Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

General: MMO Darwinism

SBFordSBFord Associate Editor - News ManagerThe Land of AZPosts: 16,595MMORPG.COM Staff Uncommon

A new credo has erupted in the MMO-space these days: Adapt or die. In today's Devil's Advocate, we take a look at that premise. See what you think and then leave your thoughts in the comments.

The basic premise of MMO Darwinism is based around the understanding of finite resources. Of all the people in the world, there is only a subset of that that plays games, and a smaller subset of that group plays online games. Thus, unless more people play online games, there is only a specific amount of money going into online games to pay salaries, development costs, upkeep, and other things.

Read more of Victor Barreiro Jr.'s The Devil's Advocate: MMO Darwinism.

image

Associate Editor: MMORPG.com
Follow me on Twitter: @MMORPGMom

image
«1

Comments

  • mCalvertmCalvert Tallahassee, FLPosts: 1,283Member

    One thing a lot of these failing MMOs need to do is simply lower the price till the demand increases. Get rif of the $59 client purchase, and lower sub price to $10 or $5, and offer a free trial. Im not sure F2P brings in enough money to stay afloat, and many people would pay $5 for a month of play time, but not $15 as that is the price for a AAA MMO.

  • CorthalaCorthala LagosPosts: 283Member Uncommon

    MMO sub price remains the same but the number of p2p has increase alot over the years I wonder when will they realise that players have alot of offers for same price and allways end up with the "next big thing"

    "you are like the world revenge on sarcasm, you know that?"

    One of those great lines from The Secret World

  • KitaneKitane Prince Albert, SKPosts: 39Member

    Here's a unique idea. Make games that people actually want to play, and more importantly pay to play. Quit trying to know better than the gamers that play the games, and instead look at what they like, and *shock* give it to them . I know that's a hard concept for all you "mmo gaming experts" out there telling the development houses how they should "innovate" and "distinguish themselves from WoW", but .......

    Also quit releasing games before they have enough finished.

    RPers have consistently twisted what RPG means. In doing that, and consistently being the most vocal minority on pretty much every gaming related site, they are slowly killing the genre.

  • OzmodanOzmodan Hilliard, OHPosts: 7,183Member Uncommon

    Well I agree with the first poster.  Prices have to change, players are not going to stick with your game long if you don't change them, especially in the fantasy realm.  I don't think a lot of f2p games make much money, there are just too many of them.

    Unless you are in a niche without much competition like Eve, these games better start finding a way to differentiate themselves from the pack or face declining population.

  • NephaeriusNephaerius Baltimore, MDPosts: 1,539Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Ozmodan

    Well I agree with the first poster.  Prices have to change, players are not going to stick with your game long if you don't change them, especially in the fantasy realm.  I don't think a lot of f2p games make much money, there are just too many of them.

    Unless you are in a niche without much competition like Eve, these games better start finding a way to differentiate themselves from the pack or face declining population.


     

     Only speaking of big titles (LotRO, DDO, etc) I've heard they get even more subs when it's optional than when it's mandatory.  I do agree that the market is too flooded with cheap and just plain bad F2P games.  It also has a whole host of great one's though.

    Side note, the shooter market has really exploded with F2P in a good way lately.  Blacklight, SMNC, Tribes, etc.   All pretty fun games not requiring you to shell out a ton of cash and not P2W (in my exp. anyway).

    Steam: Neph

  • mCalvertmCalvert Tallahassee, FLPosts: 1,283Member

    Originally posted by Ozmodan

    Well I agree with the first poster.  Prices have to change, players are not going to stick with your game long if you don't change them, especially in the fantasy realm.  I don't think a lot of f2p games make much money, there are just too many of them.

    Unless you are in a niche without much competition like Eve, these games better start finding a way to differentiate themselves from the pack or face declining population.

    Yeah, and theres a lot of games I would pay to try if I didnt have to spend $40. Like xyson. Companies simply need to start pricing their MMOs competitively. $15 may be too cheap for some MMOs. $15 is definetly too much for other MMOs. Maybe more of them need to go to a GW model and have a pay once model.

  • BigHatLoganBigHatLogan Bellingham, WAPosts: 688Member

    Originally posted by Kitane

    Here's a unique idea. Make games that people actually want to play, and more importantly pay to play. Quit trying to know better than the gamers that play the games, and instead look at what they like, and *shock* give it to them . I know that's a hard concept for all you "mmo gaming experts" out there telling the development houses how they should "innovate" and "distinguish themselves from WoW", but .......

    Also quit releasing games before they have enough finished.




     

    Maybe, just maybe, all these "mmo gaming experts" are gamers.  And maybe they are right in telling companies to innovate.  Look at GW2, hype is off the scale because they made a game that people wanted, they innovated to the extreme instead of cloning WoW, and they took their time in development.  Now look at SWTOR, the devs decided that they would clone WoW and made a garbage game with no innovation.  And it is failing so hard that EA had to fire 1000 people. 

    Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!
    image
    I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!

  • HurvartHurvart ystadPosts: 565Member

    Perhaps we could call it Darwinism. But is it evolution or devolution? Often when conditions in a specific habitat or eco system gets worse the creatures living in it degenerate and turn into lesser less advanced life forms. The more advanced animals cant survive because the food and other necessities they needed are no longer available.

    I believe this is what is really going on. And its sad...

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    Victor,

    I'm all for "Darwinisim" in terms of the Free Market....it's what our system is based on...and companies that can't deliver a good product/service at a competitive price and make a proffit doing so, neccessarly need to make way for ones that can.

    The one thing I would be a bit carefull about is using "Darwinism" to describe some of the TRENDS in MMO's as you did. That's not really accurate... at least in the way most people commonly understand the Term (which is not neccesarly representative of the scientific understanding). Most people commonly consider  "Darwinism" to represent Progression from less efficient/suitable mechanisms to more suitable ones. Alot of the "Trends" you tend to lump into that label, I would argue, actualy aren't that at all...they are more descriptive of currently popular TASTES. Tastes in popular entertainment, IMHO, are a little bit more like FASHION then technology....there is no clear sense of "Progress" in that one is inarguaebly superior to another...that's a little bit like saying "blue" is inarguably superior to "yellow" or "strawberry" to "vanilla".... in this context, things shift into and out of vogue....one set of tastes that's all the rage today (i.e. "casual", "F2P", etc) may become completely unpopular tomorrow....while some other taste/preference that was considered to have fallen by the wayside 20 years ago,  suddenly makes a come-back and becomes all the rage again tomorrow . Popular tastes in entertainment....whether you are talking about games, movies, books, muisic, art, etc... are fickle and ever-shifting things...that tend to shift back and forth. That's really not so much what "Evolution" is about in the common (non-scientific) understanding.

    There MAY be some things involving MMO's that ARE really "Evolutionary" in nature....but those are really more driven by the purely technical side of things..i.e. more sophisticated A.I., reduced latency, better graphics, etc.... which you aren't really addressing, what you seem to be mostly addressing would fit more aptly into what I would consider Fashion or Taste.



     

  • adam_noxadam_nox hays, KSPosts: 2,035Member Uncommon

    The mmo genre has not gotten any better since the early days, it's not evolving.  MMOs are only failing or going p2p because there's a lot more of them now, competing with each other.

    MMO devs seem to be either incompetent or clueless.  Just look at what happened with SWTOR and details gleaned about ESO.  Basically games that NO ONE wanted to be made out of those franchises.  Seriously clueless.

  • TruthXHurtsTruthXHurts El Do, KSPosts: 1,555Member

    Evolution is happening, but with no natural predators humanity is not bound to "Survival of the fittest" anymore.

    "I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"

  • gaeanprayergaeanprayer Somewhere Out There, PAPosts: 2,320Member Uncommon

    I thought this was the Devil's Advocate section? Everything there sounded perfectly logical and correct, to me.

    Also the whole M2 debacle, I found that hilarious. It's still a shame, but how the hell does that happen? How do you not have constant back-ups of an online world where information is constantly changing and evolving? That just boggles the mind. 

    "Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."

  • OldsaltOldsalt Monett, MOPosts: 41Member

                           "An American monkey,after getting drunk on brandy, would never

                  never touch it again. And this makes it wiser than most men."

                                                                                 -Charles Darwin

    The sooner you fall behind the more time you have to catch up.

  • FrostWyrmFrostWyrm Tempe, AZPosts: 1,036Member

    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    I'm all for "Darwinisim" in terms of the Free Market....it's what our system is based on...and companies that can't deliver a good product/service at a competitive price and make a proffit doing so, neccessarly need to make way for ones that can.

    Nature has a way of balancing itself, however nothing manmade is natural, and hence does not "evolve" as it should. Ideally, good games would succeed while bad and overpriced games would fail. Unfortunately things dont work this way in a world where marketing muscle becomes more prevalent than the product itself.

    The industry does not evolve or devolve. It is controled. Controled by the publishers with the most money. They determine what the developers make, and what consumers "want".

  • KitaneKitane Prince Albert, SKPosts: 39Member

    Originally posted by BigHatLogan



    Originally posted by Kitane



    Here's a unique idea. Make games that people actually want to play, and more importantly pay to play. Quit trying to know better than the gamers that play the games, and instead look at what they like, and *shock* give it to them . I know that's a hard concept for all you "mmo gaming experts" out there telling the development houses how they should "innovate" and "distinguish themselves from WoW", but .......





    Also quit releasing games before they have enough finished.










     

    Maybe, just maybe, all these "mmo gaming experts" are gamers.  And maybe they are right in telling companies to innovate.  Look at GW2, hype is off the scale because they made a game that people wanted, they innovated to the extreme instead of cloning WoW, and they took their time in development.  Now look at SWTOR, the devs decided that they would clone WoW and made a garbage game with no innovation.  And it is failing so hard that EA had to fire 1000 people. 




     



    The problem with SWTOR isn't that they "cloned" WoW. It's that they didn't "clone" WoW enough. They partially cloned WoW. They offered the bare skeleton, and nothing more.

    Evolution doesn't happen with radical changes happening overnight. Evolution happens slowly. What SWTOR needed to do was take what WoW did, and then add successful innovations to that already successful model.

    THAT is evolution.

    Instead, Bioware took what WoW did, but removed many of the things that WoW has done to keep it at the top of the food chain all this time.

    That is in fact de-evolution, and de-evolution, or lack of evolution, is what kills off species more than anything else.

    RPers have consistently twisted what RPG means. In doing that, and consistently being the most vocal minority on pretty much every gaming related site, they are slowly killing the genre.

  • troublmakertroublmaker St. George''s, NFPosts: 337Member

    I absolutely hate it when people horribly mis-use the term "Darwinism."  Darwinism only refers to the selection process of animals and species.  The selection process of animals and species is too often compared to market economics.  The laws that guide these are different from those that guide natural selection.

    Natural selection tells us that when there is too much of something that disease and starvation can kill off the species.  As well if there are TOO FEW of a species they can die off to predators.

    This isn't how it works in economics.  In economics it is entirely based off of supply (how much of that quantity is there) and demand (how much people want it).  So having too many or too few of a genre only effects an "evolution" depending on the demand of it.

    In first person shooters for example there is currently no need to "evolve" their concepts because the tried and tested Counter Strike and Modern Warfare 3 models are working fine.

    The gaming world is not Darwinistic by any means.  The gaming world is paradigmatic.  Thomas Kuhn came up with paradigm theory because every single asshole stranger philosopher out there was trying to akin every single phenomon out there to evolution.

    You saw social evolution which stated black people are inferior to white people, you saw economic evolution that saw the rise of the central bank ONLY THE STRONG SURVIVE!), and you saw ideological evolution stating that how we think is based on a natural process of slowly changing how we think.

    Thomas Kuhn came up with this brilliant idea that worked so much better than evolution.  His idea was so great that many people feel evolution might work like this (the introduction to X-Men was from Thomas Kuhn, not Darwin).

    The idea is simple.  We exist in a current paradigm in which we have to work within a certain framework.  This means that in the existing paradigm you can only operate within the premises and set practices of the paradigm.  In science for example Dark Age scientists had to work within the premises set by Aristtotle because that was the paradigm.  However every now and then there is a paradigm shift.

    A paradigm shift is a mold breaker.  It is when the old way of doing things is fully discovered and so utterly broken that a new paradigm is required to replace it.  After the new paradigm comes people look to discover the whole paradigm until it is broken again and a new one comes.

    You can see this paradigm shift happen between something like Ultima Online which was the standard top down fighter to Everquest a third person perspective MMO.  You can see the shift again between Everquest and World of Warcraft that is a shift from an MMO being a game to an MMO being a social activity.

    Please stop mis-using Darwinism.  Darwinism is not a tool to explain everything.  Darwinism is only a tool to explain evolution of species.



     

    Website: http://www.thegameguru.me / YouTube:

  • MumboJumboMumboJumbo LondonPosts: 3,221Member

    ^Yeah some more economic terms would be more accurate eg maturing market etc. Red in tooth and claw is also a little misleading (not in the article hasten to add) as it's mainly intra-species competition which is the primary driver with ecosystem relationships coming behind that for eg. ;) such as rabbits competing most fiercely with rabbits then foxes are driving behind that.

    Problem is risk -> high development costs -> expectation that players will settle down and have a home in any given mmorpg, when players are fickle animals at best.

    It's a tough racket.

    Some sort of mmorpg.The.Network for types of players to join/affiliate to ie to subdivide the genre and organize players according to groups where they'll pool their vested interests together for the type of mmorpg they are gunning for could be an interesting way for the market to change botton-up? Problem of players dropping off the internet suddenly never goes away but it might be a starter. Some sort of mmorpg.linkedin? "Manage your mmorpg.identity".

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 19,988Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by troublmaker

    I absolutely hate it when people horribly mis-use the term "Darwinism."  Darwinism only refers to the selection process of animals and species.  The selection process of animals and species is too often compared to market economics.  The laws that guide these are different from those that guide natural selection.





    Natural selection tells us that when there is too much of something that disease and starvation can kill off the species.  As well if there are TOO FEW of a species they can die off to predators.

    This isn't how it works in economics.  In economics it is entirely based off of supply (how much of that quantity is there) and demand (how much people want it).  So having too many or too few of a genre only effects an "evolution" depending on the demand of it.

    In first person shooters for example there is currently no need to "evolve" their concepts because the tried and tested Counter Strike and Modern Warfare 3 models are working fine.

    The gaming world is not Darwinistic by any means.  The gaming world is paradigmatic.  Thomas Kuhn came up with paradigm theory because every single asshole stranger philosopher out there was trying to akin every single phenomon out there to evolution.





    You saw social evolution which stated black people are inferior to white people, you saw economic evolution that saw the rise of the central bank ONLY THE STRONG SURVIVE!), and you saw ideological evolution stating that how we think is based on a natural process of slowly changing how we think.





    Thomas Kuhn came up with this brilliant idea that worked so much better than evolution.  His idea was so great that many people feel evolution might work like this (the introduction to X-Men was from Thomas Kuhn, not Darwin).





    The idea is simple.  We exist in a current paradigm in which we have to work within a certain framework.  This means that in the existing paradigm you can only operate within the premises and set practices of the paradigm.  In science for example Dark Age scientists had to work within the premises set by Aristtotle because that was the paradigm.  However every now and then there is a paradigm shift.





    A paradigm shift is a mold breaker.  It is when the old way of doing things is fully discovered and so utterly broken that a new paradigm is required to replace it.  After the new paradigm comes people look to discover the whole paradigm until it is broken again and a new one comes.





    You can see this paradigm shift happen between something like Ultima Online which was the standard top down fighter to Everquest a third person perspective MMO.  You can see the shift again between Everquest and World of Warcraft that is a shift from an MMO being a game to an MMO being a social activity.





    Please stop mis-using Darwinism.  Darwinism is not a tool to explain everything.  Darwinism is only a tool to explain evolution of species.










     

    You wrote a very good post, and make some excellent points, however your use of the term refers strictly to the biological use of the term.

    It has been bastardized if you will for quite some time and a quick internet search returned things such as Economic, Finanical Social, Universal, and Quantum Darwinism just to name a few.

    You may not like what people have done to the original term, but like many words, there can be multiple meanings and this one is used rather broadly, even if it isn't quite accurate in how it's done.

    The OP raised some good points, MMO's go through an evolutionary process where they either adapt (see EVE, WOW) and thrive or fail to adapt and wither away and die (see well, literally dozens of titles)

    Just as in real evolution, there are far more failures and dead ends compared to the few yet very notable sucesses.

    So the analogic comparison is not surprising, but again, perhaps not to your agreement or liking.

     

     

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "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

  • DracillDracill Miami, FLPosts: 158Member
    Although I think you are right. I still hope you are wrong.

    As a niche gamer, I know I don't like the same thing that most players. If only the stronger MMO survive I will run out of gaming options really fast.
  • L0C0ManL0C0Man Puerto OrdazPosts: 1,065Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Nephaerius



    Originally posted by Ozmodan



    Well I agree with the first poster.  Prices have to change, players are not going to stick with your game long if you don't change them, especially in the fantasy realm.  I don't think a lot of f2p games make much money, there are just too many of them.

    Unless you are in a niche without much competition like Eve, these games better start finding a way to differentiate themselves from the pack or face declining population.






     

     Only speaking of big titles (LotRO, DDO, etc) I've heard they get even more subs when it's optional than when it's mandatory.  I do agree that the market is too flooded with cheap and just plain bad F2P games.  It also has a whole host of great one's though.

    Side note, the shooter market has really exploded with F2P in a good way lately.  Blacklight, SMNC, Tribes, etc.   All pretty fun games not requiring you to shell out a ton of cash and not P2W (in my exp. anyway).

    Thing is, you get much more customer loyalty and happier community in general when people get to play the game, enjoy it, and then decide they want to pay a sub to get the perks that come with it, than you do when people have to buy the game and/or pay a sub and then see that it wasn't as good as advertised or just wasn't for them.

    What can men do against such reckless hate?

  • troublmakertroublmaker St. George''s, NFPosts: 337Member







    Originally posted by Kyleran



















     





    You wrote a very good post, and make some excellent points, however your use of the term refers strictly to the biological use of the term.





    It has been bastardized if you will for quite some time and a quick internet search returned things such as Economic, Finanical Social, Universal, and Quantum Darwinism just to name a few.





    You may not like what people have done to the original term, but like many words, there can be multiple meanings and this one is used rather broadly, even if it isn't quite accurate in how it's done.





    The OP raised some good points, MMO's go through an evolutionary process where they either adapt (see EVE, WOW) and thrive or fail to adapt and wither away and die (see well, literally dozens of titles)





    Just as in real evolution, there are far more failures and dead ends compared to the few yet very notable sucesses.





    So the analogic comparison is not surprising, but again, perhaps not to your agreement or liking.




    So here's the sort of problem Evolution is not Darwinism in the same sense that Fruit is not an Apple.  Darwinism is a subset type of evolution... it is not however evolution.  The evolution he is talking about is not economic darwinism, social darwinism or any sort of Darwinism at all.  It is at best Economic Evolution which is primarily based around Firm Theory.




    The OP tries so hard to make "Darwinism" stick but it simply does not work for the market at all.  Instead of sounding like an intelligent and well read author he instead sounds like a movie reviewer trying to make a few buzz words stick.

    Even the definition is a little fishy.  MMO Darwinism is a need for an MMO to adapt or fail?  Really Darwinism is a need?  Why isn't MMO Darwinism a mechanism used to explain adaptation based on ....

    The ... is where you fit in what it is really all about.  is it about technological, economic, ideological, or mechanical grounds... or maybe it is all of them. But just the definition of what he wants to call "MMO Darwinism" is so fishy that it doesn't lend to the work.

    By calling it a need you are immediately admiting that this is not Darwinism but merely market economics.  Darwinism is not based on needs it is based on taxonomy and selection.

    Even yet what is the subject of evolution.  Is each individual MMO evolving as they are existing.  For example is World of Warcraft 4.0 an "MMO Evolution" of World of Warcraft 1.0.  Did World of Warcraft 1.0 die off in the great evolutionary principle and get replaced by 2.0.  More so yet did World of Warcraft 2.0 die off to 2.1.




    Or is it about the whole genre.  Is it that a bunch of MMOs are dying off and a bunch are surviving and that the evolution of survival as Darwin stated it.




    The main problem with the article is that there are multiple uses of the term Evolution and only one of those is actually Darwin.




    A third use is deployed in which he discuses inter-species competition.  In the animal kingdom this is rare.  Ecosystems usually work together in such a way that the prey out produce the predators so that the predators and the prey both survive.  The actual evolution doesn't occur when a lion kills off all gazelles but when the supply of gazelles falls so small that the only surviving lions are the strongest or those that can adapt to new food sources.




    In this he discusses three avenues of competition, games, movies/tv, and MMOs.  But much like how the animal kingdom sort of works together to survive, so does the entertainment world.  it is unlikely that World of warcraft competes with House.  But if you follow this argument it is a three front war of World of Warcraft against House, Eve, and LEGO Star Wars.




    A market explanation would have done so much better than this mis-interpretation of Darwinism.  I know that House does not compete with the new Avengers movie, World of Warcraft, and Hello Kitty Island because I know each of these satisfies a different market.




    Maybe the author has more thoughts on this topic that would have cleared up a lot of these miss-givings.  But after reading it I know that it is not Darwinism (yet) and it is just an obscure use of buzzwords to try and give the article more meaning .

    Edit: To elaborate further there is this odd point in which he is trying to use evolution as a buzz word to explain away why games get cancelled.  That could have been explained better by bad business practices and poor fiscal management.  Instead we're supposed to believe there is some odd evolutionary principle guiding this studio to fail, as if the laws of evolution themselves were working against them.  That to me is just a very odd way of looking at the world and I hope "The Devil's Advocate" doesn't actually believe this.

    Website: http://www.thegameguru.me / YouTube:

  • InvintionInvintion naptown, INPosts: 28Member

    The parrallels to Darwinism are legitimate if you involve any symbolism into the thought process.  The concept that skill and/or experience can be symbolized by a numeric value might be an example.  Thus the death of a product/company is commonly construed as extinction due to being left behind in evolution.

    We are seeing much movement as developers are struggling to keep up with quickly changing expectations and innovations in the social gaming market.  Even first person shooters (FPS) have deep character development which extends the players' investment beyond each individual session, blurring even further the lines between RTS, FPS, and RPG games.  Action versus Tabbed combat systems are currently seeing much innovation and will be a hot zone of change, I am looking forward to seeing what gamers and developers deem to be best system(s).

    I believe that the MMO's currently have stretched the holy trinity too far in their quest to drive socialization in MMO games.  While there should still be specialization in games, the stringent class system commonplace today is too extreme.  Gamers will have a tendency to lean towards their preferred stance as described in by Bartle in "Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players who suit MUDs" and do not need to be limited to a degree where the immersion and draw of "endless possibilities" becomes lost.

  • alkarionlogalkarionlog SPosts: 1,124Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Nephaerius



    Originally posted by Ozmodan



    Well I agree with the first poster.  Prices have to change, players are not going to stick with your game long if you don't change them, especially in the fantasy realm.  I don't think a lot of f2p games make much money, there are just too many of them.

    Unless you are in a niche without much competition like Eve, these games better start finding a way to differentiate themselves from the pack or face declining population.






     

     Only speaking of big titles (LotRO, DDO, etc) I've heard they get even more subs when it's optional than when it's mandatory.  I do agree that the market is too flooded with cheap and just plain bad F2P games.  It also has a whole host of great one's though.

    Side note, the shooter market has really exploded with F2P in a good way lately.  Blacklight, SMNC, Tribes, etc.   All pretty fun games not requiring you to shell out a ton of cash and not P2W (in my exp. anyway).




     

    I think in this case is more option of payment helped then more then having a freemium model, most the games out there only sell subs by credt card, and i never use one for games, you have more options of payment helps a lot to keep subs and gatehr more subs.

     

    most the AAA lack payment methods, always asking for a credicard or a time card IF your country is on the eye of the company

     

    for most of then yeah we are stagnated, its always teh old thing, nothing new to do, GW2 have more new things going to him right now, but even so they keep a lot of old things going.

    I think only way for us move forward is if player want to use they brains when playing not just the mindless button smash, or follow arrows, you don't even need to read (or how to for that matter ),

    FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money.
    image

  • victorbjrvictorbjr Quezon CityPosts: 185Member Uncommon

    Hi folks,

    Thanks for the comments. :)

    Now, I will admit that Darwinism is more than what I say it is (in fact, I agree with the above posters that I may be misusing it as it relates to the original meaning). My issue, however, is that it's difficult to convey the same idea with a longer title. For instance, if the title were "Adapt or Die" it would have a different kind of impact.

    To me, Darwinism has a very "adapt or die and I don't care who you are in the world" kind of feel. Sometimes, things change to survive, but it looks at immediate changes rather than long-term survivability.

    That said, I will admit to you guys that this is partly a less divisive version of another idea, which is whether lackluster (in terms of revenue) MMOs should die. After finishing it though, I found it offensive, as it read in a manner that made me think I was advocating the dissolution of companies and the loss of jobs. I respect the industries and could not stomach my own writing, hence I opted to take a different angle.

    --

    On another note,  I will also agree that there are more nuances that aren't discussed in this piece. For instance, the inner turmoil (among other things) happening in the Team Bondi offices for LA Noire was a big cause of that company's shutdown.

    I'm just here to try and bring up certain ideas that aren't usually brought up.  Unfortunately, I can't throw in everything and the kitchen sink due to time limits and tightening up the writing to avoid utter boredom.

    Anyway, if you folks have any comments, feel free to send me a personal message. I'm currently traveling, but I'll try to respond to any criticism in a friendly manner.

    A writer and gamer from the Philippines. Loves his mom dearly. :)

    Can also be found on http://www.gamesandgeekery.com

  • jessemmorjessemmor New York, NYPosts: 1Member

    Originally posted by Dracill

    Although I think you are right. I still hope you are wrong.



    As a niche gamer, I know I don't like the same thing that most players. If only the stronger MMO survive I will run out of gaming options really fast.


     

     

    Luckily, occupying a niche is a great evolutionary strategy.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.