Originally posted by Thane It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair…
A tale of two cities - Charles Dickens :-)
he knows too much! he is a witch!
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
There's a big risk in waiting for perfection and never being satisfied. You could use the same analogy with a life partner. No-one is perfect and nothing is perfect.
years ago, GW2, TSW, FFIV, Wildstar and all the other mainstream MMOs would have been more than anything we could ever desire - now, people are never satisfied. There's a damn lot of good in all those games but I get a sense that the moaners play them all far too much and burn themselves out. I have never got bored with any of them as there isn't enough free time in my life to get to that stage. Work, wife, kids, hobbies, sport - heck, an hour a day is good and if I get two hours, I'm lucky. I wonder if some people play computer games too much compared to doing a variety of things with their lives. Even if you drive a Ferrari all day, you'll get bored of it.
I think that's less of a user issue and more of an issue with those games. It's a pretty good indication of simply how shallow they are, that a player can be burnt out on them after... 1 year or less.
When players played EverQuest and other earlier games far more over several years and still found themselves with much to do (it's not like they were rerolling often, because it didn't take 20 hours to level a toon to max level in those games). They called it EverCrack... It was a household name even among non-gamers...
Burned out? Are you sure you didn't mean "bored."
The issue with current MMOs is that the Lore is weakly developed/written, Character Advancement is way too fast, and Character Development is too weak. The PvE content is too shallow and a lot of players do not like PvP-focused end-games. The games are also a solo fest and in some cases designed in ways that seem to actively discourage grouping, especially while leveling up (i.e. TESO).
The games are too fast. They walk you up to end-game too quickly for you to get any real enjoyment out of the game. Most of them are quest grinds. It's like playing Dragon Age Inquisition with a 20 hour campaign. That's not fun, in an RPG. People kinda need more from these games, otherwise why not just get a console and play RPGs on that. If you aren't a console gamer, you can get a PS3 and have probably thousands of hours of fun in single player RPGs on that genre, which are more developed and deeper than half the MMOs on the market these days.
MMORPGs aren't something that should depend on replay value to sustain users, because users should not feel like they are "replaying" the game when they log in. It's about the epic story line and the slow but steady character leveling and development. The journey that never ends, but sees steady progress. That's what attracted a lot of MMO players to this genre, and why a lot of players complain about current games. Because the game is extremely repetitive at end game and getting to max level, Lore-wise feels like beating a console RPG campaign because of the Quest-Driven leveling process most employ.
All of the MMOs these days are extremely fast and leave you in "replay" mode fairly quickly, which bores users to death.
People rave about "Action Combat" and "No Trinity" and look what they get in exchange for those perks... No Content (games reusing content like TESO for end game progression, games with hardly any end PvE game content like GW2... which almost plays like Diablo III in MMO form). Extremely fast leveling with shallow character progression.... etc.
GW2's first expansion is going to be like 1/5th the size of EQ's Kunark expansion on release. They're basically charging their users $40-50 for Console-sized DLC that you'd expect to buy there for $10-15.
Originally posted by Darksworm Originally posted by mark2123There's a big risk in waiting for perfection and never being satisfied. You could use the same analogy with a life partner. No-one is perfect and nothing is perfect.years ago, GW2, TSW, FFIV, Wildstar and all the other mainstream MMOs would have been more than anything we could ever desire - now, people are never satisfied. There's a damn lot of good in all those games but I get a sense that the moaners play them all far too much and burn themselves out. I have never got bored with any of them as there isn't enough free time in my life to get to that stage. Work, wife, kids, hobbies, sport - heck, an hour a day is good and if I get two hours, I'm lucky. I wonder if some people play computer games too much compared to doing a variety of things with their lives. Even if you drive a Ferrari all day, you'll get bored of it.
I think that's less of a user issue and more of an issue with those games. It's a pretty good indication of simply how shallow they are, that a player can be burnt out on them after... 1 year or less.
When players played EverQuest and other earlier games far more over several years and still found themselves with much to do (it's not like they were rerolling often, because it didn't take 20 hours to level a toon to max level in those games). They called it EverCrack... It was a household name even among non-gamers...
Burned out? Are you sure you didn't mean "bored."
The issue with current MMOs is that the Lore is weakly developed/written, Character Advancement is way too fast, and Character Development is too weak. The PvE content is too shallow and a lot of players do not like PvP-focused end-games. The games are also a solo fest and in some cases designed in ways that seem to actively discourage grouping, especially while leveling up (i.e. TESO).
The games are too fast. They walk you up to end-game too quickly for you to get any real enjoyment out of the game. Most of them are quest grinds. It's like playing Dragon Age Inquisition with a 20 hour campaign. That's not fun, in an RPG. People kinda need more from these games, otherwise why not just get a console and play RPGs on that. If you aren't a console gamer, you can get a PS3 and have probably thousands of hours of fun in single player RPGs on that genre, which are more developed and deeper than half the MMOs on the market these days.
MMORPGs aren't something that should depend on replay value to sustain users, because users should not feel like they are "replaying" the game when they log in. It's about the epic story line and the slow but steady character leveling and development. The journey that never ends, but sees steady progress. That's what attracted a lot of MMO players to this genre, and why a lot of players complain about current games. Because the game is extremely repetitive at end game and getting to max level, Lore-wise feels like beating a console RPG campaign because of the Quest-Driven leveling process most employ.
All of the MMOs these days are extremely fast and leave you in "replay" mode fairly quickly, which bores users to death.
People rave about "Action Combat" and "No Trinity" and look what they get in exchange for those perks... No Content (games reusing content like TESO for end game progression, games with hardly any end PvE game content like GW2... which almost plays like Diablo III in MMO form). Extremely fast leveling with shallow character progression.... etc.
GW2's first expansion is going to be like 1/5th the size of EQ's Kunark expansion on release. They're basically charging their users $40-50 for Console-sized DLC that you'd expect to buy there for $10-15.
Hmm. How do you explain the millions of people who have been playing rift, tsw, swtor, ffxiv, gw2, tera, aoc since launch?
Originally posted by mark2123There's a big risk in waiting for perfection and never being satisfied. You could use the same analogy with a life partner. No-one is perfect and nothing is perfect.years ago, GW2, TSW, FFIV, Wildstar and all the other mainstream MMOs would have been more than anything we could ever desire - now, people are never satisfied. There's a damn lot of good in all those games but I get a sense that the moaners play them all far too much and burn themselves out. I have never got bored with any of them as there isn't enough free time in my life to get to that stage. Work, wife, kids, hobbies, sport - heck, an hour a day is good and if I get two hours, I'm lucky. I wonder if some people play computer games too much compared to doing a variety of things with their lives. Even if you drive a Ferrari all day, you'll get bored of it.
I think that's less of a user issue and more of an issue with those games. It's a pretty good indication of simply how shallow they are, that a player can be burnt out on them after... 1 year or less.
When players played EverQuest and other earlier games far more over several years and still found themselves with much to do (it's not like they were rerolling often, because it didn't take 20 hours to level a toon to max level in those games). They called it EverCrack... It was a household name even among non-gamers...
Burned out? Are you sure you didn't mean "bored."
The issue with current MMOs is that the Lore is weakly developed/written, Character Advancement is way too fast, and Character Development is too weak. The PvE content is too shallow and a lot of players do not like PvP-focused end-games. The games are also a solo fest and in some cases designed in ways that seem to actively discourage grouping, especially while leveling up (i.e. TESO).
The games are too fast. They walk you up to end-game too quickly for you to get any real enjoyment out of the game. Most of them are quest grinds. It's like playing Dragon Age Inquisition with a 20 hour campaign. That's not fun, in an RPG. People kinda need more from these games, otherwise why not just get a console and play RPGs on that. If you aren't a console gamer, you can get a PS3 and have probably thousands of hours of fun in single player RPGs on that genre, which are more developed and deeper than half the MMOs on the market these days.
MMORPGs aren't something that should depend on replay value to sustain users, because users should not feel like they are "replaying" the game when they log in. It's about the epic story line and the slow but steady character leveling and development. The journey that never ends, but sees steady progress. That's what attracted a lot of MMO players to this genre, and why a lot of players complain about current games. Because the game is extremely repetitive at end game and getting to max level, Lore-wise feels like beating a console RPG campaign because of the Quest-Driven leveling process most employ.
All of the MMOs these days are extremely fast and leave you in "replay" mode fairly quickly, which bores users to death.
People rave about "Action Combat" and "No Trinity" and look what they get in exchange for those perks... No Content (games reusing content like TESO for end game progression, games with hardly any end PvE game content like GW2... which almost plays like Diablo III in MMO form). Extremely fast leveling with shallow character progression.... etc.
GW2's first expansion is going to be like 1/5th the size of EQ's Kunark expansion on release. They're basically charging their users $40-50 for Console-sized DLC that you'd expect to buy there for $10-15.
Hmm. How do you explain the millions of people who have been playing rift, tsw, swtor, ffxiv, gw2, tera, aoc since launch?
Millions of people across 7 games. I doubt you could get 7 million players from all 7 of those games... EQ1 had 500k players in a MUCH smaller market in 2004 and most MMOs these days can't even hold near that many 3-4 months after launch, nevermind 3-4 years after launch.
We all know the story of Age of Conan. Seriously... It launched with virtually no end game. Rift was never all that great but people flocked to it cause "PvP" and they liked the (admittedly) innovative Class Combination system and Dynamic Events that turned out to be a bit less than Dynamic. Both of those launched as Subscription Games and eventually had to drop the subscription in a desperate attempt to get players, and are still dying (as in, more players leaving than coming). FFXIV is standard fare MMO - no reason to really play that when you can play WoW with its superior player population, IMO. Tera, GW2 are both shallow MMORPGs and GW2 is more a MOBA than an MMORPG. The sole purpose is to level you up ASAP and get you into PvP. It is Content Anorexic at end game levels, and one of the shallowest overhyped MMOs in recent history.
Their Expansion probably won't even be half the size of EQ's Kunark Expansion was back in 2000, and they probably have 3x the funding.
Also, it's a lot easier to say what you said when half of those games failed to the point where they were forced to go Free to Play or Pay to Play (become super cheap in a desperate attempt to attract or keep players). Do you seriously think any of the games you listed could survive if they actually had a subscription (the ones that haven't already failed at that already). There is simply not enough there to warrant it.
GW2 benefits from the fact that it's a cheap B2P game (especially now with their constant half off sales). It's a no brainer to buy it and check it out, play through the 20 hour or so leveling up/campaign and then never look at it again, and they'll probably still count you as a player! It's a lot harder spend even that small amount of money when it comes with a subscription, and you just know it isn't worth paying a monthly fee for a game so starved for content, and having virtually no end game outside of instanced PvP.
Free to play completely distorts you people's view on the market. You think "having players" means instant success, when a lot of those people simply wander from free/cheap game to free/cheap game simply "because they can" (that's a lot more viable when you don't have stacking subscriptions to keep each game active!) or because they don't want to pay for a better play experience else (or have no other options - in the event nothing else on the market is agreeable to them).
Playing a dead game like Age of Conan may be great for some people, but I like populous MMORPGs, not wastelands where I can level from 1 to 65 (out of 80) and barely see another real person, and never group up with a group of other player characters... Thanks, but no thanks. That is not my style.
I'm saying there are millions of people playing new MMOs right now and have been for years. People left old ones too, just like now. Not sure why this is a big deal.
Originally posted by Darksworm EQ1 had 500k players in a MUCH smaller market in 2004 and most MMOs these days can't even hold near that many 3-4 months after launch, nevermind 3-4 years after launch.
EQ1 got 450k out of a market that was barely worth 1 million max, and that was in 2003, when choices where limited to half a dozen quality games, and got UTTERLY crushed when a better game in the same style (WoW) got released.
Awesome.
Hint: When you're the only drug shop in the street, most people will come to you. But when other shops open, among which much better ones, it's MUCH harder to keep your top stop.
The only reason why games like EQ, but also DAoC, worked so well, is because of the lack of alternatives.
That's untrue. There were alternatives back then, they just weren't that good.
The same way a lot of the MMOs being pushed out today aren't that good.
Alternatives don't matter when they aren't really better (in some cases, quite worse) than the status quo, which is the same "issue" we have with WoW today.
I'm saying there are millions of people playing new MMOs right now and have been for years. People left old ones too, just like now. Not sure why this is a big deal.
I'm not sure why you had to mention it, if it isn't such a bit deal... Hmm?
Rift is *not* a new MMO. Age of Conan is not a new MMO.
There are not millions of people playing those games.
They were subscription and went F2P for a reason.
I don't play any of the old games, either. At some point you have to move on to a new game. I just never would have thought the market would be filled with so many bad ones. People play bad games for whatever reason they choose. There are still people who swear by Lineage II, even though that game is an abomination.
F2P and B2P games make it easy on themselves to attract players because the barrier to entry (monetary) is low and players have lower expectations because they don't invest that much in the game. What the average WoW subscriber expects from Blizzard is a bit more than what the average GW2 purchaser expects from ArenaNet. Just perusing their forums, you can see the difference in attitude.
It's hard to put out a game like GW2 and then ask for a subscription, cause it isn't worth it. Players expect more. Look what happened when AoC launched as a subscription game, with virtually no end game (it still had more of an end-game than GW2, but GW2 got 0 flack because the cost is borderline ignorable).
Originally posted by Darksworm EQ1 had 500k players in a MUCH smaller market in 2004 and most MMOs these days can't even hold near that many 3-4 months after launch, nevermind 3-4 years after launch.
EQ1 got 450k out of a market that was barely worth 1 million max, and that was in 2003, when choices where limited to half a dozen quality games
And that's where your last shred of credibility vanishes.
In 2003 we have
EQ- 500k
DAoC - 250k
UO - 300k
SWG - 350-400k
FF11 - 550k
CoH - 180k
Eve - 200k
Second life -200k
And that's not even getting into eastern games like Lineage 1 or 2, or more niche titles like Matrix, Sims, Earn and Beyond, Shadowbane, Anarchy Online, etc.
There were many quality games, and most of them had about the same, if not MORE subscribers in 2003, than most modern AAA MMOs have, except they cost a LOT LESS to make and there were FAR FEWER people playing MMOs overall. What does that tell you about the current market?
Whether or not WoW is currently doing well is not an indication to anything about the genre as a whole. WoW always has, and always will be, a complete outlier.
Originally posted by Darksworm EQ1 had 500k players in a MUCH smaller market in 2004 and most MMOs these days can't even hold near that many 3-4 months after launch, nevermind 3-4 years after launch.
EQ1 got 450k out of a market that was barely worth 1 million max, and that was in 2003, when choices where limited to half a dozen quality games, and got UTTERLY crushed when a better game in the same style (WoW) got released.
Awesome.
Hint: When you're the only drug shop in the street, most people will come to you. But when other shops open, among which much better ones, it's MUCH harder to keep your top stop.
The only reason why games like EQ, but also DAoC, worked so well, is because of the lack of alternatives.
That's untrue. There were alternatives back then, they just weren't that good.
The same way a lot of the MMOs being pushed out today aren't that good.
Alternatives don't matter when they aren't really better (in some cases, quite worse) than the status quo, which is the same "issue" we have with WoW today.
No matter how much you dislike it, it's true. Unlike many here, I was there, playing. The alternatives to EQ, in the same play style, were few. There was DAoC, more PvP oriented, and there was Anarchy Online. The other games were different, AC1, SWG, UO, all those were not EQ clone wannabes.
Nowadays, you have dozens of EQ/WoW clones. Yet WoW still wins the pot without any contest possible.
EQ only worked because there was no better alternative to the EQ "class/level/grind/raid" model back then. As soon as alternatives appeared, the EQ population numbers took a major nosedive.
And saying it over and over again doesn't make it true, either.
A lot of people played EQ because they liked the game, not simply because there were no alternatives.
They called it EverCrack for a reason. It it certainly wasn't because "well, I guess people had no other alternatives."
A good game doesn't need the lack of alternatives to thrive. WoW is still doing amazingly well despite there being a ton of alternatives, because the game is good.
Originally posted by Darksworm EQ1 had 500k players in a MUCH smaller market in 2004 and most MMOs these days can't even hold near that many 3-4 months after launch, nevermind 3-4 years after launch.
EQ1 got 450k out of a market that was barely worth 1 million max, and that was in 2003, when choices where limited to half a dozen quality games
And that's where your last shred of credibility vanishes.
In 2003 we have
EQ- 500k
DAoC - 250k
UO - 300k
SWG - 350-400k
FF11 - 550k
CoH - 180k
Eve - 200k
Second life -200k
And that's not even getting into eastern games like Lineage 1 or 2, or more niche titles like Matrix, Sims, Earn and Beyond, Shadowbane, Anarchy Online, etc.
There were many quality games, and most of them had about the same, if not MORE subscribers in 2003, than most modern AAA MMOs have, except they cost a LOT LESS to make and there were FAR FEWER people playing MMOs overall. What does that tell you about the current market?
Whether or not WoW is currently doing well is not an indication to anything about the genre as a whole. WoW always has, and always will be, a complete outlier.
Originally posted by Darksworm EQ1 had 500k players in a MUCH smaller market in 2004 and most MMOs these days can't even hold near that many 3-4 months after launch, nevermind 3-4 years after launch.
EQ1 got 450k out of a market that was barely worth 1 million max, and that was in 2003, when choices where limited to half a dozen quality games
And that's where your last shred of credibility vanishes.
In 2003 we have
EQ- 500k
DAoC - 250k
UO - 300k
SWG - 350-400k
FF11 - 550k
CoH - 180k
Eve - 200k
Second life -200k
And that's not even getting into eastern games like Lineage 1 or 2, or more niche titles like Matrix, Sims, Earn and Beyond, Shadowbane, Anarchy Online, etc.
There were many quality games, and most of them had about the same, if not MORE subscribers in 2003, than most modern AAA MMOs have, except they cost a LOT LESS to make and there were FAR FEWER people playing MMOs overall. What does that tell you about the current market?
Whether or not WoW is currently doing well is not an indication to anything about the genre as a whole. WoW always has, and always will be, a complete outlier.
Yes, because you pulling all those numbers out of your ass is soooo meaningful.
Originally posted by Darksworm EQ1 had 500k players in a MUCH smaller market in 2004 and most MMOs these days can't even hold near that many 3-4 months after launch, nevermind 3-4 years after launch.
EQ1 got 450k out of a market that was barely worth 1 million max, and that was in 2003, when choices where limited to half a dozen quality games
And that's where your last shred of credibility vanishes.
In 2003 we have
EQ- 500k
DAoC - 250k
UO - 300k
SWG - 350-400k
FF11 - 550k
CoH - 180k
Eve - 200k
Second life -200k
And that's not even getting into eastern games like Lineage 1 or 2, or more niche titles like Matrix, Sims, Earn and Beyond, Shadowbane, Anarchy Online, etc.
There were many quality games, and most of them had about the same, if not MORE subscribers in 2003, than most modern AAA MMOs have, except they cost a LOT LESS to make and there were FAR FEWER people playing MMOs overall. What does that tell you about the current market?
Whether or not WoW is currently doing well is not an indication to anything about the genre as a whole. WoW always has, and always will be, a complete outlier.
Yes, because you pulling all those numbers out of your ass is soooo meaningful.
That numerical data is easy to find, don't embarrass yourself.
I'd give the link, but for some reason I can't even past a link into the editor for posts on this forum.
In 2003 there were over 4M total subscriptions in this genre and multiple games over 300k Subs. The fact that so many AAA titles can't even sustain similar numbers in a market that is 5x the size is kind of embarrassing, and back then practically everything required a subscription.
Also, the MMORPG market has been shrinking (sub numbers-wise) pretty consistently since 2011. That probably also explains the trepidation of Publishers in funding them, and why developers are starting to turn to Kickstarter to get funded. It also probably explains why so many developers have become a bit more shrouded when it comes to divulging their subscriber numbers (or whatever that's called for F2P games/B2P games when they depend on cash shop turn-overs to run their game).
Again, for Jon Luc or whatever your name is... The numbers are easily obtainable. You can clue yourself into this fairly easily if you just look. I'd give you the links, but I cannot paste them into the broken forum editor and I'm frankly too lazy to manually type in long URLs when you're perfectly capable of finding the relevant information yourself.
Insulting people won't make it not exist, and be trivially accessible to you ;-)
Don't worry guys - it's like, the worst period to be alive and stuff too.
There is like, war, and disease, and hunger and shit.
Some people have got money, others don't. It's a fucking nightmare man.
I mean, when I was a kid...
Oh wait everything was exactly the fucking same, I was just too young and stupid to have any clue what the real world was like. It is a lot of fun to look back on how simple and care free life was then, parents buying all the food and paying the bills, I had it real nice.
Originally posted by Darksworm Originally posted by FoomerangI'm saying there are millions of people playing new MMOs right now and have been for years. People left old ones too, just like now. Not sure why this is a big deal.
I'm not sure why you had to mention it, if it isn't such a bit deal... Hmm?
Rift is *not* a new MMO. Age of Conan is not a new MMO.
There are not millions of people playing those games.
They were subscription and went F2P for a reason.
I don't play any of the old games, either. At some point you have to move on to a new game. I just never would have thought the market would be filled with so many bad ones. People play bad games for whatever reason they choose. There are still people who swear by Lineage II, even though that game is an abomination.
F2P and B2P games make it easy on themselves to attract players because the barrier to entry (monetary) is low and players have lower expectations because they don't invest that much in the game. What the average WoW subscriber expects from Blizzard is a bit more than what the average GW2 purchaser expects from ArenaNet. Just perusing their forums, you can see the difference in attitude.
It's hard to put out a game like GW2 and then ask for a subscription, cause it isn't worth it. Players expect more. Look what happened when AoC launched as a subscription game, with virtually no end game (it still had more of an end-game than GW2, but GW2 got 0 flack because the cost is borderline ignorable).
Heh ok. Those are all your own view on things. Mine is a lot different.
Originally posted by Darksworm EQ1 had 500k players in a MUCH smaller market in 2004 and most MMOs these days can't even hold near that many 3-4 months after launch, nevermind 3-4 years after launch.
EQ1 got 450k out of a market that was barely worth 1 million max, and that was in 2003, when choices where limited to half a dozen quality games
And that's where your last shred of credibility vanishes.
In 2003 we have
EQ- 500k
DAoC - 250k
UO - 300k
SWG - 350-400k
FF11 - 550k
CoH - 180k
Eve - 200k
Second life -200k
And that's not even getting into eastern games like Lineage 1 or 2, or more niche titles like Matrix, Sims, Earn and Beyond, Shadowbane, Anarchy Online, etc.
There were many quality games, and most of them had about the same, if not MORE subscribers in 2003, than most modern AAA MMOs have, except they cost a LOT LESS to make and there were FAR FEWER people playing MMOs overall. What does that tell you about the current market?
Whether or not WoW is currently doing well is not an indication to anything about the genre as a whole. WoW always has, and always will be, a complete outlier.
Yes, because you pulling all those numbers out of your ass is soooo meaningful.
That numerical data is easy to find, don't embarrass yourself.
I'd give the link, but for some reason I can't even past a link into the editor for posts on this forum.
In 2003 there were over 4M total subscriptions in this genre and multiple games over 300k Subs. The fact that so many AAA titles can't even sustain similar numbers in a market that is 5x the size is kind of embarrassing, and back then practically everything required a subscription.
Also, the MMORPG market has been shrinking (sub numbers-wise) pretty consistently since 2011.
No official data exists, it's mostly one guy (mmodata) or some firm making estimates. stating numbers is pointless as unless they're official they mean nothing. There's too much room for error in citing such calculations.
Originally posted by Darksworm EQ1 had 500k players in a MUCH smaller market in 2004 and most MMOs these days can't even hold near that many 3-4 months after launch, nevermind 3-4 years after launch.
EQ1 got 450k out of a market that was barely worth 1 million max, and that was in 2003, when choices where limited to half a dozen quality games
And that's where your last shred of credibility vanishes.
In 2003 we have
EQ- 500k
DAoC - 250k
UO - 300k
SWG - 350-400k
FF11 - 550k
CoH - 180k
Eve - 200k
Second life -200k
And that's not even getting into eastern games like Lineage 1 or 2, or more niche titles like Matrix, Sims, Earn and Beyond, Shadowbane, Anarchy Online, etc.
There were many quality games, and most of them had about the same, if not MORE subscribers in 2003, than most modern AAA MMOs have, except they cost a LOT LESS to make and there were FAR FEWER people playing MMOs overall. What does that tell you about the current market?
Whether or not WoW is currently doing well is not an indication to anything about the genre as a whole. WoW always has, and always will be, a complete outlier.
Yes, because you pulling all those numbers out of your ass is soooo meaningful.
That numerical data is easy to find, don't embarrass yourself.
I'd give the link, but for some reason I can't even past a link into the editor for posts on this forum.
In 2003 there were over 4M total subscriptions in this genre and multiple games over 300k Subs. The fact that so many AAA titles can't even sustain similar numbers in a market that is 5x the size is kind of embarrassing, and back then practically everything required a subscription.
Also, the MMORPG market has been shrinking (sub numbers-wise) pretty consistently since 2011.
No official data exists, it's mostly one guy (mmodata) or some firm making estimates. stating numbers is pointless as unless they're official they mean nothing. There's too much room for error in citing such calculations.
That's certainly not where I got my numbers from, and I did some cross referencing to official announcements from some companies and they are accurate.
Originally posted by Darksworm EQ1 had 500k players in a MUCH smaller market in 2004 and most MMOs these days can't even hold near that many 3-4 months after launch, nevermind 3-4 years after launch.
EQ1 got 450k out of a market that was barely worth 1 million max, and that was in 2003, when choices where limited to half a dozen quality games
And that's where your last shred of credibility vanishes.
In 2003 we have
EQ- 500k
DAoC - 250k
UO - 300k
SWG - 350-400k
FF11 - 550k
CoH - 180k
Eve - 200k
Second life -200k
And that's not even getting into eastern games like Lineage 1 or 2, or more niche titles like Matrix, Sims, Earn and Beyond, Shadowbane, Anarchy Online, etc.
There were many quality games, and most of them had about the same, if not MORE subscribers in 2003, than most modern AAA MMOs have, except they cost a LOT LESS to make and there were FAR FEWER people playing MMOs overall. What does that tell you about the current market?
Whether or not WoW is currently doing well is not an indication to anything about the genre as a whole. WoW always has, and always will be, a complete outlier.
No official data exists, it's mostly one guy (mmodata) or some firm making estimates. stating numbers is pointless as unless they're official they mean nothing. There's too much room for error in citing such calculations.
That's certainly not where I got my numbers from, and I did some cross referencing to official announcements from some companies and they are accurate.
13th widget on the second row..looks like a globe, copy and paste your link in that or in your post itself.. I can say for sure SWG numbers have never been officially announced, but the rumored max consistency was always around 250k when the game was relevant.... not 350-400k.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
There's a big risk in waiting for perfection and never being satisfied. You could use the same analogy with a life partner. No-one is perfect and nothing is perfect.
years ago, GW2, TSW, FFIV, Wildstar and all the other mainstream MMOs would have been more than anything we could ever desire - now, people are never satisfied. There's a damn lot of good in all those games but I get a sense that the moaners play them all far too much and burn themselves out. I have never got bored with any of them as there isn't enough free time in my life to get to that stage. Work, wife, kids, hobbies, sport - heck, an hour a day is good and if I get two hours, I'm lucky. I wonder if some people play computer games too much compared to doing a variety of things with their lives. Even if you drive a Ferrari all day, you'll get bored of it.
I think that's less of a user issue and more of an issue with those games. It's a pretty good indication of simply how shallow they are, that a player can be burnt out on them after... 1 year or less.
When players played EverQuest and other earlier games far more over several years and still found themselves with much to do (it's not like they were rerolling often, because it didn't take 20 hours to level a toon to max level in those games). They called it EverCrack... It was a household name even among non-gamers...
Burned out? Are you sure you didn't mean "bored."
The issue with current MMOs is that the Lore is weakly developed/written, Character Advancement is way too fast, and Character Development is too weak. The PvE content is too shallow and a lot of players do not like PvP-focused end-games. The games are also a solo fest and in some cases designed in ways that seem to actively discourage grouping, especially while leveling up (i.e. TESO).
The games are too fast. They walk you up to end-game too quickly for you to get any real enjoyment out of the game. Most of them are quest grinds. It's like playing Dragon Age Inquisition with a 20 hour campaign. That's not fun, in an RPG. People kinda need more from these games, otherwise why not just get a console and play RPGs on that. If you aren't a console gamer, you can get a PS3 and have probably thousands of hours of fun in single player RPGs on that genre, which are more developed and deeper than half the MMOs on the market these days.
MMORPGs aren't something that should depend on replay value to sustain users, because users should not feel like they are "replaying" the game when they log in. It's about the epic story line and the slow but steady character leveling and development. The journey that never ends, but sees steady progress. That's what attracted a lot of MMO players to this genre, and why a lot of players complain about current games. Because the game is extremely repetitive at end game and getting to max level, Lore-wise feels like beating a console RPG campaign because of the Quest-Driven leveling process most employ.
All of the MMOs these days are extremely fast and leave you in "replay" mode fairly quickly, which bores users to death.
People rave about "Action Combat" and "No Trinity" and look what they get in exchange for those perks... No Content (games reusing content like TESO for end game progression, games with hardly any end PvE game content like GW2... which almost plays like Diablo III in MMO form). Extremely fast leveling with shallow character progression.... etc.
GW2's first expansion is going to be like 1/5th the size of EQ's Kunark expansion on release. They're basically charging their users $40-50 for Console-sized DLC that you'd expect to buy there for $10-15.
WoW is household name.
EQ was never ever household name lol. Not even among gamers.
And i dont really see how you get your ideas.
In today world EQ was a game without any content (just grind mobs), uber crappy quests in every aspect.
the only credfit it gets is that it was "among the first" and thats about it, it was nice for others to learn from large number of mistakes so they can improve on the design. And thats just what WoW did.
Whole game is "endgame" in GW2. Yes, it has no vertical progression and has downscaling. You literally go wherever you want and do whatever you want. It certainly beats doing same raid over and over again in hopes some crap with "+1" will drop.
EQ was pretty much Diabloesque, it was just hack&slash grinder without any substance and some terrible "features"
Its no secret WoW is also Diabloesque, it just improved on those "features"
Neither were or are RPGs. Both are just MMOs, hack&slash games, chasing bigger numbers for sake of bigger numbers.
My OPINION, and I agree with the OP, is that it is all a matter of perception.
Prior to 2004 a MMORPG meant Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. If you mentioned it in casual conversation, people looked at you like you were coughing up bowling balls.
After 2004 a MMORPG meant "A game like WoW." - And not just in the industry, or on forums like these. Everyone Everywhere knew what a MMORPG was. It was a game like WoW. So anyone making a new MMORPG was making a game like WOW. That is what the term means now.
So to those enjoying themselves in todays offerings. Huzzah. I am happy that you are content. So, I don't want to change the MMORPG's that you are currently loving. Long may they live and long may you enjoy them.
I however would like something different. Like someone said earlier in the thread, "I'm not burned out, I'm Bored."
I want a MMORPW. W stands for World. And I really think it is time for new terminology.
It might even stop some of the bickering around here. < Now that is an unrealistic expectation.>
( Note to self-Don't say anything bad about Drizzt.)
There are so many straw men and analogies in this thread it makes ones head spin.
The problem is, when you resort to using straw men and analogies you are trying to use Psychology to bolster a weak argument. You are essentially changing the subject, to a subject that more closely aligns with your side of the debate in an attempt to garner further support. It is good psychology, but bad form in a debate.
So please talk about the subject matter and leave the rubber ducks and McDonalds out of the equation. It only opens you to a counter analogy and weakens your initial position.
Evidently they didn't teach this at some of your colleges. At mine, presenting a paper full of analogies would result in an automatic fail with most professors.
<End of public service announcement.>
( Note to self-Don't say anything bad about Drizzt.)
Comments
he knows too much! he is a witch!
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
I think that's less of a user issue and more of an issue with those games. It's a pretty good indication of simply how shallow they are, that a player can be burnt out on them after... 1 year or less.
When players played EverQuest and other earlier games far more over several years and still found themselves with much to do (it's not like they were rerolling often, because it didn't take 20 hours to level a toon to max level in those games). They called it EverCrack... It was a household name even among non-gamers...
Burned out? Are you sure you didn't mean "bored."
The issue with current MMOs is that the Lore is weakly developed/written, Character Advancement is way too fast, and Character Development is too weak. The PvE content is too shallow and a lot of players do not like PvP-focused end-games. The games are also a solo fest and in some cases designed in ways that seem to actively discourage grouping, especially while leveling up (i.e. TESO).
The games are too fast. They walk you up to end-game too quickly for you to get any real enjoyment out of the game. Most of them are quest grinds. It's like playing Dragon Age Inquisition with a 20 hour campaign. That's not fun, in an RPG. People kinda need more from these games, otherwise why not just get a console and play RPGs on that. If you aren't a console gamer, you can get a PS3 and have probably thousands of hours of fun in single player RPGs on that genre, which are more developed and deeper than half the MMOs on the market these days.
MMORPGs aren't something that should depend on replay value to sustain users, because users should not feel like they are "replaying" the game when they log in. It's about the epic story line and the slow but steady character leveling and development. The journey that never ends, but sees steady progress. That's what attracted a lot of MMO players to this genre, and why a lot of players complain about current games. Because the game is extremely repetitive at end game and getting to max level, Lore-wise feels like beating a console RPG campaign because of the Quest-Driven leveling process most employ.
All of the MMOs these days are extremely fast and leave you in "replay" mode fairly quickly, which bores users to death.
People rave about "Action Combat" and "No Trinity" and look what they get in exchange for those perks... No Content (games reusing content like TESO for end game progression, games with hardly any end PvE game content like GW2... which almost plays like Diablo III in MMO form). Extremely fast leveling with shallow character progression.... etc.
GW2's first expansion is going to be like 1/5th the size of EQ's Kunark expansion on release. They're basically charging their users $40-50 for Console-sized DLC that you'd expect to buy there for $10-15.
When players played EverQuest and other earlier games far more over several years and still found themselves with much to do (it's not like they were rerolling often, because it didn't take 20 hours to level a toon to max level in those games). They called it EverCrack... It was a household name even among non-gamers...
Burned out? Are you sure you didn't mean "bored."
The issue with current MMOs is that the Lore is weakly developed/written, Character Advancement is way too fast, and Character Development is too weak. The PvE content is too shallow and a lot of players do not like PvP-focused end-games. The games are also a solo fest and in some cases designed in ways that seem to actively discourage grouping, especially while leveling up (i.e. TESO).
The games are too fast. They walk you up to end-game too quickly for you to get any real enjoyment out of the game. Most of them are quest grinds. It's like playing Dragon Age Inquisition with a 20 hour campaign. That's not fun, in an RPG. People kinda need more from these games, otherwise why not just get a console and play RPGs on that. If you aren't a console gamer, you can get a PS3 and have probably thousands of hours of fun in single player RPGs on that genre, which are more developed and deeper than half the MMOs on the market these days.
MMORPGs aren't something that should depend on replay value to sustain users, because users should not feel like they are "replaying" the game when they log in. It's about the epic story line and the slow but steady character leveling and development. The journey that never ends, but sees steady progress. That's what attracted a lot of MMO players to this genre, and why a lot of players complain about current games. Because the game is extremely repetitive at end game and getting to max level, Lore-wise feels like beating a console RPG campaign because of the Quest-Driven leveling process most employ.
All of the MMOs these days are extremely fast and leave you in "replay" mode fairly quickly, which bores users to death.
People rave about "Action Combat" and "No Trinity" and look what they get in exchange for those perks... No Content (games reusing content like TESO for end game progression, games with hardly any end PvE game content like GW2... which almost plays like Diablo III in MMO form). Extremely fast leveling with shallow character progression.... etc.
GW2's first expansion is going to be like 1/5th the size of EQ's Kunark expansion on release. They're basically charging their users $40-50 for Console-sized DLC that you'd expect to buy there for $10-15.
Hmm. How do you explain the millions of people who have been playing rift, tsw, swtor, ffxiv, gw2, tera, aoc since launch?
Millions of people across 7 games. I doubt you could get 7 million players from all 7 of those games... EQ1 had 500k players in a MUCH smaller market in 2004 and most MMOs these days can't even hold near that many 3-4 months after launch, nevermind 3-4 years after launch.
We all know the story of Age of Conan. Seriously... It launched with virtually no end game. Rift was never all that great but people flocked to it cause "PvP" and they liked the (admittedly) innovative Class Combination system and Dynamic Events that turned out to be a bit less than Dynamic. Both of those launched as Subscription Games and eventually had to drop the subscription in a desperate attempt to get players, and are still dying (as in, more players leaving than coming). FFXIV is standard fare MMO - no reason to really play that when you can play WoW with its superior player population, IMO. Tera, GW2 are both shallow MMORPGs and GW2 is more a MOBA than an MMORPG. The sole purpose is to level you up ASAP and get you into PvP. It is Content Anorexic at end game levels, and one of the shallowest overhyped MMOs in recent history.
Their Expansion probably won't even be half the size of EQ's Kunark Expansion was back in 2000, and they probably have 3x the funding.
Also, it's a lot easier to say what you said when half of those games failed to the point where they were forced to go Free to Play or Pay to Play (become super cheap in a desperate attempt to attract or keep players). Do you seriously think any of the games you listed could survive if they actually had a subscription (the ones that haven't already failed at that already). There is simply not enough there to warrant it.
GW2 benefits from the fact that it's a cheap B2P game (especially now with their constant half off sales). It's a no brainer to buy it and check it out, play through the 20 hour or so leveling up/campaign and then never look at it again, and they'll probably still count you as a player! It's a lot harder spend even that small amount of money when it comes with a subscription, and you just know it isn't worth paying a monthly fee for a game so starved for content, and having virtually no end game outside of instanced PvP.
Free to play completely distorts you people's view on the market. You think "having players" means instant success, when a lot of those people simply wander from free/cheap game to free/cheap game simply "because they can" (that's a lot more viable when you don't have stacking subscriptions to keep each game active!) or because they don't want to pay for a better play experience else (or have no other options - in the event nothing else on the market is agreeable to them).
Playing a dead game like Age of Conan may be great for some people, but I like populous MMORPGs, not wastelands where I can level from 1 to 65 (out of 80) and barely see another real person, and never group up with a group of other player characters... Thanks, but no thanks. That is not my style.
I'm saying there are millions of people playing new MMOs right now and have been for years. People left old ones too, just like now. Not sure why this is a big deal.
That's untrue. There were alternatives back then, they just weren't that good.
The same way a lot of the MMOs being pushed out today aren't that good.
Alternatives don't matter when they aren't really better (in some cases, quite worse) than the status quo, which is the same "issue" we have with WoW today.
I'm not sure why you had to mention it, if it isn't such a bit deal... Hmm?
Rift is *not* a new MMO. Age of Conan is not a new MMO.
There are not millions of people playing those games.
They were subscription and went F2P for a reason.
I don't play any of the old games, either. At some point you have to move on to a new game. I just never would have thought the market would be filled with so many bad ones. People play bad games for whatever reason they choose. There are still people who swear by Lineage II, even though that game is an abomination.
F2P and B2P games make it easy on themselves to attract players because the barrier to entry (monetary) is low and players have lower expectations because they don't invest that much in the game. What the average WoW subscriber expects from Blizzard is a bit more than what the average GW2 purchaser expects from ArenaNet. Just perusing their forums, you can see the difference in attitude.
It's hard to put out a game like GW2 and then ask for a subscription, cause it isn't worth it. Players expect more. Look what happened when AoC launched as a subscription game, with virtually no end game (it still had more of an end-game than GW2, but GW2 got 0 flack because the cost is borderline ignorable).
And that's where your last shred of credibility vanishes.
In 2003 we have
EQ- 500k
DAoC - 250k
UO - 300k
SWG - 350-400k
FF11 - 550k
CoH - 180k
Eve - 200k
Second life -200k
And that's not even getting into eastern games like Lineage 1 or 2, or more niche titles like Matrix, Sims, Earn and Beyond, Shadowbane, Anarchy Online, etc.
There were many quality games, and most of them had about the same, if not MORE subscribers in 2003, than most modern AAA MMOs have, except they cost a LOT LESS to make and there were FAR FEWER people playing MMOs overall. What does that tell you about the current market?
Whether or not WoW is currently doing well is not an indication to anything about the genre as a whole. WoW always has, and always will be, a complete outlier.
And saying it over and over again doesn't make it true, either.
A lot of people played EQ because they liked the game, not simply because there were no alternatives.
They called it EverCrack for a reason. It it certainly wasn't because "well, I guess people had no other alternatives."
A good game doesn't need the lack of alternatives to thrive. WoW is still doing amazingly well despite there being a ton of alternatives, because the game is good.
Pretty much this.
Yes, because you pulling all those numbers out of your ass is soooo meaningful.
Yes, the fact that I mentioned it implies such.
Does it, to YOU? Or do you have your own spin on that, as well?
That numerical data is easy to find, don't embarrass yourself.
I'd give the link, but for some reason I can't even past a link into the editor for posts on this forum.
In 2003 there were over 4M total subscriptions in this genre and multiple games over 300k Subs. The fact that so many AAA titles can't even sustain similar numbers in a market that is 5x the size is kind of embarrassing, and back then practically everything required a subscription.
Also, the MMORPG market has been shrinking (sub numbers-wise) pretty consistently since 2011. That probably also explains the trepidation of Publishers in funding them, and why developers are starting to turn to Kickstarter to get funded. It also probably explains why so many developers have become a bit more shrouded when it comes to divulging their subscriber numbers (or whatever that's called for F2P games/B2P games when they depend on cash shop turn-overs to run their game).
Again, for Jon Luc or whatever your name is... The numbers are easily obtainable. You can clue yourself into this fairly easily if you just look. I'd give you the links, but I cannot paste them into the broken forum editor and I'm frankly too lazy to manually type in long URLs when you're perfectly capable of finding the relevant information yourself.
Insulting people won't make it not exist, and be trivially accessible to you ;-)
Don't worry guys - it's like, the worst period to be alive and stuff too.
There is like, war, and disease, and hunger and shit.
Some people have got money, others don't. It's a fucking nightmare man.
I mean, when I was a kid...
Oh wait everything was exactly the fucking same, I was just too young and stupid to have any clue what the real world was like. It is a lot of fun to look back on how simple and care free life was then, parents buying all the food and paying the bills, I had it real nice.
Rift is *not* a new MMO. Age of Conan is not a new MMO.
There are not millions of people playing those games.
They were subscription and went F2P for a reason.
I don't play any of the old games, either. At some point you have to move on to a new game. I just never would have thought the market would be filled with so many bad ones. People play bad games for whatever reason they choose. There are still people who swear by Lineage II, even though that game is an abomination.
F2P and B2P games make it easy on themselves to attract players because the barrier to entry (monetary) is low and players have lower expectations because they don't invest that much in the game. What the average WoW subscriber expects from Blizzard is a bit more than what the average GW2 purchaser expects from ArenaNet. Just perusing their forums, you can see the difference in attitude.
It's hard to put out a game like GW2 and then ask for a subscription, cause it isn't worth it. Players expect more. Look what happened when AoC launched as a subscription game, with virtually no end game (it still had more of an end-game than GW2, but GW2 got 0 flack because the cost is borderline ignorable).
Heh ok. Those are all your own view on things. Mine is a lot different.
No official data exists, it's mostly one guy (mmodata) or some firm making estimates. stating numbers is pointless as unless they're official they mean nothing. There's too much room for error in citing such calculations.
For an idea of why following/citing such numbers or even this type of topic in general is essentially futile read this. http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/06/01/measuring-mmos.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I still can't post links in the forum.
That's certainly not where I got my numbers from, and I did some cross referencing to official announcements from some companies and they are accurate.
13th widget on the second row..looks like a globe, copy and paste your link in that or in your post itself.. I can say for sure SWG numbers have never been officially announced, but the rumored max consistency was always around 250k when the game was relevant.... not 350-400k.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
WoW is household name.
EQ was never ever household name lol. Not even among gamers.
And i dont really see how you get your ideas.
In today world EQ was a game without any content (just grind mobs), uber crappy quests in every aspect.
the only credfit it gets is that it was "among the first" and thats about it, it was nice for others to learn from large number of mistakes so they can improve on the design. And thats just what WoW did.
Whole game is "endgame" in GW2. Yes, it has no vertical progression and has downscaling. You literally go wherever you want and do whatever you want. It certainly beats doing same raid over and over again in hopes some crap with "+1" will drop.
EQ was pretty much Diabloesque, it was just hack&slash grinder without any substance and some terrible "features"
Its no secret WoW is also Diabloesque, it just improved on those "features"
Neither were or are RPGs. Both are just MMOs, hack&slash games, chasing bigger numbers for sake of bigger numbers.
I'll pitch in my 2 coppers.
My OPINION, and I agree with the OP, is that it is all a matter of perception.
Prior to 2004 a MMORPG meant Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. If you mentioned it in casual conversation, people looked at you like you were coughing up bowling balls.
After 2004 a MMORPG meant "A game like WoW." - And not just in the industry, or on forums like these. Everyone Everywhere knew what a MMORPG was. It was a game like WoW. So anyone making a new MMORPG was making a game like WOW. That is what the term means now.
So to those enjoying themselves in todays offerings. Huzzah. I am happy that you are content. So, I don't want to change the MMORPG's that you are currently loving. Long may they live and long may you enjoy them.
I however would like something different. Like someone said earlier in the thread, "I'm not burned out, I'm Bored."
I want a MMORPW. W stands for World. And I really think it is time for new terminology.
It might even stop some of the bickering around here. < Now that is an unrealistic expectation.>
( Note to self-Don't say anything bad about Drizzt.)
An acerbic sense of humor is NOT allowed here.
And my other copper....
There are so many straw men and analogies in this thread it makes ones head spin.
The problem is, when you resort to using straw men and analogies you are trying to use Psychology to bolster a weak argument. You are essentially changing the subject, to a subject that more closely aligns with your side of the debate in an attempt to garner further support. It is good psychology, but bad form in a debate.
So please talk about the subject matter and leave the rubber ducks and McDonalds out of the equation. It only opens you to a counter analogy and weakens your initial position.
Evidently they didn't teach this at some of your colleges. At mine, presenting a paper full of analogies would result in an automatic fail with most professors.
<End of public service announcement.>
( Note to self-Don't say anything bad about Drizzt.)
An acerbic sense of humor is NOT allowed here.