1, Can you read? Did I say Everquest gave out free content? No I said it was via DLC. Do you always assume that DLC is free? I don't. Everquest had paid DLC every 6 months when it came out. This changed - as I said but you didn't read - to be precise when NCSoft introduced a $15 sub with the promise of guaranteed content. WoW followed - it didn;t promise content but it delivered a large content drop every 2 months for 2 years and then some. Mythic increased their costs and suggested they would also add free content.
2. Can you read? Did I say that servers didn;t cost money? No I said the cost of running - and acquiring - servers has come down. And you have to be careful when making comparisons because more players = higher cost. (Were WoW's server costs higher than those of EQ1 for example?) And if you need an example go and check out what Funcom allowed for the extra AoC servers - that they eventually had to activate since it sold 800k. It was in their financial reports back then - 3 years later and about an order of magnitude less (factoring in population)
Historically you had expensive ISP costs, expensive hardware costs, expensive server software costs and expensive server software support costs. And as you needed more hardware you also had higher costs for buildings and cooling.
Today you have player run servers. And I have a server in my house. Yet how can this be!
3. No the likes of UO (1997), EQ, AC, AO were not AAA titles by the standards of the day. So no you cannot compare them to todays AAA titles. Comparable games today are Pantheon, Crowfall, Camelot Unchained - or do you consider them comparable to GTA5, Destiny, Assassin's Creed, ESO. Those games however are being developed on comparable budgets - some inflation sure but the target budgets are a few million. And however good they may be they won't be deemed AAA titles either. (I hope they will be very good to play though).
And your development costs for some of the games you list are off as well but "costs" can be complicated so I won't bother commenting.
1, Can you read? Did I say Everquest gave out free content? No I said it was via DLC. Do you always assume that DLC is free? I don't. Everquest had paid DLC every 6 months when it came out. This changed - as I said but you didn't read - to be precise when NCSoft introduced a $15 sub with the promise of guaranteed content. WoW followed - it didn;t promise content but it delivered a large content drop every 2 months for 2 years and then some. Mythic increased their costs and suggested they would also add free content.
2. Can you read? Did I say that servers didn;t cost money? No I said the cost of running - and acquiring - servers has come down. And you have to be careful when making comparisons because more players = higher cost. (Were WoW's server costs higher than those of EQ1 for example?) And if you need an example go and check out what Funcom allowed for the extra AoC servers - that they eventually had to activate since it sold 800k. It was in their financial reports back then - 3 years later and about an order of magnitude less (factoring in population)
Historically you had expensive ISP costs, expensive hardware costs, expensive server software costs and expensive server software support costs. And as you needed more hardware you also had higher costs for buildings and cooling.
Today you have player run servers. And I have a server in my house. Yet how can this be!
3. No the likes of UO (1997), EQ, AC, AO were not AAA titles by the standards of the day. So no you cannot compare them to todays AAA titles. Comparable games today are Pantheon, Crowfall, Camelot Unchained - or do you consider them comparable to GTA5, Destiny, Assassin's Creed, ESO. Those games however are being developed on comparable budgets - some inflation sure but the target budgets are a few million. And however good they may be they won't be deemed AAA titles either. (I hope they will be very good to play though).
And your development costs for some of the games you list are off as well but "costs" can be complicated so I won't bother commenting.
1. now that you've explained it more clearly I agree with you, I misunderstood your original point.
2. I'm sorry, but this "more players = higher cost" does not agree with facts. Blizzard paid $50 million per year for upkeep for the first 4 years. Their playerbase numbers at that time reached 11 million. Now with significantly less players their upkeep costs have risen significantly according to their financial reports.
With SE ff11 upkeep costs at their peak player count in 2009 being nearly 1/3 of ff14's in 2016 would mean that FF14 would have around 6 million players following your "more players = higher cost" argument, which the game does not nor ever had. ( I think current projections for FF14 put it around 800k to 1 million)( my opinion based on projected numbers from collected metadata)
And I think it's great you have server in your house. . .but that has nothing to do with the cost of tea in China, or Blizzard's and SE's financials for that matter.
3. ok I'll let your moving of the goalposts slide this one time mainly because it does not matter. . . .
Twisted Metal 0.8 million (1996) Crash bandicoot 1.2 million (1997) Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee 2.5 million (1997) Thief: The Dark Project 3 million (1998) Resident Evil 2 4 million (1999) System Shock 2 1.7 million (1999) Unreal Tournament 2 million (1999)
and so on. . .
Bioshock cost a measly 15 million in the same release year Age of Conan cost 22 million. (2007) Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty cost a whopping 10 million back in (2002)
there are some outliers obviously, like Shenmue released in 1999 which cost a ridiculous $47 million or Half-Life 2 which cost upwards of 40 million in 2004. Halo 2 also released in 2004 cost 20 million.
now what MMO released in 2004 with a cost of 60 million for production and marketing. . .oh yeah, World of Warcraft. . .
And as a sidebar. .
And your development costs for some of the games you list are off as well but "costs" can be complicated so I won't bother commenting.
please if you are going to call my data inaccurate do the decent thing and prove it, Because I consider comments like these conceding the point on your part. . .
2. Providing servers for 11M people is cheaper than providing servers for 550k. The only time this would not be true is if the hardware/software/staff needed to support 550k was the same as for 11M.
So if you compare Blizzard's costs in 2004 with SoE's costs in 1999 then you would have to take number of people into account. Not that Blizzard ever hosted 11M people; they do not and never have hosted Chinese players. Whatever you think you were reading - and making inferences from - well give me a link and I will explain it to you. Which also touches on another factor: how many locations are servers in; how many countries.
However it is very simple:
Saying more people does not mean higher costs is plain stupid. Stop and read what you are saying. Servers are cheaper today than they used to be. Computers are more powerful. Software is more powerful. Fewer staff are needed. Internet costs are cheaper. There is no discussion on this.
3. Moving the goal posts - what? Doesn't matter.
Pre-2004 there was no expectation of the subscription providing any content. (Although to be fair to AC it was actually the first to launch a monthly story update.) Once that idea became ingrained in players minds the goal posts ! did indeed change. From no content to we expect content. So development is an extra.
As a sidebar since you asked. I could ask you for links to your costs - what I said however was "its complicated".
Example 1: You gave a figure of $140M for Destiny. Would that be with or without profit? The figure that Bobby Kotick gave suppliers was $500M. OK that may have included the servers but $360M? Are you suggesting a CEO was misleading shareholders when giving a shareholder address? Complicated.
Example 2: you gave a number of $100M-$200M for SWTOR. That in itself should tell you its complicated. Some estimates when it launched were as high as $300M as well. However a question to think about: what did EA pay Bioware - who had done work on SWTOR before EA bought Bioware? Complicated. If you were an EA shareholder though it was a big number.
I have - however - no intention of getting into estimated costs of games. So back on topic:
This was the point you made:
"while the purchasing power of $15 has sunk over the last 10-15 years the cost of development and running a MMO service has dramatically increased."
Games like UO and DAoC are still running - with fewer subscribers and so less revenue. Why? Running costs are less. As for development costs you can do a lot more today but it depends on what you are comparing. And you will probably give a list of 20 other games in a follow up post.
As I say provide some links about Blizzard's hardware costs though and I will try and correct your strange ideas that it is cheaper to provide servers for more people than for fewer people and the idea that computer costs have not fallen.
The only reason I would ever consider that elk is so I could shoot it with my bow (an arrow to the knee would probably do the trick) and mount its head over the fireplace in my new home.
I just don't get, thankfully, what motivates people to buy all of these fluffy things. I think they play a different game than the one I play. I get excited about things like improving my 2 sharpened Viper daggers to legendary gold, beating Velidreth in vCOS HM and walking away with her mask in medium armor divines, getting a purple Red Mountain ring from a chest in Stonefalls, being part of a group of 8 who holds off an attack from 40+ at Alessia...
Strutting around displaying my foolish conspicuous consumption just doesn't do anything for me. Heck, the only reason I ride around on my Stripped Senche instead of my basic mount is because that was a loyalty reward for subbing back in the early days that can't be bought. I hope it annoys everyone that can't have it for any price when they see me on it.
OTOH, I do try not to laugh at your bling publicly since, after all, you're helping keep the lights on.
I think it's like having a car. Some people feel good when they put the best parts in the engine so they can beat other players on the track (PvP), other players feel good when they look at those furry dice hanging in the window (PvE) they just bought.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
This problem has yet to affect me because I prefer my horse. My only present complaint about mounts is I want an armored one without a faction insignia.
you say this "Providing servers for 11M people is cheaper than providing servers for 550k."
then this
"saying more people does not mean higher costs is plain stupid."
you literally just said that. . .so what does that make you??
"So if you compare Blizzard's costs in 2004 with SoE's costs in 1999 then you would have to take number of people into account. Not that Blizzard ever hosted 11M people; they do not and never have hosted Chinese players. Whatever you think you were reading - and making inferences from - well give me a link and I will explain it to you. Which also touches on another factor: how many locations are servers in; how many countries."
what? I never gave any data on SoE in regards to their upkeep costs mainly because I dont have that data, and I never compared upkeep from two different companies it was always Blizzard in 2004 and 2016 AND THEN SE's ff11 and ff14 I never compared them against each other. . .
. . .and I had hoped that I made it clear that I was getting my data from Investor Financial Reports, which by the way are readily available on the internet if you actually cared about the data in them. . .
Moving the goal posts - what? Doesn't matter.
Pre-2004 there was no expectation of the subscription providing any content. (Although to be fair to AC it was actually the first to launch a monthly story update.) Once that idea became ingrained in players minds the goal posts ! did indeed change. From no content to we expect content. So development is an extra.
not the goalposts I was talking about. . .and I already agreed with you on this point. Can we please move on?
Example 1: You gave a figure of $140M for Destiny. Would that be with or without profit? The figure that Bobby Kotick gave suppliers was $500M. OK that may have included the servers but $360M? Are you suggesting a CEO was misleading shareholders when giving a shareholder address? Complicated.
complicated? not at all. if you go read the date supplied in Activision's investor report of that year you will clear see that the 500 million was the projected budget for the entire lifespan of the game which included server upkeep, customer support, DLC and Expansion development, Marketing post launch, as well as royalty payments.
the 140 million I stated is also clearly laid out in that same report as the cost of development and pre-launch marketing.
Example 2: you gave a number of $100M-$200M for SWTOR. That in itself should tell you its complicated. Some estimates when it launched were as high as $300M as well. However a question to think about: what did EA pay Bioware - who had done work on SWTOR before EA bought Bioware? Complicated. If you were an EA shareholder though it was a big number.
Complicated? again not at all, while EA never gave exact numbers on production costs for SWTOR one can reasonably make an educated guess based on their financial reports while the game was in development from data in those reports in regard to projects in development, indeed that is why there was such a wide swing in the financial speculations of the cost of the project. however this only proves that when data is lacking it is hard to accurately give cost analysis. Now when we have games like DCU, TSW, AoC, or FF14 that clearly state in their respective companies financial reports their production costs, cost analysis is incredibly simple. . .
This was the point you made:
"while the purchasing power of $15 has sunk over the last 10-15 years the cost of development and running a MMO service has dramatically increased."
Yes, and I've given numbers to back up these claims. . .
I have - however - no intention of getting into estimated costs of games. So back on topic:
wait. . . isn't cost of development 50% of the topic we are discussing???
do you no longer want to talk about it because you feel you are losing on that point?
Games like UO and DAoC are still running - with fewer subscribers and so less revenue. Why? Running costs are less. As for development costs you can do a lot more today but it depends on what you are comparing.
you are right they are, I don't have any data on their specific situations.
Do you?
can you tell me what that data is as well as where to find it (like I've done with you) because I can't comment on data I do not have.
And you will probably give a list of 20 other games in a follow up post.
those lists were to prove the point that game development costs have risen significantly, nothing more nothing less. . .
As I say provide some links about Blizzard's hardware costs though and I will try and correct your strange ideas that it is cheaper to provide servers for more people than for fewer people and the idea that computer costs have not fallen.
I never made either of those two claims, I never talked about computers or their cost I also never said it is cheaper to run servers for more people in the exact same timeframe. .
. . .what I did say was that it was cheaper for Blizzard in 2008 to maintain servers for more people than in 2016 based on their financial report data. . .because the costs of server upkeep has risen significantly. . .I am sorry you can't seem to grasp that. . .
and finally
in regards to providing links, I don't do that. I do give relevant data and tell people where to find it ( in this case financial reports) it is a litmus test to see if people really want to know the truth.
indeed last month I broke this rule and gave a link as well as actually copy-pasting the content in a thread on this site. and guess what happened, the people who were clearly wrong continued to make posts saying the data was irrelevant. . .because they didn't care about the truth.
so I ask you, do you care about the truth? if so go read the data, I've Told you where it is many times now.
if not Please let me know. . .ok?
. . .ok.
EDIT: I just went back and looked at that other thread I mentioned. . .you are one of the people that ignored the data I provided. . .
I'm so mad at myself right now for wasting my time. . .
I've spent quarters on continues and 10 dollars on a beer that I'll just piss out later. When I don't like something I don't buy it, and I certainly don't feel the need to bang my faux moral gong about the good old days.
The only reason I would ever consider that elk is so I could shoot it with my bow (an arrow to the knee would probably do the trick) and mount its head over the fireplace in my new home.
I just don't get, thankfully, what motivates people to buy all of these fluffy things. I think they play a different game than the one I play. I get excited about things like improving my 2 sharpened Viper daggers to legendary gold, beating Velidreth in vCOS HM and walking away with her mask in medium armor divines, getting a purple Red Mountain ring from a chest in Stonefalls, being part of a group of 8 who holds off an attack from 40+ at Alessia...
Strutting around displaying my foolish conspicuous consumption just doesn't do anything for me. Heck, the only reason I ride around on my Stripped Senche instead of my basic mount is because that was a loyalty reward for subbing back in the early days that can't be bought. I hope it annoys everyone that can't have it for any price when they see me on it.
OTOH, I do try not to laugh at your bling publicly since, after all, you're helping keep the lights on.
I think it's like having a car. Some people feel good when they put the best parts in the engine so they can beat other players on the track (PvP), other players feel good when they look at those furry dice hanging in the window (PvE) they just bought.
Good analogy. I was also always a performance car kind of guy... hugging those corners especially.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Member when we had to actually play the game to get mounts?
lololol, yeah. That's quite a memory, getting a mount. Of course back then you got to talk about it for a couple of hours while the cleric regenned. Good times.
Why doesn't anyone want to spend 3.5 weeks of their sub time "getting a mount" anymore. You think the gaming public would be clamoring for that Brony action.
And of course if you actually played the game you would know you can buy a mount in game. You need to to level the mount and can do so in game.
Sadly though since MMORPGs are so reliant on the time sink method to keep players playing, removing that feature just means adding nothing but credit card warrior bling to take its place, which to me at least is even more pointless and less fun. Why play the fucking game at all at that point? There's a distinct reason MMORPGs are being eclipsed by MOBAs, Arena Shooters, mobile gaming, etc.
Wait wut? That's an interesting false dichotomy you've set up where the only option is failure.
Didn't I just explain that the feature isn't removed, but available through game play and fairly cheaply? Didn't I just explain that you still need to level your base mount stats even if you buy the skin from the store? The only thing I didn't mention was that mounts aren't really necessary outside of Cyrodiil and can be a hindrance if you want to stop and harvest or fight mobs.
Maybe what ZoS and other studios realized was that spending weeks on getting a mount was less fun than most any other activity in the game or out of game except maybe setting yourself on fire and rolling in flammable acid.
Setting yourself aflame and rolling in acid is apparently not high on the fun list. I expect many "old-school" indie mmos to adopt it though to ensure as an unpleasant and painful gaming experience as possible.
Sorry guy I actually want to play the game to get my mounts not just credit card warrior it.
I know actually wanting to play MMORPGs is rare these days. I enjoyed timesinks and having to earn things by playing the game. (if it's like being on fire in acid to you maybe you shouldn't play it)
You want to defend cash shops go right ahead. I think they are cancer and instead of cheat codes they just pay the company to spawn the item now. Zero game integrity and all about the profit. It's disgusting.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
It's still a $25 elk. Considering that's what you could pay right now for Far Cry Primal or MGS5, entire games... why is this being defended? Will we simply defend all ridiculous cash shop items now based on the fact that "I currently play and like this game?"
I sure as shit don't defend EVE or CCP like that, and that's my favorite game. If CCP steps in shit, I'm gonna point and say "CCP stepped in shit" like monoclegate. I was on the front row sharpening my pitchfork as I played.
Ppl are not defending it.
Ppl just don't care because it is: A. Not an essential item. B. It isn't even good (looking or otherwise) for an non-essential item.
Why would ppl complain about something that they don't care about and probably very few would buy anyways? It is a waste of effort/time.
Comments
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/2. Can you read? Did I say that servers didn;t cost money? No I said the cost of running - and acquiring - servers has come down. And you have to be careful when making comparisons because more players = higher cost. (Were WoW's server costs higher than those of EQ1 for example?) And if you need an example go and check out what Funcom allowed for the extra AoC servers - that they eventually had to activate since it sold 800k. It was in their financial reports back then - 3 years later and about an order of magnitude less (factoring in population)
Historically you had expensive ISP costs, expensive hardware costs, expensive server software costs and expensive server software support costs. And as you needed more hardware you also had higher costs for buildings and cooling.
Today you have player run servers. And I have a server in my house. Yet how can this be!
3. No the likes of UO (1997), EQ, AC, AO were not AAA titles by the standards of the day. So no you cannot compare them to todays AAA titles. Comparable games today are Pantheon, Crowfall, Camelot Unchained - or do you consider them comparable to GTA5, Destiny, Assassin's Creed, ESO. Those games however are being developed on comparable budgets - some inflation sure but the target budgets are a few million. And however good they may be they won't be deemed AAA titles either. (I hope they will be very good to play though).
And your development costs for some of the games you list are off as well but "costs" can be complicated so I won't bother commenting.
Edit sorry Muppets Show
2. I'm sorry, but this "more players = higher cost" does not agree with facts. Blizzard paid $50 million per year for upkeep for the first 4 years. Their playerbase numbers at that time reached 11 million. Now with significantly less players their upkeep costs have risen significantly according to their financial reports.
With SE ff11 upkeep costs at their peak player count in 2009 being nearly 1/3 of ff14's in 2016 would mean that FF14 would have around 6 million players following your "more players = higher cost" argument, which the game does not nor ever had. ( I think current projections for FF14 put it around 800k to 1 million)( my opinion based on projected numbers from collected metadata)
And I think it's great you have server in your house. . .but that has nothing to do with the cost of tea in China, or Blizzard's and SE's financials for that matter.
3. ok I'll let your moving of the goalposts slide this one time mainly because it does not matter. . . .
Twisted Metal 0.8 million (1996)
Crash bandicoot 1.2 million (1997)
Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee 2.5 million (1997)
Thief: The Dark Project 3 million (1998)
Resident Evil 2 4 million (1999)
System Shock 2 1.7 million (1999)
Unreal Tournament 2 million (1999)
and so on. . .
Bioshock cost a measly 15 million in the same release year Age of Conan cost 22 million. (2007)
Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty cost a whopping 10 million back in (2002)
there are some outliers obviously, like Shenmue released in 1999 which cost a ridiculous $47 million or Half-Life 2 which cost upwards of 40 million in 2004.
Halo 2 also released in 2004 cost 20 million.
now what MMO released in 2004 with a cost of 60 million for production and marketing. . .oh yeah, World of Warcraft. . .
And as a sidebar. .
And your development costs for some of the games you list are off as well but "costs" can be complicated so I won't bother commenting.
please if you are going to call my data inaccurate do the decent thing and prove it, Because I consider comments like these conceding the point on your part. . .
TL;DR
More facts to counter opinion. . .
So if you compare Blizzard's costs in 2004 with SoE's costs in 1999 then you would have to take number of people into account. Not that Blizzard ever hosted 11M people; they do not and never have hosted Chinese players. Whatever you think you were reading - and making inferences from - well give me a link and I will explain it to you. Which also touches on another factor: how many locations are servers in; how many countries.
However it is very simple:
Saying more people does not mean higher costs is plain stupid. Stop and read what you are saying. Servers are cheaper today than they used to be. Computers are more powerful. Software is more powerful. Fewer staff are needed. Internet costs are cheaper. There is no discussion on this.
3. Moving the goal posts - what? Doesn't matter.
Pre-2004 there was no expectation of the subscription providing any content. (Although to be fair to AC it was actually the first to launch a monthly story update.) Once that idea became ingrained in players minds the goal posts ! did indeed change. From no content to we expect content. So development is an extra.
As a sidebar since you asked.
I could ask you for links to your costs - what I said however was "its complicated".
Example 1: You gave a figure of $140M for Destiny. Would that be with or without profit? The figure that Bobby Kotick gave suppliers was $500M. OK that may have included the servers but $360M? Are you suggesting a CEO was misleading shareholders when giving a shareholder address? Complicated.
Example 2: you gave a number of $100M-$200M for SWTOR. That in itself should tell you its complicated. Some estimates when it launched were as high as $300M as well. However a question to think about: what did EA pay Bioware - who had done work on SWTOR before EA bought Bioware? Complicated. If you were an EA shareholder though it was a big number.
I have - however - no intention of getting into estimated costs of games. So back on topic:
This was the point you made:
"while the purchasing power of $15 has sunk over the last 10-15 years the cost of development and running a MMO service has dramatically increased."
Games like UO and DAoC are still running - with fewer subscribers and so less revenue. Why? Running costs are less. As for development costs you can do a lot more today but it depends on what you are comparing. And you will probably give a list of 20 other games in a follow up post.
As I say provide some links about Blizzard's hardware costs though and I will try and correct your strange ideas that it is cheaper to provide servers for more people than for fewer people and the idea that computer costs have not fallen.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
you say this
"Providing servers for 11M people is cheaper than providing servers for 550k."
then this
"saying more people does not mean higher costs is plain stupid."
you literally just said that. . .so what does that make you??
what? I never gave any data on SoE in regards to their upkeep costs mainly because I dont have that data, and I never compared upkeep from two different companies it was always Blizzard in 2004 and 2016 AND THEN SE's ff11 and ff14 I never compared them against each other. . .
. . .and I had hoped that I made it clear that I was getting my data from Investor Financial Reports, which by the way are readily available on the internet if you actually cared about the data in them. . .
complicated? not at all. if you go read the date supplied in Activision's investor report of that year you will clear see that the 500 million was the projected budget for the entire lifespan of the game which included server upkeep, customer support, DLC and Expansion development, Marketing post launch, as well as royalty payments.
the 140 million I stated is also clearly laid out in that same report as the cost of development and pre-launch marketing.
Complicated? again not at all, while EA never gave exact numbers on production costs for SWTOR one can reasonably make an educated guess based on their financial reports while the game was in development from data in those reports in regard to projects in development, indeed that is why there was such a wide swing in the financial speculations of the cost of the project. however this only proves that when data is lacking it is hard to accurately give cost analysis.
Now when we have games like DCU, TSW, AoC, or FF14 that clearly state in their respective companies financial reports their production costs, cost analysis is incredibly simple. . .
Yes, and I've given numbers to back up these claims. . .
I have - however - no intention of getting into estimated costs of games. So back on topic:
wait. . . isn't cost of development 50% of the topic we are discussing???
do you no longer want to talk about it because you feel you are losing on that point?
Games like UO and DAoC are still running - with fewer subscribers and so less revenue. Why? Running costs are less. As for development costs you can do a lot more today but it depends on what you are comparing.
you are right they are, I don't have any data on their specific situations.
Do you?
can you tell me what that data is as well as where to find it (like I've done with you)
because I can't comment on data I do not have.
And you will probably give a list of 20 other games in a follow up post.
those lists were to prove the point that game development costs have risen significantly, nothing more nothing less. . .
As I say provide some links about Blizzard's hardware costs though and I will try and correct your strange ideas that it is cheaper to provide servers for more people than for fewer people and the idea that computer costs have not fallen.
I never made either of those two claims, I never talked about computers or their cost I also never said it is cheaper to run servers for more people in the exact same timeframe. .
. . .what I did say was that it was cheaper for Blizzard in 2008 to maintain servers for more people than in 2016 based on their financial report data. . .because the costs of server upkeep has risen significantly. . .I am sorry you can't seem to grasp that. . .
and finally
in regards to providing links, I don't do that. I do give relevant data and tell people where to find it ( in this case financial reports) it is a litmus test to see if people really want to know the truth.
indeed last month I broke this rule and gave a link as well as actually copy-pasting the content in a thread on this site. and guess what happened, the people who were clearly wrong continued to make posts saying the data was irrelevant. . .because they didn't care about the truth.
so I ask you, do you care about the truth? if so go read the data, I've Told you where it is many times now.
if not Please let me know. . .ok?
. . .ok.
EDIT: I just went back and looked at that other thread I mentioned. . .you are one of the people that ignored the data I provided. . .
I'm so mad at myself right now for wasting my time. . .
I'm a MUDder. I play MUDs.
Current: Dragonrealms
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I know actually wanting to play MMORPGs is rare these days. I enjoyed timesinks and having to earn things by playing the game. (if it's like being on fire in acid to you maybe you shouldn't play it)
You want to defend cash shops go right ahead. I think they are cancer and instead of cheat codes they just pay the company to spawn the item now. Zero game integrity and all about the profit. It's disgusting.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Ppl just don't care because it is: A. Not an essential item. B. It isn't even good (looking or otherwise) for an non-essential item.
Why would ppl complain about something that they don't care about and probably very few would buy anyways? It is a waste of effort/time.