TSW is a niche title, always was. Target audience: Tornquist fans, ARG fans and Mythology fans that happen to like MMOs. There is a certain lack of good adventure games out there, TSW tries to fuse MMO, adventure and action-rpg. Its a formula not been tried before.
Its actually a very healthy strategy, I would wish more devs would consider niche titles.
How is appealing to a limited market healthy? That might work if your limited market is 'all the Star Wars fans in the world'. But if not, I would of thought a better way to go is to have general appeal. Well at least if you want to make money.
I feel like this is a silly argument.
Its like saying that my banana-cake will fail because it only attracts people that like bananas and cake.
They've already got the 3d engine developed, so there's a big part of the hassle and money of developement out of the way. Having a smaller target market can make a lot of sense, especially when it's a market with little real competition. They're being smart by not targetting 11 million subs. They've got the experience now to see how targetting 200-300k players can be profitable.
Can targeting 200-300k be profitable? AOC had around that number but that ended up free to play. Fair enough if people think it's a niche game, but Funcom's original plan was to launch on Xbox 360 as well as PC. That is not niche gaming, that is mainstream gaming.
Define "Niche Gaming". 300,000 people paying 15 bucks a month... that's a lot of money for a niche. Label it however you want, I'm sure they're aware of the market they are targetting, and how large that market it is. If they didn't believe it to be profitable, they wouldn't be moving forward.
Can targeting 200-300k be profitable? AOC had around that number but that ended up free to play. Fair enough if people think it's a niche game, but Funcom's original plan was to launch on Xbox 360 as well as PC. That is not niche gaming, that is mainstream gaming.
Define "Niche Gaming". 300,000 people paying 15 bucks a month... that's a lot of money for a niche. Label it however you want, I'm sure they're aware of the market they are targetting, and how large that market it is. If they didn't believe it to be profitable, they wouldn't be moving forward.
Well niche is a small specialised group, so niche gaming would be appealing to a small specialised group of gamers. Niche gaming in MMO terms is just a bit odd full stop, because massively multiplayer doesn't hint at anything being niche. By design an MMO is suppose to cater for hundreds of thousands of players at the same time. So niche in that respect, is probably around 200k to 300k subs. But then AOC had that many people paying a sub at one point and Funcom didn't turn a profit. Funcom had to lay people off, relocate etc etc. Only 500k interested in the beta, I think they will be lucky to get 50k paying subs.
One thing worth noting as well is the MMO market has changed quite dramatically in the last few years. I wouldn't imagine it's a strong market for anybody at the moment. Up until the recent release of the major blockbusters, video game sales in general were down on previous years. I don't know what the trend in MMO terms is overall, but I imagine with a lot of games going free to play it must also be down.
Funcom are in a way caught between a rock and hard place. They have already invested a significant amount of money into this game. They predict a negative cash flow situation until it's release. So they don't have many options but to move forward.
My main curiosity is your statement that 'you need a way to aim them beyond point and click'. In the FPS "DOOM" you see the gun and point and click. Do you want the game to just be a console shooter? That is ok for you but I would like a little more from a game. Click to select the target and click to shoot. Laser targeting is a form of 'reticule' but not necessary, matter of taste. Hit or miss, target location etc is performed by the computer, the same as when you use your brain (computer) to track the target and click to shoot. Quite realistic enough thank you and the other elements (environment) are what adds to the experience.
TSW is not an FPS console shooter, thankfully. If that is what you want I guess we won't see you in game, only here in the forums.
As mentioned before if any accuracy or skill is involved in the game, then just clicking on a target doesn't give either from a sort of top down perspective. If you are not aiming and accuracy doesn't matter, then fine use guns like a typical MMO skill. But my initial point is you are unlikely to appeal to shooter fans without shooting mechanics, like being able to aim.
As a shooter fan the first thing I would do with a game that involves guns is look for how I aim them, what options are available. Games like the Fallout series have added things like iron sights to make it more appealing to shooter fans.
Not saying TSW should be an FPS, just saying they have guns and even zombies. Hello, ready made audience there for the taking. Dead Island being a prime example of a sort of RPG crossover type thing that has done well. But I forgot it's Funcom and they like to appeal to the least amount of people possible.
Can targeting 200-300k be profitable? AOC had around that number but that ended up free to play. Fair enough if people think it's a niche game, but Funcom's original plan was to launch on Xbox 360 as well as PC. That is not niche gaming, that is mainstream gaming.
Define "Niche Gaming". 300,000 people paying 15 bucks a month... that's a lot of money for a niche. Label it however you want, I'm sure they're aware of the market they are targetting, and how large that market it is. If they didn't believe it to be profitable, they wouldn't be moving forward.
Well niche is a small specialised group, so niche gaming would be appealing to a small specialised group of gamers. Niche gaming in MMO terms is just a bit odd full stop, because massively multiplayer doesn't hint at anything being niche. By design an MMO is suppose to cater for hundreds of thousands of players at the same time. So niche in that respect, is probably around 200k to 300k subs. But then AOC had that many people paying a sub at one point and Funcom didn't turn a profit. Funcom had to lay people off, relocate etc etc. Only 500k interested in the beta, I think they will be lucky to get 50k paying subs.
One thing worth noting as well is the MMO market has changed quite dramatically in the last few years. I wouldn't imagine it's a strong market for anybody at the moment. Up until the recent release of the major blockbusters, video game sales in general were down on previous years. I don't know what the trend in MMO terms is overall, but I imagine with a lot of games going free to play it must also be down.
Funcom are in a way caught between a rock and hard place. They have already invested a significant amount of money into this game. They predict a negative cash flow situation until it's release. So they don't have many options but to move forward.
Where'd you pull that out of? When MMOs were first coined you didn't have 200 - 300K people playing, and certainly nowhere near that on a single server, and you certainly don't have millions of people playing on a single server even with todays standards.
The term Massive means a large amount, that could be categorized as 200 players, or 1000 players.. or to some .. maybe still in the double digits whereas in comparison, you traditionally only had the 2 - 4 - 16 and rarely, 32 - 64 players total for multiplayers games, so anything beyond that could be considered "massive" to some.
Their first plans was to go for a aiming system aka first person shooters. But after testing it, it was changed for the more common (in mmorpgs) point and click. I believe the main reason was latency/lag and the imbalance from that.
For me personally i dont mind this at all. A FPS-approach to the game would make it too twitch based for my taste for a mmorpg. When i play mmorpgs i like to relax and play at my own pace. I also enjoy FPSs and other games that require alot more consentration and skills, but those are different games for me.
Ive always felt mystery/who did what etc has been boring. It has to be an exceptional story to even get the audience to care outside of the 'hardcore' demographics.
Did Mr.Mustard kill Colonel Sanders with the candle in the bathroom? Who cares......As an MMO, with this as its basis, I see fail all over this game.
Yeah yeah, some of you like it. Blah blah blah.... Most of us dont.../shrug
I see this game failing, even faster then AoC
Not sure your opinion is right? Include a fictionalized majority as backing you up, it makes the truthfulness more better.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Where'd you pull that out of? When MMOs were first coined you didn't have 200 - 300K people playing, and certainly nowhere near that on a single server, and you certainly don't have millions of people playing on a single server even with todays standards.
The term Massive means a large amount, that could be categorized as 200 players, or 1000 players.. or to some .. maybe still in the double digits whereas in comparison, you traditionally only had the 2 - 4 - 16 and rarely, 32 - 64 players total for multiplayers games, so anything beyond that could be considered "massive" to some.
Obviously when the terms were first used technology was different. I played a sort of MMO on a PDP 11 back in the day. But now massively multiplayer means hundreds of thousands of users. I mean you have WoW with 12 million subs, then silly farm games with 20 million daily users and 200million registered players. I was being kind to TSW using the term MMO. Because to be honest a lot of what are called MMO's are actually just multiplayer games now.
You know... I always hated that "Dukes of Hazzard" was about the Royal Family. I couldn't care less about the royal family!
? head hurt
eeeEEEEEyyyyOOwwwWWW!!
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
Their first plans was to go for a aiming system aka first person shooters. But after testing it, it was changed for the more common (in mmorpgs) point and click. I believe the main reason was latency/lag and the imbalance from that.
For me personally i dont mind this at all. A FPS-approach to the game would make it too twitch based for my taste for a mmorpg. When i play mmorpgs i like to relax and play at my own pace. I also enjoy FPSs and other games that require alot more consentration and skills, but those are different games for me.
Thanks for the info that explains a lot. I can understand more that they had an idea of shooting mechanics in mind but it didn't work out as viable. Than by design they were just not included, fair enough.
Where'd you pull that out of? When MMOs were first coined you didn't have 200 - 300K people playing, and certainly nowhere near that on a single server, and you certainly don't have millions of people playing on a single server even with todays standards.
The term Massive means a large amount, that could be categorized as 200 players, or 1000 players.. or to some .. maybe still in the double digits whereas in comparison, you traditionally only had the 2 - 4 - 16 and rarely, 32 - 64 players total for multiplayers games, so anything beyond that could be considered "massive" to some.
Obviously when the terms were first used technology was different. I played a sort of MMO on a PDP 11 back in the day. But now massively multiplayer means hundreds of thousands of users. I mean you have WoW with 12 million subs, then silly farm games with 20 million daily users and 200million registered players. I was being kind to TSW using the term MMO. Because to be honest a lot of what are called MMO's are actually just multiplayer games now.
20 million or 10 million mean nothing in the scope of players you actually 1) Play with and 2) are actually on your server. In most situations you'll be lucky to have a few thousand on a single server, and getting more than 60 in an area at any single time is a challenge. Its pretty much always been this way though.. being massive is pointless if you only see 1/100th of the population on your server at any given time.
It doesn't mean they are any less massive or any less multiplayer. Take Fallen Earth for instance... just because they don't have a tremendous population doesn't mean they don't have a "massive" amount of players in an area playing together at a single time.... but then again.. it doesn't me they do either. Its more of an architecture thing then semantic.
20 million or 10 million mean nothing in the scope of players you actually 1) Play with and 2) are actually on your server. In most situations you'll be lucky to have a few thousand on a single server, and getting more than 60 in an area at any single time is a challenge. Its pretty much always been this way though.. being massive is pointless if you only see 1/100th of the population on your server at any given time.
It doesn't mean they are any less massive or any less multiplayer. Take Fallen Earth for instance... just because they don't have a tremendous population doesn't mean they don't have a "massive" amount of players in an area playing together at a single time.... but then again.. it doesn't me they do either. Its more of an architecture thing then semantic.
The infastructure is suppose to be there to support a large number of players playing at the same time. The fact that it isn't in most cases raises more questions than it answers. On top of which heavily instanced games all go to turning massively multiplayer into just multiplayer. But far be it from me to criticise the already established terms, I have already learned that it's an MMO because everybody states it's an MMO. Logic beyond that could mean I might start to argue shooters are MMO's, or games like Red Dead Redemption is an MMO - but I can already hear the outrage. What I do know is I have played with more other players on-line in a non MMO than I ever have in MMO, which I find altogether quite bizare.
20 million or 10 million mean nothing in the scope of players you actually 1) Play with and 2) are actually on your server. In most situations you'll be lucky to have a few thousand on a single server, and getting more than 60 in an area at any single time is a challenge. Its pretty much always been this way though.. being massive is pointless if you only see 1/100th of the population on your server at any given time.
It doesn't mean they are any less massive or any less multiplayer. Take Fallen Earth for instance... just because they don't have a tremendous population doesn't mean they don't have a "massive" amount of players in an area playing together at a single time.... but then again.. it doesn't me they do either. Its more of an architecture thing then semantic.
The infastructure is suppose to be there to support a large number of players playing at the same time. The fact that it isn't in most cases raises more questions than it answers. On top of which heavily instanced games all go to turning massively multiplayer into just multiplayer. But far be it from me to criticise the already established terms, I have already learned that it's an MMO because everybody states it's an MMO. Logic beyond that could mean I might start to argue shooters are MMO's, or games like Red Dead Redemption is an MMO - but I can already hear the outrage. What I do know is I have played with more other players on-line in a non MMO than I ever have in MMO, which I find altogether quite bizare.
For the purpose of clarity, and my entertainment, please define MMO as you see it, and please provide an example of a game that is an MMO per that definition. If such game does not exist (to you), please provide an example how such a game would look (features).
I think the OP's wife/GF left him for a woman and he gone and intoxicated himelf and had to start talking gobbly goop about something he had to get of his chest.
For the purpose of clarity, and my entertainment, please define MMO as you see it, and please provide an example of a game that is an MMO per that definition. If such game does not exist (to you), please provide an example how such a game would look (features).
Wikipedia definition - A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and usually feature at least one persistent world. They are, however, not necessarily games played on personal computers. Most of the newer game consoles, including the PSP, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Nintendo DS and Wii can access the Internet and may therefore run MMO games. Additionally, mobile devices and smartphones based on such operating systems as Android, iOS and Windows Phone are seeing an increase in the number of MMO games available.
Example game - Fallen Earth, one persistant world an MMO.
For the purpose of clarity, and my entertainment, please define MMO as you see it, and please provide an example of a game that is an MMO per that definition. If such game does not exist (to you), please provide an example how such a game would look (features).
Wikipedia definition - A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and usually feature at least one persistent world. They are, however, not necessarily games played on personal computers. Most of the newer game consoles, including the PSP, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Nintendo DS and Wii can access the Internet and may therefore run MMO games. Additionally, mobile devices and smartphones based on such operating systems as Android, iOS and Windows Phone are seeing an increase in the number of MMO games available.
Example game - Fallen Earth, one persistant world an MMO.
I will omit the fact that the wiki page has multiple tags attatched to it like a question of neutrality, citations needed, etc.
However I highlighted in red the passages that are important in the definition.
Now nowhere in the whole definition did it say how many players it should have, at a minimum, to be counted as an MMO. It only mentions its -capability- to support hundreds of thousands of players.
Secondly it also mentions that it has -at least one- persisitent world, but it might have more, like two or 300
Thirdly both sentences are not correlated. I.e. the game does not need to feature a/two/three persistent world(s) -with- "hundreds of thousands of players" -in- said world to be counted as an MMO.
This leads me to the conclusion that games with 1000 players are indeed MMOs if they
a. can support hundreds of thousands of players (netcode, and hardware)
and
b. have at least one persistent world
Not an MMO: League of Legends
a. can support hundreds of thousands of players
b. does -not- have a persistent world
An MMO: Age of Conan
a. can support hundreds of thousands of players
b. does have more than one persistent world
If we look quite closely the dominating feature is the -persistent world- feature as it says in the definition on wikipedia:
"A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.[1][2] The term is frequently used in the definition of the massively multiplayer online video games and can be considered synonymous with that class of games,[3] including other narrative forms of a media franchise."
I will omit the fact that the wiki page has multiple tags attatched to it like a question of neutrality, citations needed, etc.
However I highlighted in red the passages that are important in the definition.
Now nowhere in the whole definition did it say how many players it should have, at a minimum, to be counted as an MMO. It only mentions its -capability- to support hundreds of thousands of players.
Secondly it also mentions that it has -at least one- persisitent world, but it might have more, like two or 300
Thirdly both sentences are not correlated. I.e. the game does not need to feature a/two/three persistent world(s) -with- "hundreds of thousands of players" -in- said world to be counted as an MMO.
This leads me to the conclusion that games with 1000 players are indeed MMOs if they
a. can support hundreds of thousands of players (netcode, and hardware)
and
b. have at least one persistent world
Not an MMO: League of Legends
a. can support hundreds of thousands of players
b. does -not- have a persistent world
An MMO: Age of Conan
a. can support hundreds of thousands of players
b. does have more than one persistent world
If we look quite closely the dominating feature is the -persistent world- feature as it says in the definition on wikipedia:
"A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.[1][2] The term is frequently used in the definition of the massively multiplayer online video games and can be considered synonymous with that class of games,[3] including other narrative forms of a media franchise."
AOC is heavily instanced, it's not capable of supporting hundreds of thousands of players simultaneously. It is a persistent world but multiple persistent worlds - ie, different servers, different rulesets, different countries etc. Fallen Earth, last time I played, one world and one server (although I realise there may be multiple machines powering that world). AOC you can not travel seamlessly from one side of the world to another, as you can say in the majority of WoW or Fallen Earth ( I realise WoW has multiple servers but they also have a very large number of users). Regions in AOC are instanced, dungeons are instanced, even things like Taverns are instanced. Now a game like Star Trek Online I can understand having instances, you are traveling to different planets in different universes. But AOC is suppose to present the world of Hyboria - it's doesn't do that it gives you separate adventure areas. To my mind AOC is not an MMO.
I will omit the fact that the wiki page has multiple tags attatched to it like a question of neutrality, citations needed, etc.
However I highlighted in red the passages that are important in the definition.
Now nowhere in the whole definition did it say how many players it should have, at a minimum, to be counted as an MMO. It only mentions its -capability- to support hundreds of thousands of players.
Secondly it also mentions that it has -at least one- persisitent world, but it might have more, like two or 300
Thirdly both sentences are not correlated. I.e. the game does not need to feature a/two/three persistent world(s) -with- "hundreds of thousands of players" -in- said world to be counted as an MMO.
This leads me to the conclusion that games with 1000 players are indeed MMOs if they
a. can support hundreds of thousands of players (netcode, and hardware)
and
b. have at least one persistent world
Not an MMO: League of Legends
a. can support hundreds of thousands of players
b. does -not- have a persistent world
An MMO: Age of Conan
a. can support hundreds of thousands of players
b. does have more than one persistent world
If we look quite closely the dominating feature is the -persistent world- feature as it says in the definition on wikipedia:
"A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.[1][2] The term is frequently used in the definition of the massively multiplayer online video games and can be considered synonymous with that class of games,[3] including other narrative forms of a media franchise."
AOC is heavily instanced, it's not capable of supporting hundreds of thousands of players simultaneously. It is a persistent world but multiple persistent worlds - ie, different servers, different rulesets, different countries etc. Fallen Earth, last time I played, one world and one server (although I realise there may be multiple machines powering that world). AOC you can not travel seamlessly from one side of the world to another, as you can say in the majority of WoW or Fallen Earth ( I realise WoW has multiple servers but they also have a very large number of users). Regions in AOC are instanced, dungeons are instanced, even things like Taverns are instanced. Now a game like Star Trek Online I can understand having instances, you are traveling to different planets in different universes. But AOC is suppose to present the world of Hyboria - it's doesn't do that it gives you separate adventure areas. To my mind AOC is not an MMO.
It's easy to have one world and one server when you only have a few thousand people playing your game.
For the purpose of clarity, and my entertainment, please define MMO as you see it, and please provide an example of a game that is an MMO per that definition. If such game does not exist (to you), please provide an example how such a game would look (features).
Wikipedia definition - A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and usually feature at least one persistent world. They are, however, not necessarily games played on personal computers. Most of the newer game consoles, including the PSP, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Nintendo DS and Wii can access the Internet and may therefore run MMO games. Additionally, mobile devices and smartphones based on such operating systems as Android, iOS and Windows Phone are seeing an increase in the number of MMO games available.
Example game - Fallen Earth, one persistant world an MMO.
When you have to resort to wikipedia to give you a defintion, you know you're grasping at straws.
This again? Fallenlords, you were warned by a mod in another thread when you went on to derail it with your own personal soapbox rant again, bashing TSW/FC/AoC again saying how TSW and AoC aren't MMORPG's etc etc.
I'd advise you to stop hijacking other threads for this personal theme of yours.
TSW and AoC are MMORPG's and considered by everyone, gaming industry and player base included, as MMORPG's. If you don't, well, that's on you.
Back to the OP:
Originally posted by Marchosias31
Ive always felt mystery/who did what etc has been boring. It has to be an exceptional story to even get the audience to care outside of the 'hardcore' demographics.
Did Mr.Mustard kill Colonel Sanders with the candle in the bathroom? Who cares......As an MMO, with this as its basis, I see fail all over this game.
Yeah yeah, some of you like it. Blah blah blah.... Most of us dont.../shrug
I see this game failing, even faster then AoC
OP, you didn't get back to your own thread from what I could see.
In case you ever do:
- you didn't do good research about the game. TSW has nothing to do with 'who dunnit?' themes like in murder mystery tv shows, it's an MMORPG that has puzzles and secrets to uncover added to it, in a way like you see in puzzle adventure games like The Longest Journey, Dreamfall etc.
- your conclusion doesn't make any sense if you don't even do your research or have the most basic of knowledge of the game. Please do some more investigating next time.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
This again? Fallenlords, you were warned by a mod in another thread when you went on to derail it with your own personal soapbox rant again, bashing TSW/FC/AoC again saying how TSW and AoC aren't MMORPG's etc etc.
I'd advise you to stop hijacking other threads for this personal theme of yours.
I am always getting warned, water off a ducks back. It tends to happen if you voice an opinion. Though I don't remember anything being said by the mod about personal soapbox rant, bashing TSW, or saying TSW/AOC aren't MMORPG's etc etc. What was said is the thread had been derailed a number of times, several I think. You have conveniently added the last bit 'oh champion of everything Funcom'.
I make no bones about my stance with Funcom, pity more people don't give a proper indication of where their loyalties are based. Then we might be able to cut through the rhetoric and have a decent discussion.
Since when does anyone have to be loyal to a game? Why cant we try the obes we want? Answer is that we can, don't like it? I don't care, because its my choice so respect it.
Why do so many think they have the right to force their opinion on others?
Before anyone says they are only voicing their opinion, think of the impact a few words can have on the human mind.
Comments
I feel like this is a silly argument.
Its like saying that my banana-cake will fail because it only attracts people that like bananas and cake.
Define "Niche Gaming". 300,000 people paying 15 bucks a month... that's a lot of money for a niche. Label it however you want, I'm sure they're aware of the market they are targetting, and how large that market it is. If they didn't believe it to be profitable, they wouldn't be moving forward.
Well niche is a small specialised group, so niche gaming would be appealing to a small specialised group of gamers. Niche gaming in MMO terms is just a bit odd full stop, because massively multiplayer doesn't hint at anything being niche. By design an MMO is suppose to cater for hundreds of thousands of players at the same time. So niche in that respect, is probably around 200k to 300k subs. But then AOC had that many people paying a sub at one point and Funcom didn't turn a profit. Funcom had to lay people off, relocate etc etc. Only 500k interested in the beta, I think they will be lucky to get 50k paying subs.
One thing worth noting as well is the MMO market has changed quite dramatically in the last few years. I wouldn't imagine it's a strong market for anybody at the moment. Up until the recent release of the major blockbusters, video game sales in general were down on previous years. I don't know what the trend in MMO terms is overall, but I imagine with a lot of games going free to play it must also be down.
Funcom are in a way caught between a rock and hard place. They have already invested a significant amount of money into this game. They predict a negative cash flow situation until it's release. So they don't have many options but to move forward.
As mentioned before if any accuracy or skill is involved in the game, then just clicking on a target doesn't give either from a sort of top down perspective. If you are not aiming and accuracy doesn't matter, then fine use guns like a typical MMO skill. But my initial point is you are unlikely to appeal to shooter fans without shooting mechanics, like being able to aim.
As a shooter fan the first thing I would do with a game that involves guns is look for how I aim them, what options are available. Games like the Fallout series have added things like iron sights to make it more appealing to shooter fans.
Not saying TSW should be an FPS, just saying they have guns and even zombies. Hello, ready made audience there for the taking. Dead Island being a prime example of a sort of RPG crossover type thing that has done well. But I forgot it's Funcom and they like to appeal to the least amount of people possible.
Where'd you pull that out of? When MMOs were first coined you didn't have 200 - 300K people playing, and certainly nowhere near that on a single server, and you certainly don't have millions of people playing on a single server even with todays standards.
The term Massive means a large amount, that could be categorized as 200 players, or 1000 players.. or to some .. maybe still in the double digits whereas in comparison, you traditionally only had the 2 - 4 - 16 and rarely, 32 - 64 players total for multiplayers games, so anything beyond that could be considered "massive" to some.
Their first plans was to go for a aiming system aka first person shooters. But after testing it, it was changed for the more common (in mmorpgs) point and click. I believe the main reason was latency/lag and the imbalance from that.
For me personally i dont mind this at all. A FPS-approach to the game would make it too twitch based for my taste for a mmorpg. When i play mmorpgs i like to relax and play at my own pace. I also enjoy FPSs and other games that require alot more consentration and skills, but those are different games for me.
Not sure your opinion is right? Include a fictionalized majority as backing you up, it makes the truthfulness more better.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Obviously when the terms were first used technology was different. I played a sort of MMO on a PDP 11 back in the day. But now massively multiplayer means hundreds of thousands of users. I mean you have WoW with 12 million subs, then silly farm games with 20 million daily users and 200million registered players. I was being kind to TSW using the term MMO. Because to be honest a lot of what are called MMO's are actually just multiplayer games now.
eeeEEEEEyyyyOOwwwWWW!!
Thanks for the info that explains a lot. I can understand more that they had an idea of shooting mechanics in mind but it didn't work out as viable. Than by design they were just not included, fair enough.
20 million or 10 million mean nothing in the scope of players you actually 1) Play with and 2) are actually on your server. In most situations you'll be lucky to have a few thousand on a single server, and getting more than 60 in an area at any single time is a challenge. Its pretty much always been this way though.. being massive is pointless if you only see 1/100th of the population on your server at any given time.
It doesn't mean they are any less massive or any less multiplayer. Take Fallen Earth for instance... just because they don't have a tremendous population doesn't mean they don't have a "massive" amount of players in an area playing together at a single time.... but then again.. it doesn't me they do either. Its more of an architecture thing then semantic.
The infastructure is suppose to be there to support a large number of players playing at the same time. The fact that it isn't in most cases raises more questions than it answers. On top of which heavily instanced games all go to turning massively multiplayer into just multiplayer. But far be it from me to criticise the already established terms, I have already learned that it's an MMO because everybody states it's an MMO. Logic beyond that could mean I might start to argue shooters are MMO's, or games like Red Dead Redemption is an MMO - but I can already hear the outrage. What I do know is I have played with more other players on-line in a non MMO than I ever have in MMO, which I find altogether quite bizare.
For the purpose of clarity, and my entertainment, please define MMO as you see it, and please provide an example of a game that is an MMO per that definition. If such game does not exist (to you), please provide an example how such a game would look (features).
I think the OP's wife/GF left him for a woman and he gone and intoxicated himelf and had to start talking gobbly goop about something he had to get of his chest.
Wikipedia definition - A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and usually feature at least one persistent world. They are, however, not necessarily games played on personal computers. Most of the newer game consoles, including the PSP, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Nintendo DS and Wii can access the Internet and may therefore run MMO games. Additionally, mobile devices and smartphones based on such operating systems as Android, iOS and Windows Phone are seeing an increase in the number of MMO games available.
Example game - Fallen Earth, one persistant world an MMO.
I will omit the fact that the wiki page has multiple tags attatched to it like a question of neutrality, citations needed, etc.
However I highlighted in red the passages that are important in the definition.
Now nowhere in the whole definition did it say how many players it should have, at a minimum, to be counted as an MMO. It only mentions its -capability- to support hundreds of thousands of players.
Secondly it also mentions that it has -at least one- persisitent world, but it might have more, like two or 300
Thirdly both sentences are not correlated. I.e. the game does not need to feature a/two/three persistent world(s) -with- "hundreds of thousands of players" -in- said world to be counted as an MMO.
This leads me to the conclusion that games with 1000 players are indeed MMOs if they
a. can support hundreds of thousands of players (netcode, and hardware)
and
b. have at least one persistent world
Not an MMO: League of Legends
a. can support hundreds of thousands of players
b. does -not- have a persistent world
An MMO: Age of Conan
a. can support hundreds of thousands of players
b. does have more than one persistent world
If we look quite closely the dominating feature is the -persistent world- feature as it says in the definition on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_world
"A persistent world (PW) is a virtual world that continues to exist even after a user exits the world and that user-made changes to its state are, to some extent, permanent.[1][2] The term is frequently used in the definition of the massively multiplayer online video games and can be considered synonymous with that class of games,[3] including other narrative forms of a media franchise."
AOC is heavily instanced, it's not capable of supporting hundreds of thousands of players simultaneously. It is a persistent world but multiple persistent worlds - ie, different servers, different rulesets, different countries etc. Fallen Earth, last time I played, one world and one server (although I realise there may be multiple machines powering that world). AOC you can not travel seamlessly from one side of the world to another, as you can say in the majority of WoW or Fallen Earth ( I realise WoW has multiple servers but they also have a very large number of users). Regions in AOC are instanced, dungeons are instanced, even things like Taverns are instanced. Now a game like Star Trek Online I can understand having instances, you are traveling to different planets in different universes. But AOC is suppose to present the world of Hyboria - it's doesn't do that it gives you separate adventure areas. To my mind AOC is not an MMO.
I love people who predict things with little information. It makes me smile
I self identify as a monkey.
It's easy to have one world and one server when you only have a few thousand people playing your game.
When you have to resort to wikipedia to give you a defintion, you know you're grasping at straws.
Well why didn't Funcom manage it then with AOC?
And when you have single line throwaway comments with no discussion/argument/reason then you have to wonder who is grasping at straws.
This again? Fallenlords, you were warned by a mod in another thread when you went on to derail it with your own personal soapbox rant again, bashing TSW/FC/AoC again saying how TSW and AoC aren't MMORPG's etc etc.
I'd advise you to stop hijacking other threads for this personal theme of yours.
TSW and AoC are MMORPG's and considered by everyone, gaming industry and player base included, as MMORPG's. If you don't, well, that's on you.
Back to the OP:
OP, you didn't get back to your own thread from what I could see.
In case you ever do:
- you didn't do good research about the game. TSW has nothing to do with 'who dunnit?' themes like in murder mystery tv shows, it's an MMORPG that has puzzles and secrets to uncover added to it, in a way like you see in puzzle adventure games like The Longest Journey, Dreamfall etc.
- your conclusion doesn't make any sense if you don't even do your research or have the most basic of knowledge of the game. Please do some more investigating next time.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I am always getting warned, water off a ducks back. It tends to happen if you voice an opinion. Though I don't remember anything being said by the mod about personal soapbox rant, bashing TSW, or saying TSW/AOC aren't MMORPG's etc etc. What was said is the thread had been derailed a number of times, several I think. You have conveniently added the last bit 'oh champion of everything Funcom'.
I make no bones about my stance with Funcom, pity more people don't give a proper indication of where their loyalties are based. Then we might be able to cut through the rhetoric and have a decent discussion.
Why do so many think they have the right to force their opinion on others?
Before anyone says they are only voicing their opinion, think of the impact a few words can have on the human mind.