"2. Morrowind is DLC for one of the most single player MMOs there is, with its main attraction being more story quests... so does that really show that MMOs are doing well, or just that people enjoy RPGs with a good story?"
TES is, by every definition, an MMO. Just because you don't like the particularly nuanced focus on player-centered stories, it contains all of the bells and whistles you'd expect from an MMO. So yes, it does really show that MMOs are doing quite well, and it - along with SWTOR and modern WoW - show that MMOs with more single player elements are doing rather well indeed.
"2. Morrowind is DLC for one of the most single player MMOs there is, with its main attraction being more story quests... so does that really show that MMOs are doing well, or just that people enjoy RPGs with a good story?"
...
In my mind all it really shows is that most people are highly susceptible to clever marketing strategies that involve both traditional advertising as well as more 'covert' strategies.
Before anyone jumps to say 'prove it' just keep in mind advertising is a huge industry, it would not exist if it didnt work.
'in 2015, more than 180 billion U.S. dollars were spent in advertising in the United States.'
https://www.statista.com/topics/979/advertising-in-the-us/
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
"2. Morrowind is DLC for one of the most single player MMOs there is, with its main attraction being more story quests... so does that really show that MMOs are doing well, or just that people enjoy RPGs with a good story?"
...
In my mind all it really shows is that most people are highly susceptible to clever marketing strategies that involve both traditional advertising as well as more 'covert' strategies.
Yep. The entire early access model is proof of that.
"2. Morrowind is DLC for one of the most single player MMOs there is, with its main attraction being more story quests... so does that really show that MMOs are doing well, or just that people enjoy RPGs with a good story?"
...
In my mind all it really shows is that most people are highly susceptible to clever marketing strategies that involve both traditional advertising as well as more 'covert' strategies.
Yep. The entire early access model is proof of that.
so now I know your being intentionally disruptive just for sport.
Its pretty much universally understood that those billions of marketing dollars are being spent in the AAA market, not in the early access market.
When was the last time you had the Bro Crew at PC Gamer talking about how wonderful Early Access is? or seen an advertisement for an early access game on TV? or seen an early access developer talking to Steven Colbert? yeah thats what I thought.
Just so you know, 1/2 of a gaming budget in the AAA market is for marketing. In the 'indie market' its about 0
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
As many others have said, the article is just all over the place and doesn't seem to include a single reason why MMOs are making a comeback. The sorts of things I'd like to see that might actually indicate a comeback:
1) Total Number of Gamers
About 5 years ago, I started speccing out a website to support the MMO industry (was gonna be a DKP site). When trying to assess the viability of my website as a business, I had to estimate the total number of gamers playing MMOs (specifically, MMOs like WoW, LotRO, Lineage etc). I came out with an estimate of around 50m. Is that number going up or down?
2) Release Schedule of MMOs
I've never bothered examining the data, but it felt like we used to get 1 or 2 big MMOs a year. Now, it feels like we're lucky if we get 1 every 2 years. Am I right, or is the release schedule improving?
3) Revenue Per Game
We've seen the incomplete data from SuperData that indicates total revenue is increasing (even though they don't know what an MMO is), but how does it look on a revenue per game basis? That is the important figure, so what's it doing? It feels like its going down.
4) Kickstarter Backers / Year
You list ashes as a sign of improvement. I just checked their KS page: ~13,000 backers. 13k people is a drop in the ocean of the total gaming population. It indicates nothing! The estimated size of the games industry in 2016 was roughly $100 billion. $2.3mil is such a negligible amount in terms of overall market size. Maybe compare total donations to successful campaigns on a year by year basis to total market size?
5) AAA MMOs in Development
Top studios / publishers invest 100s of millions, so before doing so they do extensive market research. It stands to reason that the more AAA studios creating new MMOs, the healthier the market. How many do we know of currently in development? As far as I'm aware, Amazon is the only one with a AAA budget, but we don't even know if their game will actually be an MMO or not.
I realise data analysis is a pretty tricky area but it's critical when trying to assess market trends. Saying MMOs are making a comeback because you like 5 online games is like me saying the UK is in recession because I can't find a job.
If anything I am glad many of the mmo wannabe wow clones have begun to drop off. So tired of playing the same game. Im also glad that some of the people who defined this genre are working on new and unique mmos. The one Im watching is Pantheon Rise of the Fallen. They're trying to bring some of us back to what we loved about MMOs which is a living breathing world where players actually interact. So tired of seeing other players but never having anything to do with them other than the odd PUG. I miss when being in a guild meant something and the fact that your greatest asset was your reputation within the game community.
"2. Morrowind is DLC for one of the most single player MMOs there is, with its main attraction being more story quests... so does that really show that MMOs are doing well, or just that people enjoy RPGs with a good story?"
...
In my mind all it really shows is that most people are highly susceptible to clever marketing strategies that involve both traditional advertising as well as more 'covert' strategies.
Yep. The entire early access model is proof of that.
so now I know your being intentionally disruptive just for sport.
Hey I'm agreeing with you, but wether you like it or not, early access is a perfect example of what you just described. Indie developers have their own methods of coercion to extract money from the gullible. It's not limited to AAA houses and if you think it is, then you're one of the gullible.
"2. Morrowind is DLC for one of the most single player MMOs there is, with its main attraction being more story quests... so does that really show that MMOs are doing well, or just that people enjoy RPGs with a good story?"
...
In my mind all it really shows is that most people are highly susceptible to clever marketing strategies that involve both traditional advertising as well as more 'covert' strategies.
Yep. The entire early access model is proof of that.
so now I know your being intentionally disruptive just for sport.
Hey I'm agreeing with you, but wether you like it or not, early access is a perfect example of what you just described. Indie developers have their own methods of coercion to extract money from the gullible. It's not limited to AAA houses and if you think it is, then you're one of the gullible.
that is a gross lack of understanding on how and what is being marketed that its hysterical.
Not only that you seem to suggest that paid for marketing strategies basically are useless.
its amazing how little people seem to know.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
"2. Morrowind is DLC for one of the most single player MMOs there is, with its main attraction being more story quests... so does that really show that MMOs are doing well, or just that people enjoy RPGs with a good story?"
...
In my mind all it really shows is that most people are highly susceptible to clever marketing strategies that involve both traditional advertising as well as more 'covert' strategies.
Yep. The entire early access model is proof of that.
so now I know your being intentionally disruptive just for sport.
Hey I'm agreeing with you, but wether you like it or not, early access is a perfect example of what you just described. Indie developers have their own methods of coercion to extract money from the gullible. It's not limited to AAA houses and if you think it is, then you're one of the gullible.
Gullible is a term that's used quite frequently, but proven almost never. There is plenty of feedback on plenty of early access games and there is plenty of evidence that people who buy into early access are pleased with their purchase. So that doesn't really lend weight to your argument that people who are buying into these projects are gullible. Gullible suggests that someone is easily persuaded, over trusting, easily deceived, but the evidence we see on Steam is that the majority of people know exactly what they are getting and in many cases enjoy it. Actually, I did a comparison a while back and reviews of games in early access, on steam, are in-line with those of released titles. So I think you're probably over-stating the facts. Gullible might have applied almost a decade ago when crowdfunding just kicked off, but I think that the vast majority of people are well informed now, so I don't know how they could be considered gullible if they know the risks. Also, the reviews on steam don't really support your idea that people don't know what they're buying. Maybe it's unsavory to you, but that's a personal thing, it's just supported by facts.
"2. Morrowind is DLC for one of the most single player MMOs there is, with its main attraction being more story quests... so does that really show that MMOs are doing well, or just that people enjoy RPGs with a good story?"
...
In my mind all it really shows is that most people are highly susceptible to clever marketing strategies that involve both traditional advertising as well as more 'covert' strategies.
Yep. The entire early access model is proof of that.
so now I know your being intentionally disruptive just for sport.
Hey I'm agreeing with you, but wether you like it or not, early access is a perfect example of what you just described. Indie developers have their own methods of coercion to extract money from the gullible. It's not limited to AAA houses and if you think it is, then you're one of the gullible.
Gullible is a term that's used quite frequently, but proven almost never. There is plenty of feedback on plenty of early access games and there is plenty of evidence that people who buy into early access are pleased with their purchase. So that doesn't really lend weight to your argument that people who are buying into these projects are gullible. Gullible suggests that someone is easily persuaded, over trusting, easily deceived, but the evidence we see on Steam is that the majority of people know exactly what they are getting and in many cases enjoy it. Actually, I did a comparison a while back and reviews of games in early access, on steam, are in-line with those of released titles. So I think you're probably over-stating the facts. Gullible might have applied almost a decade ago when crowdfunding just kicked off, but I think that the vast majority of people are well informed now, so I don't know how they could be considered gullible if they know the risks. Also, the reviews on steam don't really support your idea that people don't know what they're buying. Maybe it's unsavory to you, but that's a personal thing, it's just supported by facts.
plus what I described was basically
'The impact of Super Bowl level advertising' vs 'one guy posting a flyer in the breakroom' and he is basically suggesting the 180 billion dollar industry is less effective then a guy posting a flyer in a breakroom in one company.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
5 + 4: Relies on a small subset that likes old school MMOs. Remember, MMOs before WoW used to be happy if they had 250k players, not sev. millions like post WoW(ergo, niche)
Mostly agree with you, except for this tidbit. Oldschool MMOs often had more players than current mainstream games, and that was at a time when there was less than one third the people on the internet. Until the WoW era, most of those games came out when we were still using dial up.
For those reasons, there's really nothing to suggest that traditional mmorpgs would not be successful, especially in the current climate where few quality options exist.
5 + 4: Relies on a small subset that likes old school MMOs. Remember, MMOs before WoW used to be happy if they had 250k players, not sev. millions like post WoW(ergo, niche)
Oldschool MMOs often had more players than current mainstream games, and that was at a time when there was less than one third the people on the internet.
Based on what exactly?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
5 + 4: Relies on a small subset that likes old school MMOs. Remember, MMOs before WoW used to be happy if they had 250k players, not sev. millions like post WoW(ergo, niche)
Oldschool MMOs often had more players than current mainstream games, and that was at a time when there was less than one third the people on the internet.
Based on what exactly?
Which part? That oldschool games had more subs than current? DAoC had hundreds of thousands, EQ had half a million, UO had hundreds of thousands. How many current mmos have hundreds of thousands? WoW, FFXIV, ESO, maybe SWToR? None of them have over a million outside of WoW.
5 + 4: Relies on a small subset that likes old school MMOs. Remember, MMOs before WoW used to be happy if they had 250k players, not sev. millions like post WoW(ergo, niche)
Oldschool MMOs often had more players than current mainstream games, and that was at a time when there was less than one third the people on the internet.
Based on what exactly?
Which part? That oldschool games had more subs than current? DAoC had hundreds of thousands, EQ had half a million, UO had hundreds of thousands. How many current mmos have hundreds of thousands? WoW, FFXIV, ESO, maybe SWToR? None of them have over a million outside of WoW.
I personally would be shocked if the evidence prooved that there were more people playing MMOs back then.
Not because MMOs appear to have become less popular in the industry which I think is true, but more because the number of gamers overall has exploded since that time. That increase in population gets dispersed among all game types.
Thus if you have a general population explosion its still posible for MMOs to become less popular with gamers and yet increase in population at the same time #notReallyAdvancedMath
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
"2. Morrowind is DLC for one of the most single player MMOs there is, with its main attraction being more story quests... so does that really show that MMOs are doing well, or just that people enjoy RPGs with a good story?"
...
In my mind all it really shows is that most people are highly susceptible to clever marketing strategies that involve both traditional advertising as well as more 'covert' strategies.
Yep. The entire early access model is proof of that.
so now I know your being intentionally disruptive just for sport.
Hey I'm agreeing with you, but wether you like it or not, early access is a perfect example of what you just described. Indie developers have their own methods of coercion to extract money from the gullible. It's not limited to AAA houses and if you think it is, then you're one of the gullible.
Gullible is a term that's used quite frequently, but proven almost never. There is plenty of feedback on plenty of early access games and there is plenty of evidence that people who buy into early access are pleased with their purchase. So that doesn't really lend weight to your argument that people who are buying into these projects are gullible. Gullible suggests that someone is easily persuaded, over trusting, easily deceived, but the evidence we see on Steam is that the majority of people know exactly what they are getting and in many cases enjoy it. Actually, I did a comparison a while back and reviews of games in early access, on steam, are in-line with those of released titles. So I think you're probably over-stating the facts. Gullible might have applied almost a decade ago when crowdfunding just kicked off, but I think that the vast majority of people are well informed now, so I don't know how they could be considered gullible if they know the risks. Also, the reviews on steam don't really support your idea that people don't know what they're buying. Maybe it's unsavory to you, but that's a personal thing, it's just supported by facts.
Ok, not gullible...easily coerced. But that's not the point. Our resident early access hipster dude stated that "most people are susceptible to clever marketing strategies" and I'm saying it's not limited to AAA as he contends ("marketing dollars being spent in the AAA market, not the early access market"). AAA houses may use $, but early access developers use far more insidious methods to get the same result and the people who fall for it are just as suseptible to marketing strategies.
Millions of people fall for marketing strategies every day, buy products that don't do what they are advertised to do and still claim they are happy with them. Millions. If you need proof, just walk around your own home and marvel at how many times you bought the hype.
SEANMCAD is just posturing to make people think he's somehow more intelligent and aware than most consumers, but he's fallen for the same tricks he rails against.
"2. Morrowind is DLC for one of the most single player MMOs there is, with its main attraction being more story quests... so does that really show that MMOs are doing well, or just that people enjoy RPGs with a good story?"
...
In my mind all it really shows is that most people are highly susceptible to clever marketing strategies that involve both traditional advertising as well as more 'covert' strategies.
Yep. The entire early access model is proof of that.
so now I know your being intentionally disruptive just for sport.
Hey I'm agreeing with you, but wether you like it or not, early access is a perfect example of what you just described. Indie developers have their own methods of coercion to extract money from the gullible. It's not limited to AAA houses and if you think it is, then you're one of the gullible.
Gullible is a term that's used quite frequently, but proven almost never. There is plenty of feedback on plenty of early access games and there is plenty of evidence that people who buy into early access are pleased with their purchase. So that doesn't really lend weight to your argument that people who are buying into these projects are gullible. Gullible suggests that someone is easily persuaded, over trusting, easily deceived, but the evidence we see on Steam is that the majority of people know exactly what they are getting and in many cases enjoy it. Actually, I did a comparison a while back and reviews of games in early access, on steam, are in-line with those of released titles. So I think you're probably over-stating the facts. Gullible might have applied almost a decade ago when crowdfunding just kicked off, but I think that the vast majority of people are well informed now, so I don't know how they could be considered gullible if they know the risks. Also, the reviews on steam don't really support your idea that people don't know what they're buying. Maybe it's unsavory to you, but that's a personal thing, it's just supported by facts.
Ok, not gullible...easily coerced. But that's not the point. Our resident early access hipster dude stated that "most people are susceptible to clever marketing strategies" and I'm saying it's not limited to AAA as he contends ("marketing dollars being spent in the AAA market, not the early access market"). AAA houses may use $, but early access developers use far more insidious methods to get the same result and the people who fall for it are just as suseptible to marketing strategies.
Millions of people fall for marketing strategies every day, buy products that don't do what they are advertised to do and still claim they are happy with them. Millions. If you need proof, just walk around your own home and marvel at how many times you bought the hype.
SEANMCAD is just posturing to make people think he's somehow more intelligent and aware than most consumers, but he's fallen for the same tricks he rails against.
oh I see what your trying to say.
Yes Early Access fans are just as easily coerced as anyone else is.
THE DIFFERENCE however, to actually coerce someone takes work, takes money which is why marketing works and which is why on average more people are coerced in AAA industry then in early access industry. more over, people who end up going to early access actualy tend to be (despite what I just claimed) a little LESS likely to be coreced because if they were they would have fallen for AAA.
think of it like water, a person who is more easily coreced is going to flow in the direction where the most money and coreceisn is happening. Those who are less likely to be coreced are more immune to it.
Did I make that explanation to complicated? I can try to simplify it some more if needed
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I honestly wonder why 90% of you still come here, it is all doom and gloom and the genre is dead etc. etc. You people really don't enjoy coming here or reading the articles, so why? Why aren't you gone?
and ohh, the list, it is shitty.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Now there's an interesting approach, slam "90%" of us.....then agree with us? (that the list is poor?)
Should have at least countered with a list of 5 MMOs that fill you with such "hope" for the genre.
Besides you know full well why we come here, we enjoy dancing over the grave.
Just because the list is poor does not mean the sky is falling down. Just for the lols my list for 2017:
-Crowfall, the only entey I truly agree with, amazing in pre alpha already. -Stormblood. Not only turning disaster in a succesful game but also showing the world subs aren't dead yet. -Project: Gorgon. Upgrading in a big way this year with hopefully Steam access around the corner. -Pantheon. Contrary to last year they have shown there is an actual game being made! -SotA will officially release so we can bash the living daylights out of it.
There you go
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
5 + 4: Relies on a small subset that likes old school MMOs. Remember, MMOs before WoW used to be happy if they had 250k players, not sev. millions like post WoW(ergo, niche)
Oldschool MMOs often had more players than current mainstream games, and that was at a time when there was less than one third the people on the internet.
Based on what exactly?
Which part? That oldschool games had more subs than current? DAoC had hundreds of thousands, EQ had half a million, UO had hundreds of thousands. How many current mmos have hundreds of thousands? WoW, FFXIV, ESO, maybe SWToR? None of them have over a million outside of WoW.
Problem is we have no real gauge to say one way or the other, as they don't release numbers, as well as subs aren't the only way to play. IF you had said subscribers I might be inclined to agree, yet you said players, Which with F2P games in such abundance, I think it's likely to be a lot more "playing" in this day and age overall, there's just a lot more games out there now. .
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Depressing article....MMOs are making a comeback...because...well...NOT MMOs...
2 Non-MMOs. 1 DLC, 2 games not even finished.
If you replaced "comback" in the article title with "depressing downward spiral of DOOOOOM" it would probably be more accurate. Or at the very least why the only reason to occasionally visit this site now has become to flame at each other, or games, or etc.
The crowd funding started off as an interesting possibility, but now its just the desperation of wanting "something more" that existing companies won't provide. Its like playing the lotto now, people are just throwing money at "hopes n dreams".
"2. Morrowind is DLC for one of the most single player MMOs there is, with its main attraction being more story quests... so does that really show that MMOs are doing well, or just that people enjoy RPGs with a good story?"
...
In my mind all it really shows is that most people are highly susceptible to clever marketing strategies that involve both traditional advertising as well as more 'covert' strategies.
Yep. The entire early access model is proof of that.
so now I know your being intentionally disruptive just for sport.
Hey I'm agreeing with you, but wether you like it or not, early access is a perfect example of what you just described. Indie developers have their own methods of coercion to extract money from the gullible. It's not limited to AAA houses and if you think it is, then you're one of the gullible.
Gullible is a term that's used quite frequently, but proven almost never. There is plenty of feedback on plenty of early access games and there is plenty of evidence that people who buy into early access are pleased with their purchase. So that doesn't really lend weight to your argument that people who are buying into these projects are gullible. Gullible suggests that someone is easily persuaded, over trusting, easily deceived, but the evidence we see on Steam is that the majority of people know exactly what they are getting and in many cases enjoy it. Actually, I did a comparison a while back and reviews of games in early access, on steam, are in-line with those of released titles. So I think you're probably over-stating the facts. Gullible might have applied almost a decade ago when crowdfunding just kicked off, but I think that the vast majority of people are well informed now, so I don't know how they could be considered gullible if they know the risks. Also, the reviews on steam don't really support your idea that people don't know what they're buying. Maybe it's unsavory to you, but that's a personal thing, it's just supported by facts.
Ok, not gullible...easily coerced. But that's not the point. Our resident early access hipster dude stated that "most people are susceptible to clever marketing strategies" and I'm saying it's not limited to AAA as he contends ("marketing dollars being spent in the AAA market, not the early access market"). AAA houses may use $, but early access developers use far more insidious methods to get the same result and the people who fall for it are just as suseptible to marketing strategies.
Millions of people fall for marketing strategies every day, buy products that don't do what they are advertised to do and still claim they are happy with them. Millions. If you need proof, just walk around your own home and marvel at how many times you bought the hype.
SEANMCAD is just posturing to make people think he's somehow more intelligent and aware than most consumers, but he's fallen for the same tricks he rails against.
People are always susceptible to marketing, you're right. I'm not sure what insidious methods you're talking about, but it sounds like you're simply demonizing early access developers without any real proof. They are using the same methods to get the same result as AAA developers. It's like me saying that there were lots of people unhappy with Destiny 1 and the quality of content in the season pass, therefore all AAA developers are using these insidious methods to get our money. In reality, I bought the season pass and had absolutely no issue with the amount of content I got from it.
Honestly, there's no difference between the two and AAA and early access developers when it comes to their motivation. If anything I'd say my own experience has been that I get greater value from early access developers than I do AAA developers. I bought into most games at half the cost, or less, of a boxed title and 1 out of the 12 games I've backed failed, but is coming back (The Repop). So you assume some level of risk for the value of saving money. Similarly, if I was offered Destiny 2 Deluxe today at 50% off, I'd buy it without a second thought. As it is, I might save $5. So I don't see the value in pre-ordering at that price.
Some people pay big bucks to do stuff like add their names into the game or be the king. I don't see the value in that, and you obviously don't either, but there are obviously a lot of people with more money than us who do. That's cool, though, they are willing to take the risk to have that level of satisfaction. I'm sure if Bungie were to build someone into the game as an in-game character, someone would pay $50k or $100k for that. Don't fool yourself, either, it'll happen. It's just a matter of time. Those people aren't easily coerced or gullible, they just find value in what's being offered and are willing to take a risk.
"2. Morrowind is DLC for one of the most single player MMOs there is, with its main attraction being more story quests... so does that really show that MMOs are doing well, or just that people enjoy RPGs with a good story?"
...
In my mind all it really shows is that most people are highly susceptible to clever marketing strategies that involve both traditional advertising as well as more 'covert' strategies.
Yep. The entire early access model is proof of that.
so now I know your being intentionally disruptive just for sport.
Hey I'm agreeing with you, but wether you like it or not, early access is a perfect example of what you just described. Indie developers have their own methods of coercion to extract money from the gullible. It's not limited to AAA houses and if you think it is, then you're one of the gullible.
Gullible is a term that's used quite frequently, but proven almost never. There is plenty of feedback on plenty of early access games and there is plenty of evidence that people who buy into early access are pleased with their purchase. So that doesn't really lend weight to your argument that people who are buying into these projects are gullible. Gullible suggests that someone is easily persuaded, over trusting, easily deceived, but the evidence we see on Steam is that the majority of people know exactly what they are getting and in many cases enjoy it. Actually, I did a comparison a while back and reviews of games in early access, on steam, are in-line with those of released titles. So I think you're probably over-stating the facts. Gullible might have applied almost a decade ago when crowdfunding just kicked off, but I think that the vast majority of people are well informed now, so I don't know how they could be considered gullible if they know the risks. Also, the reviews on steam don't really support your idea that people don't know what they're buying. Maybe it's unsavory to you, but that's a personal thing, it's just supported by facts.
Ok, not gullible...easily coerced. But that's not the point. Our resident early access hipster dude stated that "most people are susceptible to clever marketing strategies" and I'm saying it's not limited to AAA as he contends ("marketing dollars being spent in the AAA market, not the early access market"). AAA houses may use $, but early access developers use far more insidious methods to get the same result and the people who fall for it are just as suseptible to marketing strategies.
Millions of people fall for marketing strategies every day, buy products that don't do what they are advertised to do and still claim they are happy with them. Millions. If you need proof, just walk around your own home and marvel at how many times you bought the hype.
SEANMCAD is just posturing to make people think he's somehow more intelligent and aware than most consumers, but he's fallen for the same tricks he rails against.
Honestly, there's no difference between the two and AAA and early access developers when it comes to their motivation.
not exactly.
AAA companies are typically companies that are traded on the New York Stock Exchange. CEOs of these companies are almost always legally required to make as much money as possible (its in the 'charters' I think its called and its legally binding). This motovation trickles down to the developer in that design choices are made by others with a different agenda.
In a small private company the although the assumption is profit is the only motive, it 1. doesnt have to be like it has to be in publicly traded companies and 2. more often then people are aware money can actually not the primary motivation.
So larger firms have two main problems
1. creative decisions are made either by non-creatives or by teams explicitly designed to exploit.
2. The larger and organization is the less effective it becomes after a set number of social connections
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Honestly, there's no difference between the two and AAA and early access developers when it comes to their motivation.
not exactly.
AAA companies are typically companies that are traded on the New York Stock Exchange. CEOs of these companies are almost always legally required to make as much money as possible (its in the 'charters' I think its called and its legally binding). This motovation trickles down to the developer in that design choices are made by others with a different agenda.
In a small private company the although the assumption is profit is the only motive, it 1. doesnt have to be like it has to be in publicly traded companies and 2. more often then people are aware money can actually not the primary motivation.
So larger firms have two main problems
1. creative decisions are made either by non-creatives or by teams explicitly designed to exploit.
2. The larger and organization is the less effective it becomes after a set number of social connections
Lol, no, not at all. You're assuming that small private companies make good decisions. CIG, while not small, is a great example of how private companies can squander money when they aren't accountable to anyone. Also, do you think that SotA is being developed the way they envisioned? You think that their vision was to sell $50 unity store assets to their users, making little to no changes to it? No, this is the "holy fuck!" factor. Both cases are great examples of the realities of working in private companies. Private companies may not make decisions based on their shareholders, but that doesn't mean that they don't need to make sacrifices to the original vision of the project in order to align with more realistic goals.
Honestly, there's no difference between the two and AAA and early access developers when it comes to their motivation.
not exactly.
AAA companies are typically companies that are traded on the New York Stock Exchange. CEOs of these companies are almost always legally required to make as much money as possible (its in the 'charters' I think its called and its legally binding). This motovation trickles down to the developer in that design choices are made by others with a different agenda.
In a small private company the although the assumption is profit is the only motive, it 1. doesnt have to be like it has to be in publicly traded companies and 2. more often then people are aware money can actually not the primary motivation.
So larger firms have two main problems
1. creative decisions are made either by non-creatives or by teams explicitly designed to exploit.
2. The larger and organization is the less effective it becomes after a set number of social connections
Lol, no, not at all. You're assuming that small private companies make good decisions. CIG, while not small, is a great example of how private companies can squander money when they aren't accountable to anyone. Also, do you think that SotA is being developed the way they envisioned? You think that their vision was to sell $50 unity store assets to their users, making little to no changes to it? No, this is the "holy fuck!" factor. Both cases are great examples of the realities of working in private companies. Private companies may not make decisions based on their shareholders, but that doesn't mean that they don't need to make sacrifices to the original vision of the project in order to align with more realistic goals.
we must be talking about two different things because that is not what I am saying.
Very simply this
Large public company motivation = ALWAYS(no exception) profit Small private company motivation = USUALLY profit but not always.
I am not saying they are immune, I am saying the motivation being the same is a myth, it usually is but not always
what a lot of people are not aware of is that CEOs of publically traded companies in almost all cases are LEGALLY REQUIRED to make a profit. In private companies that legal requirement can be different.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Destiny 2 being on PC is a no brainer, business wise, in fact it's the only thing that is putting Destiny 2 on the hype map, being on PC. CrowFall, Ashes of Creation and Conan Exiles will bring nothing new, they'll have a sweet honey moon phase, no doubt, but will die down quickly. ESO : Morrowind ... meh, not much more to say besides that, some real hardcore Elder's Scroll fans will most likely get a copy of the xpac, but how many will still be playing after 30 days? Also, not being a huge fan of FF14, but Stormblood should of easily been #1 and #2 at the same time. Those 5 games on that "list" don't even come close to what FF14 will be releasing.
People also need to understand the concept and business of a MMO, it's easy for a MMO to run on 1 crappy server with only 100 people and still generate cash flow, even though it's barely 200$ profit a month, it's still considered dead and a paper weight. When you got a game like Warframe, for example, generating 20K~40K players playing daily compared to let's say Fairyland Online with barely 50 people, or Kru's Dark Ages with 50-60 people online, Nexus TK with 200 people online, Shattered Galaxy with 0 to 5 people online ... The conventional MMORPG market, outside of a dozen / 2 dozen games (Out of 593 listed on this site), is pretty much dead and filled with games with barely 0 to 500 players playing them at peak hours. Quake 2 is still getting more hits per 24 hours than 95% of the MMORPG market. Age of Wushu 2 should of been on that list as #3 / #4 easily, it's going to blow the doors right off pretty much any over hyped game currently on this site.
I honestly wonder why 90% of you still come here, it is all doom and gloom and the genre is dead etc. etc. You people really don't enjoy coming here or reading the articles, so why? Why aren't you gone?
and ohh, the list, it is shitty.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Now there's an interesting approach, slam "90%" of us.....then agree with us? (that the list is poor?)
Should have at least countered with a list of 5 MMOs that fill you with such "hope" for the genre.
Besides you know full well why we come here, we enjoy dancing over the grave.
Just because the list is poor does not mean the sky is falling down. Just for the lols my list for 2017:
-Crowfall, the only entey I truly agree with, amazing in pre alpha already. -Stormblood. Not only turning disaster in a succesful game but also showing the world subs aren't dead yet. -Project: Gorgon. Upgrading in a big way this year with hopefully Steam access around the corner. -Pantheon. Contrary to last year they have shown there is an actual game being made! -SotA will officially release so we can bash the living daylights out of it.
There you go
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Your list is definitely one that gives reason for hope, just not ready to say it heralds a come back until we see how well some of these sell when/if they ever fully launch.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
TES is, by every definition, an MMO. Just because you don't like the particularly nuanced focus on player-centered stories, it contains all of the bells and whistles you'd expect from an MMO. So yes, it does really show that MMOs are doing quite well, and it - along with SWTOR and modern WoW - show that MMOs with more single player elements are doing rather well indeed.
In my mind all it really shows is that most people are highly susceptible to clever marketing strategies that involve both traditional advertising as well as more 'covert' strategies.
Before anyone jumps to say 'prove it' just keep in mind advertising is a huge industry, it would not exist if it didnt work. 'in 2015, more than 180 billion U.S. dollars were spent in advertising in the United States.' https://www.statista.com/topics/979/advertising-in-the-us/
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
~~ postlarval ~~
Its pretty much universally understood that those billions of marketing dollars are being spent in the AAA market, not in the early access market.
When was the last time you had the Bro Crew at PC Gamer talking about how wonderful Early Access is? or seen an advertisement for an early access game on TV? or seen an early access developer talking to Steven Colbert? yeah thats what I thought.
Just so you know, 1/2 of a gaming budget in the AAA market is for marketing. In the 'indie market' its about 0
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1) Total Number of Gamers
About 5 years ago, I started speccing out a website to support the MMO industry (was gonna be a DKP site). When trying to assess the viability of my website as a business, I had to estimate the total number of gamers playing MMOs (specifically, MMOs like WoW, LotRO, Lineage etc). I came out with an estimate of around 50m. Is that number going up or down?
2) Release Schedule of MMOs
I've never bothered examining the data, but it felt like we used to get 1 or 2 big MMOs a year. Now, it feels like we're lucky if we get 1 every 2 years. Am I right, or is the release schedule improving?
3) Revenue Per Game
We've seen the incomplete data from SuperData that indicates total revenue is increasing (even though they don't know what an MMO is), but how does it look on a revenue per game basis? That is the important figure, so what's it doing? It feels like its going down.
4) Kickstarter Backers / Year
You list ashes as a sign of improvement. I just checked their KS page: ~13,000 backers. 13k people is a drop in the ocean of the total gaming population. It indicates nothing! The estimated size of the games industry in 2016 was roughly $100 billion. $2.3mil is such a negligible amount in terms of overall market size. Maybe compare total donations to successful campaigns on a year by year basis to total market size?
5) AAA MMOs in Development
Top studios / publishers invest 100s of millions, so before doing so they do extensive market research. It stands to reason that the more AAA studios creating new MMOs, the healthier the market. How many do we know of currently in development? As far as I'm aware, Amazon is the only one with a AAA budget, but we don't even know if their game will actually be an MMO or not.
I realise data analysis is a pretty tricky area but it's critical when trying to assess market trends. Saying MMOs are making a comeback because you like 5 online games is like me saying the UK is in recession because I can't find a job.
~~ postlarval ~~
Not only that you seem to suggest that paid for marketing strategies basically are useless.
its amazing how little people seem to know.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Gullible is a term that's used quite frequently, but proven almost never. There is plenty of feedback on plenty of early access games and there is plenty of evidence that people who buy into early access are pleased with their purchase. So that doesn't really lend weight to your argument that people who are buying into these projects are gullible. Gullible suggests that someone is easily persuaded, over trusting, easily deceived, but the evidence we see on Steam is that the majority of people know exactly what they are getting and in many cases enjoy it. Actually, I did a comparison a while back and reviews of games in early access, on steam, are in-line with those of released titles. So I think you're probably over-stating the facts. Gullible might have applied almost a decade ago when crowdfunding just kicked off, but I think that the vast majority of people are well informed now, so I don't know how they could be considered gullible if they know the risks. Also, the reviews on steam don't really support your idea that people don't know what they're buying. Maybe it's unsavory to you, but that's a personal thing, it's just supported by facts.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
'The impact of Super Bowl level advertising' vs 'one guy posting a flyer in the breakroom'
and he is basically suggesting the 180 billion dollar industry is less effective then a guy posting a flyer in a breakroom in one company.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
For those reasons, there's really nothing to suggest that traditional mmorpgs would not be successful, especially in the current climate where few quality options exist.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
As to internet statistics:http://www.internetworldstats.com/emarketing.htm
Not because MMOs appear to have become less popular in the industry which I think is true, but more because the number of gamers overall has exploded since that time. That increase in population gets dispersed among all game types.
Thus if you have a general population explosion its still posible for MMOs to become less popular with gamers and yet increase in population at the same time
#notReallyAdvancedMath
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Millions of people fall for marketing strategies every day, buy products that don't do what they are advertised to do and still claim they are happy with them. Millions. If you need proof, just walk around your own home and marvel at how many times you bought the hype.
SEANMCAD is just posturing to make people think he's somehow more intelligent and aware than most consumers, but he's fallen for the same tricks he rails against.
~~ postlarval ~~
Yes Early Access fans are just as easily coerced as anyone else is.
THE DIFFERENCE however, to actually coerce someone takes work, takes money which is why marketing works and which is why on average more people are coerced in AAA industry then in early access industry.
more over, people who end up going to early access actualy tend to be (despite what I just claimed) a little LESS likely to be coreced because if they were they would have fallen for AAA.
think of it like water, a person who is more easily coreced is going to flow in the direction where the most money and coreceisn is happening. Those who are less likely to be coreced are more immune to it.
Did I make that explanation to complicated? I can try to simplify it some more if needed
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
-Crowfall, the only entey I truly agree with, amazing in pre alpha already.
-Stormblood. Not only turning disaster in a succesful game but also showing the world subs aren't dead yet.
-Project: Gorgon. Upgrading in a big way this year with hopefully Steam access around the corner.
-Pantheon. Contrary to last year they have shown there is an actual game being made!
-SotA will officially release so we can bash the living daylights out of it.
There you go
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
2 Non-MMOs. 1 DLC, 2 games not even finished.
If you replaced "comback" in the article title with "depressing downward spiral of DOOOOOM" it would probably be more accurate. Or at the very least why the only reason to occasionally visit this site now has become to flame at each other, or games, or etc.
The crowd funding started off as an interesting possibility, but now its just the desperation of wanting "something more" that existing companies won't provide. Its like playing the lotto now, people are just throwing money at "hopes n dreams".
~I am Many~
People are always susceptible to marketing, you're right. I'm not sure what insidious methods you're talking about, but it sounds like you're simply demonizing early access developers without any real proof. They are using the same methods to get the same result as AAA developers. It's like me saying that there were lots of people unhappy with Destiny 1 and the quality of content in the season pass, therefore all AAA developers are using these insidious methods to get our money. In reality, I bought the season pass and had absolutely no issue with the amount of content I got from it.
Honestly, there's no difference between the two and AAA and early access developers when it comes to their motivation. If anything I'd say my own experience has been that I get greater value from early access developers than I do AAA developers. I bought into most games at half the cost, or less, of a boxed title and 1 out of the 12 games I've backed failed, but is coming back (The Repop). So you assume some level of risk for the value of saving money. Similarly, if I was offered Destiny 2 Deluxe today at 50% off, I'd buy it without a second thought. As it is, I might save $5. So I don't see the value in pre-ordering at that price.
Some people pay big bucks to do stuff like add their names into the game or be the king. I don't see the value in that, and you obviously don't either, but there are obviously a lot of people with more money than us who do. That's cool, though, they are willing to take the risk to have that level of satisfaction. I'm sure if Bungie were to build someone into the game as an in-game character, someone would pay $50k or $100k for that. Don't fool yourself, either, it'll happen. It's just a matter of time. Those people aren't easily coerced or gullible, they just find value in what's being offered and are willing to take a risk.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
not exactly. AAA companies are typically companies that are traded on the New York Stock Exchange. CEOs of these companies are almost always legally required to make as much money as possible (its in the 'charters' I think its called and its legally binding). This motovation trickles down to the developer in that design choices are made by others with a different agenda.
In a small private company the although the assumption is profit is the only motive, it 1. doesnt have to be like it has to be in publicly traded companies and 2. more often then people are aware money can actually not the primary motivation.
So larger firms have two main problems 1. creative decisions are made either by non-creatives or by teams explicitly designed to exploit. 2. The larger and organization is the less effective it becomes after a set number of social connections
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Lol, no, not at all. You're assuming that small private companies make good decisions. CIG, while not small, is a great example of how private companies can squander money when they aren't accountable to anyone. Also, do you think that SotA is being developed the way they envisioned? You think that their vision was to sell $50 unity store assets to their users, making little to no changes to it? No, this is the "holy fuck!" factor. Both cases are great examples of the realities of working in private companies. Private companies may not make decisions based on their shareholders, but that doesn't mean that they don't need to make sacrifices to the original vision of the project in order to align with more realistic goals.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Very simply this
Large public company motivation = ALWAYS(no exception) profit
Small private company motivation = USUALLY profit but not always.
I am not saying they are immune, I am saying the motivation being the same is a myth, it usually is but not always
what a lot of people are not aware of is that CEOs of publically traded companies in almost all cases are LEGALLY REQUIRED to make a profit. In private companies that legal requirement can be different.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
People also need to understand the concept and business of a MMO, it's easy for a MMO to run on 1 crappy server with only 100 people and still generate cash flow, even though it's barely 200$ profit a month, it's still considered dead and a paper weight. When you got a game like Warframe, for example, generating 20K~40K players playing daily compared to let's say Fairyland Online with barely 50 people, or Kru's Dark Ages with 50-60 people online, Nexus TK with 200 people online, Shattered Galaxy with 0 to 5 people online ... The conventional MMORPG market, outside of a dozen / 2 dozen games (Out of 593 listed on this site), is pretty much dead and filled with games with barely 0 to 500 players playing them at peak hours. Quake 2 is still getting more hits per 24 hours than 95% of the MMORPG market. Age of Wushu 2 should of been on that list as #3 / #4 easily, it's going to blow the doors right off pretty much any over hyped game currently on this site.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon