Not sure why this is treated as news. The trend is glaringly obvious, and that is why the games mentioned in the OP were designed that way to begin with. You reach a larger audience when you appeal to casual gamers, so if you're going AAA that's your best bet. There's still a market for more hardcore games, but these titles are riskier because they need to be of a very high quality to survive. If your niche audience rejects you, you are fucked.
As far as I am concerned an MMO is about being *part* of a massive multiplayer environment, rather than than just being *in* that environment. Bite-size gaming is only compatible with the latter, so in a way it is not so much the future of MMOs as it is diluting them with singleplayer mechanics. On that note, here's me predicting that MMOs will come with pausing soon. There is nothing wrong with any of this per se, it just sucks if you're after a proper multiplayer experience.
Not sure why this is treated as news. The trend is glaringly obvious, and that is why the games mentioned in the OP were designed that way to begin with. You reach a larger audience when you appeal to casual gamers, so if you're going AAA that's your best bet. There's still a market for more hardcore games, but these titles are riskier because they need to be of a very high quality to survive. If your niche audience rejects you, you are fucked.
Trends don't last forever, ever. It's time those designing these dumbed down mmorpgs look up before they hit the wall(or in the case of the investors, rock bottom). If they're that worried about striking it rich in the first year, then maybe they should take up goldmining instead.
Not sure why this is treated as news. The trend is glaringly obvious, and that is why the games mentioned in the OP were designed that way to begin with. You reach a larger audience when you appeal to casual gamers, so if you're going AAA that's your best bet. There's still a market for more hardcore games, but these titles are riskier because they need to be of a very high quality to survive. If your niche audience rejects you, you are fucked.
Trends don't last forever, ever. It's time those designing these dumbed down mmorpgs look up before they hit the wall(or in the case of the investors, rock bottom). If they're that worried about striking it rich in the first year, then maybe they should take up goldmining instead.
I doubt it'll work out like that. The majority will always be casual, and casual gamers will always tend to want casual experiences. The "trend" has closer ties to the expansion of the market than any change in preferences. I don't think we'll ever see a "hardcore, multiplayer MMO" strike gold and acquire millions of subs. In fact I expect mainstream MMOs to become *more* casual than they are now. The "hardcore" MMOs will exist alongside them if anything (like EVE has for years), so the best we can hope for is that more (quality) developers realize that this audience exists and aim their games at it.
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?
Last I checked, there are plenty of MMOs that are 'old-school' and still going. UO / EQ hasn't shut down. A tale in the desert is still going etc.
If there is such a need then those should have heaps of subs yes?
Right? That's your logic right?
They have their subs and do well but to argue that there is this 'need' when there is no proof of it; isn't very logical and factually false.
I haven't read all of your little argument, but I will say this: that's a terrible point, and an easy one to turn on its head. What if these games do well *in spite* of their age? They're good games with qualities people like, but they're old and somewhat inaccessible. New players hesitate to try, and when they do they are turned down by aged interfaces, graphics etc. The fact that they are still running after all these years suggests that they have something of value.
You can't really prove that there's a market for an unreleased game, but it's also absurd to demand it. Investment doesn't operate on "proof", it operates on risk vs reward calculations, educated guesses and prevailing assumptions about the market. WoW didn't have any "proof" that their model would work, but they thought they had a good shot because they were basically merging ideas they thought worked for other games with their own experience making RTS games. They made an educated guess, but they certainly didn't have "proof".
We didn't have any "proof" that there was a need for a new "old school" *singleplayer* RPG, but some people thought there was, so they set up Kickstarters. Millions of dollars later we now have proof that the need existed, but it took an educated guess to get that proof.
It might be true that we don't have any proof that there is a "need" for a "new old school mmorpg", but here's what we do know: There's a lot of people out there who want *something* the newer MMOs lack that the old ones had. There's probably a lot of nostalgia involved, but it's also true that we can list features that MMORPGs used to have which aren't used much anymore. If I was a developer I'd look into what those features might be and how a game could incorporate them, because it's possible that there's a starved market out there waiting for that game. Maybe it wouldn't be worth making in the end, but it's definitely worth looking into.
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?
Companies are not going to make a product for a market that there's no evidence even exists. If you think there is a market, either demonstrate the market or fund the project yourself and take all the risk.
I don't see any old-school fans stepping up to take the financial risk, do you?
There are a few titles coming out that do seem to bring some of the "old school" feel to new games.
Pathfinder Online Camelot Unchained Greed Monger Embers of Cearus(sp)
We'll see how they do if and when they are release. Pathfinder and Camelot Unchained look concrete in that respect and seem fully funded. IMO devs realize there will be no more WoW numbers. The titles that did release that way are now F2P which closes that market. Who's going to pay if there are free options handy? In the "full feature" area I think we'll see mostly P2P big titles and small P2P titles. Other than that smaller scope games that are cheaper to make but F2P will also be prevalent.
Trends don't last forever, ever. It's time those designing these dumbed down mmorpgs look up before they hit the wall(or in the case of the investors, rock bottom). If they're that worried about striking it rich in the first year, then maybe they should take up goldmining instead.
Nothing last forever, as demonstrated by the marginalization of old MMO ideas in the market place. I fully expect the market of online to evolve further.
In fact, the success of LOL, and WOT, and other instanced based games would suggest that the trend is moving away from MMOs.
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?
It is done in business everyday. It is called marketing research.
You do surveys, focus group, test marketing and a thousand other things. When we are talking about tens of millions of dollars investment, it is not uncommon to spend some money to find out if there is a market.
I haven't read all of your little argument, but I will say this: that's a terrible point, and an easy one to turn on its head. What if these games do well *in spite* of their age? They're good games with qualities people like, but they're old and somewhat inaccessible. New players hesitate to try, and when they do they are turned down by aged interfaces, graphics etc. The fact that they are still running after all these years suggests that they have something of value.
You can't really prove that there's a market for an unreleased game, but it's also absurd to demand it. Investment doesn't operate on "proof", it operates on risk vs reward calculations, educated guesses and prevailing assumptions about the market. WoW didn't have any "proof" that their model would work, but they thought they had a good shot because they were basically merging ideas they thought worked for other games with their own experience making RTS games. They made an educated guess, but they certainly didn't have "proof".
We didn't have any "proof" that there was a need for a new "old school" *singleplayer* RPG, but some people thought there was, so they set up Kickstarters. Millions of dollars later we now have proof that the need existed, but it took an educated guess to get that proof.
It might be true that we don't have any proof that there is a "need" for a "new old school mmorpg", but here's what we do know: There's a lot of people out there who want *something* the newer MMOs lack that the old ones had. There's probably a lot of nostalgia involved, but it's also true that we can list features that MMORPGs used to have which aren't used much anymore. If I was a developer I'd look into what those features might be and how a game could incorporate them, because it's possible that there's a starved market out there waiting for that game. Maybe it wouldn't be worth making in the end, but it's definitely worth looking into.
If you think Blizzard didn't have 'proof' via market research / surveys / countless other analysis for their multi-million dollar project, I don't think you understand how real life works.
The market has been pretty simple for the past 7-8 years when it comes to 'This is the type of game we want!'. If you want to ignore that and be factually wrong, go ahead.
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?
It is done in business everyday. It is called marketing research.
You do surveys, focus group, test marketing and a thousand other things. When we are talking about tens of millions of dollars investment, it is not uncommon to spend some money to find out if there is a market.
So I've heard, so where are all these marketing researchers that should be looking to see if there is a market for classic mmorpgs, or are they too busy running down that ever narrowing tunnel in pursuit of the latest trend? Can they just not see or hear this classic market over the latest fad fans wildly cheering them on?
Sure they can still make money off the latest trend, at least until the trend turns, but all I've seen are companies dumbing down the mmorpgs that they currently control, losing loyal consumers left and right and hoping that the latest trends they're following will hit that magic formula to make up for the losses.
However, I haven't seen any trying to scoop up all the casualities and at this point there are millions just laying on the side of the road waiting for someone(pretty much anyone, ergo the game hopping) to give them a new classic mmorpg home where they can set up roots and live for the next decade or so. Yes, most are even willing to pay a monthly sub to do so, they don't want cash shops or to ride free on "whales" backs, they want to support a whole game where everything is available in the game with no cash shortcuts to those who just want to win the game, not play it.
The biggest problems I see with doing this research(which can always be skewed to satisfy investors or fulfill some internal need for the developer) is that the questions I've seen asked on forums just aren't broad enough and in the odd case where they have been, anything under 50+% is ignored and sometimes even demonized.
There are many who just aren't interested in roleplaying machines, while others aren't interested in playing urban zombies, survivalists and yet others aren't interested in anything but being able to play their favourite classic fantasy character in a reasonably familiar setting(think Earth compared to Hell, Heaven or space).
Other than the setting, the next big gamebreaker for most seems to be whether they are meant to be fodder for other's gameplay with no recourse, or if the developer is willing to give both pvpers and pvers their own worlds to prevent not only the griefing but also the inherent balance issues caused by trying to combine pvp and pve. Oh and many also want a developer/company who stands by their TOS where those who just want to ruin other player's fun with no risk or penalty need not apply.
If you think Blizzard didn't have 'proof' via market research / surveys / countless other analysis for their multi-million dollar project, I don't think you understand how real life works.
The market has been pretty simple for the past 7-8 years when it comes to 'This is the type of game we want!'. If you want to ignore that and be factually wrong, go ahead.
Yes, I've seen and participated in them, guess what, they went the other way from many of my(reading the forums I wasn't alone either) responses and lost three subs just from my household. Obviously not everyone can please everyone all the time(even with research) and no I really don't expect them to, or perhaps they just wanted to change their demographic hoping to pull in some new blood that is apparently more open to cash shops and thought a few losses were worth the risk.
As for using Blizz for an example, fine, but it would hold more weight if it was a regular run of the mill company with their whole business at risk because their demographic is smaller and most likely already a niche product.
You seem intent in saying that there is this huge market for old school mmos without any proof. I can point to the last seven years and say 'hey here is my proof.' Where is yours? Or are we back to 'unicorns' again?
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Originally posted by jpnz You seem intent in saying that there is this huge market for old school mmos without any proof. I can point to the last seven years and say 'hey here is my proof.' Where is yours? Or are we back to 'unicorns' again?
Did I ever say huge, I think you're trying to put words in my mouth. As for unicorns, even though that seems to be some kind of crossing line for you, I have seen them in some classic mmorpgs so perhaps, we are talking fantasy worlds for the most part after all.
Why are you so against classic mmorpgs?
If all you want are lobby or quest driven linear games that can be won, then why worry about what I would like in the games I play? Obviously you won't be playing the kind of games I like, just like I won't be playing yours so how about going to the correct forum and supporting what you do like while I stay here and support mine?
Don't you know that if you like a model or game type everyone else should to or they're wrong?
Right now there is no proof of what the market is looking for exactly. The last seven years may have been filled with themepark goodness but now the market is saturated and there is no more room, SWTOR proved that. So the best bet seems to be on targetting smaller groups in order to draw them away from current titles. That or be big enough to charge a sub, *cough* TESO.
The market has also proven that there are no more WoW numbers, it's time the players realize this too and not equate "sucessful" with "more successful than everyone else". In a market of F2P themeparks a better bet for new games is smaller playerbase with a sub.
Originally posted by Aelious Don't you know that if you like a model or game type everyone else should to or they're wrong?
Right now there is no proof of what the market is looking for exactly. The last seven years may have been filled with themepark goodness but now the market is saturated and there is no more room, SWTOR proved that. So the best bet seems to be on targetting smaller groups in order to draw them away from current titles. That or be big enough to charge a sub, *cough* TESO.
The market has also proven that there are no more WoW numbers, it's time the players realize this too and not equate "sucessful" with "more successful than everyone else". In a market of F2P themeparks a better bet for new games is smaller playerbase with a sub.
The market has not shown that the market is saturated or that themeparks are out. To say that SWTOR proved that is a leap in logic, it could be that people just rejected swtor because they found that particular game dull. It could mean that themeparks are out but there needs to be more steps to show that A leads to C.
I do agree that there have been enough games out now to justify the statement that the market has proven there will be no more WoW numbers.
Well at least until something extremely different roles around in how we interact with games anyway.
edit - ok guess I'm done feeding this particular troll
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
When posting your typical "look at LoL/WoT for the future of MMOs" shpeal you may clarify that it could be the future of F2P MMOs. Which I agree may happen over the next few years. Reason being games like EQN which should offer both F2P content and sub content.
You're right, the cost for a fully featured MMO is too much for a F2P title. Some can do it by charging "sub like" prices for CS items but on the whole this won't be the case IMO.
I see the proof about full featured themepark MMOs because people are no longer willing to pay a sub for most and have had to go F2P to stop the bleeding. I'm also taking into account a healthy market. Of course new titles may be coming out and I'm not saying people don't want to play themeparks, I just think it's a risk to release a themepark game now rather than something that's different.
Originally posted by jpnz You seem intent in saying that there is this huge market for old school mmos without any proof. I can point to the last seven years and say 'hey here is my proof.' Where is yours? Or are we back to 'unicorns' again?
Did I ever say huge, I think you're trying to put words in my mouth. As for unicorns, even though that seems to be some kind of crossing line for you, I have seen them in some classic mmorpgs so perhaps, we are talking fantasy worlds for the most part after all.
Why are you so against classic mmorpgs?
If all you want are lobby or quest driven linear games that can be won, then why worry about what I would like in the games I play? Obviously you won't be playing the kind of games I like, just like I won't be playing yours so how about going to the correct forum and supporting what you do like while I stay here and support mine?
I love how you people are convinced that anyone who points out the reality of the MMO market somehow hates classic MMOs. We don't hate them, we just live in the real world. We're just pointing out why they don't exist and why they are unlikely to exist in the future. Why you take that as hatred when it's just pointing out the facts, is beyond me.
Originally posted by jpnz You seem intent in saying that there is this huge market for old school mmos without any proof. I can point to the last seven years and say 'hey here is my proof.' Where is yours? Or are we back to 'unicorns' again?
Did I ever say huge, I think you're trying to put words in my mouth. As for unicorns, even though that seems to be some kind of crossing line for you, I have seen them in some classic mmorpgs so perhaps, we are talking fantasy worlds for the most part after all.
Why are you so against classic mmorpgs?
If all you want are lobby or quest driven linear games that can be won, then why worry about what I would like in the games I play? Obviously you won't be playing the kind of games I like, just like I won't be playing yours so how about going to the correct forum and supporting what you do like while I stay here and support mine?
I love how you people are convinced that anyone who points out the reality of the MMO market somehow hates classic MMOs. We don't hate them, we just live in the real world. We're just pointing out why they don't exist and why they are unlikely to exist in the future. Why you take that as hatred when it's just pointing out the facts, is beyond me.
I find it amusing that some take it as fact that there is no market for an old school type just because there isn't a more current one out atm.
I am willing to bet in the next 5 years we see one or more pop up. EVERYTHING comes back around...no matter how much you may not think so nor want it to.
But while there are those still yelling loudest for the current cookie cutter 1 month treadmills it will just be more of the same until people wake up and finally speak with their wallets and refrain from bending over and having cash extarcted rectally for garbage.
If all you want are lobby or quest driven linear games that can be won, then why worry about what I would like in the games I play? Obviously you won't be playing the kind of games I like, just like I won't be playing yours so how about going to the correct forum and supporting what you do like while I stay here and support mine?
I don't worry about what games you play.
But this is not your forums. This forum obviously support discussion about all MMOs, and many non-MMOs (games like LOL, D3, PoE). There is no reason not to talk about them, particularly when they are close to many MMO play style, and share features.
But while there are those still yelling loudest for the current cookie cutter 1 month treadmills and being suckered into forking money over for them...it will just be more of the same old garbage until people wake up and finally speak with their wallets and refrain from bending over and having cash extarcted rectally for that garbage..
People do speak with their wallet. Why do you think the old MMOs are not being made again?
Originally posted by Aelious The reality is that the MMO market is ripe for something different. I have a feeling it will go many different directions. Money is limited afterall.
Yes, the industry already has .. and in the directions of innovating out of the MMO shackles. Newer games may not be called MMOs ... but they certainly go in many directions.
ARPGs, Destiny is a new animal. Tie in with TV. Devs are taking risks. Even TOR ... huge risk of putting in VO and this one did not pan out.
When posting your typical "look at LoL/WoT for the future of MMOs" shpeal you may clarify that it could be the future of F2P MMOs. Which I agree may happen over the next few years. Reason being games like EQN which should offer both F2P content and sub content.
Sure. Since the future of MMO is pretty much F2P MMO (look at how the market has shifted), then this is more or less the future of MMOs.
You're right, the cost for a fully featured MMO is too much for a F2P title. Some can do it by charging "sub like" prices for CS items but on the whole this won't be the case IMO.
NO .. that won't happen. Personally i see less investment in any ONE MMO .. but more investment in many F2P MMOs. That would create more variety, more competition and probably good for the market.
Of course, there will be one full feature MMO ... Titan .. since Blizz can afford anything.
Comments
Not sure why this is treated as news. The trend is glaringly obvious, and that is why the games mentioned in the OP were designed that way to begin with. You reach a larger audience when you appeal to casual gamers, so if you're going AAA that's your best bet. There's still a market for more hardcore games, but these titles are riskier because they need to be of a very high quality to survive. If your niche audience rejects you, you are fucked.
As far as I am concerned an MMO is about being *part* of a massive multiplayer environment, rather than than just being *in* that environment. Bite-size gaming is only compatible with the latter, so in a way it is not so much the future of MMOs as it is diluting them with singleplayer mechanics. On that note, here's me predicting that MMOs will come with pausing soon. There is nothing wrong with any of this per se, it just sucks if you're after a proper multiplayer experience.
Trends don't last forever, ever. It's time those designing these dumbed down mmorpgs look up before they hit the wall(or in the case of the investors, rock bottom). If they're that worried about striking it rich in the first year, then maybe they should take up goldmining instead.
I doubt it'll work out like that. The majority will always be casual, and casual gamers will always tend to want casual experiences. The "trend" has closer ties to the expansion of the market than any change in preferences. I don't think we'll ever see a "hardcore, multiplayer MMO" strike gold and acquire millions of subs. In fact I expect mainstream MMOs to become *more* casual than they are now. The "hardcore" MMOs will exist alongside them if anything (like EVE has for years), so the best we can hope for is that more (quality) developers realize that this audience exists and aim their games at it.
Last I checked, there are plenty of MMOs that are 'old-school' and still going. UO / EQ hasn't shut down. A tale in the desert is still going etc.
If there is such a need then those should have heaps of subs yes?
Right? That's your logic right?
They have their subs and do well but to argue that there is this 'need' when there is no proof of it; isn't very logical and factually false.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I haven't read all of your little argument, but I will say this: that's a terrible point, and an easy one to turn on its head. What if these games do well *in spite* of their age? They're good games with qualities people like, but they're old and somewhat inaccessible. New players hesitate to try, and when they do they are turned down by aged interfaces, graphics etc. The fact that they are still running after all these years suggests that they have something of value.
You can't really prove that there's a market for an unreleased game, but it's also absurd to demand it. Investment doesn't operate on "proof", it operates on risk vs reward calculations, educated guesses and prevailing assumptions about the market. WoW didn't have any "proof" that their model would work, but they thought they had a good shot because they were basically merging ideas they thought worked for other games with their own experience making RTS games. They made an educated guess, but they certainly didn't have "proof".
We didn't have any "proof" that there was a need for a new "old school" *singleplayer* RPG, but some people thought there was, so they set up Kickstarters. Millions of dollars later we now have proof that the need existed, but it took an educated guess to get that proof.
It might be true that we don't have any proof that there is a "need" for a "new old school mmorpg", but here's what we do know: There's a lot of people out there who want *something* the newer MMOs lack that the old ones had. There's probably a lot of nostalgia involved, but it's also true that we can list features that MMORPGs used to have which aren't used much anymore. If I was a developer I'd look into what those features might be and how a game could incorporate them, because it's possible that there's a starved market out there waiting for that game. Maybe it wouldn't be worth making in the end, but it's definitely worth looking into.
Companies are not going to make a product for a market that there's no evidence even exists. If you think there is a market, either demonstrate the market or fund the project yourself and take all the risk.
I don't see any old-school fans stepping up to take the financial risk, do you?
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
Pathfinder Online
Camelot Unchained
Greed Monger
Embers of Cearus(sp)
We'll see how they do if and when they are release. Pathfinder and Camelot Unchained look concrete in that respect and seem fully funded. IMO devs realize there will be no more WoW numbers. The titles that did release that way are now F2P which closes that market. Who's going to pay if there are free options handy? In the "full feature" area I think we'll see mostly P2P big titles and small P2P titles. Other than that smaller scope games that are cheaper to make but F2P will also be prevalent.
Nothing last forever, as demonstrated by the marginalization of old MMO ideas in the market place. I fully expect the market of online to evolve further.
In fact, the success of LOL, and WOT, and other instanced based games would suggest that the trend is moving away from MMOs.
It is done in business everyday. It is called marketing research.
You do surveys, focus group, test marketing and a thousand other things. When we are talking about tens of millions of dollars investment, it is not uncommon to spend some money to find out if there is a market.
If you think Blizzard didn't have 'proof' via market research / surveys / countless other analysis for their multi-million dollar project, I don't think you understand how real life works.
The market has been pretty simple for the past 7-8 years when it comes to 'This is the type of game we want!'. If you want to ignore that and be factually wrong, go ahead.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
So I've heard, so where are all these marketing researchers that should be looking to see if there is a market for classic mmorpgs, or are they too busy running down that ever narrowing tunnel in pursuit of the latest trend? Can they just not see or hear this classic market over the latest fad fans wildly cheering them on?
Sure they can still make money off the latest trend, at least until the trend turns, but all I've seen are companies dumbing down the mmorpgs that they currently control, losing loyal consumers left and right and hoping that the latest trends they're following will hit that magic formula to make up for the losses.
However, I haven't seen any trying to scoop up all the casualities and at this point there are millions just laying on the side of the road waiting for someone(pretty much anyone, ergo the game hopping) to give them a new classic mmorpg home where they can set up roots and live for the next decade or so. Yes, most are even willing to pay a monthly sub to do so, they don't want cash shops or to ride free on "whales" backs, they want to support a whole game where everything is available in the game with no cash shortcuts to those who just want to win the game, not play it.
The biggest problems I see with doing this research(which can always be skewed to satisfy investors or fulfill some internal need for the developer) is that the questions I've seen asked on forums just aren't broad enough and in the odd case where they have been, anything under 50+% is ignored and sometimes even demonized.
There are many who just aren't interested in roleplaying machines, while others aren't interested in playing urban zombies, survivalists and yet others aren't interested in anything but being able to play their favourite classic fantasy character in a reasonably familiar setting(think Earth compared to Hell, Heaven or space).
Other than the setting, the next big gamebreaker for most seems to be whether they are meant to be fodder for other's gameplay with no recourse, or if the developer is willing to give both pvpers and pvers their own worlds to prevent not only the griefing but also the inherent balance issues caused by trying to combine pvp and pve. Oh and many also want a developer/company who stands by their TOS where those who just want to ruin other player's fun with no risk or penalty need not apply.
Yes, I've seen and participated in them, guess what, they went the other way from many of my(reading the forums I wasn't alone either) responses and lost three subs just from my household. Obviously not everyone can please everyone all the time(even with research) and no I really don't expect them to, or perhaps they just wanted to change their demographic hoping to pull in some new blood that is apparently more open to cash shops and thought a few losses were worth the risk.
As for using Blizz for an example, fine, but it would hold more weight if it was a regular run of the mill company with their whole business at risk because their demographic is smaller and most likely already a niche product.
Where is yours?
Or are we back to 'unicorns' again?
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Did I ever say huge, I think you're trying to put words in my mouth. As for unicorns, even though that seems to be some kind of crossing line for you, I have seen them in some classic mmorpgs so perhaps, we are talking fantasy worlds for the most part after all.
Why are you so against classic mmorpgs?
If all you want are lobby or quest driven linear games that can be won, then why worry about what I would like in the games I play? Obviously you won't be playing the kind of games I like, just like I won't be playing yours so how about going to the correct forum and supporting what you do like while I stay here and support mine?
Right now there is no proof of what the market is looking for exactly. The last seven years may have been filled with themepark goodness but now the market is saturated and there is no more room, SWTOR proved that. So the best bet seems to be on targetting smaller groups in order to draw them away from current titles. That or be big enough to charge a sub, *cough* TESO.
The market has also proven that there are no more WoW numbers, it's time the players realize this too and not equate "sucessful" with "more successful than everyone else". In a market of F2P themeparks a better bet for new games is smaller playerbase with a sub.
The market has not shown that the market is saturated or that themeparks are out. To say that SWTOR proved that is a leap in logic, it could be that people just rejected swtor because they found that particular game dull. It could mean that themeparks are out but there needs to be more steps to show that A leads to C.
I do agree that there have been enough games out now to justify the statement that the market has proven there will be no more WoW numbers.
Well at least until something extremely different roles around in how we interact with games anyway.
edit - ok guess I'm done feeding this particular troll
When posting your typical "look at LoL/WoT for the future of MMOs" shpeal you may clarify that it could be the future of F2P MMOs. Which I agree may happen over the next few years. Reason being games like EQN which should offer both F2P content and sub content.
You're right, the cost for a fully featured MMO is too much for a F2P title. Some can do it by charging "sub like" prices for CS items but on the whole this won't be the case IMO.
I see the proof about full featured themepark MMOs because people are no longer willing to pay a sub for most and have had to go F2P to stop the bleeding. I'm also taking into account a healthy market. Of course new titles may be coming out and I'm not saying people don't want to play themeparks, I just think it's a risk to release a themepark game now rather than something that's different.
I love how you people are convinced that anyone who points out the reality of the MMO market somehow hates classic MMOs. We don't hate them, we just live in the real world. We're just pointing out why they don't exist and why they are unlikely to exist in the future. Why you take that as hatred when it's just pointing out the facts, is beyond me.
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1iV24hL8Rk
But in all seriousness....
I find it amusing that some take it as fact that there is no market for an old school type just because there isn't a more current one out atm.
I am willing to bet in the next 5 years we see one or more pop up. EVERYTHING comes back around...no matter how much you may not think so nor want it to.
But while there are those still yelling loudest for the current cookie cutter 1 month treadmills it will just be more of the same until people wake up and finally speak with their wallets and refrain from bending over and having cash extarcted rectally for garbage.
I don't worry about what games you play.
But this is not your forums. This forum obviously support discussion about all MMOs, and many non-MMOs (games like LOL, D3, PoE). There is no reason not to talk about them, particularly when they are close to many MMO play style, and share features.
People do speak with their wallet. Why do you think the old MMOs are not being made again?
Yes, the industry already has .. and in the directions of innovating out of the MMO shackles. Newer games may not be called MMOs ... but they certainly go in many directions.
ARPGs, Destiny is a new animal. Tie in with TV. Devs are taking risks. Even TOR ... huge risk of putting in VO and this one did not pan out.