Actually it has the feeling of 1982-1983 with regard to video games. This was when the crop of third party atari games and poorly made first run games pretty much gave video games a bad name. Everything fell to sequals and knock-offs and the innovation lacked. People just thought the cash would flow in forever -- then everything crashed. Things were pretty bad for video games for a while and it took Nintendo including a silly robot just to get NES into the stores. But things worked their way back again. Problem is the USA lost the market. Seems so very similar to the MMOs today. It is 1983 all over again. But 1985-1986 wasnt that far away then. I predict we will get out of this but we will have a few dark years doing it.
At some point MMORPG players are going to realize a fundamental truth that MMORPG's are boring. They will stop killing 10 wolves and turn off the computer. The majority of MMORPG's will fail and the genre will die out. Then it will make a glorious return with some real innovative indie games, which will start small and then skyrocket in popularity. I have foreseen it.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now! I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
Originally posted by gieger808 I'm talking about the death of niche gaming. Sandbox, pvp, pick your poison. The idea that you need to pick a style, and do it well has all but disappered.
So, your argument is that MMORPGs are dying because sandboxes are better than themeparks?
Theres already a thread for debating sandbox vs themepark.
He's talking about doing one thing and doing it well. As opposed to trying to cram as many features into one game as possible but doing none of them well.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
They homogenized the genre in an attempt to attract as many people as possible.
~and thusly there is no really difference between one or the other anymore.
The only thing that satisfies now are the indie or risky projects that go out on a limb to be different.
Different != good. How many indie projects fail?
Plus, are AAA games really the same? The first Dead Space is fresh and different. The first Bioshock is fresh and different. The first borderland is fresh and different.
Of course different doesn't always mean good. But at least they're trying to come up with new ideas. Ok so some of them fail but others will succeed. According to the Small Business Association a new business has about a 50% chance of success after 5 years. I give them a lot more credit than those who blatently copy the current fad.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
EQ did not create 'the standard'. It set the blueprint for WoW to follow but on it's own it would not have dictated such a narrow game design in the way that we have seen... it was popular, but not THAT popular. On it's own it would never have triggered the cash grab we have seen. That can only be put at the feet of WoW.
You are flat out wrong.
EQ did set the standard. A standard is whatever it is for that TIME, not ALL time. DAoC was a flat out EQ clone with more options, which set the standard for its time...which WoW then followed to set its standard.
And as for the "it was popular, but not THAT popular" comment...EQ had over 700,000 subs at its peak, more than all western MMORPGs at the time combined. It was the WoW of its time...
Comparison.
EQ = 700k+ subs,
AC1 = 100k at its peak, AO = 30k after its first month and the next 1+ years, ultima online = 300k'ish at its peak
It wasnt until DAoC was released that the western MMORPG world surpassed EQ1s sub numbers and by then, the craptastic limitations brought on by EQ 1 became the norm. Deal with it.
The continued push of games into the mainstream and the quest for that money spinning 'broad appeal'...
Yeah, it's crap.
Smaller budgets (with less expectations attached) with more focused target audiences are definitely what I would like to see, but the trouble with that is the stunning lack of tolerance for anything short of perfection from the player base.
They want indie niche sensibilities with AAA size budgets, and the two don't marry well.
To be honest, the genre needs to just die in terms of the mass market and get back to it's nerd grass roots. Get back to the same type of guys that found it in '97-'99.
Back around 1983 the video game console market crashed in the NA market and many felt it was largely due to:
"there were several reasons for the crash, but the main cause was supersaturation of the market with hundreds of mostly low-quality games which resulted in the loss of consumer confidence."
I almost feel like the MMORPG genre is rapidly reaching this same state. Sure, you could argue the quality is not really suffering (at least mechanically) but in terms of variety it certainly seems to be in a downward trend in a flooded market.
The good news is that if it crashes and burns, usually out of the ashes we see a rebirth of originality, so perhaps letting it all fall down and go boom would be the best thing for the genre as a whole.
I hope it happens, it will clean out the market and get rid of all these WoW clne MMOs and random Korean MMOs... not saying I hope the people behind these games to get fired or anything, but like a forest, it needs to burn every once in a while to stay healthy.
I'm still waiting for some indie to make a exploration and hunting MMO. I wanna camp out with my hunting party and fish and run a bait shop. pure PVE no PVP
and i want run my own bait shop gun shop and just build a camp fire. then jump on the ATV and ride someplace new. sounds niche but man I wish.
Originally posted by lizardbones This is not 1983. The environment is not the same as it was then, especially for MMORPG. It takes 10 million dollars at a minimum to build one. The market is not going to get supersaturated when it costs that much. Not only that, most of those 'fail' MMORPG are still running and still collecting money. That's not something that happened in 1983. The money isn't leaving the MMORPG genre, so there's probably not going to be a crash. If anything, there are more people than there ever have been playing MMORPG. If there is a crash, you won't see Indie developers rise from the ashes. It's not going to suddenly cost one million dollars instead of ten million dollars to make an MMORPG. Take a look at the Indie MMORPG right now, and that's pretty much what you're going to see if there's a crash in the MMORPG genre, only worse. If the Indie developers are writing something you want to play right now, they're not going to write something you want to play if the entire market for MMORPG crashes. That doesn't mean that the current crop of MMORPG are the best ever. We're just not headed for some kind of crash.
The business cycle always has booms and busts. To think there won't be another crash is naive. Most economist thought the same way about the housing market not too long ago. Nobody ever expects it until it happens then the 20/20 hindsight makes the warning signs obvious.
The video game industry is due for a good shake up.
Why is the industry "due" for a good shake up? Because you don't like the games that are being made? That's not a good enough reason.
To repeat what happened in '83, everyone would have to dislike the games being made and that's not happening. The gaming industry is growing every year. More people than ever before are playing games. There are more people than ever before buying the games as well. There are more quality, indie games being delivered to the general public than ever before. How does this equate to a gaming crash?
It's not going to happen. Individual companies will certainly lose out and go bust, but that happens all the time. This is as it should be. The overall gaming market? No, not going to happen. Not any time soon anyway.
** edit ** A specific example of the wrong way to do things is Bioware. There is more money coming into the gaming industry ever year. So Bioware thinks they can just ramp up the production costs on games, and then just make more money. It doesn't work like that.
A specific example of the right way to do things is Funcom and Valve. There is more money coming into the gaming industry every year, but you're not going to get a bigger cut of it by just spending more money. Make games that differentiate themselves with more than just flashy graphics and you will see more of that money enter your coffers.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
That's because it's not. Greed has been a constant in human history. Something else changed.
The only thing that changed is developers realized they weren't limited to a few nerds and geeks playing these games, they could have mainstream success and plenty of money instead of a tiny trickle that UO and EQ had. Money has ALWAYS been the goal of game developers, people are fooling themselves thinking otherwise.
I have a feeling the next big WoW level MMORPG will be the facebook of MMORPG's. The failure of Sims Online is largely what's holding back the AAA social games from being made. But I can see a largley graphical social site/sims builder/corporate advertising/real shopping/cash shop/minigame MMORPG happening.
MMORPG genre isn't going to crash unless it gets too big to support itself. Too many generic games not enough players to support each one.
EQ did not create 'the standard'. It set the blueprint for WoW to follow but on it's own it would not have dictated such a narrow game design in the way that we have seen... it was popular, but not THAT popular. On it's own it would never have triggered the cash grab we have seen. That can only be put at the feet of WoW.
You are flat out wrong.
EQ did set the standard. A standard is whatever it is for that TIME, not ALL time. DAoC was a flat out EQ clone with more options, which set the standard for its time...which WoW then followed to set its standard.
And as for the "it was popular, but not THAT popular" comment...EQ had over 700,000 subs at its peak, more than all western MMORPGs at the time combined. It was the WoW of its time...
Comparison.
EQ = 700k+ subs,
AC1 = 100k at its peak, AO = 30k after its first month and the next 1+ years, ultima online = 300k'ish at its peak
It wasnt until DAoC was released that the western MMORPG world surpassed EQ1s sub numbers and by then, the craptastic limitations brought on by EQ 1 became the norm. Deal with it.
I am 'flat out wrong'? I should 'Deal with it' hehe, ok, well... if you say so... but before I do, lets look at what you say because you seem to have missed what I was saying entirely in your effort focused on making bombastic statements for people to 'deal with' rather then talking reasonbly
Lets take 'The WoW of it's time' first...
What a meaningless valueless statement that is... By it I assume you simply mean it was the most popular? If so... so what?
Being the 'WoW of it's time' simply means it was the most popular of a still unpopular genre. It still meant that it was far from mainstream and still restricted to a sub culture. EQ never broke the mainstream. It provided WoW with it's blueprint, but it did NOT set the standard. You need to understand the difference between the two things to understand the point being made.
The success of WoW set the standard, attracted the VCs and the masses, and put the genre in it's creative straightjacket.
700,000+ subs... link to that as fact please, because I have a feeling you are just pulling stats out of your arse. From what I remember, and I don't say it as fact, it only had around 500k at it's peak, which would make your unsupported statements an 'exageration' at best. I also contest that DAoC surpassed EQ's subs, so I will need links for that as well.
*edit*
I was curious so I went looking, and it seems your figures might be skewy. This is a bit old, but it is relevant for the period and particular games we are discussing I guess;
Verant from 1999 to 2001 and SOE from 2001 to 14 January 2004 issued formal statements giving some indications of the number of EQ subscriptions and peak numbers of players online at any given moment.
These records show "more than 225,000" subscriptions on 1 November 1999, with an increase to "more than 450,000" subscriptions by 25 September 2003
It would indeed seem that between 2003-2004 the maximum player base for EQ was around 500k, and NO source I can find puts DAoC above around 250k, which contradicts your other point as well.
Have you links to go against these? Because otherwise I might have to decline to 'deal with it' and just disregard your entire opinion as being pretty worthless, based on every assertion you have made being 'flat out wrong'.
I think indie games have gotten a lot of positive attention lately, and do believe that there will be changes from both devs and publishers across the spectrum in reaction to it. Maybe in small ways, hopefully in large ways as well. However, I don't think you're going to see the results immediately. These games take years to develope, good ones at least, and when you say "MMORPG's Today" they're more like the MMO's built from a base of player desires from several years ago.
I more or less agree with what OP said. Just wanted to add that the developers got their priority backwards.
Games should not be made in order to attract players, players should be attracted to playing the game.
A mice going through the maze might be interesting to the person who built the maze and put the mice at the entrance, but is it fun for the mice? Probably not, since the mice is just trying to get to the cheese at the exit. I think this perfectly fits the current situation in the MMORPG industry. Of course unlike a mice, player can easily give up on the maze and go somewhere else would be the difference.
I more or less agree with what OP said. Just wanted to add that the developers got their priority backwards.
Games should not be made in order to attract players, players should be attracted to playing the game.
A mice going through the maze might be interesting to the person who built the maze and put the mice at the entrance, but is it fun for the mice? Probably not, since the mice is just trying to get to the cheese at the exit. I think this perfectly fits the current situation in the MMORPG industry. Of course unlike a mice, player can easily give up on the maze and go somewhere else would be the difference.
You probably can't assume it isn't fun for the mouse... animals are plenty stimulated by a puzzle with a treat at the end, and they can easily 'enjoy' learning.
My dog has a treat tray with slideable covers that have to be unlocked by removable blocks. He loves it. He clearly prefers recieving his treats in it then by hand.
I am 'flat out wrong'? I should 'Deal with it' hehe, ok, well...
Snip
Lets take 'The WoW of it's time' first...
What a meaningless valueless statement that is... By it I assume you simply mean it was the most popular? If so... so what?
700,000+ subs... link to that as fact please, because I have a feeling you are just pulling stats out of your arse.
SNIP
I was curious so I went looking, and it seems your figures might be skewy. This is a bit old, but it is relevant for the period and particular games we are discussing I guess;
And from EQ's Wiki entry...
It would indeed seem that between 2003-2004 the maximum player base for EQ was around 500k, and NO source I can find puts DAoC above around 250k, which contradicts your other point as well.
Have you links to go against these? Because otherwise I might have to decline to 'deal with it' and just disregard your entire opinion as being pretty worthless, based on every assertion you have made being 'flat out wrong'.
Sniped a lot of the meaningless dribble.
1. So, its ok to use WoW as a reference because of its popularity or games copying its style but dont you dare call a game that came out before WoW, the WoW of its time...because of its popularity or that games copied its style...durp.
3. I dont care what subscription rate EQ had more than 6 YEARS after its release...I said at its PEAK, that means HIGHEST point. Spin baby spin.
4. Wiki, you actually quoted a wiki? I guess I should quote you again...I might have to decline to "deal with it" and just disregard your entire opinion as being pretty worthless, based on every assertion you have made being "flat out wrong".
Guess that is what happens when you rely on worthless sources just because they fit into your narrow world view.
When we were young, we used to go to school walking uphill in the snow, with the blizzard freezing us to the bones. It was really the good old times.
But when we were young, we had a lot of free time for stuff like that. Now that I'm older, I appreciate my car with heating (or air conditionning for summer), so that I have more time for my family and myself instead of wasting time in the snow.
Respect, walk, what did you say? Respect, walk Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me? - PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
I am 'flat out wrong'? I should 'Deal with it' hehe, ok, well...
Snip
Lets take 'The WoW of it's time' first...
What a meaningless valueless statement that is... By it I assume you simply mean it was the most popular? If so... so what?
700,000+ subs... link to that as fact please, because I have a feeling you are just pulling stats out of your arse.
SNIP
I was curious so I went looking, and it seems your figures might be skewy. This is a bit old, but it is relevant for the period and particular games we are discussing I guess;
And from EQ's Wiki entry...
It would indeed seem that between 2003-2004 the maximum player base for EQ was around 500k, and NO source I can find puts DAoC above around 250k, which contradicts your other point as well.
Have you links to go against these? Because otherwise I might have to decline to 'deal with it' and just disregard your entire opinion as being pretty worthless, based on every assertion you have made being 'flat out wrong'.
Sniped a lot of the meaningless dribble.
As did I. Look what I ended up with. I am also bored with your nasty hostile approach to talking to other people... a man of 42 should know better really... no matter though, we all have our own ways of dealing with the world. I don't judge you.
Seems like thats the end of our little exchange. Shame.
(feel free to have the inevitable and predictable last word... I am sure it will be very witty and clever)
When we were young, we used to go to school walking uphill in the snow, with the blizzard freezing us to the bones. It was really the good old times.
But when we were young, we had a lot of free time for stuff like that. Now that I'm older, I appreciate my car with heating (or air conditionning for summer), so that I have more time for my family and myself instead of wasting time in the snow.
I used to ride to school with my buddy in the rusting GTO with the Kiss ("Rock and Roll Over") 8-track.
There's some parts about the good old days that just weren't as great as uphill both ways, in retrospect.
They call me Dr. Love.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
... I'm talking about the death of niche gaming. Sandbox, pvp, pick your poison. The idea that you need to pick a style, and do it well has all but disappered. ...
Sorry, not at all. There are plenty of sandbox niche games around, both with and without PvP, both old and new ones, fantasy, medieval or sci-fi. Make your choice and play one of them.
Personally, I'm happy playing indie sandboxes or hybrids, I haven't touched a themepark MMORPG since years. But please don't complain about missing features, missing polish and mediocre graphics. You're asking for a niche game - and niche games don't have AAA production budgets.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
EQ did not create 'the standard'. It set the blueprint for WoW to follow but on it's own it would not have dictated such a narrow game design in the way that we have seen... it was popular, but not THAT popular. On it's own it would never have triggered the cash grab we have seen. That can only be put at the feet of WoW.
You are flat out wrong.
EQ did set the standard. A standard is whatever it is for that TIME, not ALL time. DAoC was a flat out EQ clone with more options, which set the standard for its time...which WoW then followed to set its standard.
And as for the "it was popular, but not THAT popular" comment...EQ had over 700,000 subs at its peak, more than all western MMORPGs at the time combined. It was the WoW of its time...
Comparison.
EQ = 700k+ subs,
AC1 = 100k at its peak, AO = 30k after its first month and the next 1+ years, ultima online = 300k'ish at its peak
It wasnt until DAoC was released that the western MMORPG world surpassed EQ1s sub numbers and by then, the craptastic limitations brought on by EQ 1 became the norm. Deal with it.
I am 'flat out wrong'? I should 'Deal with it' hehe, ok, well... if you say so... but before I do, lets look at what you say because you seem to have missed what I was saying entirely in your effort focused on making bombastic statements for people to 'deal with' rather then talking reasonbly
Lets take 'The WoW of it's time' first...
What a meaningless valueless statement that is... By it I assume you simply mean it was the most popular? If so... so what?
Being the 'WoW of it's time' simply means it was the most popular of a still unpopular genre. It still meant that it was far from mainstream and still restricted to a sub culture. EQ never broke the mainstream. It provided WoW with it's blueprint, but it did NOT set the standard. You need to understand the difference between the two things to understand the point being made.
The success of WoW set the standard, attracted the VCs and the masses, and put the genre in it's creative straightjacket.
700,000+ subs... link to that as fact please, because I have a feeling you are just pulling stats out of your arse. From what I remember, and I don't say it as fact, it only had around 500k at it's peak, which would make your unsupported statements an 'exageration' at best. I also contest that DAoC surpassed EQ's subs, so I will need links for that as well.
*edit*
I was curious so I went looking, and it seems your figures might be skewy. This is a bit old, but it is relevant for the period and particular games we are discussing I guess;
Verant from 1999 to 2001 and SOE from 2001 to 14 January 2004 issued formal statements giving some indications of the number of EQ subscriptions and peak numbers of players online at any given moment.
These records show "more than 225,000" subscriptions on 1 November 1999, with an increase to "more than 450,000" subscriptions by 25 September 2003
It would indeed seem that between 2003-2004 the maximum player base for EQ was around 500k, and NO source I can find puts DAoC above around 250k, which contradicts your other point as well.
Have you links to go against these? Because otherwise I might have to decline to 'deal with it' and just disregard your entire opinion as being pretty worthless, based on every assertion you have made being 'flat out wrong'.
Ah ha ha!!! STO peaked in a single month from launch!!
That's because it's not. Greed has been a constant in human history. Something else changed.
The only thing that changed is developers realized they weren't limited to a few nerds and geeks playing these games, they could have mainstream success and plenty of money instead of a tiny trickle that UO and EQ had. Money has ALWAYS been the goal of game developers, people are fooling themselves thinking otherwise.
Yeh.
It is silly to think that Lord British is just trying to create art, and not selling a lot of boxes, when he created Ultima 6 (the best in the series).
Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Cephus404Originally posted by dave6660That's because it's not. Greed has been a constant in human history. Something else changed.
The only thing that changed is developers realized they weren't limited to a few nerds and geeks playing these games, they could have mainstream success and plenty of money instead of a tiny trickle that UO and EQ had. Money has ALWAYS been the goal of game developers, people are fooling themselves thinking otherwise.Yeh.
It is silly to think that Lord British is just trying to create art, and not selling a lot of boxes, when he created Ultima 6 (the best in the series).
The two things are not mutually exclusive. The idea that developers want to do one or the other is silly. What they want is to create something great, with the idea that if something is great, people will happily pay money for it.
Of course, when you have something made by an individual, that's how it's going to go. They want to create art that people will want to pay for. Once the development process scales up, and the games aren't made by individuals any longer, you're less likely to get art and more likely to get a product.
Where does that leave us? Products that will slowly evolve new features as the older features become something that won't sell or don't sell to many people. It's not as fast as having a bunch of individuals each making new products, but it's better than the alternative, which is the market no longer wanting to make any MMORPG.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
Actually it has the feeling of 1982-1983 with regard to video games. This was when the crop of third party atari games and poorly made first run games pretty much gave video games a bad name. Everything fell to sequals and knock-offs and the innovation lacked. People just thought the cash would flow in forever -- then everything crashed. Things were pretty bad for video games for a while and it took Nintendo including a silly robot just to get NES into the stores. But things worked their way back again. Problem is the USA lost the market. Seems so very similar to the MMOs today. It is 1983 all over again. But 1985-1986 wasnt that far away then. I predict we will get out of this but we will have a few dark years doing it.
At some point MMORPG players are going to realize a fundamental truth that MMORPG's are boring. They will stop killing 10 wolves and turn off the computer. The majority of MMORPG's will fail and the genre will die out. Then it will make a glorious return with some real innovative indie games, which will start small and then skyrocket in popularity. I have foreseen it.
Are you a Pavlovian Fish Biscuit Addict? Get Help Now!
I will play no more MMORPGs until somethign good comes out!
No, I think you missed the point.
He's talking about doing one thing and doing it well. As opposed to trying to cram as many features into one game as possible but doing none of them well.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
Cool, the doom-mongers made a thread, again.
Of course different doesn't always mean good. But at least they're trying to come up with new ideas. Ok so some of them fail but others will succeed. According to the Small Business Association a new business has about a 50% chance of success after 5 years. I give them a lot more credit than those who blatently copy the current fad.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
You are flat out wrong.
EQ did set the standard. A standard is whatever it is for that TIME, not ALL time. DAoC was a flat out EQ clone with more options, which set the standard for its time...which WoW then followed to set its standard.
And as for the "it was popular, but not THAT popular" comment...EQ had over 700,000 subs at its peak, more than all western MMORPGs at the time combined. It was the WoW of its time...
Comparison.
EQ = 700k+ subs,
AC1 = 100k at its peak, AO = 30k after its first month and the next 1+ years, ultima online = 300k'ish at its peak
It wasnt until DAoC was released that the western MMORPG world surpassed EQ1s sub numbers and by then, the craptastic limitations brought on by EQ 1 became the norm. Deal with it.
I hope it happens, it will clean out the market and get rid of all these WoW clne MMOs and random Korean MMOs... not saying I hope the people behind these games to get fired or anything, but like a forest, it needs to burn every once in a while to stay healthy.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation
I'm still waiting for some indie to make a exploration and hunting MMO. I wanna camp out with my hunting party and fish and run a bait shop. pure PVE no PVP
and i want run my own bait shop gun shop and just build a camp fire. then jump on the ATV and ride someplace new. sounds niche but man I wish.
Why is the industry "due" for a good shake up? Because you don't like the games that are being made? That's not a good enough reason.
To repeat what happened in '83, everyone would have to dislike the games being made and that's not happening. The gaming industry is growing every year. More people than ever before are playing games. There are more people than ever before buying the games as well. There are more quality, indie games being delivered to the general public than ever before. How does this equate to a gaming crash?
It's not going to happen. Individual companies will certainly lose out and go bust, but that happens all the time. This is as it should be. The overall gaming market? No, not going to happen. Not any time soon anyway.
** edit **
A specific example of the wrong way to do things is Bioware. There is more money coming into the gaming industry ever year. So Bioware thinks they can just ramp up the production costs on games, and then just make more money. It doesn't work like that.
A specific example of the right way to do things is Funcom and Valve. There is more money coming into the gaming industry every year, but you're not going to get a bigger cut of it by just spending more money. Make games that differentiate themselves with more than just flashy graphics and you will see more of that money enter your coffers.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Nice pun on tribes, blue plate special is an award in the game for disc killing another with a direct hit.
The only thing that changed is developers realized they weren't limited to a few nerds and geeks playing these games, they could have mainstream success and plenty of money instead of a tiny trickle that UO and EQ had. Money has ALWAYS been the goal of game developers, people are fooling themselves thinking otherwise.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I have a feeling the next big WoW level MMORPG will be the facebook of MMORPG's. The failure of Sims Online is largely what's holding back the AAA social games from being made. But I can see a largley graphical social site/sims builder/corporate advertising/real shopping/cash shop/minigame MMORPG happening.
MMORPG genre isn't going to crash unless it gets too big to support itself. Too many generic games not enough players to support each one.
I am 'flat out wrong'? I should 'Deal with it' hehe, ok, well... if you say so... but before I do, lets look at what you say because you seem to have missed what I was saying entirely in your effort focused on making bombastic statements for people to 'deal with' rather then talking reasonbly
Lets take 'The WoW of it's time' first...
What a meaningless valueless statement that is... By it I assume you simply mean it was the most popular? If so... so what?
Being the 'WoW of it's time' simply means it was the most popular of a still unpopular genre. It still meant that it was far from mainstream and still restricted to a sub culture. EQ never broke the mainstream. It provided WoW with it's blueprint, but it did NOT set the standard. You need to understand the difference between the two things to understand the point being made.
The success of WoW set the standard, attracted the VCs and the masses, and put the genre in it's creative straightjacket.
700,000+ subs... link to that as fact please, because I have a feeling you are just pulling stats out of your arse. From what I remember, and I don't say it as fact, it only had around 500k at it's peak, which would make your unsupported statements an 'exageration' at best. I also contest that DAoC surpassed EQ's subs, so I will need links for that as well.
*edit*
I was curious so I went looking, and it seems your figures might be skewy. This is a bit old, but it is relevant for the period and particular games we are discussing I guess;
Top Western MMORPG list 2010
http://www.mogstat.com/
And from EQ's Wiki entry...
Subscription history
Verant from 1999 to 2001 and SOE from 2001 to 14 January 2004 issued formal statements giving some indications of the number of EQ subscriptions and peak numbers of players online at any given moment.
These records show "more than 225,000" subscriptions on 1 November 1999, with an increase to "more than 450,000" subscriptions by 25 September 2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EverQuest
It would indeed seem that between 2003-2004 the maximum player base for EQ was around 500k, and NO source I can find puts DAoC above around 250k, which contradicts your other point as well.
Have you links to go against these? Because otherwise I might have to decline to 'deal with it' and just disregard your entire opinion as being pretty worthless, based on every assertion you have made being 'flat out wrong'.
I think indie games have gotten a lot of positive attention lately, and do believe that there will be changes from both devs and publishers across the spectrum in reaction to it. Maybe in small ways, hopefully in large ways as well. However, I don't think you're going to see the results immediately. These games take years to develope, good ones at least, and when you say "MMORPG's Today" they're more like the MMO's built from a base of player desires from several years ago.
I more or less agree with what OP said. Just wanted to add that the developers got their priority backwards.
Games should not be made in order to attract players, players should be attracted to playing the game.
A mice going through the maze might be interesting to the person who built the maze and put the mice at the entrance, but is it fun for the mice? Probably not, since the mice is just trying to get to the cheese at the exit. I think this perfectly fits the current situation in the MMORPG industry. Of course unlike a mice, player can easily give up on the maze and go somewhere else would be the difference.
You probably can't assume it isn't fun for the mouse... animals are plenty stimulated by a puzzle with a treat at the end, and they can easily 'enjoy' learning.
My dog has a treat tray with slideable covers that have to be unlocked by removable blocks. He loves it. He clearly prefers recieving his treats in it then by hand.
Sniped a lot of the meaningless dribble.
1. So, its ok to use WoW as a reference because of its popularity or games copying its style but dont you dare call a game that came out before WoW, the WoW of its time...because of its popularity or that games copied its style...durp.
2. Link to that fact...no problem...here is a more credible one than your "chart" http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/16360/original-everquest-finally-going-free-to-play-on-16th-march
3. I dont care what subscription rate EQ had more than 6 YEARS after its release...I said at its PEAK, that means HIGHEST point. Spin baby spin.
4. Wiki, you actually quoted a wiki? I guess I should quote you again...I might have to decline to "deal with it" and just disregard your entire opinion as being pretty worthless, based on every assertion you have made being "flat out wrong".
Guess that is what happens when you rely on worthless sources just because they fit into your narrow world view.
When we were young, we used to go to school walking uphill in the snow, with the blizzard freezing us to the bones. It was really the good old times.
But when we were young, we had a lot of free time for stuff like that. Now that I'm older, I appreciate my car with heating (or air conditionning for summer), so that I have more time for my family and myself instead of wasting time in the snow.
Respect, walk
Are you talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?
- PANTERA at HELLFEST 2023
As did I. Look what I ended up with. I am also bored with your nasty hostile approach to talking to other people... a man of 42 should know better really... no matter though, we all have our own ways of dealing with the world. I don't judge you.
Seems like thats the end of our little exchange. Shame.
(feel free to have the inevitable and predictable last word... I am sure it will be very witty and clever)
I used to ride to school with my buddy in the rusting GTO with the Kiss ("Rock and Roll Over") 8-track.
There's some parts about the good old days that just weren't as great as uphill both ways, in retrospect.
They call me Dr. Love.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Sorry, not at all. There are plenty of sandbox niche games around, both with and without PvP, both old and new ones, fantasy, medieval or sci-fi. Make your choice and play one of them.
Personally, I'm happy playing indie sandboxes or hybrids, I haven't touched a themepark MMORPG since years. But please don't complain about missing features, missing polish and mediocre graphics. You're asking for a niche game - and niche games don't have AAA production budgets.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
Ah ha ha!!! STO peaked in a single month from launch!!
Where's the any key?
According to that table Warhammer even peaked before it got released.
I maintain this List of Sandbox MMORPGs. Please post or send PM for corrections and suggestions.
Yeh.
It is silly to think that Lord British is just trying to create art, and not selling a lot of boxes, when he created Ultima 6 (the best in the series).
Yeh.
It is silly to think that Lord British is just trying to create art, and not selling a lot of boxes, when he created Ultima 6 (the best in the series).
The two things are not mutually exclusive. The idea that developers want to do one or the other is silly. What they want is to create something great, with the idea that if something is great, people will happily pay money for it.
Of course, when you have something made by an individual, that's how it's going to go. They want to create art that people will want to pay for. Once the development process scales up, and the games aren't made by individuals any longer, you're less likely to get art and more likely to get a product.
Where does that leave us? Products that will slowly evolve new features as the older features become something that won't sell or don't sell to many people. It's not as fast as having a bunch of individuals each making new products, but it's better than the alternative, which is the market no longer wanting to make any MMORPG.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.