I love these examples, as I was just about to ask you for this exact kind of info.
I notice these all seem to be single player games, do you have any multiplayer platform games, most notable online multiplayer games, that showed these kinds of marked improvements over the series?
Call of Duty Franchise:
Call of Duty 4.5 mil Call of Duty 2 5.9 mil Call of Duty 3 7.2 mil Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare 2007 20mil units Call of Duty World at War 2008 17mil Black Ops 2010 30m mil units units Black Ops 2 2012 30mil units units Ghosts 2013 29mil Advanced Warfare 2014 22mil units Black Ops 3 2015 27mil units units Call of Duty Infinite Warfare 2016 14mil WWII 2017 20mil Call of Duty Black Ops 4 2018 14.5 mil Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2019 30 mil Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 2022 23 mil Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 2023 30mil units
Destiny 2014 9 million units Destiny 2 2017 38mil units
Halo 1 2001 6 mil Halo 2 2004 8.5 mil Halo 3 2007 12 mil Halo Reach 2010 10 mil Halo 4 2012 9mil Halo 5 2017 10mil Halo Infinite 2021 20mil
When looking at the stats above, even Halo that looks like is was just doing ok compared to some of the other AAA titles, sold $9 billion in total sales.
I can see a game like Dota 2, which concurrent users completely dwarf Dota 1, its tough to risk what you have, when you are doing good. Although the data says they will be even more popular, if they release another version.
I can totally understand games like WoW or Dota2 that are running with millions of players not taking a risk.
But even small indie games like Mortal online 2, has more players than Mortal online 1 did, although only a few 1000 more, its still more. That means they got all that game revenue from 10's of thousands of new players. The reason they are so small in the first place is because of the hardcore niche they appeal too. If they didnt release a new version, they would still have around 50 players max.
In the end they picked up more players and resold their game full price to existing customers and new customers, many of whom bought the game then quit.
Data says rather than focus on their existing game, they should just rinse and repeat with a new game. Put all the improvements towards the next version.
It's probably like FTP games. 1000 people downloaded the game, and only end up having 5 players.
So you are suggesting try to sell the games because you know everyone would quit anyway.
It's easy to pick the success story. How many console games have been sold, and how many of them are success.
I think the reality is people only play the best games of every genre. You said if they make a Dota3, it would be more successful. If that is true why can't people just make a new MOBA and make more money than DOTA2.
GW2, ESO, New world are all buy to play I think. You are suggesting they stop updating and puting out new expansion and just make GW3, ESO2 and New world 2 I suppose.
Look at the gap between Grand Theft Auto 5 and 6, Elder scrolls was what,vlije 10 years ago, and where the hell is Fallout 5?
Clearly 2 year cycles are not the industry norm even in the single player space, Witcher 4 anyone?
2007 The Witcher - 1 mllion units 2011 The Witcher 2 - 3.5 million units 2015 The Witcher 3 - 50mil units
1997 Fallout - 280k 1998 Fallout 2 - 600k 2008 Fallout 3 - 12 million units 2015 Fallout 4 - 15 million units
Grand Theft Auto I 1997: 3 million copies sold.
Grand Theft Auto II 1999: 2 million copies sold. Grand Theft Auto III (2001): 14.5 million copies sold.
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (2002): 17.5 million copies sold.
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (2004): 27.5 million copies sold.
Grand Theft Auto IV (2008): 25 million copies sold.
Grand Theft Auto V (2013): 160 million copies sold. Grand Theft Auto V (2025): 38million copies sold so far pre-sales Expected $3-8 billion 1st year, which is $1-7 billion more than GTA 5 1st year sales.
The 2 year number is just an abitrary number, I am more pointing out that regular releases over time can have huge sales increases.
Additionally even if you have un unpopular version, it doesnt have to be a franchise killer, you can just change directions and release a better version next time, players will forgive, if you make a good game.
GTA is an example, GTA 2 looks unpopular but GTA 3 course correct it just 2 years later.
In your examples the interval between releases steadily increases. My guess is each successive version costs significantly more to make as developers are pressed to make the next iteration more robust.
As franchises gain in popularity / revenues it's only natural for management / investors to pour increasingly more money into their development for the next iteration....for single player games....
Online games might follow the same pattern, longer development times, more sales / profit, certainly franchises such as shooters have proven resilient.
But for MMOS, and in particular MMORPGs we haven't seen similar really, at least not with any great consistency.
Oh, and before sharing any more sales numbers please be sure to include a link to their source.
Not saying you are making stuff up, but your sources might be.
Yes I agree with the intervals, I think its because they lost alot of talent and have not invested in content, rather they figured its more profitable to just make nothing and live off sales of their franchises. Which essentially is pure profit.
I dont know which method produces more total profit though. But investing zero, is probably less risky.
However if GTA6 makes $8 billion which I think is a high estimate. Then that will probably be more than almost all the MMO's in the last decade combined.
Its hard to imagine not being able to have enough money to hire teams to put out content every few years when your revenue is $8 billion. Even if you paid devs $150k each you could hire 30k employees per game and still have $3-4 billion to spare. I doubt any AAA company has anywhere close to 30k devs on 1 game.
You misunderstand how the distribution of wealth works
$4 or $5 Billion will go to the top management as a reward for their hard "work"
The rest goes to paying back investors, operating expenses etc.
That will leave like maybe $500M to operate the game for the next 10 years and start work on GTA7.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think the reality is people only play the best games of every genre. You said if they make a Dota3, it would be more successful. If that is true why can't people just make a new MOBA and make more money than DOTA2.
GW2, ESO, New world are all buy to play I think. You are suggesting they stop updating and puting out new expansion and just make GW3, ESO2 and New world 2 I suppose.
To your first question, I think its hard for an upstart to build a brand. AAA brand that is popular has a huge advantage. An upstart has to start out and continually improve with next version and build their brand over time. Just like FromSoftware did. Sometimes people can go viral and get lucky, but they have to be smart and take advantage of that short term success.
GW2, ESO, New World, yes I am saying they should stop updating and focus on a sequel. Data says thats way way way better and more money. No matter how much they sink into New World, it will never be as popular as if they just focus on NW2 and release.
I would bet money NW2 could easily sell 7mil+ units year 1.
Heck I would definitely buy NW2 if it was releasing next year. I wont go back to NW1 most likely. Same goes for ESO and GW. I played all those, I am not going back period.
You misunderstand how the distribution of wealth works
$4 or $5 Billion will go to the top management as a reward for their hard "work"
The rest goes to paying back investors, operating expenses etc.
That will leave like maybe $500M to operate the game for the next 10 years and start work on GTA7.
I think you are right about this actually.
I think its short term thinking. Imagaine if they actually were putting some of thoe resources back into development of next version. Pumping out sequels every 2 years, 4 billion profit ever 2 years is $20 billion, vs just $6-7billion they are getting now.
I cant even imagine what 31k developers could do instead of just 1k. You could even split those devs into 3 games and have 10k per game (10x more) and get $60 billion profit every 10years.
You misunderstand how the distribution of wealth works
$4 or $5 Billion will go to the top management as a reward for their hard "work"
The rest goes to paying back investors, operating expenses etc.
That will leave like maybe $500M to operate the game for the next 10 years and start work on GTA7.
I think you are right about this actually.
I think its short term thinking. Imagaine if they actually were putting some of thoe resources back into development of next version. Pumping out sequels every 2 years, 4 billion profit ever 2 years is $20 billion, vs just $6-7billion they are getting now.
I cant even imagine what 31k developers could do instead of just 1k. You could even split those devs into 3 games and have 10k per game (10x more) and get $60 billion profit every 10years.
Yes, with the many billions WOW pulled in I originally thought Blizzard might plow a lot of that into either improving the original or making something amazing and new, like I dunno, World of StarCraft.
Instead they went with incremental and IMO unimaginative low effort expansions every year.
Instead of creating a new, improved MMORPGs they spent money on whatever the flavor of the year in gaming was, be it card battlers, mobas, shooters or battle royales.
They rest of the money was apparently pocketed by those in charge or mis-spent on failed efforts like project Titan or whatever Overwatch was called before it's designed was switched.
I do agree the time might be right for WOW 2, and I can't imagine if most of the hundreds of millions of former WOW players wouldn't give it a try.
But instead I hear tell of a new survival title in the world and now Blizzard is reimagining their original title with Season of Discovery and Hard core classic servers.
But nothing new in the MMORPG space, that's a genre no AAA developer has faith that there's big money to be made still.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think the reality is people only play the best games of every genre. You said if they make a Dota3, it would be more successful. If that is true why can't people just make a new MOBA and make more money than DOTA2.
GW2, ESO, New world are all buy to play I think. You are suggesting they stop updating and puting out new expansion and just make GW3, ESO2 and New world 2 I suppose.
To your first question, I think its hard for an upstart to build a brand. AAA brand that is popular has a huge advantage. An upstart has to start out and continually improve with next version and build their brand over time. Just like FromSoftware did. Sometimes people can go viral and get lucky, but they have to be smart and take advantage of that short term success.
GW2, ESO, New World, yes I am saying they should stop updating and focus on a sequel. Data says thats way way way better and more money. No matter how much they sink into New World, it will never be as popular as if they just focus on NW2 and release.
I would bet money NW2 could easily sell 7mil+ units year 1.
Heck I would definitely buy NW2 if it was releasing next year. I wont go back to NW1 most likely. Same goes for ESO and GW. I played all those, I am not going back period.
Why on earth would they make a NW2? Keep the original and make expansions. It doesn't make sense to make a NW2. It's a waste of money. There only making 420000000 million in a year. Is that even enough money to cover the rent in California?
Cite the money trail loss of expansions vs new game.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
I love these examples, as I was just about to ask you for this exact kind of info.
I notice these all seem to be single player games, do you have any multiplayer platform games, most notable online multiplayer games, that showed these kinds of marked improvements over the series?
Call of Duty Franchise:
Call of Duty 4.5 mil Call of Duty 2 5.9 mil Call of Duty 3 7.2 mil Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare 2007 20mil units Call of Duty World at War 2008 17mil Black Ops 2010 30m mil units units Black Ops 2 2012 30mil units units Ghosts 2013 29mil Advanced Warfare 2014 22mil units Black Ops 3 2015 27mil units units Call of Duty Infinite Warfare 2016 14mil WWII 2017 20mil Call of Duty Black Ops 4 2018 14.5 mil Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2019 30 mil Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 2022 23 mil Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 2023 30mil units
Destiny 2014 9 million units Destiny 2 2017 38mil units
Halo 1 2001 6 mil Halo 2 2004 8.5 mil Halo 3 2007 12 mil Halo Reach 2010 10 mil Halo 4 2012 9mil Halo 5 2017 10mil Halo Infinite 2021 20mil
Black-Ops and Modern Warfare are the most popular titles, yet the fastest game to lose population. Why is that? There populations dropped like 6 months after launch.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
I love these examples, as I was just about to ask you for this exact kind of info.
I notice these all seem to be single player games, do you have any multiplayer platform games, most notable online multiplayer games, that showed these kinds of marked improvements over the series?
Call of Duty Franchise:
Call of Duty 4.5 mil Call of Duty 2 5.9 mil Call of Duty 3 7.2 mil Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare 2007 20mil units Call of Duty World at War 2008 17mil Black Ops 2010 30m mil units units Black Ops 2 2012 30mil units units Ghosts 2013 29mil Advanced Warfare 2014 22mil units Black Ops 3 2015 27mil units units Call of Duty Infinite Warfare 2016 14mil WWII 2017 20mil Call of Duty Black Ops 4 2018 14.5 mil Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2019 30 mil Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 2022 23 mil Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 2023 30mil units
Destiny 2014 9 million units Destiny 2 2017 38mil units
Halo 1 2001 6 mil Halo 2 2004 8.5 mil Halo 3 2007 12 mil Halo Reach 2010 10 mil Halo 4 2012 9mil Halo 5 2017 10mil Halo Infinite 2021 20mil
Aren't all these games FPS?
No dis to FPS games, they tend to really pretty popular, something about shooting the fuck out someone else tends to really attract players with money, I mean Fortnight made 26 Billion Dollars from one game and selling some cosmetics, because people want to look badass when they shoot the fuck out of you I guess
But I think FPS games are not good comparisons to what kind of game an MMO is.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
No dis to FPS games, they tend to really pretty popular, something about shooting the fuck out someone else tends to really attract players with money, I mean Fortnight made 26 Billion Dollars from one game and selling some cosmetics, because people want to look badass when they shoot the fuck out of you I guess
But I think FPS games are not good comparisons to what kind of game an MMO is.
Yeah not sure what you are asking from me. You wanted multiplayer examples, you got them. I cant point to any recent MMO's that launched sequels because thats the entire point of this thread.
Its either going to be an FPS, MOBA, MMO, FPS, ARPG or Single Player. Survival is too new for most to come out with sequels, Ark2 is coming, I expect that to make bankroll.
SC to SC2 did phenomenal. Divinity Original Sin II did great. Baldurs gate 3 did amazing Monster Hunter World sold huge
The data is in all genre's.
I sure there are plenty of sequels that underperformed, but its probably just a bad game design.
I know subnautical 2 (Below Zero) didnt do as well as the first one, but I most people think the 2nd one was not very good. If they were to release a 3rd and its good, I bet it outperforms both combined.
Black-Ops and Modern Warfare are the most popular titles, yet the fastest game to lose population. Why is that? There populations dropped like 6 months after launch.
I didnt play them, maybe they are not as good as previous versions?
The point of this thread is not to say sequels are better or even that they retain their players longer. I am just pointing out that investing time/money into a sequel will make more money both short and long term, than investing in a 10-20 year old game.
If these games are bankrolling even when releasing junk, it just proves that point even more.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Thing is, there were a few MMORPG sequels which arguably underperformed hence why few are attempted today. Of
EQ1 vs EQ2, Lineage 1 vs Lineage 2, Asherons Call 1 vs AC2, FFXI vs FFXIV prior to it being reworked to its current version.
Forgot about OSRS vs RS 2 and 3, UO and...SotA....sorry, that was a low blow
I think those are good examples.
Any of those B2P? Seems to me they are all based on subs or cash shops.
FFXI vs FFXIV is hard to tell, it released initially to PC only, where FFXI was on all platforms. Once FFXIV made it to all platforms it clearly won.
Just researching a bit, people say the 2nd version of these games at release were garbage. Add to that a Sub model that requires people to pay continuously for a inferior product.
I would say lesson learned is you cant just put out garbage, you need to actually make a real game equivalent to continue the success.
I think this follows similar to other entertainment, IE movies. If the sequel is garbage you are putting your rep at risk. If you put out similiar or better quality, you probably will see big success.
Black-Ops and Modern Warfare are the most popular titles, yet the fastest game to lose population. Why is that? There populations dropped like 6 months after launch.
I didnt play them, maybe they are not as good as previous versions?
The point of this thread is not to say sequels are better or even that they retain their players longer. I am just pointing out that investing time/money into a sequel will make more money both short and long term, than investing in a 10-20 year old game.
If these games are bankrolling even when releasing junk, it just proves that point even more.
I think developers want me to think pumping out junk franchise games will make them more money. I'll be more likely to follow the crowd. Players have been conditioned to love new things so the developer can make more money. Players are addicted to new content instead of addicted to mastering learning curves.
EQ2 is still pumping out decent content. They release expansions to this day. There still running the servers and it's a 20-year-old game. I still go to frostfell every year.
If junk games bankroll, you should question the audience that is buying junk. Thats why we get subpar content and junk.
I love 20-year-old games. I love huge open worlds. I hope they never stop making games that are long term investments.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
No dis to FPS games, they tend to really pretty popular, something about shooting the fuck out someone else tends to really attract players with money, I mean Fortnight made 26 Billion Dollars from one game and selling some cosmetics, because people want to look badass when they shoot the fuck out of you I guess
But I think FPS games are not good comparisons to what kind of game an MMO is.
Yeah not sure what you are asking from me. You wanted multiplayer examples, you got them. I cant point to any recent MMO's that launched sequels because thats the entire point of this thread.
Its either going to be an FPS, MOBA, MMO, FPS, ARPG or Single Player. Survival is too new for most to come out with sequels, Ark2 is coming, I expect that to make bankroll.
SC to SC2 did phenomenal. Divinity Original Sin II did great. Baldurs gate 3 did amazing Monster Hunter World sold huge
The data is in all genre's.
I sure there are plenty of sequels that underperformed, but its probably just a bad game design.
I know subnautical 2 (Below Zero) didnt do as well as the first one, but I most people think the 2nd one was not very good. If they were to release a 3rd and its good, I bet it outperforms both combined.
What about Co-Op Multi-player games like
"The Walking Dead" - There was a Team based survival game based on this one, 5 player co-op
"Don't Starve Together" - Online Open Lobby Co-Op Survival Game
"Among Us" - This one is still topping the charts in popularity
"Diablo" Not sure how the others in the series went, I think we are up to Diablo 3, but it is a great example of a non MMO Milti-Player Dungeon Crawl game.
"Neverwinter Nights" - I believe this had a sequel or maybe a few in the series, was not sure how well it did all things said and done
"Torchlight" I think was another multi player dungeon crawl game that had a few in the series, I recall a Torchlight II.
"Minecraft" might qualify as a multi-player Non-MMO game.
"The Sims Online" - Sadly this game died, but there are moves to make Sims4 and Sims5 Multi-player, something to look into their success on that platform.
Path of Exile - Dungeon Running Game.
Grim Dawn - Muiti player Survival Game
The idea here is, that you really can't compare something like a FPS, MOBA, or other generic "PvP Shooter" game to what would be a Co-Op PvE game like an MMO, or a co-op survival game, because of the player base it attracts and how the game is set up, they would be more akin to something like a Survival or Dungeon crawl game, or even just social games
One of the biggest take away is that In a FPS, there is no sense of progression, no sense of acclimation of wealth, not character development of power, prestige, etc, that exists in MMO. In FPS it's really all about the tactics and skill of the player, so outside some cosmetics, all that matters is your kill count and where you sit in the leaderboard, and in this venture, a new game means players can get the jump to get higher or better KDR in the new version of the game, which is why players will make new accounts in FPS games to start with.
But the idea is still the same, you all start on an even playing field, which I think is something that needs to be addressed if the plan is to shit can the whole game in 2 years, what would move the players to play this game knowing they will not be able to keep any progress.
There is no, shall we say, "Give a shit" about your character in these games, which is something that MMO's really set apart
So this is something to consider that with these examples, are you not comparing the same kind of game or platform, and that holds a very different mindset when it comes to moving on to a new release
It's was very easy for me to move on from say Ultima 1 to Ultima 2, when I beat Ultima 1, and Ultima 2 was a overall superior game, at the same time you have people that have been playing Ultima Online for going on 23 years now.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Thing is, there were a few MMORPG sequels which arguably underperformed hence why few are attempted today. Of
EQ1 vs EQ2, Lineage 1 vs Lineage 2, Asherons Call 1 vs AC2, FFXI vs FFXIV prior to it being reworked to its current version.
Forgot about OSRS vs RS 2 and 3, UO and...SotA....sorry, that was a low blow
I think those are good examples.
Any of those B2P? Seems to me they are all based on subs or cash shops.
FFXI vs FFXIV is hard to tell, it released initially to PC only, where FFXI was on all platforms. Once FFXIV made it to all platforms it clearly won.
Just researching a bit, people say the 2nd version of these games at release were garbage. Add to that a Sub model that requires people to pay continuously for a inferior product.
I would say lesson learned is you cant just put out garbage, you need to actually make a real game equivalent to continue the success.
I think this follows similar to other entertainment, IE movies. If the sequel is garbage you are putting your rep at risk. If you put out similiar or better quality, you probably will see big success.
Well we have got to be honest, their is a very shot list of B2P/Free MMO's that got a sequel.
The only ones that come to mind are GuildWars and Mortal Online.
I know nothing about Mortal to be honest, outside that it is an Open World PvP MMO, which meant I had no desire to play it, or it's sequel, and that meant it dropped off my radar real quick
As far as Anet went with Guild Wars, they made a totally different style game, and fully explained that they made a new game simply because they wanted to make a totally different game, and not an expansion
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
But the idea is still the same, you all start on an even playing field, which I think is something that needs to be addressed if the plan is to shit can the whole game in 2 years, what would move the players to play this game knowing they will not be able to keep any progress.
Snip
at the same time you have people that have been playing Ultima Online for going on 23 years now.
First, nobody is saying you have to lose your character every 2 years. Your character can stay alive and well. Just like if you have a character in 1 game, then decide to play another for awhile, you can still go back to the other game, or play both at the same time.
In regards to people playing a game for 23 years. What I think is this population doesnt matter in the scheme of things. A developer can continue to appeal to those 1k players, or they can wise up and appeal to 30mil players. Its a pretty obvious choice to me.
When I play games on steam, even good games that are highly rated, you will notice even if you get halfway through the game, the achievements show 10% or less of the players completed it. Even if the achievement is required to pass the half way point.
The vast majority of players dont sink 2000+ hours into a game. Devs should focus on making 300 hours of high quality, with replayable content. Then just make another game. This way they appeal to the mass majority of players, and make the most money.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
But the idea is still the same, you all start on an even playing field, which I think is something that needs to be addressed if the plan is to shit can the whole game in 2 years, what would move the players to play this game knowing they will not be able to keep any progress.
Snip
at the same time you have people that have been playing Ultima Online for going on 23 years now.
First, nobody is saying you have to lose your character every 2 years. Your character can stay alive and well. Just like if you have a character in 1 game, then decide to play another for awhile, you can still go back to the other game, or play both at the same time.
In regards to people playing a game for 23 years. What I think is this population doesnt matter in the scheme of things. A developer can continue to appeal to those 1k players, or they can wise up and appeal to 30mil players. Its a pretty obvious choice to me.
When I play games on steam, even good games that are highly rated, you will notice even if you get halfway through the game, the achievements show 10% or less of the players completed it. Even if the achievement is required to pass the half way point.
The vast majority of players dont sink 2000+ hours into a game. Devs should focus on making 300 hours of high quality, with replayable content. Then just make another game. This way they appeal to the mass majority of players, and make the most money.
Developers can't please you people anyway. Does it really matter if they develop 2000+ or 300 hours' worth of content? You and every other gamer will just hit the forums and complain that it is never good enough. You people are impossible to please when it comes to game design. I think sometimes you guys are paid to convince players to never be satisfied so they can pump out trash for quick cash. MMORPG is not the mass majority anyway.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
But the idea is still the same, you all start on an even playing field, which I think is something that needs to be addressed if the plan is to shit can the whole game in 2 years, what would move the players to play this game knowing they will not be able to keep any progress.
Snip
at the same time you have people that have been playing Ultima Online for going on 23 years now.
First, nobody is saying you have to lose your character every 2 years. Your character can stay alive and well. Just like if you have a character in 1 game, then decide to play another for awhile, you can still go back to the other game, or play both at the same time.
In regards to people playing a game for 23 years. What I think is this population doesnt matter in the scheme of things. A developer can continue to appeal to those 1k players, or they can wise up and appeal to 30mil players. Its a pretty obvious choice to me.
When I play games on steam, even good games that are highly rated, you will notice even if you get halfway through the game, the achievements show 10% or less of the players completed it. Even if the achievement is required to pass the half way point.
The vast majority of players dont sink 2000+ hours into a game. Devs should focus on making 300 hours of high quality, with replayable content. Then just make another game. This way they appeal to the mass majority of players, and make the most money.
Developers can't please you people anyway. Does it really matter if they develop 2000+ or 300 hours' worth of content? You and every other gamer will just hit the forums and complain that it is never good enough. You people are impossible to please when it comes to game design. I think sometimes you guys are paid to convince players to never be satisfied so they can pump out trash for quick cash. MMORPG is not the mass majority anyway.
I'm not sure we are even a niche in the gaming space anymore.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The vast majority of players dont sink 2000+ hours into a game. Devs should focus on making 300 hours of high quality, with replayable content. Then just make another game. This way they appeal to the mass majority of players, and make the most money.
Yah.. totally.
You're still talking about what makes for a Great Single Player Game Experience and what a vast majority of their success sits on, being able to grind through the content and buy the next in series, hopefully telling all your friends how great it was, and thus sales increase.
Have that direct End Point where you win, so that players get the cue to move on, or wait for the next game to come out, love that kind of abrupt design feature to ending to a Single Player Game, where you just win.
In fact, if I was going to make a single player game, I love your idea of building a 2 year turn over cycle from game to game, in fact, having that kind of consistency I think would overall be great for the franchise and build a dependable base for consumer
Might start it's style of Serial Single Player Game Systems, that as opposed to buying DLC's or updates, they just buy a whole new standalone game every 2 years.
Absolutely love that mindset, when applied to a Single Player Game.
But, given how open ended MMO's have been designed from their onset, I do not think it would translate well into making an MMO, I think the idea would crash and burn so bad that the company, and everyone involved would be black listed by the gaming community as a whole, to make an MMO and then shitcan it in 2 years and toss them a whole new Stand Alone game like they were making some Single Player Series of Games.
I don't think anyone with money would put their reputation to that idea.
Again, if you wanted to make some single player Series of games, maybe based off an existing Series Franchise, like say Avatar the Last Air Bender, where each new game was one of the nations, designed around the shows series, around 300 hours of gameplay from Start to End, so you have like 3 stand alone games and 6 years of resale, I could see people tossing money at that, I would wager it would be profitable as well
But again, an MMO. Not seeing how to pull that off and not come across as a shit scam artist.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
It's probably just harder to improve online games because it is more about the gameplay. Other genre really just improve their graphics etc.
I don't even know what Wow2 or GW2GW3 can potentially looks like because better mmorpg don't exist.
you see other genre improving, but mmorpg is just stagnant.
We already have a GW2, you mean GW3?
Personally I think the only people that would play a WoW2 are the people that were disenchanted with WoW, and while might make for good box sales, I think a WoW2 would see the same fate as Ashron's Call 2 or EverQuest2 did, which is to say, not much.
The biggest problem is that MMO depend on population, if you are going to make a game that does not depend on population, is not a world for players to build friendships in, or be able to enjoy open ended play together, you are better off, far, far, better off, just making a single player game.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Developers can't please you people anyway. Does it really matter if they develop 2000+ or 300 hours' worth of content? You and every other gamer will just hit the forums and complain that it is never good enough. You people are impossible to please when it comes to game design. I think sometimes you guys are paid to convince players to never be satisfied so they can pump out trash for quick cash. MMORPG is not the mass majority anyway.
If by "you people" you are refering to the hundreds of millions of gamers that are ignoring almost all the new MMO's out there. Then yeah I am one of those.
Nobody wants to play this trash, this is why all the players quit within 30 days. Yes its easy to please the players. Just make a good game and watch the money tree grow.
If anything people have lowered their standards by multple levels and are still dissapointed, the dev teams are just completely out of touch with thier customers.
When AAA company's cant even maintain more 2% of thier population. The games are so trash that even people that bought the game and can play for free wont even waste their time. Dont blame the customer, blame the dev teams that are putting out this garbage.
Comments
Call of Duty 4.5 mil
Call of Duty 2 5.9 mil
Call of Duty 3 7.2 mil
Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare 2007 20mil units
Call of Duty World at War 2008 17mil
Black Ops 2010 30m mil units units
Black Ops 2 2012 30mil units units
Ghosts 2013 29mil
Advanced Warfare 2014 22mil units
Black Ops 3 2015 27mil units units
Call of Duty Infinite Warfare 2016 14mil
WWII 2017 20mil
Call of Duty Black Ops 4 2018 14.5 mil
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2019 30 mil
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 2022 23 mil
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 2023 30mil units
Destiny 2014 9 million units
Destiny 2 2017 38mil units
Halo 1 2001 6 mil
Halo 2 2004 8.5 mil
Halo 3 2007 12 mil
Halo Reach 2010 10 mil
Halo 4 2012 9mil
Halo 5 2017 10mil
Halo Infinite 2021 20mil
I can see a game like Dota 2, which concurrent users completely dwarf Dota 1, its tough to risk what you have, when you are doing good. Although the data says they will be even more popular, if they release another version.
I can totally understand games like WoW or Dota2 that are running with millions of players not taking a risk.
But even small indie games like Mortal online 2, has more players than Mortal online 1 did, although only a few 1000 more, its still more. That means they got all that game revenue from 10's of thousands of new players. The reason they are so small in the first place is because of the hardcore niche they appeal too. If they didnt release a new version, they would still have around 50 players max.
In the end they picked up more players and resold their game full price to existing customers and new customers, many of whom bought the game then quit.
Data says rather than focus on their existing game, they should just rinse and repeat with a new game. Put all the improvements towards the next version.
So you are suggesting try to sell the games because you know everyone would quit anyway.
It's easy to pick the success story. How many console games have been sold, and how many of them are success.
I think the reality is people only play the best games of every genre. You said if they make a Dota3, it would be more successful. If that is true why can't people just make a new MOBA and make more money than DOTA2.
GW2, ESO, New world are all buy to play I think. You are suggesting they stop updating and puting out new expansion and just make GW3, ESO2 and New world 2 I suppose.
$4 or $5 Billion will go to the top management as a reward for their hard "work"
The rest goes to paying back investors, operating expenses etc.
That will leave like maybe $500M to operate the game for the next 10 years and start work on GTA7.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
To your first question, I think its hard for an upstart to build a brand. AAA brand that is popular has a huge advantage. An upstart has to start out and continually improve with next version and build their brand over time. Just like FromSoftware did. Sometimes people can go viral and get lucky, but they have to be smart and take advantage of that short term success.
GW2, ESO, New World, yes I am saying they should stop updating and focus on a sequel. Data says thats way way way better and more money. No matter how much they sink into New World, it will never be as popular as if they just focus on NW2 and release.
I would bet money NW2 could easily sell 7mil+ units year 1.
Heck I would definitely buy NW2 if it was releasing next year. I wont go back to NW1 most likely. Same goes for ESO and GW. I played all those, I am not going back period.
I think its short term thinking. Imagaine if they actually were putting some of thoe resources back into development of next version. Pumping out sequels every 2 years, 4 billion profit ever 2 years is $20 billion, vs just $6-7billion they are getting now.
I cant even imagine what 31k developers could do instead of just 1k. You could even split those devs into 3 games and have 10k per game (10x more) and get $60 billion profit every 10years.
Instead they went with incremental and IMO unimaginative low effort expansions every year.
Instead of creating a new, improved MMORPGs they spent money on whatever the flavor of the year in gaming was, be it card battlers, mobas, shooters or battle royales.
They rest of the money was apparently pocketed by those in charge or mis-spent on failed efforts like project Titan or whatever Overwatch was called before it's designed was switched.
I do agree the time might be right for WOW 2, and I can't imagine if most of the hundreds of millions of former WOW players wouldn't give it a try.
But instead I hear tell of a new survival title in the world and now Blizzard is reimagining their original title with Season of Discovery and Hard core classic servers.
But nothing new in the MMORPG space, that's a genre no AAA developer has faith that there's big money to be made still.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
There only making 420000000 million in a year. Is that even enough money to cover the rent in California?
Cite the money trail loss of expansions vs new game.
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
No dis to FPS games, they tend to really pretty popular, something about shooting the fuck out someone else tends to really attract players with money, I mean Fortnight made 26 Billion Dollars from one game and selling some cosmetics, because people want to look badass when they shoot the fuck out of you I guess
But I think FPS games are not good comparisons to what kind of game an MMO is.
Its either going to be an FPS, MOBA, MMO, FPS, ARPG or Single Player. Survival is too new for most to come out with sequels, Ark2 is coming, I expect that to make bankroll.
SC to SC2 did phenomenal.
Divinity Original Sin II did great.
Baldurs gate 3 did amazing
Monster Hunter World sold huge
The data is in all genre's.
I sure there are plenty of sequels that underperformed, but its probably just a bad game design.
I know subnautical 2 (Below Zero) didnt do as well as the first one, but I most people think the 2nd one was not very good. If they were to release a 3rd and its good, I bet it outperforms both combined.
The point of this thread is not to say sequels are better or even that they retain their players longer. I am just pointing out that investing time/money into a sequel will make more money both short and long term, than investing in a 10-20 year old game.
If these games are bankrolling even when releasing junk, it just proves that point even more.
EQ1 vs EQ2, Lineage 1 vs Lineage 2, Asherons Call 1 vs AC2, FFXI vs FFXIV prior to it being reworked to its current version.
Forgot about OSRS vs RS 2 and 3, UO and...SotA....sorry, that was a low blow
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think those are good examples.
Any of those B2P? Seems to me they are all based on subs or cash shops.
FFXI vs FFXIV is hard to tell, it released initially to PC only, where FFXI was on all platforms. Once FFXIV made it to all platforms it clearly won.
Just researching a bit, people say the 2nd version of these games at release were garbage. Add to that a Sub model that requires people to pay continuously for a inferior product.
I would say lesson learned is you cant just put out garbage, you need to actually make a real game equivalent to continue the success.
I think this follows similar to other entertainment, IE movies. If the sequel is garbage you are putting your rep at risk. If you put out similiar or better quality, you probably will see big success.
EQ2 is still pumping out decent content. They release expansions to this day. There still running the servers and it's a 20-year-old game. I still go to frostfell every year.
If junk games bankroll, you should question the audience that is buying junk. Thats why we get subpar content and junk.
I love 20-year-old games. I love huge open worlds. I hope they never stop making games that are long term investments.
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
"The Walking Dead" - There was a Team based survival game based on this one, 5 player co-op
"Don't Starve Together" - Online Open Lobby Co-Op Survival Game
"Among Us" - This one is still topping the charts in popularity
"Diablo" Not sure how the others in the series went, I think we are up to Diablo 3, but it is a great example of a non MMO Milti-Player Dungeon Crawl game.
"Neverwinter Nights" - I believe this had a sequel or maybe a few in the series, was not sure how well it did all things said and done
"Torchlight" I think was another multi player dungeon crawl game that had a few in the series, I recall a Torchlight II.
"Minecraft" might qualify as a multi-player Non-MMO game.
"The Sims Online" - Sadly this game died, but there are moves to make Sims4 and Sims5 Multi-player, something to look into their success on that platform.
Path of Exile - Dungeon Running Game.
Grim Dawn - Muiti player Survival Game
The idea here is, that you really can't compare something like a FPS, MOBA, or other generic "PvP Shooter" game to what would be a Co-Op PvE game like an MMO, or a co-op survival game, because of the player base it attracts and how the game is set up, they would be more akin to something like a Survival or Dungeon crawl game, or even just social games
One of the biggest take away is that In a FPS, there is no sense of progression, no sense of acclimation of wealth, not character development of power, prestige, etc, that exists in MMO. In FPS it's really all about the tactics and skill of the player, so outside some cosmetics, all that matters is your kill count and where you sit in the leaderboard, and in this venture, a new game means players can get the jump to get higher or better KDR in the new version of the game, which is why players will make new accounts in FPS games to start with.
But the idea is still the same, you all start on an even playing field, which I think is something that needs to be addressed if the plan is to shit can the whole game in 2 years, what would move the players to play this game knowing they will not be able to keep any progress.
There is no, shall we say, "Give a shit" about your character in these games, which is something that MMO's really set apart
So this is something to consider that with these examples, are you not comparing the same kind of game or platform, and that holds a very different mindset when it comes to moving on to a new release
It's was very easy for me to move on from say Ultima 1 to Ultima 2, when I beat Ultima 1, and Ultima 2 was a overall superior game, at the same time you have people that have been playing Ultima Online for going on 23 years now.
The only ones that come to mind are GuildWars and Mortal Online.
I know nothing about Mortal to be honest, outside that it is an Open World PvP MMO, which meant I had no desire to play it, or it's sequel, and that meant it dropped off my radar real quick
As far as Anet went with Guild Wars, they made a totally different style game, and fully explained that they made a new game simply because they wanted to make a totally different game, and not an expansion
In regards to people playing a game for 23 years. What I think is this population doesnt matter in the scheme of things. A developer can continue to appeal to those 1k players, or they can wise up and appeal to 30mil players. Its a pretty obvious choice to me.
When I play games on steam, even good games that are highly rated, you will notice even if you get halfway through the game, the achievements show 10% or less of the players completed it. Even if the achievement is required to pass the half way point.
The vast majority of players dont sink 2000+ hours into a game. Devs should focus on making 300 hours of high quality, with replayable content. Then just make another game. This way they appeal to the mass majority of players, and make the most money.
I don't even know what Wow2 or GW2 can potentially looks like because better mmorpg don't exist.
you see other genre improving, but mmorpg is just stagnant.
The long awaited POE 2 is targeted for closed beta next year finally.
"While Path of Exile 2 is rapidly approaching — kicking off with closed beta scheduled for June 7th, 2024"
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
You're still talking about what makes for a Great Single Player Game Experience and what a vast majority of their success sits on, being able to grind through the content and buy the next in series, hopefully telling all your friends how great it was, and thus sales increase.
Have that direct End Point where you win, so that players get the cue to move on, or wait for the next game to come out, love that kind of abrupt design feature to ending to a Single Player Game, where you just win.
In fact, if I was going to make a single player game, I love your idea of building a 2 year turn over cycle from game to game, in fact, having that kind of consistency I think would overall be great for the franchise and build a dependable base for consumer
Might start it's style of Serial Single Player Game Systems, that as opposed to buying DLC's or updates, they just buy a whole new standalone game every 2 years.
Absolutely love that mindset, when applied to a Single Player Game.
But, given how open ended MMO's have been designed from their onset, I do not think it would translate well into making an MMO, I think the idea would crash and burn so bad that the company, and everyone involved would be black listed by the gaming community as a whole, to make an MMO and then shitcan it in 2 years and toss them a whole new Stand Alone game like they were making some Single Player Series of Games.
I don't think anyone with money would put their reputation to that idea.
Again, if you wanted to make some single player Series of games, maybe based off an existing Series Franchise, like say Avatar the Last Air Bender, where each new game was one of the nations, designed around the shows series, around 300 hours of gameplay from Start to End, so you have like 3 stand alone games and 6 years of resale, I could see people tossing money at that, I would wager it would be profitable as well
But again, an MMO. Not seeing how to pull that off and not come across as a shit scam artist.
Personally I think the only people that would play a WoW2 are the people that were disenchanted with WoW, and while might make for good box sales, I think a WoW2 would see the same fate as Ashron's Call 2 or EverQuest2 did, which is to say, not much.
The biggest problem is that MMO depend on population, if you are going to make a game that does not depend on population, is not a world for players to build friendships in, or be able to enjoy open ended play together, you are better off, far, far, better off, just making a single player game.
Nobody wants to play this trash, this is why all the players quit within 30 days. Yes its easy to please the players. Just make a good game and watch the money tree grow.
If anything people have lowered their standards by multple levels and are still dissapointed, the dev teams are just completely out of touch with thier customers.
When AAA company's cant even maintain more 2% of thier population. The games are so trash that even people that bought the game and can play for free wont even waste their time. Dont blame the customer, blame the dev teams that are putting out this garbage.