Originally posted by Tamanous I $ee the rea$on$ clearly my$elf.
More conspiracy's from you I see.
Or it could be that a majority of Hearthstone players are also MMO players. I know because I am one. I'm sure $$$ has something to do with it but I am almost certain it isn't the only thing.
I refer to advertising dollars. The more money spent means more exposure ... sort of the entire point whether through direct advertising here or indirectly through media reveals similar to what we just saw with Wildstar. I refer simply to business.
Get your tin foil hat off.
You might have a point if those who controlled the advertising actually had anything to do with the content team on MMORPG.com. The problem for your point is they don't.
The admin has went over this about a billion times since I started visiting here.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by Tamanous I $ee the rea$on$ clearly my$elf.
More conspiracy's from you I see.
Or it could be that a majority of Hearthstone players are also MMO players. I know because I am one. I'm sure $$$ has something to do with it but I am almost certain it isn't the only thing.
I refer to advertising dollars. The more money spent means more exposure ... sort of the entire point whether through direct advertising here or indirectly through media reveals similar to what we just saw with Wildstar. I refer simply to business.
Get your tin foil hat off.
You might have a point if those who controlled the advertising actually had anything to do with the content team on MMORPG.com. The problem for your point is they don't.
The admin has went over this about a billion times since I started visiting here.
Which is why I mentioned media reveals and game conventions that target sites like this and offer special access for testing and previews. This impacts what we see here. Not all media outlets get invited to such events and certainly not everyone is offered an exception to NDAs.
I do not infer writers receive money or are forced into expressing opinions they do not share. Advertising $$$ still directly affects the level of media coverage. As mentioned previously this is entirely the point of it. The advertising we see on this site affects the landscape of the site. It is the reader's perception I am talking about, not writers.
I do not care if conspiracies exist past, present or future. It is fact that MMORPG.com is now supporting games (having forums for a game IS support. It is free advertising and is 100% the reason why developers spend money to attract sites like this) that would never have been on this site a few years ago. The definition of what an mmo is has broadened and not because of logic but because of business practice.
I have not read a valid reason from you or MMORPG.com as to why only 1 of 2 nearly identical games are covered here. I have not heard a logical explanation behind why there are forums and columns created for games that are clearly not mmos. I am also fully aware that this site does not exist as a moral campaign to weed out the junk from the gems. This site exists for the singular reason that is makes money for what it does. I have no issue with that. I simply will not accept anything other than the truth behind what drives content here. MMORPG made a very conscience choice to expand their coverage to increase readership and advertising options. $$$ is the driving force behind this.
I believe MMORPG when they say advertising dollars does not influence their opinions and reporting. They have to tell the truth to maintain respectability. This does not mean however that I have to ignore HOW they maintain a moral high ground. They can provide unbiased coverage for anything they cover. That is not the point. The point is why they are covering things they never would previously. They do what all smart businesses do in order to avoid conflicts of interest ... they change the rules.
Why do we see such a wide range of games outside the previously conventional definition of an mmorpg? Because they changed the definition of what an mmorpg is. Why did they change the definition of a mmorpg? In order to increase and widen their profit base. This is business. It is done all the time. It isn't however often transparent.
I am not worried or even care for a second if one, both or all of those card collection games come to MMORPG.com. I simply want to clearly point out that this site isn't some ultra-left wing, anti-establishment forum tossing aside the shackles of the capitalistic gaming industry. They are very much a part of it.
Games outside of MMORPGs being listed or not seems to be driven by the interest of the people who post here. If the people who post here are interested in the game, then it will probably be posted, even if it's not an MMORPG. It also seems to be driven by popularity. The more popular something is, if the population of people interested in the game is growing, it's more likely to get posted here.
This site lives off of advertising revenue. The games posted support that revenue by either being of interest of people who peruse the site, or by being of interest to people who haven't been to the site yet.
This is pretty much it. Magic has been its own entity since before MMOs even existed. When this site emerged as an MMORPG coverage site, the inclusion of something like MTG would have in no way been intuitive. As the years have rolled on, however, the world of massively multiplayer online games has expanded, both in player base and genre sub-types. Of the now millions and millions of MMO gamers, many of them also play games like League of Legends, Dota, D3, Path Exile, and yes, now Hearthstone. We follow people who play our favorite online games on sites like Twitch, where Hearthstone has been among the top 3 most watched games for the past several months now.
Whenever a new powerhouse game draws the attention of millions of the present online gaming community, you can bet your butt this site will cover it. It would be ridiculous not to. There's huge overlap between MMORPG gamers and all these other currently popular online games. It's the same crowd. You cover the games you think your audience will like you to cover.
Hearthstone and Magic: the Gathering Online (MTGO) are both online card trading games, but MTGO is not listed on this website.
What makes Hearthstone an MMORPG and what makes MTGO not an MMORPG?
Is this because Blizzard have funded advertising with MMORPG.com, but the company that makes MTGO have not? Or am I being too cynical?
My guess would be that it is the same reason why World of Tanks is on here but none of the CoD games or BF games are. If you can figure that one out, let me know. I'm pretty sure both Activision and EA give lots more in advertising $ than the maker of World of Tanks and World of Planes or whatever that new one is.
You answered your own question... Now stop there or its going a ban for you.
You don't want to ask these kind of things around here.
I am a libertarian and I believe in freedom of speech - unless it involves breaking the law.
Both Hearthstone and MTGO would both benefit from MTGO being here - competition is a good thing.
From Blizzard's perspective, some people are going to want to transfer from MTGO to Hearthstone - and vice versa.
MTGO should be here - the ensuing discussions would be healthy.
I cant picture Hearthstone taking people from MTGO. Its a pretty simplistic game. I was disappointed with how shallow it is compared to the EQ trading card game.
I cant picture Hearthstone taking people from MTGO. Its a pretty simplistic game. I was disappointed with how shallow it is compared to the EQ trading card game.
Be serious: the maximum of players in MTGO each night is around 2K... This very low number is shown on their one server.
The present "closed" beta of Hearthstone contains already over 1 million players and was announced like that by Blizzard a few weeks back.k
I forsee around 20 million active HS players spread over PC/iPads/iPhones/Android systems by the end of 2014.
The first F2P Blizzard game will be massive and extremely supported over the internet.
So stop talking nonsense. The game is extremely well polished and the the addiction is very high.
I cant picture Hearthstone taking people from MTGO. Its a pretty simplistic game. I was disappointed with how shallow it is compared to the EQ trading card game.
Be serious: the maximum of players in MTGO each night is around 2K... This very low number is shown on their one server.
The present "closed" beta of Hearthstone contains already over 1 million players and was announced like that by Blizzard a few weeks back.k
I forsee around 20 million active HS players spread over PC/iPads/iPhones/Android systems by the end of 2014.
The first F2P Blizzard game will be massive and extremely supported over the internet.
So stop talking nonsense. The game is extremely well polished and the the addiction is very high.
If you want a logical argument, compare the total players for MTGO and the total players for HS, or the average nightly for MTGO and the same for HS. I wouldn't doubt that HS will be on top in both cases, but you're not proving anything now.
He also never said it wasn't polished, just that it was shallow compared to an EQ card game i've never heard of. Polish doesn't translate to depth.
I cant picture Hearthstone taking people from MTGO. Its a pretty simplistic game. I was disappointed with how shallow it is compared to the EQ trading card game.
Be serious: the maximum of players in MTGO each night is around 2K... This very low number is shown on their one server.
The present "closed" beta of Hearthstone contains already over 1 million players and was announced like that by Blizzard a few weeks back.k
I forsee around 20 million active HS players spread over PC/iPads/iPhones/Android systems by the end of 2014.
The first F2P Blizzard game will be massive and extremely supported over the internet.
So stop talking nonsense. The game is extremely well polished and the the addiction is very high.
If you want a logical argument, compare the total players for MTGO and the total players for HS, or the average nightly for MTGO and the same for HS. I wouldn't doubt that HS will be on top in both cases, but you're not proving anything now.
2K concurrent number of MTGO players is shown on their ONE central server. That means the total non concurrent is probably around 10K-20K total.
Hearthstone has already over 1 M closed beta players as confirmed by Blizzad.
And it is easy to see: even in closed beta Hearthstone is showing up in the top of Xfire play already. On par or even exceding play of such games like GW2, WoT etc ...
Logical too: MTGO is way too expensive and is not even adapted to modern play.
As to the depth of HS: it is a card game over the internet and it is meant to be played in 10 minute sessions of fast furious fun WITH depth included.
Stop that ridiculous Blizzard trash talk. And look around to the dozens of tournaments and the enormous amount of on line play and streamers for a game that is even still in beta.
MTGO is as good as dead the moment HS will launch (if not already) or they should redesign this old 2002 model from scratch. MTGO never conquered the mass market because of its extreme costs, its ridiculous Sequence of play and bad programming part.
I cant picture Hearthstone taking people from MTGO. Its a pretty simplistic game. I was disappointed with how shallow it is compared to the EQ trading card game.
Be serious: the maximum of players in MTGO each night is around 2K... This very low number is shown on their one server.
The present "closed" beta of Hearthstone contains already over 1 million players and was announced like that by Blizzard a few weeks back.k
I forsee around 20 million active HS players spread over PC/iPads/iPhones/Android systems by the end of 2014.
The first F2P Blizzard game will be massive and extremely supported over the internet.
So stop talking nonsense. The game is extremely well polished and the the addiction is very high.
If you want a logical argument, compare the total players for MTGO and the total players for HS, or the average nightly for MTGO and the same for HS. I wouldn't doubt that HS will be on top in both cases, but you're not proving anything now.
2K concurrent number of MTGO players is shown on their ONE central server. That means the total non concurrent is probably around 10K-20K total.
Hearthstone has already over 1 M closed beta players as confirmed by Blizzad.
And it is easy to see: even in closed beta Hearthstone is showing up in the top of Xfire play already. On par or even exceding play of such games like GW2, WoT etc ...
Logical too: MTGO is way too expensive and is not even adapted to modern play.
As to the depth of HS: it is a card game over the internet and it is meant to be played in 10 minute sessions of fast furious fun WITH depth included.
Stop that ridiculous Blizzard trash talk. And look around to the dozens of tournaments and the enormous amount of on line play and streamers for a game that is even still in beta.
MTGO is as good as dead the moment HS will launch (if not already) or they should redesign this old 2002 model from scratch. MTGO never conquered the mass market because of its extreme costs, its ridiculous Sequence of play and bad programming part.
MTGO has 300K registered accounts. See, there you go. Compare that total with HS's and you have a logical argument about how HS is already far more popular than a many years old game.
Comments
because its a side game of a mmo still part of mmo world and magic is nothing to do with mmos
You might have a point if those who controlled the advertising actually had anything to do with the content team on MMORPG.com. The problem for your point is they don't.
The admin has went over this about a billion times since I started visiting here.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The OP's question is the first question on this forums i can answer with only 1 key:
$
Which is why I mentioned media reveals and game conventions that target sites like this and offer special access for testing and previews. This impacts what we see here. Not all media outlets get invited to such events and certainly not everyone is offered an exception to NDAs.
I do not infer writers receive money or are forced into expressing opinions they do not share. Advertising $$$ still directly affects the level of media coverage. As mentioned previously this is entirely the point of it. The advertising we see on this site affects the landscape of the site. It is the reader's perception I am talking about, not writers.
I do not care if conspiracies exist past, present or future. It is fact that MMORPG.com is now supporting games (having forums for a game IS support. It is free advertising and is 100% the reason why developers spend money to attract sites like this) that would never have been on this site a few years ago. The definition of what an mmo is has broadened and not because of logic but because of business practice.
I have not read a valid reason from you or MMORPG.com as to why only 1 of 2 nearly identical games are covered here. I have not heard a logical explanation behind why there are forums and columns created for games that are clearly not mmos. I am also fully aware that this site does not exist as a moral campaign to weed out the junk from the gems. This site exists for the singular reason that is makes money for what it does. I have no issue with that. I simply will not accept anything other than the truth behind what drives content here. MMORPG made a very conscience choice to expand their coverage to increase readership and advertising options. $$$ is the driving force behind this.
I believe MMORPG when they say advertising dollars does not influence their opinions and reporting. They have to tell the truth to maintain respectability. This does not mean however that I have to ignore HOW they maintain a moral high ground. They can provide unbiased coverage for anything they cover. That is not the point. The point is why they are covering things they never would previously. They do what all smart businesses do in order to avoid conflicts of interest ... they change the rules.
Why do we see such a wide range of games outside the previously conventional definition of an mmorpg? Because they changed the definition of what an mmorpg is. Why did they change the definition of a mmorpg? In order to increase and widen their profit base. This is business. It is done all the time. It isn't however often transparent.
I am not worried or even care for a second if one, both or all of those card collection games come to MMORPG.com. I simply want to clearly point out that this site isn't some ultra-left wing, anti-establishment forum tossing aside the shackles of the capitalistic gaming industry. They are very much a part of it.
You stay sassy!
LOOK OUT VOLGORE!
Big Brother has already been here commenting on conspiracy posts like that!
You stay sassy!
How about instead of all the money grubbing or other tinfoil hat conspiracies, we look at a more simple explanation,
Hearthstone is an offshoot and based upon an MMORPG property and Magic: the Gathering Online is not. Simple as that.
Help support an artist and gamer who has lost his tools to create and play: http://www.gofundme.com/u63nzcgk
This is pretty much it. Magic has been its own entity since before MMOs even existed. When this site emerged as an MMORPG coverage site, the inclusion of something like MTG would have in no way been intuitive. As the years have rolled on, however, the world of massively multiplayer online games has expanded, both in player base and genre sub-types. Of the now millions and millions of MMO gamers, many of them also play games like League of Legends, Dota, D3, Path Exile, and yes, now Hearthstone. We follow people who play our favorite online games on sites like Twitch, where Hearthstone has been among the top 3 most watched games for the past several months now.
Whenever a new powerhouse game draws the attention of millions of the present online gaming community, you can bet your butt this site will cover it. It would be ridiculous not to. There's huge overlap between MMORPG gamers and all these other currently popular online games. It's the same crowd. You cover the games you think your audience will like you to cover.
My guess would be that it is the same reason why World of Tanks is on here but none of the CoD games or BF games are. If you can figure that one out, let me know. I'm pretty sure both Activision and EA give lots more in advertising $ than the maker of World of Tanks and World of Planes or whatever that new one is.
I cant picture Hearthstone taking people from MTGO. Its a pretty simplistic game. I was disappointed with how shallow it is compared to the EQ trading card game.
Be serious: the maximum of players in MTGO each night is around 2K... This very low number is shown on their one server.
The present "closed" beta of Hearthstone contains already over 1 million players and was announced like that by Blizzard a few weeks back.k
I forsee around 20 million active HS players spread over PC/iPads/iPhones/Android systems by the end of 2014.
The first F2P Blizzard game will be massive and extremely supported over the internet.
So stop talking nonsense. The game is extremely well polished and the the addiction is very high.
Despite liking magic leagues above hearthstone
Wizards of the Coast is like Games Workshop, they are a company that dont want to keep up with the times
"It has potential"
-Second most used phrase on existence
"It sucks"
-Most used phrase on existence
If you want a logical argument, compare the total players for MTGO and the total players for HS, or the average nightly for MTGO and the same for HS. I wouldn't doubt that HS will be on top in both cases, but you're not proving anything now.
He also never said it wasn't polished, just that it was shallow compared to an EQ card game i've never heard of. Polish doesn't translate to depth.
2K concurrent number of MTGO players is shown on their ONE central server. That means the total non concurrent is probably around 10K-20K total.
Hearthstone has already over 1 M closed beta players as confirmed by Blizzad.
And it is easy to see: even in closed beta Hearthstone is showing up in the top of Xfire play already. On par or even exceding play of such games like GW2, WoT etc ...
Logical too: MTGO is way too expensive and is not even adapted to modern play.
As to the depth of HS: it is a card game over the internet and it is meant to be played in 10 minute sessions of fast furious fun WITH depth included.
Stop that ridiculous Blizzard trash talk. And look around to the dozens of tournaments and the enormous amount of on line play and streamers for a game that is even still in beta.
MTGO is as good as dead the moment HS will launch (if not already) or they should redesign this old 2002 model from scratch. MTGO never conquered the mass market because of its extreme costs, its ridiculous Sequence of play and bad programming part.
MTGO has 300K registered accounts. See, there you go. Compare that total with HS's and you have a logical argument about how HS is already far more popular than a many years old game.