The market wouldn't implode, it would shift. Many casuals would still try the new games and, as casual players often do, might subscribe for a month and leave to try a new game. Others would find games they like and play them casually. Others still would even become hardcore.
You really don't know. It has happened before.
The hard core computer war game market imploded. The graphical adventure game market imploded. There are still indie & small productions but no more AAA development in that two genre.
I doubt it. Casuals would just leave, and watch the MMO industry implode upon itself as they did so. The evidence is clear: how often do you see posts in the Eve forum demanding the game to be easier? What about MO? DF?
Casual gamers don't play those kinds of games, because they don't enjoy them. And by their very nature, should all MMO's no longer provide a game that they enjoy, casuals will leave through the door in which they came when WoW released.
Their protest can be in the form of walking out, but ours can't because if vocal players walked out the industry would still be in no danger of crashing financially. If there were enough of our kind of player, obviously we would choose to use our money to convince a company to make an MMO more to our liking.
Right.
So then, then the real question should become painfully obvious:
"Why should a company deliberately choose to serve a smaller market over a larger one?"
2 reason you would:
1. If you believe that that smaller market would be several times more loyal to the product that you designed for them than the large market would be for the product you designed for that larger market...
2. if making the product designed for the smaller group is a great deal easier/cheaper than the one for the larger group.
In this case, there's SOME evidence of "1" in Eve Online. Not much anywhere else, but still...
2 is right out. It is FAR more difficult to make a hardcore game, and thus likely more expensive to create an MMO for the hardcore crowd. So there's a much bigger risk, and the track record of attempted endeavours is dismal, at best.
And lastly... this hardcore/elite mentality of attacking games/GAMERS that are/play "casual" is doing none of you any good.
I used to have the same attitude regarding music; that most people were just little sheep, chasing after Lady Gaga, Britney, N'Sync, Backstreet Boys, NKotB... the list goes on. I listened to REAL music. .
But in the end, it doesn't really matter even if I was right... whether or not I had such amazing taste and understanding of music, where my aural palatte was just too sophisticated for any "simpletons" to comprehend. It was an absolute WASTE of my time to go after and judge people for listening to popular music. It doesn't turn them to my way of thinking, and most importantly in relevance to this and other similar threads:
Today's "big pop artist" failing does NOTHING to improve the chances that the kind of music I like will become popular, or that record companies will start backing artists that I think have soul. In the end, my actions just made me look like a great big giant douche.
We need a game like EQ was prior to POP but with upgraded graphics. No instances, no zone lines, no leading you by the hand, no auction houses and no fast travel. We need a world that the GM's participate in, people depend on one another to progress and where there is Risk vs Reward.
Yeah, good luck with that. Even all the games on this site that people call the Next Big Sandbox won't have anything like what you're asking for.
Once again, no. You are not an elitist if you disagree with me. You are an elitist if you put down other games simply because you disagree with them.
1. sorry that is not even close to what an 'elisit' is
2. define 'put down' that is a gray area as huge as the sun. Someone can say if you even question a feature that its unamerican and a 'put down'
and elitist is not someone who puts down others and elitist is someone who thinks they deserve better treatment because of who they are.
That is exatctly what elitist is. They dismiss, put down, insult other games simple they don't like them. They state they are childish and not true MMO's - that is elitism
I would look it up if I have more time but that is NOT my understanding of an elisit it can be however a SIDE EFFECT of an elisit. An elisit is someone who thinks they deserve to go into the night club but not you. They may or may not make fun of your nightclub but them making fun of your nightclub is NOT what makes them an elisit. what makes them an elisist is not letting you into their nightclub.
HUGE difference.
Elitism is a belief, an attitude, and is shown through actions. They put down, insult... because they believe they are right and the others are childish - that is elitism. Putting down because they believe they are better.
NO IT DOESNT!
it means exclusion of others, not insulting of others. I know tons of people who make fun and put down other people who are NOT exlcuionary of others.
So again, putting down others is a SYMPTOM of elistism not the source. Just like Heat is not fire, its a symptom of fire, Heat doesnt always = fire
asingular or plural in construction: the choice part :cream elite of the entertainment world> bsingular or plural in construction: the best of a class elite — Marilyn Chase> csingular or plural in construction: the socially superior part of society elite…was changing — Economist> d: a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence elite> e: a member of such an elite —usually used in plural elites … , pursuing their studies in Europe — Robert Wernick
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
We need a game like EQ was prior to POP but with upgraded graphics. No instances, no zone lines, no leading you by the hand, no auction houses and no fast travel. We need a world that the GM's participate in, people depend on one another to progress and where there is Risk vs Reward.
Yeah, good luck with that. Even all the games on this site that people call the Next Big Sandbox won't have anything like what you're asking for.
Oh I agree 100%, but I can dream. What I would like to see that can be done easly is a game with NO PVP centered on PVE with diverse classes. I've had enough of MMO's that suck because all the classes are mirrored or dumbed down due to PVP.
If the shoe switched feet and all we got were old school and hardcore games, the outcry from the casuals would make the hardcore outcry seem like a whisper.
I doubt it. Casuals would just leave, and watch the MMO industry implode upon itself as they did so. The evidence is clear: how often do you see posts in the Eve forum demanding the game to be easier? What about MO? DF?
Casual gamers don't play those kinds of games, because they don't enjoy them. And by their very nature, should all MMO's no longer provide a game that they enjoy, casuals will leave through the door in which they came when WoW released.
And here we have more of the same. The industry will implode if games aren't made the way YOU like them, eh?
The industry would survive, the majority audience would just change. You really dont believe there are hardcore players who haven't quit because of the sea of casual games that have hit the market?
The vast majority of current MMO players are casual players. This is why most developers are designing games with them in mind. The data mining you can do to learn this stuff is undeniable.
the argument is made (by your side) that modern games are designed for casual players. Modern games would include games such as TOR, WoW, LotRO, Rift, etc. Pretty sure we agree on that point.
Those games carry the lion's share of paying subscribers in the MMO market.
The nature of their gaming preferences indicates that if they don't like a game, or even a whole gaming genre, they'll move to another genre that suits them. So, if you steer those games toward a hardcore philosophy, casuals will take their toys and go home.
When they do, the MMO market will implode. Investors will see over 50% in revenue losses and won't touch the genre with a 10 foot epeen pole. You'll see some independents dropping a few bucks here and there. Meanwhile, bigger houses will move on to something that HASN'T imploded.
Again, no one is asking devs to change the games that are already out there. No one is trying to take casual games away from casual gamers. If someone were to make a modern-day hardcore MMO, however, I do believe it could do well, and possibly even spur a trend. Unfortunately the reason casual MMOs have all the market numbers is because there hasn't been much alternative for many years now.
Until a new AAA MMO comes along that caters to the "hardcore" audience, we won't really know. I, for one, would really love for someone out there to take the initiative and try to tap this long neglected demographic. At the very least it would be a refreshing change from the same old thing rehashed over and over.
I don't really think there was anything "hard" about classic games.
There was nothing "hard" about UO - actually quite the opposite, many things were far, far easier in UO than in modern games.
The only thing UO had before Trammel was annoyance. Veteran players bullying everyone else and preventing new players from leaving town and fighting monsters/making money to improve their characters.
Griefing 101.
There is nothing "hard" about griefing. Actually couldn't be easier, "like taking candy from a baby."
Griefing doesn't make anyone "hardcore" it makes them a bully. True hardcore is taking on 2-3 similarly skilled players by yourself and winning. That is hardcore kids.
Hardcore is figuring out ways to defeat mobs by yourself that should take more players, and doing so WITHOUT cheating or exploiting - you're simply that good.
Hardcore was the Vanilla WoW hunters that could CC/kite 2-3 mobs at a time because they were that good. UBRS anyone?
I played on Siege Perilous (the no Trammel "hardcore" shard") for a long while because I had a large guild and we relied on each other for defense - strength in numbers. Was also a great RP community.
There is nothing "hard" about tedius repetition. Nothing "hard" about annoying hurdles to fun. Nothing "hard" about exploits. Nothing "hard" about griefing.
Ya'll are fooling yourselves.
WoW BC heroics and raiding were more challenging than anything in SWG or UO.
Ulduar was my favorite WoW raid of all time because it was challenging and epic in size and scope.
There is nothing "hard" about forced grouping, harsh death penalties, and tedius repetition.
It's you EQ kids that have led to the ruin of the MMORPG genre. Us UO vets understand how MMOs are supposed to be.
And yes, even the "great" SWG got so many things wrong... so many poor design decisions. Too much EQ influence. EVE made the same mistakes. Tried to copy UO without learning the lessons UO learned that made it great.
That is exatctly what elitist is. They dismiss, put down, insult other games simple they don't like them. They state they are childish and not true MMO's - that is elitism
I would look it up if I have more time but that is NOT my understanding of an elisit it can be however a SIDE EFFECT of an elisit. An elisit is someone who thinks they deserve to go into the night club but not you. They may or may not make fun of your nightclub but them making fun of your nightclub is NOT what makes them an elisit. what makes them an elisist is not letting you into their nightclub. HUGE difference.
Elitism is a belief, an attitude, and is shown through actions. They put down, insult... because they believe they are right and the others are childish - that is elitism. Putting down because they believe they are better.
NO IT DOESNT! it means exclusion of others, not insulting of others. I know tons of people who make fun and put down other people who are NOT exlcuionary of others.
So again, putting down others is a SYMPTOM of elistism not the source. Just like Heat is not fire, its a symptom of fire, Heat doesnt always = fire
a singular or plural in construction : the choice part : cream elite of the entertainment world> b singular or plural in construction : the best of a class elite Marilyn Chase> c singular or plural in construction : the socially superior part of society elite was changing Economist> d : a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence elite> e : a member of such an elite usually used in plural elites , pursuing their studies in Europe Robert Wernick
They are half right. Elitism is a belief. You believe yourself to be better than others for reason X or others believe you to be better than them for reason X. The resulting behavior can be insults and put downs, but it's not part of the definition of 'Elitism'.
** edit ** Ironically, MMORPG.com believes me to be an 'Elite' member.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Again, no one is asking devs to change the games that are already out there. No one is trying to take casual games away from casual gamers. If someone were to make a modern-day hardcore MMO, however, I do believe it could do well, and possibly even spur a trend. Unfortunately the reason casual MMOs have all the market numbers is because there hasn't been much alternative for many years now.
Until a new AAA MMO comes along that caters to the "hardcore" audience, we won't really know. I, for one, would really love for someone out there to take the initiative and try to tap this long neglected demographic. At the very least it would be a refreshing change from the same old thing rehashed over and over.
This is the key point. This is where the word elite comes into play. An elitist will say that they should be able to play the games they want but you should not be able to play the games you want. The position of an elitist is exclusion, if there are no options for other games styles then those who suggest this is good are the ones being the elitist, not the ones who are asking for diveristy.
elitism by the way has nothing whatsoever to do with putting other people down. That is just a side effect of elitism just like heat is the side effect of fire.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The market wouldn't implode, it would shift. Many casuals would still try the new games and, as casual players often do, might subscribe for a month and leave to try a new game. Others would find games they like and play them casually. Others still would even become hardcore.
You really don't know. It has happened before.
The hard core computer war game market imploded. The graphical adventure game market imploded. There are still indie & small productions but no more AAA development in that two genre.
So implosion is not impossible.
Impossible, no. Improbable, I would estimate so.
You have a source? You have numbers? You "esimated" so. Base on? Market research? NPD data? Surveys of gamers?
The same has been said about the sinking of the Titanic, and we all know how that went.
Again, no one is asking devs to change the games that are already out there.
Sure, they're just calling people that play them, in essence, sheeple. And oftentimes expressing hope that casual games fail, so that developers will inexplicably decide to make hardcore games, instead.
No one is trying to take casual games away from casual gamers. If someone were to make a modern-day hardcore MMO, however, I do believe it could do well, and possibly even spur a trend. Unfortunately the reason casual MMOs have all the market numbers is because there hasn't been much alternative for many years now.
Until a new AAA MMO comes along that caters to the "hardcore" audience, we won't really know. I, for one, would really love for someone out there to take the initiative and try to tap this long neglected demographic. At the very least it would be a refreshing change from the same old thing rehashed over and over.
So would I. Because I thought WoW was alright. Love LotRO, and SWTOR, AND also love Eve.
Again, no one is asking devs to change the games that are already out there.
Sure, they're just calling people that play them, in essence, sheeple. And oftentimes expressing hope that casual games fail, so that developers will inexplicably decide to make hardcore games, instead.
No one is trying to take casual games away from casual gamers. If someone were to make a modern-day hardcore MMO, however, I do believe it could do well, and possibly even spur a trend. Unfortunately the reason casual MMOs have all the market numbers is because there hasn't been much alternative for many years now.
Until a new AAA MMO comes along that caters to the "hardcore" audience, we won't really know. I, for one, would really love for someone out there to take the initiative and try to tap this long neglected demographic. At the very least it would be a refreshing change from the same old thing rehashed over and over.
So would I. Because I thought WoW was alright. Love LotRO, and SWTOR, AND also love Eve.
Lets just agree that there are bad apples on both trees.
It's you EQ kids that have led to the ruin of the MMORPG genre. Us UO vets understand how MMOs are supposed to be.
No such thing.
Variety is the spice of life. You've got your idea of fun; I've got mine; they've got theirs.
Personally I woudnt want to have an industry where each and every game follows one formula and is the same...oh wait...
True, I over generalize.
I just find it funny that people always seem to cite EQ as the pinnacle of what MMORPG's are supposed to be, without having the breadth of understanding and wisdom to see that EQ was the start of the current trend, not some far distant and seperate thing.
There is a clear line of succession from EQ to WoW to the modern MMO structure.
There is NO line of succession from what UO was to..... there is nothing.
Games like DF/EvE/SWG tried to build on what UO did but failed miserably because they lacked the vision to see what made UO so great.
SWG came much closer than EVE or DF or any other modern sandbox, but SWG's major flaws weren't just the extreme lack of polish and quality but the general grind-heavy structure of the advancement systems.
Originally posted by FrostWyrm Originally posted by lizardbones
Originally posted by FrostWyrm
... snip ...
Originally posted by Robsolf
Originally posted by toddze
If the shoe switched feet and all we got were old school and hardcore games, the outcry from the casuals would make the hardcore outcry seem like a whisper.
I doubt it. Casuals would just leave, and watch the MMO industry implode upon itself as they did so. The evidence is clear: how often do you see posts in the Eve forum demanding the game to be easier? What about MO? DF? Casual gamers don't play those kinds of games, because they don't enjoy them. And by their very nature, should all MMO's no longer provide a game that they enjoy, casuals will leave through the door in which they came when WoW released.
And here we have more of the same. The industry will implode if games aren't made the way YOU like them, eh? The industry would survive, the majority audience would just change. You really dont believe there are hardcore players who haven't quit because of the sea of casual games that have hit the market?
Robsolf is right. The genre would implode if all the casual players left. All the money in the current market is coming from the casual players. If they leave for greener pastures, the market will implode (shrink dramatically) past the point at which it's profitable to create an MMORPG at all. Imagine a genre where all the games are like Mortal Online or Darkfall. Community efforts to create games*. Going from a market of 16 million players to a market of a million or fewer players is indeed imploding.
* I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea. I've stated in another thread I think a dedicated bunch of volunteers could create something much better than Mortal Online, for a lot less money.
** edit ** Had to fix the quote boxes. The market wouldn't implode, it would shift. Many casuals would still try the new games and, as casual players often do, might subscribe for a month and leave to try a new game. Others would find games they like and play them casually. Others still would even become hardcore. Today's market numbers are not just due to reduced difficulty in games. Gaming as a whole has expanded tremendously over the years. When new things come along (or things that are new to individuals), many jump on board, others dont. When phones got tinier, a lot of people jumped on board, others didnt. When tablets came along, a lot of people jumped on board, others didnt. When MMOs became solo friendly, a lot of people jumped on board, others didn't. If MMOs become more group oriented, a lot of people will jump on board, others wont. Its how things just happen to work out. Trends come and go, and yes, even repeat themselves sometimes. Its pretty unrealistic to think "X will always be this way, and if it changed it would disappear."
Remember, we're talking about a hypothetical situation where the casual games do not and will not exist. The MMORPG Market would implode - the people would go play something else. Like Facebook games or FPS or something. The overall gaming market would be fine.
In the real world, the market would just shift to follow the money. Which is what happened. The market not only shifted, it grew tremendously.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Again, no one is asking devs to change the games that are already out there.
Sure, they're just calling people that play them, in essence, sheeple. And oftentimes expressing hope that casual games fail, so that developers will inexplicably decide to make hardcore games, instead.
No one is trying to take casual games away from casual gamers. If someone were to make a modern-day hardcore MMO, however, I do believe it could do well, and possibly even spur a trend. Unfortunately the reason casual MMOs have all the market numbers is because there hasn't been much alternative for many years now.
Until a new AAA MMO comes along that caters to the "hardcore" audience, we won't really know. I, for one, would really love for someone out there to take the initiative and try to tap this long neglected demographic. At the very least it would be a refreshing change from the same old thing rehashed over and over.
So would I. Because I thought WoW was alright. Love LotRO, and SWTOR, AND also love Eve.
Lets just agree that there are bad apples on both trees.
Sure, I can agree to that. But is there an equivilency? Absolutely not.
Again, no one is asking devs to change the games that are already out there. No one is trying to take casual games away from casual gamers. If someone were to make a modern-day hardcore MMO, however, I do believe it could do well, and possibly even spur a trend. Unfortunately the reason casual MMOs have all the market numbers is because there hasn't been much alternative for many years now.
Until a new AAA MMO comes along that caters to the "hardcore" audience, we won't really know. I, for one, would really love for someone out there to take the initiative and try to tap this long neglected demographic. At the very least it would be a refreshing change from the same old thing rehashed over and over.
Didn't it has been tried before?
EQ generates lots of complaints about the tedium and other "hard core" features. WOW was the response to that. Or do you mean some other hard core features that is not in EQ.
And you also need to definte "doing well". Is Eve doing well? It is certainly making money, but TOR outsell the ENTIRE life of Eve in a DAY. Don't tell me that if TOR sells 1-2M boxes and settle on 500k sub .. then it is a failure but Eve is a success with 300k subs gained over many years.
I don't really think there was anything "hard" about classic games.
There was nothing "hard" about UO - actually quite the opposite, many things were far, far easier in UO than in modern games.
The only thing UO had before Trammel was annoyance. Veteran players bullying everyone else and preventing new players from leaving town and fighting monsters/making money to improve their characters.
Griefing 101.
There is nothing "hard" about griefing. Actually couldn't be easier, "like taking candy from a baby."
Griefing doesn't make anyone "hardcore" it makes them a bully. True hardcore is taking on 2-3 similarly skilled players by yourself and winning. That is hardcore kids.
Hardcore is figuring out ways to defeat mobs by yourself that should take more players, and doing so WITHOUT cheating or exploiting - you're simply that good.
Hardcore was the Vanilla WoW hunters that could CC/kite 2-3 mobs at a time because they were that good. UBRS anyone?
I played on Siege Perilous (the no Trammel "hardcore" shard") for a long while because I had a large guild and we relied on each other for defense - strength in numbers. Was also a great RP community.
There is nothing "hard" about tedius repetition. Nothing "hard" about annoying hurdles to fun. Nothing "hard" about exploits. Nothing "hard" about griefing.
Ya'll are fooling yourselves.
WoW BC heroics and raiding were more challenging than anything in SWG or UO.
Ulduar was my favorite WoW raid of all time because it was challenging and epic in size and scope.
There is nothing "hard" about forced grouping, harsh death penalties, and tedius repetition.
It's you EQ kids that have led to the ruin of the MMORPG genre. Us UO vets understand how MMOs are supposed to be.
And yes, even the "great" SWG got so many things wrong... so many poor design decisions. Too much EQ influence. EVE made the same mistakes. Tried to copy UO without learning the lessons UO learned that made it great.
EQ did lead to the end of MMO's but it's not EQ's fault but SOE. They started with the Auction Houses, Quick Travel, PVP, Instances, etc. EQ went from being an amazing game with a great community to a shell of itself and it all started with POP and went downhill from there. The communitity took a HUGE hit when they added quick travel and the auction house. No more did you need Druid friends to port you. No more did you get to barder and trade equiplent. The racing to get to the mobs that spawned was over etc.
I remember the very first instance I ever seen in EQ. It was just off Everfrost and man did it feel vacant. I just could not get over being in this big instance with only my little group of guys. It felt fake which is something EQ never felt. At the time I didn't know it was the sign of things to come and that all MMO's will be centered on instances.
So yeah, EQ was the downfall of MMO's, but I blame SOE and their need for cash and lack of care for what it did to the community and immersion.
It's you EQ kids that have led to the ruin of the MMORPG genre. Us UO vets understand how MMOs are supposed to be.
No such thing.
Variety is the spice of life. You've got your idea of fun; I've got mine; they've got theirs.
Personally I woudnt want to have an industry where each and every game follows one formula and is the same...oh wait...
True, I over generalize.
I just find it funny that people always seem to cite EQ as the pinnacle of what MMORPG's are supposed to be, without having the breadth of understanding and wisdom to see that EQ was the start of the current trend, not some far distant and seperate thing.
There is a clear line of succession from EQ to WoW to the modern MMO structure.
There is NO line of succession from what UO was to..... there is nothing.
Games like DF/EvE/SWG tried to build on what UO did but failed miserably because they lacked the vision to see what made UO so great.
SWG came much closer than EVE or DF or any other modern sandbox, but SWG's major flaws weren't just the extreme lack of polish and quality but the general grind-heavy structure of the advancement systems.
Actually UO was the Pong of MMO's. Nothing more really. EQ was the start of the modern day MMO as we know it today. EQ before POP was perfect, after is where it lost it's way. When I speak of EQ I speak of it prior to POP and actually prior to SOE getting involved as that is really the turning point of when EQ started to have issues.
It's you EQ kids that have led to the ruin of the MMORPG genre. Us UO vets understand how MMOs are supposed to be.
No such thing.
Variety is the spice of life. You've got your idea of fun; I've got mine; they've got theirs.
Personally I woudnt want to have an industry where each and every game follows one formula and is the same...oh wait...
True, I over generalize.
I just find it funny that people always seem to cite EQ as the pinnacle of what MMORPG's are supposed to be, without having the breadth of understanding and wisdom to see that EQ was the start of the current trend, not some far distant and seperate thing.
There is a clear line of succession from EQ to WoW to the modern MMO structure.
There is NO line of succession from what UO was to..... there is nothing.
Games like DF/EvE/SWG tried to build on what UO did but failed miserably because they lacked the vision to see what made UO so great.
SWG came much closer than EVE or DF or any other modern sandbox, but SWG's major flaws weren't just the extreme lack of polish and quality but the general grind-heavy structure of the advancement systems.
there is also a clear line of progression from the Dark Ages to how we live in todays world....your point again ?
there is also a clear line of progression from the Dark Ages to how we live in todays world....your point again ?
Only the irony that many here on MMORPG.com say that MMOs have becomes dumbed down, watered down, pieces of garbage from their "former glory" because things were made more friendly and easier access etc. etc.
That the more popular, dumbed down games are emulated and the less popular but "better" games are left to rot.
But then they cite EQ as the pinnacle of classic MMO gaming...
When I believe that EQ was indeed the more popular, dumbed down game when compared to UO.
All the things people want MMOs to be now, these things would be reality if the MMORPG model had followed the UO model instead of the EQ model.
Imagine what kind of games we would have now if UO was the more profitable and popular of the two, imagine all the money used to finance and evolve/innovate the EQ-type MMO had instead been spent on games that innovated and evolved from the UO model.
What is REALLY sad is that Minecraft is the closest thing to a successor to UO.
EQ ruined everything. Even the sandbox MMOs to follow UO were believers in the LIE that grinding + loot was what kept people subscribed to MMORPGs.
I actually blame the entire generation of overly caffeinated, ADHD hyped insta-gratification junkies that have absolutely no idea how to simply "play" and "have fun" without some kind of reward involved.
EQ catered far, far more to this demographic with its loot and levels and exclussive raiding etc.
Again, no one is asking devs to change the games that are already out there. No one is trying to take casual games away from casual gamers. If someone were to make a modern-day hardcore MMO, however, I do believe it could do well, and possibly even spur a trend. Unfortunately the reason casual MMOs have all the market numbers is because there hasn't been much alternative for many years now.
Until a new AAA MMO comes along that caters to the "hardcore" audience, we won't really know. I, for one, would really love for someone out there to take the initiative and try to tap this long neglected demographic. At the very least it would be a refreshing change from the same old thing rehashed over and over.
Didn't it has been tried before?
EQ generates lots of complaints about the tedium and other "hard core" features. WOW was the response to that. Or do you mean some other hard core features that is not in EQ.
And you also need to definte "doing well". Is Eve doing well? It is certainly making money, but TOR outsell the ENTIRE life of Eve in a DAY. Don't tell me that if TOR sells 1-2M boxes and settle on 500k sub .. then it is a failure but Eve is a success with 300k subs gained over many years.
Brand recognition plays a HUGE HUGE part in SWTOR's sales, as it did with WoW's. You could slap a fake light saber laser on the end of a turd and someone would buy it.
Once again, no. You are not an elitist if you disagree with me. You are an elitist if you put down other games simply because you disagree with them.
1. sorry that is not even close to what an 'elisit' is
2. define 'put down' that is a gray area as huge as the sun. Someone can say if you even question a feature that its unamerican and a 'put down'
and elitist is not someone who puts down others and elitist is someone who thinks they deserve better treatment because of who they are.
That is exatctly what elitist is. They dismiss, put down, insult other games simple they don't like them. They state they are childish and not true MMO's - that is elitism
I would look it up if I have more time but that is NOT my understanding of an elisit it can be however a SIDE EFFECT of an elisit. An elisit is someone who thinks they deserve to go into the night club but not you. They may or may not make fun of your nightclub but them making fun of your nightclub is NOT what makes them an elisit. what makes them an elisist is not letting you into their nightclub.
HUGE difference.
Elitism is a belief, an attitude, and is shown through actions. They put down, insult... because they believe they are right and the others are childish - that is elitism. Putting down because they believe they are better.
NO IT DOESNT!
it means exclusion of others, not insulting of others. I know tons of people who make fun and put down other people who are NOT exlcuionary of others.
So again, putting down others is a SYMPTOM of elistism not the source. Just like Heat is not fire, its a symptom of fire, Heat doesnt always = fire
asingular or plural in construction: the choice part :cream elite of the entertainment world> bsingular or plural in construction: the best of a class elite — Marilyn Chase> csingular or plural in construction: the socially superior part of society elite…was changing — Economist> d: a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence elite> e: a member of such an elite —usually used in plural elites … , pursuing their studies in Europe — Robert Wernick
Yes it does, it is an attitude or belief of superiority. This is reflected in their comments.
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elitist
I remember the very first instance I ever seen in EQ. It was just off Everfrost and man did it feel vacant. I just could not get over being in this big instance with only my little group of guys. It felt fake which is something EQ never felt. At the time I didn't know it was the sign of things to come and that all MMO's will be centered on instances.
I remember the very first instance i ever seen in WOW (sorry, quit EQ over its tedium LONG before it fixed the issue with instance). It was just off Barrens and man did it feel refreshing. I just could not get over being in this big instance with only my little group of guys. It felt like an exciting adventure which is something EQ never felt. At the time i did know it was the sign of things to come and that all MMO's should be centered on instances.
Again, no one is asking devs to change the games that are already out there.
Sure, they're just calling people that play them, in essence, sheeple. And oftentimes expressing hope that casual games fail, so that developers will inexplicably decide to make hardcore games, instead.
No one is trying to take casual games away from casual gamers. If someone were to make a modern-day hardcore MMO, however, I do believe it could do well, and possibly even spur a trend. Unfortunately the reason casual MMOs have all the market numbers is because there hasn't been much alternative for many years now.
Until a new AAA MMO comes along that caters to the "hardcore" audience, we won't really know. I, for one, would really love for someone out there to take the initiative and try to tap this long neglected demographic. At the very least it would be a refreshing change from the same old thing rehashed over and over.
So would I. Because I thought WoW was alright. Love LotRO, and SWTOR, AND also love Eve.
Lets just agree that there are bad apples on both trees.
Sure, I can agree to that. But is there an equivilency? Absolutely not.
See, this is the problem. Here I am trying to reach a compromise, and you can't even accept that. Just as in the industry, compromise is just a foreign concept to some people.
Comments
Impossible, no. Improbable, I would estimate so.
Right.
So then, then the real question should become painfully obvious:
"Why should a company deliberately choose to serve a smaller market over a larger one?"
2 reason you would:
1. If you believe that that smaller market would be several times more loyal to the product that you designed for them than the large market would be for the product you designed for that larger market...
2. if making the product designed for the smaller group is a great deal easier/cheaper than the one for the larger group.
In this case, there's SOME evidence of "1" in Eve Online. Not much anywhere else, but still...
2 is right out. It is FAR more difficult to make a hardcore game, and thus likely more expensive to create an MMO for the hardcore crowd. So there's a much bigger risk, and the track record of attempted endeavours is dismal, at best.
And lastly... this hardcore/elite mentality of attacking games/GAMERS that are/play "casual" is doing none of you any good.
I used to have the same attitude regarding music; that most people were just little sheep, chasing after Lady Gaga, Britney, N'Sync, Backstreet Boys, NKotB... the list goes on. I listened to REAL music.
.
But in the end, it doesn't really matter even if I was right... whether or not I had such amazing
taste and understanding of music, where my aural palatte was just too sophisticated for any "simpletons" to comprehend. It was an absolute WASTE of my time to go after and judge people for listening to popular music. It doesn't turn them to my way of thinking, and most importantly in relevance to this and other similar threads:
Today's "big pop artist" failing does NOTHING to improve the chances that the kind of music I like will become popular, or that record companies will start backing artists that I think have soul. In the end, my actions just made me look like a great big giant douche.
Yeah, good luck with that. Even all the games on this site that people call the Next Big Sandbox won't have anything like what you're asking for.
NO IT DOESNT!
it means exclusion of others, not insulting of others. I know tons of people who make fun and put down other people who are NOT exlcuionary of others.
So again, putting down others is a SYMPTOM of elistism not the source. Just like Heat is not fire, its a symptom of fire, Heat doesnt always = fire
a singular or plural in construction : the choice part : cream elite of the entertainment world> b singular or plural in construction : the best of a class elite — Marilyn Chase> c singular or plural in construction : the socially superior part of society elite…was changing — Economist> d : a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence elite> e : a member of such an elite —usually used in plural elites … , pursuing their studies in Europe — Robert Wernick
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Oh I agree 100%, but I can dream. What I would like to see that can be done easly is a game with NO PVP centered on PVE with diverse classes. I've had enough of MMO's that suck because all the classes are mirrored or dumbed down due to PVP.
Again, no one is asking devs to change the games that are already out there. No one is trying to take casual games away from casual gamers. If someone were to make a modern-day hardcore MMO, however, I do believe it could do well, and possibly even spur a trend. Unfortunately the reason casual MMOs have all the market numbers is because there hasn't been much alternative for many years now.
Until a new AAA MMO comes along that caters to the "hardcore" audience, we won't really know. I, for one, would really love for someone out there to take the initiative and try to tap this long neglected demographic. At the very least it would be a refreshing change from the same old thing rehashed over and over.
I don't really think there was anything "hard" about classic games.
There was nothing "hard" about UO - actually quite the opposite, many things were far, far easier in UO than in modern games.
The only thing UO had before Trammel was annoyance. Veteran players bullying everyone else and preventing new players from leaving town and fighting monsters/making money to improve their characters.
Griefing 101.
There is nothing "hard" about griefing. Actually couldn't be easier, "like taking candy from a baby."
Griefing doesn't make anyone "hardcore" it makes them a bully. True hardcore is taking on 2-3 similarly skilled players by yourself and winning. That is hardcore kids.
Hardcore is figuring out ways to defeat mobs by yourself that should take more players, and doing so WITHOUT cheating or exploiting - you're simply that good.
Hardcore was the Vanilla WoW hunters that could CC/kite 2-3 mobs at a time because they were that good. UBRS anyone?
I played on Siege Perilous (the no Trammel "hardcore" shard") for a long while because I had a large guild and we relied on each other for defense - strength in numbers. Was also a great RP community.
There is nothing "hard" about tedius repetition. Nothing "hard" about annoying hurdles to fun. Nothing "hard" about exploits. Nothing "hard" about griefing.
Ya'll are fooling yourselves.
WoW BC heroics and raiding were more challenging than anything in SWG or UO.
Ulduar was my favorite WoW raid of all time because it was challenging and epic in size and scope.
There is nothing "hard" about forced grouping, harsh death penalties, and tedius repetition.
It's you EQ kids that have led to the ruin of the MMORPG genre. Us UO vets understand how MMOs are supposed to be.
And yes, even the "great" SWG got so many things wrong... so many poor design decisions. Too much EQ influence. EVE made the same mistakes. Tried to copy UO without learning the lessons UO learned that made it great.
They are half right. Elitism is a belief. You believe yourself to be better than others for reason X or others believe you to be better than them for reason X. The resulting behavior can be insults and put downs, but it's not part of the definition of 'Elitism'.
** edit **
Ironically, MMORPG.com believes me to be an 'Elite' member.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
No such thing.
Variety is the spice of life. You've got your idea of fun; I've got mine; they've got theirs.
Personally I woudnt want to have an industry where each and every game follows one formula and is the same...oh wait...
This is the key point. This is where the word elite comes into play. An elitist will say that they should be able to play the games they want but you should not be able to play the games you want. The position of an elitist is exclusion, if there are no options for other games styles then those who suggest this is good are the ones being the elitist, not the ones who are asking for diveristy.
elitism by the way has nothing whatsoever to do with putting other people down. That is just a side effect of elitism just like heat is the side effect of fire.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You have a source? You have numbers? You "esimated" so. Base on? Market research? NPD data? Surveys of gamers?
The same has been said about the sinking of the Titanic, and we all know how that went.
So would I. Because I thought WoW was alright. Love LotRO, and SWTOR, AND also love Eve.
Lets just agree that there are bad apples on both trees.
True, I over generalize.
I just find it funny that people always seem to cite EQ as the pinnacle of what MMORPG's are supposed to be, without having the breadth of understanding and wisdom to see that EQ was the start of the current trend, not some far distant and seperate thing.
There is a clear line of succession from EQ to WoW to the modern MMO structure.
There is NO line of succession from what UO was to..... there is nothing.
Games like DF/EvE/SWG tried to build on what UO did but failed miserably because they lacked the vision to see what made UO so great.
SWG came much closer than EVE or DF or any other modern sandbox, but SWG's major flaws weren't just the extreme lack of polish and quality but the general grind-heavy structure of the advancement systems.
Casual gamers don't play those kinds of games, because they don't enjoy them. And by their very nature, should all MMO's no longer provide a game that they enjoy, casuals will leave through the door in which they came when WoW released.
And here we have more of the same. The industry will implode if games aren't made the way YOU like them, eh?
The industry would survive, the majority audience would just change. You really dont believe there are hardcore players who haven't quit because of the sea of casual games that have hit the market?
Robsolf is right. The genre would implode if all the casual players left. All the money in the current market is coming from the casual players. If they leave for greener pastures, the market will implode (shrink dramatically) past the point at which it's profitable to create an MMORPG at all. Imagine a genre where all the games are like Mortal Online or Darkfall. Community efforts to create games*. Going from a market of 16 million players to a market of a million or fewer players is indeed imploding.
* I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea. I've stated in another thread I think a dedicated bunch of volunteers could create something much better than Mortal Online, for a lot less money.
** edit **
Had to fix the quote boxes.
The market wouldn't implode, it would shift. Many casuals would still try the new games and, as casual players often do, might subscribe for a month and leave to try a new game. Others would find games they like and play them casually. Others still would even become hardcore.
Today's market numbers are not just due to reduced difficulty in games. Gaming as a whole has expanded tremendously over the years. When new things come along (or things that are new to individuals), many jump on board, others dont.
When phones got tinier, a lot of people jumped on board, others didnt. When tablets came along, a lot of people jumped on board, others didnt. When MMOs became solo friendly, a lot of people jumped on board, others didn't. If MMOs become more group oriented, a lot of people will jump on board, others wont. Its how things just happen to work out.
Trends come and go, and yes, even repeat themselves sometimes. Its pretty unrealistic to think "X will always be this way, and if it changed it would disappear."
Remember, we're talking about a hypothetical situation where the casual games do not and will not exist. The MMORPG Market would implode - the people would go play something else. Like Facebook games or FPS or something. The overall gaming market would be fine.
In the real world, the market would just shift to follow the money. Which is what happened. The market not only shifted, it grew tremendously.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Sure, I can agree to that. But is there an equivilency? Absolutely not.
Didn't it has been tried before?
EQ generates lots of complaints about the tedium and other "hard core" features. WOW was the response to that. Or do you mean some other hard core features that is not in EQ.
And you also need to definte "doing well". Is Eve doing well? It is certainly making money, but TOR outsell the ENTIRE life of Eve in a DAY. Don't tell me that if TOR sells 1-2M boxes and settle on 500k sub .. then it is a failure but Eve is a success with 300k subs gained over many years.
EQ did lead to the end of MMO's but it's not EQ's fault but SOE. They started with the Auction Houses, Quick Travel, PVP, Instances, etc. EQ went from being an amazing game with a great community to a shell of itself and it all started with POP and went downhill from there. The communitity took a HUGE hit when they added quick travel and the auction house. No more did you need Druid friends to port you. No more did you get to barder and trade equiplent. The racing to get to the mobs that spawned was over etc.
I remember the very first instance I ever seen in EQ. It was just off Everfrost and man did it feel vacant. I just could not get over being in this big instance with only my little group of guys. It felt fake which is something EQ never felt. At the time I didn't know it was the sign of things to come and that all MMO's will be centered on instances.
So yeah, EQ was the downfall of MMO's, but I blame SOE and their need for cash and lack of care for what it did to the community and immersion.
Actually UO was the Pong of MMO's. Nothing more really. EQ was the start of the modern day MMO as we know it today. EQ before POP was perfect, after is where it lost it's way. When I speak of EQ I speak of it prior to POP and actually prior to SOE getting involved as that is really the turning point of when EQ started to have issues.
there is also a clear line of progression from the Dark Ages to how we live in todays world....your point again ?
Only the irony that many here on MMORPG.com say that MMOs have becomes dumbed down, watered down, pieces of garbage from their "former glory" because things were made more friendly and easier access etc. etc.
That the more popular, dumbed down games are emulated and the less popular but "better" games are left to rot.
But then they cite EQ as the pinnacle of classic MMO gaming...
When I believe that EQ was indeed the more popular, dumbed down game when compared to UO.
All the things people want MMOs to be now, these things would be reality if the MMORPG model had followed the UO model instead of the EQ model.
Imagine what kind of games we would have now if UO was the more profitable and popular of the two, imagine all the money used to finance and evolve/innovate the EQ-type MMO had instead been spent on games that innovated and evolved from the UO model.
What is REALLY sad is that Minecraft is the closest thing to a successor to UO.
EQ ruined everything. Even the sandbox MMOs to follow UO were believers in the LIE that grinding + loot was what kept people subscribed to MMORPGs.
I actually blame the entire generation of overly caffeinated, ADHD hyped insta-gratification junkies that have absolutely no idea how to simply "play" and "have fun" without some kind of reward involved.
EQ catered far, far more to this demographic with its loot and levels and exclussive raiding etc.
Brand recognition plays a HUGE HUGE part in SWTOR's sales, as it did with WoW's. You could slap a fake light saber laser on the end of a turd and someone would buy it.
Yes it does, it is an attitude or belief of superiority. This is reflected in their comments.
the superior attitude or behaviour associated with an elite http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/elitism
The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/elitist
A person who believes that they are superior to others (and thus deserve favored status) because of their intellect, social status, wealth, or other factors. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=elitist
Insulting a game because you belief it is childish is elitist behaviour. The person that does that thinks they are better.
I remember the very first instance i ever seen in WOW (sorry, quit EQ over its tedium LONG before it fixed the issue with instance). It was just off Barrens and man did it feel refreshing. I just could not get over being in this big instance with only my little group of guys. It felt like an exciting adventure which is something EQ never felt. At the time i did know it was the sign of things to come and that all MMO's should be centered on instances.
See, this is the problem. Here I am trying to reach a compromise, and you can't even accept that. Just as in the industry, compromise is just a foreign concept to some people.