There are already games out there for short term fun..
I dont want my MMOs to turn into that..
Who says anything about short term and long term (in bite-size gaming)?
If you play 15 min a day for the next 100 years, it is still long term fun.
If I only have 15 minutes of free time I don't spend it on gaming, lol. Gotta manage my time better than that. Well, maybe I'd drop a quarter for a round of Galaga or PacMan, but those days are long gone, and I'm no longer a young boy.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
There are already games out there for short term fun..
I dont want my MMOs to turn into that..
Who says anything about short term and long term (in bite-size gaming)?
If you play 15 min a day for the next 100 years, it is still long term fun.
If I only have 15 minutes of free time I don't spend it on gaming, lol. Gotta manage my time better than that. Well, maybe I'd drop a quarter for a round of Galaga or PacMan, but those days are long gone, and I'm no longer a young boy.
Still, whether it is 15 min a day or 30 min a day, it is irrelevant to the short/long term issue. You can't say a game that can be played 30 (let's up it just for your sake) min a day for the next 100 year is a short term game, can you?
Guys .. i didn't write the "white knight" post as an true analogy. It is just a way to make the language more interesting.
Let's not push the analogy aspects too far. Analogy always breaks down.
Like the perpetually popular fast food analogy. It totall breaks down if you realize that a steak dinner can cost $100 while games are charged mostly at the same price.
Eh, I always thought restaurant analogies worked perfectly as they described cost, quality, and customer choice. But when you have 100+ restaurants on a block all charging the same $15, and everyone seems to keep going back to that steak place, you have to realize it's simply because the steak place is better than the lousy grits place. It's what people want.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Personally, I play several different genres of video games. I find all of them fun and truly appreciate the unique experience that each has to offer. Different genres feeding off of each other to a certain degree is normal and healthy. However, when speaking of what's currently going on with this genre, this nasty overly dramatic homogenization is just going to run it's course and there will no longer be anything that resembles an MMO left to play.
You mean resemble an "old" MMO. There is a reason why that kind of old design is dying out. Plus, there are always some small indie effort.
This is irrelevant for the cheap thrills game hopping fun fun kill kill crowd, but for those of us who at times want to dip our toes into something a little heartier, it's like watching one of your favorite sports deteriorate and die. I love me some cheap thrills, but sometimes I need more than the gaming equivalent of Saturday morning cartoons.
Like you said, you play several different genre of video games. It is unlikely everything will change to your dislike, all at once.
Who says anything about short term and long term (in bite-size gaming)?
If you play 15 min a day for the next 100 years, it is still long term fun.
If I only have 15 minutes of free time I don't spend it on gaming, lol. Gotta manage my time better than that. Well, maybe I'd drop a quarter for a round of Galaga or PacMan, but those days are long gone, and I'm no longer a young boy.
Still, whether it is 15 min a day or 30 min a day, it is irrelevant to the short/long term issue. You can't say a game that can be played 30 (let's up it just for your sake) min a day for the next 100 year is a short term game, can you?
I can say that's a little out there. But yeah, that's longterm however short the bursts.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Personally, I play several different genres of video games. I find all of them fun and truly appreciate the unique experience that each has to offer. Different genres feeding off of each other to a certain degree is normal and healthy. However, when speaking of what's currently going on with this genre, this nasty overly dramatic homogenization is just going to run it's course and there will no longer be anything that resembles an MMO left to play.
You mean resemble an "old" MMO. There is a reason why that kind of old design is dying out. Plus, there are always some small indie effort.
This is irrelevant for the cheap thrills game hopping fun fun kill kill crowd, but for those of us who at times want to dip our toes into something a little heartier, it's like watching one of your favorite sports deteriorate and die. I love me some cheap thrills, but sometimes I need more than the gaming equivalent of Saturday morning cartoons.
Like you said, you play several different genre of video games. It is unlikely everything will change to your dislike, all at once.
The only reason why the traditional MMO's are dying out is because dev's want WoW type subs and are blinded by dollar signs. That is the only reason. Not because tradtional MMo's are bad or would not work. Devs are too afraid to take a risk and make something truelly new and diffrent. thus they feed us the same crap we keep getting and they keep failing to make wow type subs and have to revert to F2P.
you can say that the communty wants this but if the community truelly wants this then there would be no reason for those games to go F2P yet they are. all of em.
Originally posted by Burntvet I couldn't care less if "bite sized gaming", whatever the hell that is or ends up being, takes a place in the market. What I do care about, is that there are not really any full featured MMOs coming out or around anymore (that are not EvE). As such, I don't care what kind of crap comes out that is not a classic, full featured MMO, because I will not be paying/playing for any of it. And if that is all that keeps coming out, as the stripped down MMOs of the latest years have been, I still won't pay: I'd rather play something else entirely (as I am playing SPGs/Multis now).
This is what the market wants today, therefore it's what companies make. There simply isn't a large enough market for "full-featured MMOs", they are not financially viable so they don't get made. Whatever you might personally prefer, nobody is obligated to make it if it doesn't make money. You have a healthier attitude than some, at least you're not so obsessed with MMOs that you can't imagine playing anything else.
I am pretty sure there would be a market for such games, the only problem being these types of games needing to prove themselves to investors. Obviously this is a very difficult situation because these type of games are very expensive to make.
While WoW probably had the highest subscriber numbers we'll ever see in a single MMORPG, the genre playerbase also grows all the time. Therefore I'm quite sure there's a niche to be filled here, one where a well made game could truely flourish if done properly.
Your opinion doesn't matter, it's what you can prove to investors that means anything. Lots of people claim that these games would make money, where is the evidence?
There are already games out there for short term fun..
I dont want my MMOs to turn into that..
Who says anything about short term and long term (in bite-size gaming)?
If you play 15 min a day for the next 100 years, it is still long term fun.
you have a ponit as long as the game does not loose anything buy doing that then sure.
Again, i am just making a point that bite-size has nothing to do with short/long term. Whether the game is good or not, or if it is fun to you, is entirely another matter.
It highly depends on your preference, and the mechanics of the game.
The only reason why the traditional MMO's are dying out is because dev's want WoW type subs and are blinded by dollar signs. That is the only reason. Not because tradtional MMo's are bad or would not work. Devs are too afraid to take a risk and make something truelly new and diffrent. thus they feed us the same crap we keep getting and they keep failing to make wow type subs and have to revert to F2P.
I doubt that is the only reason. If traditional MMOs works (as a business, "good" "bad" is irrelevant to business investment), and if devs are risk averse, shouldn't they be falling over themselves doing traditional MMOs because they are 'safe' investments?
In fact, i see the opposite. They are trying out new ideas. MOBAs. ARPG with some MMO features. Shared world shooters .....
Just that the new ideas are not MMOs. May be that is the reason. MMO have run out of ideas.
you can say that the communty wants this but if the community truelly wants this then there would be no reason for those games to go F2P yet they are. all of em.
Because the community truly wants it .. and want it F2P? That is the reason.
Look at LoL. Highly successful. Makes tons of money. F2P from day one. Ditto for WoT (and now WoP and soon WoWS).
At the moment from my point of view, the situation seems pretty dire though. Most moden MMOs feel like lobby-based games to me.
Yes. That is why i think they are more convenient and more fun. But no one says it is a 1 or 0 thing.
Look at WOW. Full of "lobby" features but you can still fly to a dungeon if you really want to. You can't blame others who want to enjoy their entertainment different from you.
MMORPGs are not supposed to be singleplayer games where you can just change the difficulty/some different setting to match the way you want the game world to work. In my eyes at least, they're supposed to be worlds where the residents have a shared experience of living in there - this is why I don't see for example dungeon difficulty scaling as a positive feature.
If you think I am trying to say current games need to change, then no, that is not what I am asking, so don't take it as an attack against your philosophy on games. But I would like to see another MMORPG, that once more actually felt like a shared world instead of a hybrid of single to multiplayer elements where if you cannot see the content in one mode, you can simply change a setting to make it accessible to your character.
MMORPGs are not supposed to be singleplayer games where you can just change the difficulty/some different setting to match the way you want the game world to work. In my eyes at least, they're supposed to be worlds where the residents have a shared experience of living in there - this is why I don't see for example dungeon difficulty scaling as a positive feature.
You can share the difficulty level. If it can be done in D3 (public games can set to any difficulty level), it can be done in MMO instances. In fact, it is already there .. you can run a "normal" dungeon, or a "heroic" one.
You have no real authority to say what MMO is "supposed to be" or "supposed not to be". Like all entertainment product, they respond to the market.
If you think I am trying to say current games need to change, then no, that is not what I am asking, so don't take it as an attack against your philosophy on games. But I would like to see another MMORPG, that once more actually felt like a shared world instead of a hybrid of single to multiplayer elements where if you cannot see the content in one mode, you can simply change a setting to make it accessible to your character.
There are still games like that. Eve, Darkfall, even PS2.
Originally posted by jpnz There are plenty of mmos that do just that. There aren't many but they are there. That is the price if your personal taste are the minority.
That's exactly the point. All products, not just entertainment products, respond to the demands of the marketplace. I find it absurd that there are so many people whose personal taste, as you said, are in the minority, yet think they are uniquely qualified to tell the world how things ought to be.
No, they're just telling the world how they *WANT* things to be. The world simply disagrees.
MMORPGs are not supposed to be singleplayer games where you can just change the difficulty/some different setting to match the way you want the game world to work. In my eyes at least, they're supposed to be worlds where the residents have a shared experience of living in there - this is why I don't see for example dungeon difficulty scaling as a positive feature. You can share the difficulty level. If it can be done in D3 (public games can set to any difficulty level), it can be done in MMO instances. In fact, it is already there .. you can run a "normal" dungeon, or a "heroic" one. You have no real authority to say what MMO is "supposed to be" or "supposed not to be". Like all entertainment product, they respond to the market. If you think I am trying to say current games need to change, then no, that is not what I am asking, so don't take it as an attack against your philosophy on games. But I would like to see another MMORPG, that once more actually felt like a shared world instead of a hybrid of single to multiplayer elements where if you cannot see the content in one mode, you can simply change a setting to make it accessible to your character. There are still games like that. Eve, Darkfall, even PS2.
Look, I already tried to say, don't take it as an attack on your or anyone else's opinion. Of course I have no authority to say how things ought to be but I can state my opinion on what in my opinion makes an MMORPG appealing, to me.
Anyway, I know there are a few games that have the properties I mentioned in this thread and I've played the games you mentioned except for PS2, but then again both of the ones I've played lacked other properties I like in a game (fto give an example, I like raiding).
I'm not here to whine about how current games are bad just because they don't interest me, but trying to explain what would be an ideal game in my personal opinion.
Originally posted by Cephus404
Originally posted by jpnzThere are plenty of mmos that do just that. There aren't many but they are there. That is the price if your personal taste are the minority.
That's exactly the point. All products, not just entertainment products, respond to the demands of the marketplace. I find it absurd that there are so many people whose personal taste, as you said, are in the minority, yet think they are uniquely qualified to tell the world how things ought to be.No, they're just telling the world how they *WANT* things to be. The world simply disagrees.
In a market place as big as MMORPGs, there are niches to be filled, small or maybe even rather large areas where a well made, non-mainstream product could excel, even flourish. Just because one model is dominant doesn't mean there isn't demand for different variations of it.
In a market place as big as MMORPGs, there are niches to be filled, small or maybe even rather large areas where a well made, non-mainstream product could excel, even flourish. Just because one model is dominant doesn't mean there isn't demand for different variations of it.
Then someone needs to *PROVE* that there is a significant demand for something else. There are a few people who run around claiming it's so, there is nobody providing any actual evidence.
Let us know when there is evidence of a significant number of people who can keep a game that costs millions of dollars and years of development time afloat. Until then, it's just your opinion.
Then someone needs to *PROVE* that there is a significant demand for something else. There are a few people who run around claiming it's so, there is nobody providing any actual evidence.
Let us know when there is evidence of a significant number of people who can keep a game that costs millions of dollars and years of development time afloat. Until then, it's just your opinion.
Well that's the trick. There's basically four things:
Known quantities where we can say, "Games like x are popular."
Known quantities where we can say, "Games like y aren't popular, expensive to make, and therefore a terrible business idea."
Known quantities where we can say, "Games like z aren't popular, but aren't expensive to make; you can run a business off this niche product."
Unknown quantities we can't say anything about.
Niche games can be 2, 3, or 4. So depending on the type and scope of the niche game the guy was referring to it can either be a terrible business idea, a successful existing niche idea, or a completely unknown idea that starts "niche" but could explode in popular (like Minecraft; it was new and niche, but managed to prove there's at least some interest in that genre.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
In a market place as big as MMORPGs, there are niches to be filled, small or maybe even rather large areas where a well made, non-mainstream product could excel, even flourish. Just because one model is dominant doesn't mean there isn't demand for different variations of it.
Then someone needs to *PROVE* that there is a significant demand for something else. There are a few people who run around claiming it's so, there is nobody providing any actual evidence.
Let us know when there is evidence of a significant number of people who can keep a game that costs millions of dollars and years of development time afloat. Until then, it's just your opinion.
Would you be so kind as to tell us just how we can prove it without a product to throw our support behind, unless you're proposing everyone that would support(that means be willing to pay a sub, none of this nickel and dime crap where the majority of players feel entitled to play for free forever) classic style mmorpgs boycott everything else and all go play freeshards?
Also, last I checked, it was just some people's opinions that these classic style mmorpgs didn't have significant demand, I have never seen proof of it. Until someone can prove there isn't support, perhaps some people shouldn't post on a mmorpg website saying there isn't any... isn't the website itself proof that there must be some support?
To name a few. It's not a majority market now in regards to players but from a business standpoint that doesn't mean anything. Every bit of info we have regarding F2P/P2P shows that it takes many times more players to keep a F2P title afloat than P2P. Games are not run off of active accounts, they are run off of money and F2P doesn't seem to deliver. The reasoning is simple as players would rather pay nothing than a sub, how does this surprise anyone? Does this mean the market favors F2P? No, it means companies had to make the move due to over saturation and similar products becomming free in some degree.
You're already seeing the natural canabalism. The cheaper made "original" style of F2P games are closing down as higher quality ones are available. What's going to happen as new games come out and get the attention of the paying segement (whales) of players? If new games coming out are free *cough* Neverwinter *cough* EQN even worse!
Would you be so kind as to tell us just how we can prove it without a product to throw our support behind, unless you're proposing everyone that would support(that means be willing to pay a sub, none of this nickel and dime crap where the majority of players feel entitled to play for free forever) classic style mmorpgs boycott everything else and all go play freeshards?
Also, last I checked, it was just some people's opinions that these classic style mmorpgs didn't have significant demand, I have never seen proof of it. Until someone can prove there isn't support, perhaps some people shouldn't post on a mmorpg website saying there isn't any... isn't the website itself proof that there must be some support?
By this logic, we can say 'Since no one can prove unicorns doesn't exists, they must exists!' which isn't how logic works.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Unfortunately no matter what style of MMO you now try, no matter what sandbox elements, what old school gameplay elements, what new design ideas you bring to the table, no new MMO will maintain traction.
The MMO market is too saturated for new ones to establish a big following that they will keep. GW2 has bucked the saturated playing field somewhat, but that’s all.
MMOs are now just solo games where players enjoy the “company of strangers” and like solo games they shine brightly and then fade away.
You could get a MMO which turns this all on its head, but where is the funding going to come from? Another big IP, a link with a TV franchise, these are possibilities. But I don’t see anything saying game changer on the horizon.
Unfortunately no matter what style of MMO you now try, no matter what sandbox elements, what old school gameplay elements, what new design ideas you bring to the table, no new MMO will maintain traction.
The MMO market is too saturated for new ones to establish a big following that they will keep. GW2 has bucked the saturated playing field somewhat, but that’s all.
MMOs are now just solo games where players enjoy the “company of strangers” and like solo games they shine brightly and then fade away.
You could get a MMO which turns this all on its head, but where is the funding going to come from? Another big IP, a link with a TV franchise, these are possibilities. But I don’t see anything saying game changer on the horizon.
This 'traction' is bizzare. Which old-school MMO maintained 'traction'?
Last I checked, DDO, LOTRO, Aion are all pushing very long years and they've outlasted some of the so-called 'old-school MMOs'.
No, I don't count 'EMU / Private' servers as those are in the legal grey area (at best) / illegal (at worst).
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Would you be so kind as to tell us just how we can prove it without a product to throw our support behind, unless you're proposing everyone that would support(that means be willing to pay a sub, none of this nickel and dime crap where the majority of players feel entitled to play for free forever) classic style mmorpgs boycott everything else and all go play freeshards?
Also, last I checked, it was just some people's opinions that these classic style mmorpgs didn't have significant demand, I have never seen proof of it. Until someone can prove there isn't support, perhaps some people shouldn't post on a mmorpg website saying there isn't any... isn't the website itself proof that there must be some support?
By this logic, we can say 'Since no one can prove unicorns doesn't exists, they must exists!' which isn't how logic works.
So where's the logic in asking for proof that there's enough of a market for a product that hasn't been developed yet?
Would you be so kind as to tell us just how we can prove it without a product to throw our support behind, unless you're proposing everyone that would support(that means be willing to pay a sub, none of this nickel and dime crap where the majority of players feel entitled to play for free forever) classic style mmorpgs boycott everything else and all go play freeshards?
Also, last I checked, it was just some people's opinions that these classic style mmorpgs didn't have significant demand, I have never seen proof of it. Until someone can prove there isn't support, perhaps some people shouldn't post on a mmorpg website saying there isn't any... isn't the website itself proof that there must be some support?
By this logic, we can say 'Since no one can prove unicorns doesn't exists, they must exists!' which isn't how logic works.
So where's the logic in asking for proof that there's enough of a market for a product that hasn't been developed yet?
Wasting your time on this one. Nariu's brother maybe?
Not going to listen and will continue to argue against anything with any old school element because he doesn't like it . It may take away from another one he can drain of content in a month and move on from.
Comments
If I only have 15 minutes of free time I don't spend it on gaming, lol. Gotta manage my time better than that. Well, maybe I'd drop a quarter for a round of Galaga or PacMan, but those days are long gone, and I'm no longer a young boy.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Still, whether it is 15 min a day or 30 min a day, it is irrelevant to the short/long term issue. You can't say a game that can be played 30 (let's up it just for your sake) min a day for the next 100 year is a short term game, can you?
Eh, I always thought restaurant analogies worked perfectly as they described cost, quality, and customer choice. But when you have 100+ restaurants on a block all charging the same $15, and everyone seems to keep going back to that steak place, you have to realize it's simply because the steak place is better than the lousy grits place. It's what people want.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I can say that's a little out there. But yeah, that's longterm however short the bursts.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
you have a ponit as long as the game does not loose anything buy doing that then sure.
The only reason why the traditional MMO's are dying out is because dev's want WoW type subs and are blinded by dollar signs. That is the only reason. Not because tradtional MMo's are bad or would not work. Devs are too afraid to take a risk and make something truelly new and diffrent. thus they feed us the same crap we keep getting and they keep failing to make wow type subs and have to revert to F2P.
you can say that the communty wants this but if the community truelly wants this then there would be no reason for those games to go F2P yet they are. all of em.
Your opinion doesn't matter, it's what you can prove to investors that means anything. Lots of people claim that these games would make money, where is the evidence?
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Then it's just too bad that the market, millions of people with a lot more money than you have, want exactly that.
Welcome to reality.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Again, i am just making a point that bite-size has nothing to do with short/long term. Whether the game is good or not, or if it is fun to you, is entirely another matter.
It highly depends on your preference, and the mechanics of the game.
MMORPGs are not supposed to be singleplayer games where you can just change the difficulty/some different setting to match the way you want the game world to work.
In my eyes at least, they're supposed to be worlds where the residents have a shared experience of living in there - this is why I don't see for example dungeon difficulty scaling as a positive feature.
If you think I am trying to say current games need to change, then no, that is not what I am asking, so don't take it as an attack against your philosophy on games. But I would like to see another MMORPG, that once more actually felt like a shared world instead of a hybrid of single to multiplayer elements where if you cannot see the content in one mode, you can simply change a setting to make it accessible to your character.
The Weekly Wizardry blog
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
That's exactly the point. All products, not just entertainment products, respond to the demands of the marketplace. I find it absurd that there are so many people whose personal taste, as you said, are in the minority, yet think they are uniquely qualified to tell the world how things ought to be.
No, they're just telling the world how they *WANT* things to be. The world simply disagrees.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Look, I already tried to say, don't take it as an attack on your or anyone else's opinion. Of course I have no authority to say how things ought to be but I can state my opinion on what in my opinion makes an MMORPG appealing, to me.
Anyway, I know there are a few games that have the properties I mentioned in this thread and I've played the games you mentioned except for PS2, but then again both of the ones I've played lacked other properties I like in a game (fto give an example, I like raiding).
I'm not here to whine about how current games are bad just because they don't interest me, but trying to explain what would be an ideal game in my personal opinion.
In a market place as big as MMORPGs, there are niches to be filled, small or maybe even rather large areas where a well made, non-mainstream product could excel, even flourish. Just because one model is dominant doesn't mean there isn't demand for different variations of it.The Weekly Wizardry blog
Then someone needs to *PROVE* that there is a significant demand for something else. There are a few people who run around claiming it's so, there is nobody providing any actual evidence.
Let us know when there is evidence of a significant number of people who can keep a game that costs millions of dollars and years of development time afloat. Until then, it's just your opinion.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Well that's the trick. There's basically four things:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Would you be so kind as to tell us just how we can prove it without a product to throw our support behind, unless you're proposing everyone that would support(that means be willing to pay a sub, none of this nickel and dime crap where the majority of players feel entitled to play for free forever) classic style mmorpgs boycott everything else and all go play freeshards?
Also, last I checked, it was just some people's opinions that these classic style mmorpgs didn't have significant demand, I have never seen proof of it. Until someone can prove there isn't support, perhaps some people shouldn't post on a mmorpg website saying there isn't any... isn't the website itself proof that there must be some support?
WoW
Rift
EvE
FF11
To name a few. It's not a majority market now in regards to players but from a business standpoint that doesn't mean anything. Every bit of info we have regarding F2P/P2P shows that it takes many times more players to keep a F2P title afloat than P2P. Games are not run off of active accounts, they are run off of money and F2P doesn't seem to deliver. The reasoning is simple as players would rather pay nothing than a sub, how does this surprise anyone? Does this mean the market favors F2P? No, it means companies had to make the move due to over saturation and similar products becomming free in some degree.
You're already seeing the natural canabalism. The cheaper made "original" style of F2P games are closing down as higher quality ones are available. What's going to happen as new games come out and get the attention of the paying segement (whales) of players? If new games coming out are free *cough* Neverwinter *cough* EQN even worse!
By this logic, we can say 'Since no one can prove unicorns doesn't exists, they must exists!' which isn't how logic works.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Unfortunately no matter what style of MMO you now try, no matter what sandbox elements, what old school gameplay elements, what new design ideas you bring to the table, no new MMO will maintain traction.
The MMO market is too saturated for new ones to establish a big following that they will keep. GW2 has bucked the saturated playing field somewhat, but that’s all.
MMOs are now just solo games where players enjoy the “company of strangers” and like solo games they shine brightly and then fade away.
You could get a MMO which turns this all on its head, but where is the funding going to come from? Another big IP, a link with a TV franchise, these are possibilities. But I don’t see anything saying game changer on the horizon.
This 'traction' is bizzare. Which old-school MMO maintained 'traction'?
Last I checked, DDO, LOTRO, Aion are all pushing very long years and they've outlasted some of the so-called 'old-school MMOs'.
No, I don't count 'EMU / Private' servers as those are in the legal grey area (at best) / illegal (at worst).
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
So where's the logic in asking for proof that there's enough of a market for a product that hasn't been developed yet?
Wasting your time on this one. Nariu's brother maybe?
Not going to listen and will continue to argue against anything with any old school element because he doesn't like it . It may take away from another one he can drain of content in a month and move on from.