Didnt read the whole thing but one think in particular is soo blatantly wrong its funny. When people look at an mmo they dont look at the population first. They look at how the game works, its setting, its mechanics, and what it has to offer. Then AFTER that they look to see if it has enough people to make those mechanics work. Back before I tried Vanguard when it was sub the FIRST thing I looked at was the classes and races not the amount of people playing it.
Also success isnt determined by subs, it is determined by what ever you think it is. I think TSW is successful even tho it has under 100k subs. I dont see Wow beign success anymore since its bleeding subs and not bringing innovation. Its all opinion, now onto FINANCIAL success is determined by how much revenue it generates. Rift sits roughly at 300k subs but still brings revenue which deems it a success.
You also say theres no mmo being made that doesnt want millions of players. Well I can prove you wrong right now, a mmo called Greed Monger is being made which the team has already stated they dont want millions of players, they are hapyy with a couple thousand. Its just small tavern, I dont want hundreds of patrons but maybe 50 loyal ones.
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
Didnt read the whole thing but one think in particular is soo blatantly wrong its funny. When people look at an mmo they dont look at the population first. They look at how the game works, its setting, its mechanics, and what it has to offer. Then AFTER that they look to see if it has enough people to make those mechanics work. Back before I tried Vanguard when it was sub the FIRST thing I looked at was the classes and races not the amount of people playing it.
Also success isnt determined by subs, it is determined by what ever you think it is. I think TSW is successful even tho it has under 100k subs. I dont see Wow beign success anymore since its bleeding subs and not bringing innovation. Its all opinion, now onto FINANCIAL success is determined by how much revenue it generates. Rift sits roughly at 300k subs but still brings revenue which deems it a success.
You also say theres no mmo being made that doesnt want millions of players. Well I can prove you wrong right now, a mmo called Greed Monger is being made which the team has already stated they dont want millions of players, they are hapyy with a couple thousand. Its just small tavern, I dont want hundreds of patrons but maybe 50 loyal ones.
"When people look at an mmo they dont look at the population first."
Why not? Many MMO players follow hype around like mindless little children. What makes you think they don't gravitate toward MMOs with the highest populations also?
You make some funny generalizations here ("When people look at an mmo they dont look at the population first. They look at how the game works, its setting, its mechanics, blah blah blah) and then how do you support your claim? Your personal experience. Yes, yes, we all know that because you do it everyone else does too. Another example of someone trying to pass their opinion off as fact. *groan*
I've never in my life seen a group of people more intent on believing that their personal experience is the way it is than MMO players. Well, except maybe conspiraloons.
I've never in my life seen a group of people more intent on believing that their personal experience is the way it is than MMO players. Well, except maybe conspiraloons.
There are alot of followers in this world no offense....that is true but I take quality over quantity........I don't follow hype, I follow my own opinion.
Looking at: The Repopulation Preordering: None Playing: Random Games
I've never in my life seen a group of people more intent on believing that their personal experience is the way it is than MMO players. Well, except maybe conspiraloons.
There are alot of followers in this world no offense....that is true but I take quality over quantity........I don't follow hype, I follow my own opinion.
Which is great, as long as you don't try and force it on other people.
As to the insulting ones: I have made an argument, and I defend the argument relevantly. You don't have to like the argument, like me, or like my arguments, but your not liking of the argument, me, or my arguments actually hasn't argued against them. I have expressed no agent in the finding of an MMO to be successful, but have merely set up a predicate relationship: X is Y. What determines if an MMO is successful (to an unspecified/no agent) [X] is its population [Y] (no provision as to why this is inherently offered therein). Ultimately, that ommitted reason as to why this is, I have argued, necessitates that the MMO gets correct all the little factors, the very ones that you as individuals believe make a game a success.
Originally posted by Icewhite
Originally posted by grimgryphon
I think people are confusing "success" and "value" in their arguments here. One is based on factual criteria, the other based on opinion.
love, success, freedom, good, moral, democracy, and any -ism (chauvinism, Communism, feminism, racism, sexism)."
And....done with this thread. Good luck op, keep up the repetition, it's bound to work if you're determined enough.
All abstracts are objective necessarily; if they were not, you could not possibly even develop a subjective interpretation, since you would have no idea at all what the thing is. It objectively has its truth, but that doesn't mean you'll ever know of that truth.
I argue that what determines if an MMO is successful is its population, and by making this claim I have subtly made dozens of small implications and conveyed quite a lot of other information, which a great deal of you believe determine if a game is successful, but which are all ultimately predicates/subordinate to the factor of its population.
I don't think this is an abstraction. I'm not holding in my mind the idea of "success" and building a top-down argument that aims to sufficiently evaluate what it is; rather, I'm looking at what game actually is succeeding, which I define axiomatically by means of what game do we actually talk about and compare all other games to; all the lesser factors -- i.e. the ones most of you care about -- theoretically having been done rightly, are what brought that high population/success about.
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by Consuetudo
Originally posted by Loktofeit
Originally posted by Quizzical
This is the type of masterpiece usually posted by an Emergence alt, but in case you're actually someone else capable of such amazing inane reasoning, I'll try to help you out.
"After all, if WoW is a game that is massively multiplayer, a game that barely dents a fraction of its population by design of it can't be called massive. "
Number of people that own the game client has never been the gauge for whether a game is an MMO or not. If it was, UT and Quake would have kicked most MMOs to the curb. Neither has been the number of people online across the game's servers, as once again, DOTA and TF2 probably hand WOW its ass in that category. It is not based on some sliding scale of upperlimit of concurrency on one server because then WoT and EVE would probably be the only MMOs in existence.
This appears to you as "a new factor to the genre" because of the very "unique" way you are looking at the numbers.
Evaluating what ought to be done from what has been done rather than what should be done is inexpedient.
Originally posted by DSWBeef
Didnt read the whole thing but one think in particular is soo blatantly wrong its funny. When people look at an mmo they dont look at the population first. They look at how the game works, its setting, its mechanics, and what it has to offer. Then AFTER that they look to see if it has enough people to make those mechanics work. Back before I tried Vanguard when it was sub the FIRST thing I looked at was the classes and races not the amount of people playing it.
Also success isnt determined by subs, it is determined by what ever you think it is. I think TSW is successful even tho it has under 100k subs. I dont see Wow beign success anymore since its bleeding subs and not bringing innovation. Its all opinion, now onto FINANCIAL success is determined by how much revenue it generates. Rift sits roughly at 300k subs but still brings revenue which deems it a success.
You also say theres no mmo being made that doesnt want millions of players. Well I can prove you wrong right now, a mmo called Greed Monger is being made which the team has already stated they dont want millions of players, they are hapyy with a couple thousand. Its just small tavern, I dont want hundreds of patrons but maybe 50 loyal ones.
I argue of course that you have long ago established what is the game that is a success and are in secondary or tertiary stages of consideration as regards what to play; namely you take into account mechanics now, and other such things, but only after indeed you have long ago considered those populations. It's merely not something that matters very much to you anymore, but you've still done it.
Also, I backed Greek Monger and plan to play it . If Greed Monger inherently isn't capable of having the most players, I argue that it is inherently a less massive MMO, and that is essential to its definition.
Population is definitely one indicator. But I have other factors in determining success or failure. Precu SWG did not have the largest population, but it succeeded marvelously in entertaining me for hours and days and weeks and months and...well, over a year.
The OP is correct, an MMOs sucess is decided by it's population because they are not ran for free. How much population? Enough to keep making a profit and keep current players happy.
One has to ask whether the need for a population outside nessesity is a problem with the developer or problem with the player. I personally need no validation from others on what I think is a good game or not. If I'm basing my opinion of a game because of how many others play I'm doing just that.
As of right now the genre itself created a new level of sucess when the number of AAA MMOs could no longer be counted on one hand. The ratio of players to titles is far smaller than it once was and only a few MMOs maintain an "old school" level of "sucess".
I see so many posters here that basicly say "Your wrong a game successes is baised off my opinion".
All I have to say is way to go egomaniacs.
Tangible evidence of successes for a MMO our Profits and Players, this is fact and you can bend and distort these facts all you want but it does not make your opinion anymore viable.
A game is not successesful because it used a new mechnic you liked.
A game is not successesful because you played it for 400 hours.
A game is not successesful because your entire guild plays it.
A game is not successesful because you want it to be.
A game could be successesful in your opinion, by the definition. But only in YOUR world.
Successes -The accomplishment of an aim or purpose.
To the world.
Successes - The attainment of popularity or profit.
and sadly your opinion does not keep MMOs running, so keep thinking your opinion makes a game successesful, and have your hours wasted when the servers go offline.
I notice you nicely ignored some of te arguments people posted.
Aka game A cost 100 million to make and earns 5 million a month from monthly revenue.
Vs
Game B cost 5 million to make and earns 1 million a month in revenue.
Assuming both are only earning from subs, game a is a success in your definition and game b is a MORPG and shouldnt be considered.
Also as for farmville not being an mmo, you changed terms yourself and called niche mmorpgs as morpgs. So i went ahead and changed the terms as well. Im just playing by your rules.
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
Originally posted by Castillle I notice you nicely ignored some of te arguments people posted.
Aka game A cost 100 million to make and earns 5 million a month from monthly revenue.
Vs
Game B cost 5 million to make and earns 1 million a month in revenue.
Assuming both are only earning from subs, game a is a success in your definition and game b is a MORPG and shouldnt be considered.
Also as for farmville not being an mmo, you changed terms yourself and called niche mmorpgs as morpgs. So i went ahead and changed the terms as well. Im just playing by your rules.
I addressed the first argument.
As for the second, farmville is a browser game, which is its definition: it is peculiar in that way. You can call it an MMO if you want, but at no time can you divorce it from the fact of its being a browser game.
Notice what occurs in your mind if you consider the notion of farmville being released as an actual game that a person buys. Now its success matters in terms of MMOs.
Therefore, we cannot remove the fact of its being a browser game from its definition.
Originally posted by Castillle I notice you nicely ignored some of te arguments people posted.
Aka game A cost 100 million to make and earns 5 million a month from monthly revenue.
Vs
Game B cost 5 million to make and earns 1 million a month in revenue.
Assuming both are only earning from subs, game a is a success in your definition and game b is a MORPG and shouldnt be considered.
Also as for farmville not being an mmo, you changed terms yourself and called niche mmorpgs as morpgs. So i went ahead and changed the terms as well. Im just playing by your rules.
I addressed the first argument.
As for the second, farmville is a browser game, which is its definition: it is peculiar in that way. You can call it an MMO if you want, but at no time can you divorce it from the fact of its being a browser game.
Notice what occurs in your mind if you consider the notion of farmville being released as an actual game that a person buys. Now its success matters in terms of MMOs.
Therefore, we cannot remove the fact of its being a browser game from its definition.
Next.
So wizards 101 is not a mmorpg either?
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
Originally posted by Castillle I notice you nicely ignored some of te arguments people posted.
Aka game A cost 100 million to make and earns 5 million a month from monthly revenue.
Vs
Game B cost 5 million to make and earns 1 million a month in revenue.
Assuming both are only earning from subs, game a is a success in your definition and game b is a MORPG and shouldnt be considered.
Also as for farmville not being an mmo, you changed terms yourself and called niche mmorpgs as morpgs. So i went ahead and changed the terms as well. Im just playing by your rules.
I addressed the first argument.
As for the second, farmville is a browser game, which is its definition: it is peculiar in that way. You can call it an MMO if you want, but at no time can you divorce it from the fact of its being a browser game.
Notice what occurs in your mind if you consider the notion of farmville being released as an actual game that a person buys. Now its success matters in terms of MMOs.
Therefore, we cannot remove the fact of its being a browser game from its definition.
Next.
So wizards 101 is not a mmorpg either?
Add to that Moonlight Online, zOMG, OGame, Muxlim, Free Realms, Little Space Heroes, BSG Online, Dark Orbit, Pirate Galaxy...
Somehow "must have EXE client" became a criteria.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Comments
Didnt read the whole thing but one think in particular is soo blatantly wrong its funny. When people look at an mmo they dont look at the population first. They look at how the game works, its setting, its mechanics, and what it has to offer. Then AFTER that they look to see if it has enough people to make those mechanics work. Back before I tried Vanguard when it was sub the FIRST thing I looked at was the classes and races not the amount of people playing it.
Also success isnt determined by subs, it is determined by what ever you think it is. I think TSW is successful even tho it has under 100k subs. I dont see Wow beign success anymore since its bleeding subs and not bringing innovation. Its all opinion, now onto FINANCIAL success is determined by how much revenue it generates. Rift sits roughly at 300k subs but still brings revenue which deems it a success.
You also say theres no mmo being made that doesnt want millions of players. Well I can prove you wrong right now, a mmo called Greed Monger is being made which the team has already stated they dont want millions of players, they are hapyy with a couple thousand. Its just small tavern, I dont want hundreds of patrons but maybe 50 loyal ones.
Playing: FFXIV, DnL, and World of Warships
Waiting on: Ashes of Creation
"When people look at an mmo they dont look at the population first."
Why not? Many MMO players follow hype around like mindless little children. What makes you think they don't gravitate toward MMOs with the highest populations also?
You make some funny generalizations here ("When people look at an mmo they dont look at the population first. They look at how the game works, its setting, its mechanics, blah blah blah) and then how do you support your claim? Your personal experience. Yes, yes, we all know that because you do it everyone else does too. Another example of someone trying to pass their opinion off as fact. *groan*
I've never in my life seen a group of people more intent on believing that their personal experience is the way it is than MMO players. Well, except maybe conspiraloons.
There are alot of followers in this world no offense....that is true but I take quality over quantity........I don't follow hype, I follow my own opinion.
Looking at: The Repopulation
Preordering: None
Playing: Random Games
Which is great, as long as you don't try and force it on other people.
As to the insulting ones: I have made an argument, and I defend the argument relevantly. You don't have to like the argument, like me, or like my arguments, but your not liking of the argument, me, or my arguments actually hasn't argued against them. I have expressed no agent in the finding of an MMO to be successful, but have merely set up a predicate relationship: X is Y. What determines if an MMO is successful (to an unspecified/no agent) [X] is its population [Y] (no provision as to why this is inherently offered therein). Ultimately, that ommitted reason as to why this is, I have argued, necessitates that the MMO gets correct all the little factors, the very ones that you as individuals believe make a game a success.
All abstracts are objective necessarily; if they were not, you could not possibly even develop a subjective interpretation, since you would have no idea at all what the thing is. It objectively has its truth, but that doesn't mean you'll ever know of that truth.
I argue that what determines if an MMO is successful is its population, and by making this claim I have subtly made dozens of small implications and conveyed quite a lot of other information, which a great deal of you believe determine if a game is successful, but which are all ultimately predicates/subordinate to the factor of its population.
I don't think this is an abstraction. I'm not holding in my mind the idea of "success" and building a top-down argument that aims to sufficiently evaluate what it is; rather, I'm looking at what game actually is succeeding, which I define axiomatically by means of what game do we actually talk about and compare all other games to; all the lesser factors -- i.e. the ones most of you care about -- theoretically having been done rightly, are what brought that high population/success about.
Evaluating what ought to be done from what has been done rather than what should be done is inexpedient.
I argue of course that you have long ago established what is the game that is a success and are in secondary or tertiary stages of consideration as regards what to play; namely you take into account mechanics now, and other such things, but only after indeed you have long ago considered those populations. It's merely not something that matters very much to you anymore, but you've still done it.
Also, I backed Greek Monger and plan to play it
. If Greed Monger inherently isn't capable of having the most players, I argue that it is inherently a less massive MMO, and that is essential to its definition.
One has to ask whether the need for a population outside nessesity is a problem with the developer or problem with the player. I personally need no validation from others on what I think is a good game or not. If I'm basing my opinion of a game because of how many others play I'm doing just that.
As of right now the genre itself created a new level of sucess when the number of AAA MMOs could no longer be counted on one hand. The ratio of players to titles is far smaller than it once was and only a few MMOs maintain an "old school" level of "sucess".
I see so many posters here that basicly say "Your wrong a game successes is baised off my opinion".
All I have to say is way to go egomaniacs.
Tangible evidence of successes for a MMO our Profits and Players, this is fact and you can bend and distort these facts all you want but it does not make your opinion anymore viable.
A game is not successesful because it used a new mechnic you liked.
A game is not successesful because you played it for 400 hours.
A game is not successesful because your entire guild plays it.
A game is not successesful because you want it to be.
A game could be successesful in your opinion, by the definition. But only in YOUR world.
Successes -The accomplishment of an aim or purpose.
To the world.
Successes - The attainment of popularity or profit.
and sadly your opinion does not keep MMOs running, so keep thinking your opinion makes a game successesful, and have your hours wasted when the servers go offline.
Aka game A cost 100 million to make and earns 5 million a month from monthly revenue.
Vs
Game B cost 5 million to make and earns 1 million a month in revenue.
Assuming both are only earning from subs, game a is a success in your definition and game b is a MORPG and shouldnt be considered.
Also as for farmville not being an mmo, you changed terms yourself and called niche mmorpgs as morpgs. So i went ahead and changed the terms as well. Im just playing by your rules.
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
I addressed the first argument.
As for the second, farmville is a browser game, which is its definition: it is peculiar in that way. You can call it an MMO if you want, but at no time can you divorce it from the fact of its being a browser game.
Notice what occurs in your mind if you consider the notion of farmville being released as an actual game that a person buys. Now its success matters in terms of MMOs.
Therefore, we cannot remove the fact of its being a browser game from its definition.
Next.
So wizards 101 is not a mmorpg either?
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
Add to that Moonlight Online, zOMG, OGame, Muxlim, Free Realms, Little Space Heroes, BSG Online, Dark Orbit, Pirate Galaxy...
Somehow "must have EXE client" became a criteria.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Why not?
Why?
Make arguments.