It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Years ago before WoW messey mmo releases were the normal . Hell WoW even had a messey release but what Blizzard did right and did understand was that if you mess up in the initial months a little good will goes a long way . They offered free time when they realised their fault . Its a shame other mmo releases since then hav nt done the same thing . Ncsoft recently said with the release of Aion had exceeded thier expectations . Fair enough but when you have 12 hour ques do the right thing and offer the people who have invested in your game in its initial month the same thing Blizzard did ,in the long run you make more profit . Also you cant release a game thats half finished like vanguard or age of conan . Things have changed mmos have become a mass medium so the shoddy practices of pre WoW releases really have had thier day . For my part i dont paticulary like the way WoW has gone and i think there are better games out there Aion being one of them but untill these companys get it into thier heads that its very easy to get a bad name and its very hard to lose it .
Comments
If I had one of those dead horse getting kicked pictures, I would post it right about now..
-------------------------


WoW's release and the content itself changed nothing. The numbers and money is what changed the MMO market, and not just the fantasy market. Look at what SOE did shortly after WoW's numbers began to climb oh so high, and look at what they did to a Sci-Fi MMO.
No, the problem isn't poor release, while that is a contributing factor, the problem is the gameplay. A lot of classic MMO players want "sandbox", maybe not pure sandbox as is evident who won the EverQuest vs Ultima Online battle, but definitely a more sandbox-oriented game. Vanguard is a good example, which is evident that releases CAN ruin a game, but if the game is released and the problem isn't massive bugs but server problems, it's not a big deal. Massive bugs derail even the greatest of games, but to think poor release equates to the problem we have is a little retarded.
Um, you led your own argument to its demise with that.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Um, you led your own argument to its demise with that.
So true. Most people want a good GAME and WOW gives it to them.
People might not really play WoW because the gameplay is the best, it's good though. BUT because the support is good, the servers are good, the updates are good, the community is huge, they stop hackers as much as possible without blinking, basically they're doing everything in their power to support the game. That makes it a good choice, regardless if you like the game or not, Blizzard is behind it 100%, that can't be said for some of the recent games (Aion, Tabula rasa, etc).
Um, you led your own argument to its demise with that.
No, not really. I do not think pure sandbox is a good model. I think it can be fun, but I enjoy sandbox games like EverQuest, not like UO or DFO. EverQuest was a better sandbox game than UO, plain and simple. WoW beat out EQ, simply because Blizzard had great reputation going into and the game was accessible. EverQuest wasn't more "accessible" than UO.
Um, you led your own argument to its demise with that.
No, not really. I do not think pure sandbox is a good model. I think it can be fun, but I enjoy sandbox games like EverQuest, not like UO or DFO. EverQuest was a better sandbox game than UO, plain and simple. WoW beat out EQ, simply because Blizzard had great reputation going into and the game was accessible. EverQuest wasn't more "accessible" than UO.
Everquest was not a sandbox game. Grind != sandbox. Nothing in that game was sandbox at all in any way.
World of Warcraft has raise the bar for fantasy mmo releases
Yea we know it has, it shows with every release after it. We don't really need another thread on this.
Um, you led your own argument to its demise with that.
No, not really. I do not think pure sandbox is a good model. I think it can be fun, but I enjoy sandbox games like EverQuest, not like UO or DFO. EverQuest was a better sandbox game than UO, plain and simple. WoW beat out EQ, simply because Blizzard had great reputation going into and the game was accessible. EverQuest wasn't more "accessible" than UO.
Everquest was not a sandbox game. Grind != sandbox. Nothing in that game was sandbox at all in any way.
Well "sandbox" is basically a measure of player freedom in a game, and your extremist view that EQ (or even WOW) has no sandbox at all (no player freedom) is just wrong. You have considerable freedom in EQ/WOW, it just happens to be a noticeably less than in sandbox games. Noticeably less, but not zero.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Um, you led your own argument to its demise with that.
No, not really. I do not think pure sandbox is a good model. I think it can be fun, but I enjoy sandbox games like EverQuest, not like UO or DFO. EverQuest was a better sandbox game than UO, plain and simple. WoW beat out EQ, simply because Blizzard had great reputation going into and the game was accessible. EverQuest wasn't more "accessible" than UO.
Everquest was not a sandbox game. Grind != sandbox. Nothing in that game was sandbox at all in any way.
Well "sandbox" is basically a measure of player freedom in a game, and your extremist view that EQ (or even WOW) has no sandbox at all (no player freedom) is just wrong. You have considerable freedom in EQ/WOW, it just happens to be a noticeably less than in sandbox games. Noticeably less, but not zero.
Oh, so you believe that every single MMO is a sandbox. That devalues the word incredibly. Which makes me wonder why you use it at all.
Exactly.
2004 called. They want their post back.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
u want a game with quests, progression in raids, organized pvp matches (sports style) you play WoW (or aion?)
u want a sandbx game with player politics, freedom, peril, unsporting pvp (and i mean that in a good way!!) u play eve
can't we love them both for what they are?? (i do, see my sig)
Itch
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
I think MMO fans have some of the most unrealistic expectations i have ever seen and set up every new mmo to fail.Fans compare every new game to wow which has been out for about 6 years.Gamers are not giving the same time given WoW and EvE to games today.If zero year WoW was released today and to compete against 6 year wow it would suffer the same as every other mmo.
I happy that MMO fans have force companies to stop releasing unfinished mmo the state that AoC,War and Vanguard release in shows what happens when you rush out a game but MMO fans have still to understand that mmo even when they come out very polished will have bugs and will still need some time.Stop comparing games to year six WoW compare them to launch WoW then seen how much a game can progress.Give games time to become WoW or EvE
Well I didn't quite mean it that way. "Sandbox" and "Themepark" are sub-genre labels which conveniently describe a vague location on the scale of player freedom.
Sub-genres are vague, but extremist statements like "Nothing in that game was sandbox at all in any way," aren't. Because when you start to dig down into how much player freedom you really have in EQ, you realize that it did have sandbox elements as nearly all games do.
Although it's typically easier to point out the linear tracks you go down in sandbox games, as it helps sandbox players to realize that "hey, you're right...skills are linear progression tracks."
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Why should we? It is a free market and may the best product wins. Do i really care about whether it is fair or not? Not really. I just want to play the best game.
If WOW is the most fun, most polished, i wouldn't care less if it is because the developers are genius, or because they spend lot of money on it, or that it has already run for 6 years. 6 years, 3 years .. matter ZERO to me .. only the quality of the game matters. All the other factors have little impact on my enjoyment of the game.
And why shouldn't I compare new games to games out for a while? When i look at games on a shelf, the release date is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether i get better value for my money choosing game A vs game B. When I choose FPS, do u think i would care how long the game has been in development? All i do is look at reviews (or play a demo) and play the best game.
Why should we? It is a free market and may the best product wins. Do i really care about whether it is fair or not? Not really. I just want to play the best game.
If WOW is the most fun, most polished, i wouldn't care less if it is because the developers are genius, or because they spend lot of money on it, or that it has already run for 6 years. 6 years, 3 years .. matter ZERO to me .. only the quality of the game matters. All the other factors have little impact on my enjoyment of the game.
And why shouldn't I compare new games to games out for a while? When i look at games on a shelf, the release date is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether i get better value for my money choosing game A vs game B. When I choose FPS, do u think i would care how long the game has been in development? All i do is look at reviews (or play a demo) and play the best game.
MMOs are long-term development and long-term post-development projects. If people stick with an MMO despite a poor release or a shaky release, down the road it might be worth the effort and investment you put in. MMOs are risks, unlike any other genre, because they change so much.
Just so you know NCWest did give 5 20% XP amules to those who stayed and subbed the next month for their mistake. In the 11 months it's been out they have made 5 patches to give more quests, more XP and closely balanced classes. Gold spam is all but gone from chat channels, queue's are gone for the most part and bots are getting banned slowly but surely.
So basically yes your kicking a dead horse just for the hell of it.
New releases aren't competing with 2004 WoW.
It's not good enough to just launch an MMO that is in better shape than WoW was at launch. If they expect to snaffle some of the WoW-players then the game that they are presenting must be better and more enjoyable than the game that they are currently playing. i.e. 2009 WoW.
We did give WoW and EvE more leeway than we do modern releases, but that was by necessity rather than choice. WoW and EvE are both great games that, when released, really didn't have a lot of competition. That's not the case now. If a player isn't happy with the game, they just hop to a different one. There's tons out there.
I don't see that entirely as a bad thing; the message is getting across to developers that they need to step up and deliver a quality product if they want to be in the MMO game long-term.
Unfortunately, it seems that some developers are still happy to release substandard product, reap the revenue from the box sales, collectors editions, lifetime subscriptions and such then let the game slowly stagnate and die while they work on the next substandard MMO.
It's Fanboi-Farming.
I don't think the problem is that we have too high standards now; I think it's that developers think we are morons who are willing to fork out for a game that should not be out of beta yet and pay them subscription fees while they take their time fixing and adding stuff.
Unfortunately, we have a tendancy to prove them right on that score.
Playing: EVE, Final Fantasy 13, Uncharted 2, Need for Speed: Shift
A game that releases in 2009 should not be compared to a game that was released in 2004. It should be compared to the games that it is directly competing with. It's a computer game, not a bottle of wine. If you release a game TODAY, then you have to be as good or better than the other games being played TODAY.
Nobody gives a white rat's ass in a snowstorm about how buggy WoW was 5 years ago. Today it's a well-oiled machine with over 10 million subscribers. If a game releases today, it needs to compete with the well-oiled machine, not the buggy piece of crap.
New releases aren't competing with 2004 WoW.
It's not good enough to just launch an MMO that is in better shape than WoW was at launch. If they expect to snaffle some of the WoW-players then the game that they are presenting must be better and more enjoyable than the game that they are currently playing. i.e. 2009 WoW.
We did give WoW and EvE more leeway than we do modern releases, but that was by necessity rather than choice. WoW and EvE are both great games that, when released, really didn't have a lot of competition. That's not the case now. If a player isn't happy with the game, they just hop to a different one. There's tons out there.
I don't see that entirely as a bad thing; the message is getting across to developers that they need to step up and deliver a quality product if they want to be in the MMO game long-term.
Unfortunately, it seems that some developers are still happy to release substandard product, reap the revenue from the box sales, collectors editions, lifetime subscriptions and such then let the game slowly stagnate and die while they work on the next substandard MMO.
It's Fanboi-Farming.
I don't think the problem is that we have too high standards now; I think it's that developers think we are morons who are willing to fork out for a game that should not be out of beta yet and pay them subscription fees while they take their time fixing and adding stuff.
Unfortunately, we have a tendancy to prove them right on that score.
Another problem is that WoW had alot of money backing it. So they are able to do more with their game then many new MMORPGs out there.
Also I agree on the fanboy crap. Same thing happened for Warhammer. The way I look at it, is
most Fanboys show a lot of haterd towards World of Warcraft, so the Developers try to make their games seem Anti_WoW like while trying to keep some theme park mechanics.
This never works, as we can see with Warhammer and Guild Wars. Making a MMORPG to be oposite/Anti-WoW is just destint for fail