Growth? You mean the critical and financial BOMBS that fail right out of the gate and fail to grow over time? I think probably one of the only MMOs with numbers going UP right now is Eve or Darkfall.
You are in denial. The industry has grown for years now. Nearly all of those "bombs" made profit, and while they didn't make you happy, they made someone else happy.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Not being funny but you can promote grouping without artificially ramming people into groups in instanced areas or pushing "Tank LFG for wrath king stage 2010103u302!!!".
That most modern day mmos (and their players) don't seem to grasp that does indeed point to the fact that the genre is in decline.
OK, how?
How do you encourage grouping without forcing it?
Provide a tool like LFG of course. Just look at WOW. Very little grouping when leveling before LFD. Now everyone is leveling in dungeons.
Two wrongs does not make it right. Just because most triple A MMORPGs are putting more and more single player features in an MMORPG does not make it right.
There is no absolute right or wrong. What makes a game fun for a majority of the player base is "right". I don't see a problem wtih more SP features in a MMO.
The reverse is true too. MMO features are going into a game like Diablo 3.
Not being funny but you can promote grouping without artificially ramming people into groups in instanced areas or pushing "Tank LFG for wrath king stage 2010103u302!!!".
That most modern day mmos (and their players) don't seem to grasp that does indeed point to the fact that the genre is in decline.
OK, how?
How do you encourage grouping without forcing it?
Provide a tool like LFG of course. Just look at WOW. Very little grouping when leveling before LFD. Now everyone is leveling in dungeons.
Because dungeons are a faster way to level. If you could level equally well in dungeons or solo people would solo. You are coercing them into grouping by making dungeons faster. The difference between pre and post lfg was that pre lfg the amount of time it took to get a group was so long that faster leveling per active minute of play time was lower than soloing.
If you made soloing the faster way to level instead of dungeons the lf tool wouldn't mean anything.
Why is it that you are never capable of looking beneath the surface?
Not being funny but you can promote grouping without artificially ramming people into groups in instanced areas or pushing "Tank LFG for wrath king stage 2010103u302!!!".
That most modern day mmos (and their players) don't seem to grasp that does indeed point to the fact that the genre is in decline.
OK, how?
How do you encourage grouping without forcing it?
Provide a tool like LFG of course. Just look at WOW. Very little grouping when leveling before LFD. Now everyone is leveling in dungeons.
Because dungeons are a faster way to level. If you could level equally well in dungeons or solo people would solo. You are coercing them into grouping by making dungeons faster. The difference between pre and post lfg was that pre lfg the amount of time it took to get a group was so long that faster leveling per active minute of play time was lower than soloing.
If you made soloing the faster way to level instead of dungeons the lf tool wouldn't mean anything.
Why is it that you are never capable of looking beneath the surface?
But isn't that what people have been suggesting?
Make mobs harder - done, they are in dungeons
Make xp better - done
Make loot better - done
Make it easy to group - done, now I just push a button and get a group in 15 minutes.
Make it easier to group with people of different levels - done (not in WoW but in other games like CoH and EQ2 I believe)
Almost everything that people have asked for to make grouping better has been done.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Not being funny but you can promote grouping without artificially ramming people into groups in instanced areas or pushing "Tank LFG for wrath king stage 2010103u302!!!".
That most modern day mmos (and their players) don't seem to grasp that does indeed point to the fact that the genre is in decline.
OK, how?
How do you encourage grouping without forcing it?
Provide a tool like LFG of course. Just look at WOW. Very little grouping when leveling before LFD. Now everyone is leveling in dungeons.
Because dungeons are a faster way to level. If you could level equally well in dungeons or solo people would solo. You are coercing them into grouping by making dungeons faster. The difference between pre and post lfg was that pre lfg the amount of time it took to get a group was so long that faster leveling per active minute of play time was lower than soloing.
If you made soloing the faster way to level instead of dungeons the lf tool wouldn't mean anything.
Why is it that you are never capable of looking beneath the surface?
But isn't that what people have been suggesting?
Make mobs harder - done, they are in dungeons
Make xp better - done
Make loot better - done
Make it easy to group - done, now I just push a button and get a group in 15 minutes.
Make it easier to group with people of different levels - done (not in WoW but in other games like CoH and EQ2 I believe)
Almost everything that people have asked for to make grouping better has been done.
But people like Narius and Axehilt claim they are "OPPOSED" to forced grouping, thus it makes them either not very observant or hypocrites to support the looking for tools.
That is the point I am making.
As for this being what people suggest, no. People who want old school style grouping do not want a lobby like matchmaking system built in where you play with people from other servers or zones and who you never see again, ie strangers.
This doesn't build community effectively. Sure you can build a community with this, but its not the optimal system with which to build one. There are better systems.
If the MMO genre was in a decline how the fuck do you explain the companies that continue to make them and the growth each year? And I'm not just talking about Bioware.
How the fuck do I explain it? I explain it by pointing out what should be fucking obvious to anyone involved in the debate, that the perceived decline being talked about is in terms of quality and variation, not in terms of numbers paying through the nose for the same old rinse and repeat shite.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
How the fuck do I explain it? I explain it by pointing out what should be fucking obvious to anyone involved in the debate, that the perceived decline being talked about is in terms of quality and variation, not in terms of numbers paying through the nose for the same old rinse and repeat shite.
LOL .. "obvious" is not an argument. You "think" that it is in decline does not make it so.
Not being funny but you can promote grouping without artificially ramming people into groups in instanced areas or pushing "Tank LFG for wrath king stage 2010103u302!!!".
That most modern day mmos (and their players) don't seem to grasp that does indeed point to the fact that the genre is in decline.
OK, how?
How do you encourage grouping without forcing it?
Provide a tool like LFG of course. Just look at WOW. Very little grouping when leveling before LFD. Now everyone is leveling in dungeons.
Because dungeons are a faster way to level. If you could level equally well in dungeons or solo people would solo. You are coercing them into grouping by making dungeons faster. The difference between pre and post lfg was that pre lfg the amount of time it took to get a group was so long that faster leveling per active minute of play time was lower than soloing.
If you made soloing the faster way to level instead of dungeons the lf tool wouldn't mean anything.
Why is it that you are never capable of looking beneath the surface?
But isn't that what people have been suggesting?
Make mobs harder - done, they are in dungeons
Make xp better - done
Make loot better - done
Make it easy to group - done, now I just push a button and get a group in 15 minutes.
Make it easier to group with people of different levels - done (not in WoW but in other games like CoH and EQ2 I believe)
Almost everything that people have asked for to make grouping better has been done.
But people like Narius and Axehilt claim they are "OPPOSED" to forced grouping, thus it makes them either not very observant or hypocrites to support the looking for tools.
That is the point I am making.
As for this being what people suggest, no. People who want old school style grouping do not want a lobby like matchmaking system built in where you play with people from other servers or zones and who you never see again, ie strangers.
This doesn't build community effectively. Sure you can build a community with this, but its not the optimal system with which to build one. There are better systems.
That has nothing to do with the point of my post.
The point is to make grouping as efficient and simply as possible. I actually do believe believe like to group and want to group howefver organizing a group is a serious pain in the ass.
So we make it more rewarding, it's done, we make it easier, it's done.
Cross server lfg - maybe, maybe not. But a simple button to hook you up with people to form a group - dead easy and simple.
And the more people there are, the more groups there are - hence cross server. Community concerns can be alleviated by cross server friends list (which CoH has, unfortuantely it doesn't have a cross server lfg).
The only other option is a one server idea - ala Eve, which in a game with an actual would would be very tricky.
and generally people are opposed to forced grouping - but that doesn't mean they don't want to group, they just want to make it easier to do.
edit - for all the good and bad of EQ I think if they had a more loot, better reward system for grouping and a method of finding groups such as an lfg (but this I don't mean a looking for dungeon, you could do the same thing for a world boss mob, or stay in one spot and grind - lets just say lfg for simplicity). In my opinion that would have make it a really great game, deadtime would be gone, standing around for hours waiting for a group would be gone or severly reduced.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Growth? You mean the critical and financial BOMBS that fail right out of the gate and fail to grow over time? I think probably one of the only MMOs with numbers going UP right now is Eve or Darkfall.
You are in denial. The industry has grown for years now. Nearly all of those "bombs" made profit, and while they didn't make you happy, they made someone else happy.
Haha yeah, having to merge servers is a sure sign of growth.
Not being funny but you can promote grouping without artificially ramming people into groups in instanced areas or pushing "Tank LFG for wrath king stage 2010103u302!!!".
That most modern day mmos (and their players) don't seem to grasp that does indeed point to the fact that the genre is in decline.
OK, how?
How do you encourage grouping without forcing it?
"Make the mobs hit harder and have more health so people have to band together to defeat them."
Forcing it.
"Make certain classes unable to solo effectively so they have to group together."
Forcing it.
"Make more clear distinctions between support/crowd control/healing etc. so people have to work together in groups."
Forcing it.
By making the world a dangerous place. Making grouping more rewarding and faster than soloing. Done.
Grouping is harder, it SHOULD give you more rewards.
Soloing should be difficult but possible if you REALLY hate people (wrong genre then, I think) If you simply cannot find a group you can still solo, do kill tasks and such, but it'll be more dangerous than having a group of people backing you up.
Growth? You mean the critical and financial BOMBS that fail right out of the gate and fail to grow over time? I think probably one of the only MMOs with numbers going UP right now is Eve or Darkfall.
You are in denial. The industry has grown for years now. Nearly all of those "bombs" made profit, and while they didn't make you happy, they made someone else happy.
Haha yeah, having to merge servers is a sure sign of growth.
4 games to several hundred games with most of them making profit is growth. A few million players, to 40 million players+ is growth.
An individual game may grow or shrink depending on their resources and abilites, but there is no doubt the industy has grown.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Growth? You mean the critical and financial BOMBS that fail right out of the gate and fail to grow over time? I think probably one of the only MMOs with numbers going UP right now is Eve or Darkfall.
You are in denial. The industry has grown for years now. Nearly all of those "bombs" made profit, and while they didn't make you happy, they made someone else happy.
Haha yeah, having to merge servers is a sure sign of growth.
4 games to several hundred games with most of them making profit is growth. A few million players, to 40 million players+ is growth.
An individual game may grow or shrink depending on their resources and abilites, but there is no doubt the industy has grown.
Yeah, the Atari industry was growing too, there were hundreds of games coming out every year. But guess what, that wasn't a good thing, was it? (google the Video Game Crash).
And your numbers are way, WAY off. I would say the market is worse both for the players AND the developers now than it used to be. And I doubt you'll find anyone who will argue otherwise. Hence the thread. Something can still grow while in decline (Roman Empire)
I don't even need to read the article to completely disagree and PROVE you are wrong
I'm sorry but EQ1 averaged around 100-200k subs? DAOC was probably more in the 500k range? I'm guessing here but I think we can all agree that NO "old" mmo that people tend to consider "good" ever had 10+ million subs.
How can you say MMORPG genre is in decline when MORE people are playing them now than ever before? And there are MORE being released more often than ever before?
Unless your article was about how you don't like the way the new ones are being designed? If thats the case then I'm sorry and you can ignore my response. But the MMORPG genre is as strong as ever (maybe not quite as strong as the first 2-3 years of wow)... But still, Just about every major MMO release (Rift, SWTOR, WAR, AoC... to name a few recent ones) has higher sub numbers than EQ1, DAOC, AC, or any of the old school mmo's EVER had.
How the fuck do I explain it? I explain it by pointing out what should be fucking obvious to anyone involved in the debate, that the perceived decline being talked about is in terms of quality and variation, not in terms of numbers paying through the nose for the same old rinse and repeat shite.
LOL .. "obvious" is not an argument. You "think" that it is in decline does not make it so.
It is "obvious" that those speaking of a decline, that those who feel that it is in decline are talking as such from a point of the quality et al of the genre, not of the population figures.
Perhaps you missed the "perceived" part?
Regardless, "LOL" is not a fantastic refutation of that.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
Growth? You mean the critical and financial BOMBS that fail right out of the gate and fail to grow over time? I think probably one of the only MMOs with numbers going UP right now is Eve or Darkfall.
You are in denial. The industry has grown for years now. Nearly all of those "bombs" made profit, and while they didn't make you happy, they made someone else happy.
Haha yeah, having to merge servers is a sure sign of growth.
4 games to several hundred games with most of them making profit is growth. A few million players, to 40 million players+ is growth.
An individual game may grow or shrink depending on their resources and abilites, but there is no doubt the industy has grown.
Yeah, the Atari industry was growing too, there were hundreds of games coming out every year. But guess what, that wasn't a good thing, was it? (google the Video Game Crash).
And your numbers are way, WAY off. I would say the market is worse both for the players AND the developers now than it used to be. And I doubt you'll find anyone who will argue otherwise.
And that may happen, but it isn't happening now. Next year the whole thing could crash. But it isn't crashing now, now it's still growing.
And the numbers aren't way off. They have been posted on these boards with the data to back them up.
There are many many who would argue that the market is better for players and developers. Actually I think most will argue it is better for players, perhaps not on these boards but overall I think most will say it's better. I personally do think it is better for players. I have more choice in games than ever before. I have more themepark, more sandbox, post apoc, heroes games, space games, wow clones, very different games such as UWO, more pvp oriented games - definately much more choice than before. And generally the quality is better than before - true that may be due to tech but still better quality, more content and less bugs on release, for the most part, than any of the old games.
For developers - maybe maybe not, there is more money for devs who of that there is no doubt, however there is also much more competition making it harder for a dev to sell their particular idea.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
This doesn't build community effectively. Sure you can build a community with this, but its not the optimal system with which to build one. There are better systems.
That has nothing to do with the point of my post.
So? We are talking about grouping for fun. Who cares about community building.
I will take a fun co-op game anyday to a game who needs to camp all day doing nothing and force to chat and "build community".
This doesn't build community effectively. Sure you can build a community with this, but its not the optimal system with which to build one. There are better systems. That has nothing to do with the point of my post.
So? We are talking about grouping for fun. Who cares about community building.
I will take a fun co-op game anyday to a game who needs to camp all day doing nothing and force to chat and "build community".
I guarantee you, we will never like the same games, and that makes me happy.
Yeah. I've been pretty much saying this for the last 6 or 7 years. We seriously need indie developers to start making MMOs. They're one of the few types of the devs that are able to acatually make the games that they'd honestly like to play. The only big time companies that make decent games anymore are the ones that self publish (with a few exceptions of course). Capcom for example still makes great games. I never cared for bioware because I'm not into the novels in my video games things, but I've noticed how people are started to dislike them. I'd bet 10,000 dollar that if they started self publishing and broke away from the EA blob, they'd start making games that wont piss everyone off.
We some rich kids to start funding/investing in the right game devs that actually want to make decent stuff.
I don't even need to read the article to completely disagree and PROVE you are wrong
I'm sorry but EQ1 averaged around 100-200k subs? DAOC was probably more in the 500k range? I'm guessing here but I think we can all agree that NO "old" mmo that people tend to consider "good" ever had 10+ million subs.
Only one MMO has ever had that many subs. It's an outlier, not a sign of growth. Most modern WoW clones are nowhere near 500k subs, despite all the "growth".
How can you say MMORPG genre is in decline when MORE people are playing them now than ever before? And there are MORE being released more often than ever before?
Very easily, because those games being released are almost universally garbage that's not worth playing. And said garbage MMOs are averaging LESS subscribers than MMOs back in the days of DIAL UP.
Unless your article was about how you don't like the way the new ones are being designed? If thats the case then I'm sorry and you can ignore my response. But the MMORPG genre is as strong as ever (maybe not quite as strong as the first 2-3 years of wow)... But still, Just about every major MMO release (Rift, SWTOR, WAR, AoC... to name a few recent ones) has higher sub numbers than EQ1, DAOC, AC, or any of the old school mmo's EVER had.
Wrong, so very wrong. WAR, and AoC especially crashed and burned hard. Rift has already had to merge servers, and SWTOR is following swiftly. Aoc nearly bankrupted Funcom. WAR destroyed Mythic. WAR is down to lower numbers than DAoC used to have and AoC had to go FTP to try to turn a profit.
"total spending on MMO games this year rose by 30% compared to last year. Around 47.5 million Americans play MMOs and although 90% of these play free-to-play games"
Growth? You mean the critical and financial BOMBS that fail right out of the gate and fail to grow over time? I think probably one of the only MMOs with numbers going UP right now is Eve or Darkfall.
You are in denial. The industry has grown for years now. Nearly all of those "bombs" made profit, and while they didn't make you happy, they made someone else happy.
Haha yeah, having to merge servers is a sure sign of growth.
4 games to several hundred games with most of them making profit is growth. A few million players, to 40 million players+ is growth.
An individual game may grow or shrink depending on their resources and abilites, but there is no doubt the industy has grown.
Yeah, the Atari industry was growing too, there were hundreds of games coming out every year. But guess what, that wasn't a good thing, was it? (google the Video Game Crash).
And your numbers are way, WAY off. I would say the market is worse both for the players AND the developers now than it used to be. And I doubt you'll find anyone who will argue otherwise.
And that may happen, but it isn't happening now. Next year the whole thing could crash. But it isn't crashing now, now it's still growing.
And the numbers aren't way off. They have been posted on these boards with the data to back them up.
The fact that you think there used to only be 4 MMOs, and that you're basing all your numbers on what people have said on this forum invalidates anything you have to say. It's clear you weren't there at the start of MMOs, so why try to argue as if you've experienced both sides?
"total spending on MMO games this year rose by 30% compared to last year. Around 47.5 million Americans play MMOs and although 90% of these play free-to-play games"
"Our data clearly shows that the market for MMO games is growing in terms of number of gamers, share of people paying and money spent."
"In 2011, total US MMO games consumer spend will grow 3% compared to 2011 from $2.5bn to $2.6bn."
You can claim that the growth is slowing down.
But saying the MMO market is in decline .. is just plain WRONG, and not supported by data.
It's not about the numbers kiddo, its about the quality of the games being released.
PC gaming is hitting an all time high, but most of those numbers are coming from flash games and Farmville. Are you going to try to say that just because the numbers are big we're in a golden age of gaming?
"total spending on MMO games this year rose by 30% compared to last year. Around 47.5 million Americans play MMOs and although 90% of these play free-to-play games"
"Our data clearly shows that the market for MMO games is growing in terms of number of gamers, share of people paying and money spent."
"In 2011, total US MMO games consumer spend will grow 3% compared to 2011 from $2.5bn to $2.6bn."
You can claim that the growth is slowing down.
But saying the MMO market is in decline .. is just plain WRONG, and not supported by data.
It's not about the numbers kiddo, its about the quality of the games being released.
PC gaming is hitting an all time high, but most of those numbers are coming from flash games and Farmville. Are you going to try to say that just because the numbers are big we're in a golden age of gaming?
Says you? People who have no evidence to support their position rely on fluff stuff like "quality" which is subjective.
Look at modern MMOs on metacritics and tell me how they flare with the critics. If you meaning of "quality" is what you like .. sorry .. that has no credibility.
Because i can do the same. Modern MMO has the best quality, more content, more convenient features, better graphics, more fun for everyone. There is no decline in quality either.
I don't even need to read the article to completely disagree and PROVE you are wrong
I'm sorry but EQ1 averaged around 100-200k subs? DAOC was probably more in the 500k range? I'm guessing here but I think we can all agree that NO "old" mmo that people tend to consider "good" ever had 10+ million subs.
Only one MMO has ever had that many subs. It's an outlier, not a sign of growth. Most modern WoW clones are nowhere near 500k subs, despite all the "growth".
How can you say MMORPG genre is in decline when MORE people are playing them now than ever before? And there are MORE being released more often than ever before?
Very easily, because those games being released are almost universally garbage that's not worth playing. And said garbage MMOs are averaging LESS subscribers than MMOs back in the days of DIAL UP.
Unless your article was about how you don't like the way the new ones are being designed? If thats the case then I'm sorry and you can ignore my response. But the MMORPG genre is as strong as ever (maybe not quite as strong as the first 2-3 years of wow)... But still, Just about every major MMO release (Rift, SWTOR, WAR, AoC... to name a few recent ones) has higher sub numbers than EQ1, DAOC, AC, or any of the old school mmo's EVER had.
Wrong, so very wrong. WAR, and AoC especially crashed and burned hard. Rift has already had to merge servers, and SWTOR is following swiftly. Aoc nearly bankrupted Funcom. WAR destroyed Mythic. WAR is down to lower numbers than DAoC used to have and AoC had to go FTP to try to turn a profit.
However CoH, LOTRO, CoV, Rift, Darkfall, EQ2, WAr and countless other games f2p and p2p have turned a profit. AoC is now turning a profit, Swtor - too soon to tell.
I no longer think that merging servers is really a sign of a failed game simply becasue we have millions trying a game at the start, then it drops to a few hundred thousand and stays stable (which is really what most of us expected), that necessitates a server merge but the game is still healthy.
So server merges are not a sign of failed game - but this really depends on the timing. Heck EQ has had server merges, but we don't consider that a failed game because it's been out for a dozen years.
A game being garber is subjective - not going to argue it.
Some games have less subscribers, some have more. However there are several hundred games out now, whereas before there were ~4, we definately have more choice now.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
You are in denial. The industry has grown for years now. Nearly all of those "bombs" made profit, and while they didn't make you happy, they made someone else happy.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Provide a tool like LFG of course. Just look at WOW. Very little grouping when leveling before LFD. Now everyone is leveling in dungeons.
There is no absolute right or wrong. What makes a game fun for a majority of the player base is "right". I don't see a problem wtih more SP features in a MMO.
The reverse is true too. MMO features are going into a game like Diablo 3.
Because dungeons are a faster way to level. If you could level equally well in dungeons or solo people would solo. You are coercing them into grouping by making dungeons faster. The difference between pre and post lfg was that pre lfg the amount of time it took to get a group was so long that faster leveling per active minute of play time was lower than soloing.
If you made soloing the faster way to level instead of dungeons the lf tool wouldn't mean anything.
Why is it that you are never capable of looking beneath the surface?
But isn't that what people have been suggesting?
Make mobs harder - done, they are in dungeons
Make xp better - done
Make loot better - done
Make it easy to group - done, now I just push a button and get a group in 15 minutes.
Make it easier to group with people of different levels - done (not in WoW but in other games like CoH and EQ2 I believe)
Almost everything that people have asked for to make grouping better has been done.
But people like Narius and Axehilt claim they are "OPPOSED" to forced grouping, thus it makes them either not very observant or hypocrites to support the looking for tools.
That is the point I am making.
As for this being what people suggest, no. People who want old school style grouping do not want a lobby like matchmaking system built in where you play with people from other servers or zones and who you never see again, ie strangers.
This doesn't build community effectively. Sure you can build a community with this, but its not the optimal system with which to build one. There are better systems.
That has nothing to do with the point of my post.
How the fuck do I explain it? I explain it by pointing out what should be fucking obvious to anyone involved in the debate, that the perceived decline being talked about is in terms of quality and variation, not in terms of numbers paying through the nose for the same old rinse and repeat shite.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
LOL .. "obvious" is not an argument. You "think" that it is in decline does not make it so.
The point is to make grouping as efficient and simply as possible. I actually do believe believe like to group and want to group howefver organizing a group is a serious pain in the ass.
So we make it more rewarding, it's done, we make it easier, it's done.
Cross server lfg - maybe, maybe not. But a simple button to hook you up with people to form a group - dead easy and simple.
And the more people there are, the more groups there are - hence cross server. Community concerns can be alleviated by cross server friends list (which CoH has, unfortuantely it doesn't have a cross server lfg).
The only other option is a one server idea - ala Eve, which in a game with an actual would would be very tricky.
and generally people are opposed to forced grouping - but that doesn't mean they don't want to group, they just want to make it easier to do.
edit - for all the good and bad of EQ I think if they had a more loot, better reward system for grouping and a method of finding groups such as an lfg (but this I don't mean a looking for dungeon, you could do the same thing for a world boss mob, or stay in one spot and grind - lets just say lfg for simplicity). In my opinion that would have make it a really great game, deadtime would be gone, standing around for hours waiting for a group would be gone or severly reduced.
Haha yeah, having to merge servers is a sure sign of growth.
Spot on.
4 games to several hundred games with most of them making profit is growth. A few million players, to 40 million players+ is growth.
An individual game may grow or shrink depending on their resources and abilites, but there is no doubt the industy has grown.
Yeah, the Atari industry was growing too, there were hundreds of games coming out every year. But guess what, that wasn't a good thing, was it? (google the Video Game Crash).
And your numbers are way, WAY off. I would say the market is worse both for the players AND the developers now than it used to be. And I doubt you'll find anyone who will argue otherwise. Hence the thread. Something can still grow while in decline (Roman Empire)
I don't even need to read the article to completely disagree and PROVE you are wrong
I'm sorry but EQ1 averaged around 100-200k subs? DAOC was probably more in the 500k range? I'm guessing here but I think we can all agree that NO "old" mmo that people tend to consider "good" ever had 10+ million subs.
How can you say MMORPG genre is in decline when MORE people are playing them now than ever before? And there are MORE being released more often than ever before?
Unless your article was about how you don't like the way the new ones are being designed? If thats the case then I'm sorry and you can ignore my response. But the MMORPG genre is as strong as ever (maybe not quite as strong as the first 2-3 years of wow)... But still, Just about every major MMO release (Rift, SWTOR, WAR, AoC... to name a few recent ones) has higher sub numbers than EQ1, DAOC, AC, or any of the old school mmo's EVER had.
It is "obvious" that those speaking of a decline, that those who feel that it is in decline are talking as such from a point of the quality et al of the genre, not of the population figures.
Perhaps you missed the "perceived" part?
Regardless, "LOL" is not a fantastic refutation of that.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
And that may happen, but it isn't happening now. Next year the whole thing could crash. But it isn't crashing now, now it's still growing.
And the numbers aren't way off. They have been posted on these boards with the data to back them up.
There are many many who would argue that the market is better for players and developers. Actually I think most will argue it is better for players, perhaps not on these boards but overall I think most will say it's better. I personally do think it is better for players. I have more choice in games than ever before. I have more themepark, more sandbox, post apoc, heroes games, space games, wow clones, very different games such as UWO, more pvp oriented games - definately much more choice than before. And generally the quality is better than before - true that may be due to tech but still better quality, more content and less bugs on release, for the most part, than any of the old games.
For developers - maybe maybe not, there is more money for devs who of that there is no doubt, however there is also much more competition making it harder for a dev to sell their particular idea.
So? We are talking about grouping for fun. Who cares about community building.
I will take a fun co-op game anyday to a game who needs to camp all day doing nothing and force to chat and "build community".
So? We are talking about grouping for fun. Who cares about community building.
I will take a fun co-op game anyday to a game who needs to camp all day doing nothing and force to chat and "build community".
I guarantee you, we will never like the same games, and that makes me happy.Yeah. I've been pretty much saying this for the last 6 or 7 years. We seriously need indie developers to start making MMOs. They're one of the few types of the devs that are able to acatually make the games that they'd honestly like to play. The only big time companies that make decent games anymore are the ones that self publish (with a few exceptions of course). Capcom for example still makes great games. I never cared for bioware because I'm not into the novels in my video games things, but I've noticed how people are started to dislike them. I'd bet 10,000 dollar that if they started self publishing and broke away from the EA blob, they'd start making games that wont piss everyone off.
We some rich kids to start funding/investing in the right game devs that actually want to make decent stuff.
Gosh .. can people just LOOK UP the numbers.
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/57989/MMO-Market-Report-Shows-30-Growth
Late 2010 report. and i quote
"total spending on MMO games this year rose by 30% compared to last year. Around 47.5 million Americans play MMOs and although 90% of these play free-to-play games"
In the newszoo 2011 report, http://newzoo.com/ENG/1570-2011_MMO_Games_Report.html (click on the link for the PDF), and I quote
"Our data clearly shows that the market for MMO games is growing in terms of number of gamers, share of people paying and money spent."
"In 2011, total US MMO games consumer spend will grow 3% compared to 2011 from $2.5bn to $2.6bn."
You can claim that the growth is slowing down.
But saying the MMO market is in decline .. is just plain WRONG, and not supported by data.
The fact that you think there used to only be 4 MMOs, and that you're basing all your numbers on what people have said on this forum invalidates anything you have to say. It's clear you weren't there at the start of MMOs, so why try to argue as if you've experienced both sides?
It's not about the numbers kiddo, its about the quality of the games being released.
PC gaming is hitting an all time high, but most of those numbers are coming from flash games and Farmville. Are you going to try to say that just because the numbers are big we're in a golden age of gaming?
Says you? People who have no evidence to support their position rely on fluff stuff like "quality" which is subjective.
Look at modern MMOs on metacritics and tell me how they flare with the critics. If you meaning of "quality" is what you like .. sorry .. that has no credibility.
Because i can do the same. Modern MMO has the best quality, more content, more convenient features, better graphics, more fun for everyone. There is no decline in quality either.
However CoH, LOTRO, CoV, Rift, Darkfall, EQ2, WAr and countless other games f2p and p2p have turned a profit. AoC is now turning a profit, Swtor - too soon to tell.
I no longer think that merging servers is really a sign of a failed game simply becasue we have millions trying a game at the start, then it drops to a few hundred thousand and stays stable (which is really what most of us expected), that necessitates a server merge but the game is still healthy.
So server merges are not a sign of failed game - but this really depends on the timing. Heck EQ has had server merges, but we don't consider that a failed game because it's been out for a dozen years.
A game being garber is subjective - not going to argue it.
Some games have less subscribers, some have more. However there are several hundred games out now, whereas before there were ~4, we definately have more choice now.