to be? Do they play it because it's the best of the best or do they play it because it's the best of the worst?
It's one thing to quote the facts. It's another to make assumptions about opinions where nothing is really known.
Most MMORPG gamers have played WoW at one time or another. But that has little to do with this forum's voice and how big or small it is compared to that larger base.
The poster I initially quoted stated how small this forum's voice is compared to the larger player base as a whole. How do you know who and how many among that larger base share similar opinions as those expressed here?
Both of which break the first rules of valid credible and reliable polling.
I apologize if I worded my statement in such a way that it came across as such. I was just in a hurry and attempting to be brief. Yes it's true that Pantheon not funding is not in and of itself proof that the OP's assertion is entirely wrong. Especially considering Brad McQuaid's involvement but I do think it is some evidence for the fact that the supposed market for this type of game is not as large as some forum posters would have you believe. It's not like Pantheon even came any where near close to funding or had 100's of thousands of backers.
Steam: Neph
I am all for grouping as a choice when you can do it but forced grouping is a sure way to kill the game for the majority of players.
Why?
People are slow, unreliable and are never around when you need them.
If like many others i only have hour to play for the day, i refuse to wait in a dungeon entrance for 20 minutes while the healer goes for a smoke.
WoW has consistantly been the biggest and the best MMORPG in the genre.
Why is it do you think they removed all group quests, reduced group xp and created fantastic group finding tools for dungeons/raids etc?
Because they have studied their metrics and gave the majority of gamers what they wanted.
This is the reason why they are at the top and why every every other MMO dev tries to emulate them.
Thus it being a niche market. We won't know how big of a niche before something like it release.
I couldn't make it past the first 2 pages before I had to respond to some of these posts.
Specifically the, "You don't really want this, history has proven you don't really want this, etc." posts that we are seeing.
Lets see what history has shown. History has shown that Asherons Call and Everquest are still running despite being some of the first graphical MMO's released. History has shown that EVE online has been wrecking face. History has shown that poorly released and poorly made games that attempt to be what is on this list will fail. History has shown that there has been a clear lack of these games being made.
Ok, so we have a few of these games made with quality that BUILT the genre, are still running, and were considered good/solid games. We have some of these games that were crap and failed. Only a handful of these games have been made and none of them have released as AAA titles (recently).
I'm sorry but this whole "you don't want that" thing is sounding a bit like "our menu only ever has chocolate cake, you dont want strawberry shortcake though, we know that because even though we've only ever served chocolate cake you've never ordered anything differently."
When a few AAA eq-remake/sandbox/etc. games come out RECENTLY and they fail miserably, THEN AND ONLY THEN can you say that they aren't what we want. But as someone who plays the crap coming out now for about 5 minutes before alt-f4/uninstall and then pining for these old games I can PROMISE you that I AM admitting the truth to myself about what I want.
Quoted for truth. +1
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
Another error I'm starting to see with this thread is the assumption that being the top game, being a great game, or being successful has something to do with having overly ridiculous subscription numbers or box sales and I'm sorry but this really just isn't true at all.
From a company standpoint they want to make money, so this is certainly understandable. But this doesnt prevent niche or "not the most popular" from being successful. Look at beer, the most drank beer in the world is bud-light....fecking-yuck...barf in mouth disgusting bud light. But they are the most selling beer in the world and because they meet what consumers want then of course they are only successful company.
OR....you could realize that maybe they just have the best advertisers in the market and that the "GENERAL" population is better at being told what they want then deciding for themselves, this of course still leaves more than enough of the remaining population to make a successful non-bud-light beer.
OR...you could realize that there are in fact several non-bud-light beer companies that are extremely successful.
Being the best in the eyes of the general population has generally meant falling short of top tier quality, and a product being niche has never necessarily meant that it was so niche that it wouldn't be successful.
It has tended to be my opinion, and the opinions of of the more passionate people throughout history that the niche market creates higher quality. This higher quality typically comes at a price that the general population isn't willing to spend (money, time, etc.) as they aren't as passionate
(I don't care about expensive beer because I need to have wings and cigarettes, and the nice car, and name brand clothes, and I don't make enough to buy the more expensive niche beer because I'd rather do x, y, and z than get a better paying job) VS (I'll go with crappier clothes and not get wings/etc. so that i can have this better beer.)
So what I can't understand, for the life of me, is why some people seem to think that just because the general population wants wow-clones that they also seem to think that the niche-market-gamers aren't allowed to want what we want. Or, for that matter, why game companies won't make these games. I get that companies are always trying to make money, but money can be made without always shooting for the top 1% of earning potential. In fact, most people that know anything about making money know that shooting to be the top 1% of earners is one of the worst ways to make money.
At this point we aren't even sure if a AAA niche-market game can be successful because there hasn't been one released in 14 years (short of vanguard which was so buggy that I don't think it should be called AAA). BUT with this we also aren't sure that they are guaranteed to fail. All we do know is that they aren't being made.