So you know the game I'm talking about. That's one. There's 2 others.
Sorry you're an idiot fanboy, but FFXI is just a piece of crust on a sandwich built by EverQuest and consumed by WoW. There's nothing noteworthy of the game other than it might have appealed to some people. But there wasn't any innovation what so ever.
Here I'll help you out on the console mmo part: 1. Sega 2. Sony 3. KOEI
As for the storyline bit, did you play Anarchy Online? And you know that 'continues to be innovative' thing you said? They did it first as well. In fact a lot of the innovative things in MMOs over the last 5 years were things innovated in AO and since that game had a tarnished reputation they just borrowed without so much as a nod in their direction.
Even FFXI's biggest updates just added whatever was semi-popular a trend in WoW after 2004.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
There are actually several games I didn't mention, but chose not to. I didn't mean to slight Final Fantasy XI, but I also didn't have much to say about it. Phantasy Star Online, EverQuest Online Adventures and FFXI were all early forays into console MMO releases, but I was hard pressed to consider what lasting impact any of them had on the industry, so I didn't mention them. Not that they're non-notable, but I wasn't sure they fit in this article. I just don't feel like their impact resonates strongly today like the other games. You may disagree, but that's the story I'm sticking to.
I also didn't mention games like Lineage II (which brought the franchise to US mainstream attention), MapleStory (one of the progenitors of today's free-to-play market), World War II Online (debatably the first MMOFPS) and several others. Sorry if you feel left out, but I still love you.
EQ2 at launch had 1, 3, 6, and 1 year sub at lauch. I have to say the in game sales was not until last year. So that is a little off. We neaver had station cash until last year that is something new.
Years of the Gregorian calendar, which is currently in use today, are counted from AD 1. Thus, the 1st century comprised the years AD 1 through AD 100. The second century began with AD 101 and continued through AD 200. By extrapolation we find that the 20th century comprises the years AD 1901-2000. Therefore, the 21st century began with 1 January 2001 and will continue through 31 December 2100.
That's the U.S. Naval Observatory. I'll trust them over you any day.
It's amazing the number of people out there in internetland who can't count from one to ten.
Astronomical year numbering is a method of numbering years before the start of the anno Domini era. In astronomical year numbering, the year 1 BC is numbered 0, the year 2 BC is numbered -1, and in general the year n BC is numbered –(n–1). Years AD are unchanged. The system is so named due to its original use by astronomers. It is convenient to have a year 0 when subtracting years and computing time intervals that span the epoch. However, in order to avoid this problem when making computations for historical times, astronomers find it more convenient to use Julian days, which have a very early epoch.
The first use of the year zero, which is omitted from the traditional proleptic Gregorian calendar has been attributed to Jacques Cassini in his Tables astronomiques (Astronomical Tables, 1740) wherein he explained his reasons for doing so, and also to Phillipe de La Hire who used it earlier in 1702 in his Tabulæ Astronomicæ (Astronomical Tables) in the form Christum o. (Christ 0), without explanation.
Asheron's Call, Champions Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EVE Online, EverQuest, Lineage 2, Star Wars Galaxies and World of Warcraft.Waiting for SWTOR
Astronomical year numbering is a method of numbering years before the start of the anno Domini era. In astronomical year numbering, the year 1 BC is numbered 0, the year 2 BC is numbered -1, and in general the year n BC is numbered –(n–1). Years AD are unchanged. The system is so named due to its original use by astronomers. It is convenient to have a year 0 when subtracting years and computing time intervals that span the epoch. However, in order to avoid this problem when making computations for historical times, astronomers find it more convenient to use Julian days, which have a very early epoch. The first use of the year zero, which is omitted from the traditional proleptic Gregorian calendar has been attributed to Jacques Cassini in his Tables astronomiques (Astronomical Tables, 1740) wherein he explained his reasons for doing so, and also to Phillipe de La Hire who used it earlier in 1702 in his Tabulæ Astronomicæ (Astronomical Tables) in the form Christum o. (Christ 0), without explanation.
And your point is?
Even following what you've quoted the year 0 in this method is the year 1 BC in the Gregorian system; "Years AD are unchanged." So the new century still starts 1 Jan year 1 and ends 31 Dec year 100. How is this any different from what I wrote earlier?
Wow...what an interesting thread takeover. Congrats there gang......
Anyway, as an "on topic" comment, here's a hypothetical, or "what if", thought: "What if" City of Heroes had been the only mmo released in 2004? Say, WoW is released in early 2005, giving CoH a full YEAR before it is blown away by the juggernaught that Blizzard created.
2nd : The MMO market is still young and under development,yes you've heard me under development. We're over 6.7 billion people on the planet,WoW has what? I'll be generous 20million subs? Take all the rest of the MMO's out there and again i'll be generous and let's say there's is a total of a 100 million subs in the whole MMO world. 100 million out of 6.7 billion isn't alot and MMO's are out for what? 16-17 years now? and the MMO world is not even covering 2% of the global population and if we were using real numbers it would be less then 1% of the world population. You got more cars out there then people playing MMO's,even Iphones for that matter which cost alot per month.
Seriously the MMO market is still in Alpha stage when you look at the big picture. Hell you got more people playing Super Mario Bros right at this moment then the whole MMO world. Why does the MMO world suck so much? Simple, name me one Fantasy game that doesn't require me to grind my ass off to level like if i had a 2nd real life job? That's where EVE-Online shines the best,EVE is the perfect game,only reason why it doesnt have a population like WoW is because of the complexity and you can't rush to "level up". All the Fantasy games are alike these days,the reason why FFXI wasn't brought up. And seriously a game where you party with people in easy mode and see a tank running around a tree with a few monsters on his ass and mages just spam spells isn't worth a place in a article and yes i've played FFXI for quite sometime and left because eveyone has a easy mode mindset. I'd put Atlantica Online/Runes of Magic on there way before FFXI.
The Hype meter should be removed,because you won't see any "perfect" games for years to come since the market is still evolving,when I see FF14 being rushed to #1 on the hype meter I "lol'ed" , most of you have high expectations for nothing and once the game is released you all bitch that the game sucks,well I got 2 words : Your loss.
I've said it before and I'll say it again,get a game that suits you and just stfu please,if none suits you then stop crying and join the army then go cry to the general that the PvP sucks.
Everquest2 had one of the worst translations ever even playability was hurt - SOE should shame for it still today and it wasnt fixed in the first year until i left.
SOE is showing their incompetence even in their AAA-Game...
Hint: If you can't translate right stay english only!
The really sad thing is that a game like Ultima has no true successor beside some more or less ugly/clumsy indie-mmos...
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
The games that had a solid RPG - MMO system at launch have prevailed. Those that havn't ... are no longer with us or free to play or are having experimental payment methods.
Games are built on gameplay - Nothing else. And in MMos the gameplay has to prevail through weeks, months and years... And if a MMORPG is not able to do so... its not really a MMORPG...
Grats to the true pioners of MMOs this decade..
Grats Eve
Grats Darfall - (I still belive in your method of releasing games - just like Eve did)
2nd : The MMO market is still young and under development,yes you've heard me under development. We're over 6.7 billion people on the planet,WoW has what? I'll be generous 20million subs? Take all the rest of the MMO's out there and again i'll be generous and let's say there's is a total of a 100 million subs in the whole MMO world. 100 million out of 6.7 billion isn't alot and MMO's are out for what? 16-17 years now? and the MMO world is not even covering 2% of the global population and if we were using real numbers it would be less then 1% of the world population. You got more cars out there then people playing MMO's,even Iphones for that matter which cost alot per month.
First, you have to take that 7 billion and divide it into gamers. Then you have to take those gamers and divide that out to determine which ones like to play online games. Then divide again to those who like to play a game whose existence is entirely online. Then divide that yet again to determine who is willing to pay for that and/or willing to play a F2P game. (I separate F2P here because I personally haven't found a F2P game I've liked but I play MMOGs.)
Everquest 2 had item sales at launch? I don't remember that?
I don't remember this either Sov, and I was in the beta for this and played for a bit after launch. I remember the /pizza thing, but don't remember an item mall/store.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Everquest 2 had item sales at launch? I don't remember that?
I don't remember this either Sov, and I was in the beta for this and played for a bit after launch. I remember the /pizza thing, but don't remember an item mall/store.
They didnt have item sales what so ever at release, and Station Cash servers where added aprox a year after release and the tradeable card game aprox another year after that..
The Item shop came 2009
And Everquest2 was released one month before World of Warcraft..
Everquest 2 had item sales at launch? I don't remember that?
It did not, the author made a mistake, items sales were added a year or two later and only on specific servers initially.
I think it was a good decade. We have a lot of choice these days, and will have more in the near future. The genre is growing up and will continue to do so.
"And Everquest2 was released one month before World of Warcraft.". Actually just 3 weeks before and with major problems which took SOE 6 to 12 months to correct. It only ran on gaming computers initially.
Technically, the first console MMO stateside was Everquest Online Adventures. FFXI beat it in japanese release by one year on the PS2, but only released in the states first on PC, and not till a year or so after that did US PS2 launch happen. If you are using US launched games as the basis, EQOA was the first console MMORPG. EQOA was also interesting in that it was the first MMO I know of to not need a hard drive, just the disc and a playstation 2 memory card file. This game would honestly be perfect for a netbook, and I wish SOE would consider it.
A lot of people though consider Phantasy Star Online the true first console MMORPG, and that game was much higher in impact than FFXI, because it showed that console online subscription-based games were possible and profitable.
Interesting read. I lol at the people that seem to think thier favorite not being mentioned has much to do with the point of the discussion. ( my favorite MUD, Aardwolf ,not mentioned, was as large as the larger fantasy MUDs, Achaea, Dragon Realms and the furry one but it doesn't spoil the point being made) .
There are MMOs out there now that have terrific potential that will never be realized because they have boxed themselves into a pure PVE or PVP environment. I will never understand why developers do this. Silly, but I thought the purpose of producing a product, regardless of the love put into it is, in the end, profit!
Aion is a good example of this. Yeah, I know, waaaaa...its grind city. The game is going to be profitable but a sigificant number of players who have left already or will leave at some point do so because the grind, coupled with the gank squads making the game less playable for them. This isn't about carebears so spare me the usual macho BS.
I enjoy PVP but there are nights when I'd like to just go out and level, explore, whatever . Offering a choice would result in a larger player base and many people who aren't initialy PVP oriented will get involved at some point. (high lev pvp is well done imo) Again, its about being profitable which means attracting and retaining a large player base.
I guarantee that a game offering the option to opt in/out of PVP will be more sussessful than one the offers only PVP or PVE.
Some will argue its the developers option and non pvp carebears should go elsewhere. People that like to pop in for a short while and run alone for a while should likewise find a new home...BUT... offering both will still leave a large base of non PVPers who otherwise will leave and the same base of pvpers the game (whatever it might be) that would be retained as a pure PVP.
Its about profit. No profit no game. Less profit= less support...no game.
Interesting read. I lol at the people that seem to think thier favorite not being mentioned has much to do with the point of the discussion. ( my favorite MUD, Aardwolf ,not mentioned, was as large as the larger fantasy MUDs, Achaea, Dragon Realms and the furry one but it doesn't spoil the point being made) . There are MMOs out there now that have terrific potential that will never be realized because they have boxed themselves into a pure PVE or PVP environment. I will never understand why developers do this. Silly, but I thought the purpose of producing a product, regardless of the love put into it is, in the end, profit! Aion is a good example of this. Yeah, I know, waaaaa...its grind city. The game is going to be profitable but a sigificant number of players who have left already or will leave at some point do so because the grind, coupled with the gank squads making the game less playable for them. This isn't about carebears so spare me the usual macho BS. I enjoy PVP but there are nights when I'd like to just go out and level, explore, whatever . Offering a choice would result in a larger player base and many people who aren't initialy PVP oriented will get involved at some point. (high lev pvp is well done imo) Again, its about being profitable which means attracting and retaining a large player base. I guarantee that a game offering the option to opt in/out of PVP will be more sussessful than one the offers only PVP or PVE. Some will argue its the developers option and non pvp carebears should go elsewhere. People that like to pop in for a short while and run alone for a while should likewise find a new home...BUT... offering both will still leave a large base of non PVPers who otherwise will leave and the same base of pvpers the game (whatever it might be) that would be retained as a pure PVP. Its about profit. No profit no game. Less profit= less support...no game.
THe main thing with PVP oriented games is that the DEVELOPER looks at it like they dont have to add any new content - cause the players themselfs will be enjoying PVPing each other. This is simply not the case. Thus - PVP oriented games like AOC - WAR and now Aion are taking massive blows after the inital hype. World of Warcraft was at the same point in its lifecycle keeping their players - and getting new ones that realised that the devs were backing the game 100% with new content regularly.
PVPs are niche games because they have alot less chance to grow. While the PVE oriented ones are built on growing.
Originally posted by Dwarvish There are MMOs out there now that have terrific potential that will never be realized because they have boxed themselves into a pure PVE or PVP environment. I will never understand why developers do this. Silly, but I thought the purpose of producing a product, regardless of the love put into it is, in the end, profit!
There is a reason for tha,t few MMOs have succeeded with both good PvE and PvP, it is a lot harder to make a game for everyone and you must have all the mechanics for that in by launch, adding stuff like that later is a sure way to mess the game up.
It is surely possible to offer a great experience for both but it takes a lot of work, hopefully will Guildwars 2 deliver just that but I can honestly not mention a single game that I played that had both things right.
The best thing would surely to make PvE mobs act more like humans because in current games with the holy triad a lot of skills and gear is useless if you play PvP.
Interesting read. I lol at the people that seem to think thier favorite not being mentioned has much to do with the point of the discussion. ( my favorite MUD, Aardwolf ,not mentioned, was as large as the larger fantasy MUDs, Achaea, Dragon Realms and the furry one but it doesn't spoil the point being made) . There are MMOs out there now that have terrific potential that will never be realized because they have boxed themselves into a pure PVE or PVP environment. I will never understand why developers do this. Silly, but I thought the purpose of producing a product, regardless of the love put into it is, in the end, profit! Aion is a good example of this. Yeah, I know, waaaaa...its grind city. The game is going to be profitable but a sigificant number of players who have left already or will leave at some point do so because the grind, coupled with the gank squads making the game less playable for them. This isn't about carebears so spare me the usual macho BS. I enjoy PVP but there are nights when I'd like to just go out and level, explore, whatever . Offering a choice would result in a larger player base and many people who aren't initialy PVP oriented will get involved at some point. (high lev pvp is well done imo) Again, its about being profitable which means attracting and retaining a large player base. I guarantee that a game offering the option to opt in/out of PVP will be more sussessful than one the offers only PVP or PVE. Some will argue its the developers option and non pvp carebears should go elsewhere. People that like to pop in for a short while and run alone for a while should likewise find a new home...BUT... offering both will still leave a large base of non PVPers who otherwise will leave and the same base of pvpers the game (whatever it might be) that would be retained as a pure PVP. Its about profit. No profit no game. Less profit= less support...no game.
THe main thing with PVP oriented games is that the DEVELOPER looks at it like they dont have to add any new content - cause the players themselfs will be enjoying PVPing each other. This is simply not the case. Thus - PVP oriented games like AOC - WAR and now Aion are taking massive blows after the inital hype. World of Warcraft was at the same point in its lifecycle keeping their players - and getting new ones that realised that the devs were backing the game 100% with new content regularly.
PVPs are niche games because they have alot less chance to grow. While the PVE oriented ones are built on growing.
Agreed !!!!! I'm sure that some will not agree but a PVP/PVE game that offers a choice has a far better chance of being around for a longer time. not to mention, more successful. ...more players=more profit=more updates and support...
Originally posted by Dwarvish There are MMOs out there now that have terrific potential that will never be realized because they have boxed themselves into a pure PVE or PVP environment. I will never understand why developers do this. Silly, but I thought the purpose of producing a product, regardless of the love put into it is, in the end, profit!
There is a reason for tha,t few MMOs have succeeded with both good PvE and PvP, it is a lot harder to make a game for everyone and you must have all the mechanics for that in by launch, adding stuff like that later is a sure way to mess the game up.
It is surely possible to offer a great experience for both but it takes a lot of work, hopefully will Guildwars 2 deliver just that but I can honestly not mention a single game that I played that had both things right.
The best thing would surely to make PvE mobs act more like humans because in current games with the holy triad a lot of skills and gear is useless if you play PvP.
Point taken but I wonder how hard it is to offer an option. I played MUDs since they were 30 levels and even then they could make the option work. Players were simply flagged PK of NPK.
I to have hopes for GW2. The trailers look great but only time will tell. I am concerned with the promise of a smaller, less confusing set of skills. What does that mean? The original GW had a ton of (to many??) skills for each class that imo made for some great PVP action. Skill was hugely important as was an understanding of skill mechanics. You never knew what you would be up against and had to plan for a balance. This became less important as time went by and there were some 'cookie cutter' builds that became the meta. Even with this there were surprises. Someone would come up with a so-called gimmic build that destroyed the meta and the meta would change...just loved it !!!
RE: It featured the same series of "kill 10" quests, "Fed-Ex" quests and "Go Meet Fred" quests as most MMOs had for years,
Requesting comments on this.
In talking with vets of the early games, I've come to a conclusion that WoW did change the role questing served in-game. From what I understand (easily could be flawed) prior to WoW, the role of quests was primarily a means to advance storyline and reward a character with gear, but they were not the primary means of advancing in the game (aka not THE major source of XP).
Did WoW replace the XP grind (via kills) with an XP grind (via quests and kills) ???
Ken
www.ActionMMORPG.com One man, a small pile of money, and the screwball idea of a DIY Indie MMORPG? Yep, that's him. ~sigh~
Comments
So you know the game I'm talking about. That's one. There's 2 others.
Sorry you're an idiot fanboy, but FFXI is just a piece of crust on a sandwich built by EverQuest and consumed by WoW. There's nothing noteworthy of the game other than it might have appealed to some people. But there wasn't any innovation what so ever.
Here I'll help you out on the console mmo part: 1. Sega 2. Sony 3. KOEI
As for the storyline bit, did you play Anarchy Online? And you know that 'continues to be innovative' thing you said? They did it first as well. In fact a lot of the innovative things in MMOs over the last 5 years were things innovated in AO and since that game had a tarnished reputation they just borrowed without so much as a nod in their direction.
Even FFXI's biggest updates just added whatever was semi-popular a trend in WoW after 2004.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
You're not proving anything by insulting me.
There are actually several games I didn't mention, but chose not to. I didn't mean to slight Final Fantasy XI, but I also didn't have much to say about it. Phantasy Star Online, EverQuest Online Adventures and FFXI were all early forays into console MMO releases, but I was hard pressed to consider what lasting impact any of them had on the industry, so I didn't mention them. Not that they're non-notable, but I wasn't sure they fit in this article. I just don't feel like their impact resonates strongly today like the other games. You may disagree, but that's the story I'm sticking to.
I also didn't mention games like Lineage II (which brought the franchise to US mainstream attention), MapleStory (one of the progenitors of today's free-to-play market), World War II Online (debatably the first MMOFPS) and several others. Sorry if you feel left out, but I still love you.
EQ2 at launch had 1, 3, 6, and 1 year sub at lauch. I have to say the in game sales was not until last year. So that is a little off. We neaver had station cash until last year that is something new.
/facepalm
the start of 2000 to the end of 2009 is 10 years.
/facepalm right back at you.
Try this -
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/millennium.php
Years of the Gregorian calendar, which is currently in use today, are counted from AD 1. Thus, the 1st century comprised the years AD 1 through AD 100. The second century began with AD 101 and continued through AD 200. By extrapolation we find that the 20th century comprises the years AD 1901-2000. Therefore, the 21st century began with 1 January 2001 and will continue through 31 December 2100.
That's the U.S. Naval Observatory. I'll trust them over you any day.
It's amazing the number of people out there in internetland who can't count from one to ten.
Astronomical year numbering is a method of numbering years before the start of the anno Domini era. In astronomical year numbering, the year 1 BC is numbered 0, the year 2 BC is numbered -1, and in general the year n BC is numbered –(n–1). Years AD are unchanged. The system is so named due to its original use by astronomers. It is convenient to have a year 0 when subtracting years and computing time intervals that span the epoch. However, in order to avoid this problem when making computations for historical times, astronomers find it more convenient to use Julian days, which have a very early epoch.
The first use of the year zero, which is omitted from the traditional proleptic Gregorian calendar has been attributed to Jacques Cassini in his Tables astronomiques (Astronomical Tables, 1740) wherein he explained his reasons for doing so, and also to Phillipe de La Hire who used it earlier in 1702 in his Tabulæ Astronomicæ (Astronomical Tables) in the form Christum o. (Christ 0), without explanation.
Asheron's Call, Champions Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EVE Online, EverQuest, Lineage 2, Star Wars Galaxies and World of Warcraft.Waiting for SWTOR
And your point is?
Even following what you've quoted the year 0 in this method is the year 1 BC in the Gregorian system; "Years AD are unchanged." So the new century still starts 1 Jan year 1 and ends 31 Dec year 100. How is this any different from what I wrote earlier?
This is all quite hilarious...ROTFLMAO!
"In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." Neitzsche
Wow...what an interesting thread takeover. Congrats there gang......
Anyway, as an "on topic" comment, here's a hypothetical, or "what if", thought: "What if" City of Heroes had been the only mmo released in 2004? Say, WoW is released in early 2005, giving CoH a full YEAR before it is blown away by the juggernaught that Blizzard created.
Would the mmo landscape be different right now?
Definitely has me thinking a bit.
To start off,who cares what decade we're on?
2nd : The MMO market is still young and under development,yes you've heard me under development. We're over 6.7 billion people on the planet,WoW has what? I'll be generous 20million subs? Take all the rest of the MMO's out there and again i'll be generous and let's say there's is a total of a 100 million subs in the whole MMO world. 100 million out of 6.7 billion isn't alot and MMO's are out for what? 16-17 years now? and the MMO world is not even covering 2% of the global population and if we were using real numbers it would be less then 1% of the world population. You got more cars out there then people playing MMO's,even Iphones for that matter which cost alot per month.
Seriously the MMO market is still in Alpha stage when you look at the big picture. Hell you got more people playing Super Mario Bros right at this moment then the whole MMO world. Why does the MMO world suck so much? Simple, name me one Fantasy game that doesn't require me to grind my ass off to level like if i had a 2nd real life job? That's where EVE-Online shines the best,EVE is the perfect game,only reason why it doesnt have a population like WoW is because of the complexity and you can't rush to "level up". All the Fantasy games are alike these days,the reason why FFXI wasn't brought up. And seriously a game where you party with people in easy mode and see a tank running around a tree with a few monsters on his ass and mages just spam spells isn't worth a place in a article and yes i've played FFXI for quite sometime and left because eveyone has a easy mode mindset. I'd put Atlantica Online/Runes of Magic on there way before FFXI.
The Hype meter should be removed,because you won't see any "perfect" games for years to come since the market is still evolving,when I see FF14 being rushed to #1 on the hype meter I "lol'ed" , most of you have high expectations for nothing and once the game is released you all bitch that the game sucks,well I got 2 words : Your loss.
I've said it before and I'll say it again,get a game that suits you and just stfu please,if none suits you then stop crying and join the army then go cry to the general that the PvP sucks.
Happy new year and drive safe!
Everquest2 had one of the worst translations ever even playability was hurt - SOE should shame for it still today and it wasnt fixed in the first year until i left.
SOE is showing their incompetence even in their AAA-Game...
Hint: If you can't translate right stay english only!
The really sad thing is that a game like Ultima has no true successor beside some more or less ugly/clumsy indie-mmos...
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
MWO Music Video - What does the Mech say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6HYNqCDLI
Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0x2iwK0BKM
The decade can be summed up in very few words.
Less advertisment and PR - Better gaming.
The games that had a solid RPG - MMO system at launch have prevailed. Those that havn't ... are no longer with us or free to play or are having experimental payment methods.
Games are built on gameplay - Nothing else. And in MMos the gameplay has to prevail through weeks, months and years... And if a MMORPG is not able to do so... its not really a MMORPG...
Grats to the true pioners of MMOs this decade..
Grats Eve
Grats Darfall - (I still belive in your method of releasing games - just like Eve did)
Keep it up !!!
First, you have to take that 7 billion and divide it into gamers. Then you have to take those gamers and divide that out to determine which ones like to play online games. Then divide again to those who like to play a game whose existence is entirely online. Then divide that yet again to determine who is willing to pay for that and/or willing to play a F2P game. (I separate F2P here because I personally haven't found a F2P game I've liked but I play MMOGs.)
Interesting article and I'm looking forward to the follow up.
I don't remember this either Sov, and I was in the beta for this and played for a bit after launch. I remember the /pizza thing, but don't remember an item mall/store.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
They didnt have item sales what so ever at release, and Station Cash servers where added aprox a year after release and the tradeable card game aprox another year after that..
The Item shop came 2009
And Everquest2 was released one month before World of Warcraft..
/junker
It did not, the author made a mistake, items sales were added a year or two later and only on specific servers initially.
I think it was a good decade. We have a lot of choice these days, and will have more in the near future. The genre is growing up and will continue to do so.
"And Everquest2 was released one month before World of Warcraft.". Actually just 3 weeks before and with major problems which took SOE 6 to 12 months to correct. It only ran on gaming computers initially.
Technically, the first console MMO stateside was Everquest Online Adventures. FFXI beat it in japanese release by one year on the PS2, but only released in the states first on PC, and not till a year or so after that did US PS2 launch happen. If you are using US launched games as the basis, EQOA was the first console MMORPG. EQOA was also interesting in that it was the first MMO I know of to not need a hard drive, just the disc and a playstation 2 memory card file. This game would honestly be perfect for a netbook, and I wish SOE would consider it.
A lot of people though consider Phantasy Star Online the true first console MMORPG, and that game was much higher in impact than FFXI, because it showed that console online subscription-based games were possible and profitable.
Interesting read. I lol at the people that seem to think thier favorite not being mentioned has much to do with the point of the discussion. ( my favorite MUD, Aardwolf ,not mentioned, was as large as the larger fantasy MUDs, Achaea, Dragon Realms and the furry one but it doesn't spoil the point being made) .
There are MMOs out there now that have terrific potential that will never be realized because they have boxed themselves into a pure PVE or PVP environment. I will never understand why developers do this. Silly, but I thought the purpose of producing a product, regardless of the love put into it is, in the end, profit!
Aion is a good example of this. Yeah, I know, waaaaa...its grind city. The game is going to be profitable but a sigificant number of players who have left already or will leave at some point do so because the grind, coupled with the gank squads making the game less playable for them. This isn't about carebears so spare me the usual macho BS.
I enjoy PVP but there are nights when I'd like to just go out and level, explore, whatever . Offering a choice would result in a larger player base and many people who aren't initialy PVP oriented will get involved at some point. (high lev pvp is well done imo) Again, its about being profitable which means attracting and retaining a large player base.
I guarantee that a game offering the option to opt in/out of PVP will be more sussessful than one the offers only PVP or PVE.
Some will argue its the developers option and non pvp carebears should go elsewhere. People that like to pop in for a short while and run alone for a while should likewise find a new home...BUT... offering both will still leave a large base of non PVPers who otherwise will leave and the same base of pvpers the game (whatever it might be) that would be retained as a pure PVP.
Its about profit. No profit no game. Less profit= less support...no game.
THe main thing with PVP oriented games is that the DEVELOPER looks at it like they dont have to add any new content - cause the players themselfs will be enjoying PVPing each other. This is simply not the case. Thus - PVP oriented games like AOC - WAR and now Aion are taking massive blows after the inital hype. World of Warcraft was at the same point in its lifecycle keeping their players - and getting new ones that realised that the devs were backing the game 100% with new content regularly.
PVPs are niche games because they have alot less chance to grow. While the PVE oriented ones are built on growing.
There is a reason for tha,t few MMOs have succeeded with both good PvE and PvP, it is a lot harder to make a game for everyone and you must have all the mechanics for that in by launch, adding stuff like that later is a sure way to mess the game up.
It is surely possible to offer a great experience for both but it takes a lot of work, hopefully will Guildwars 2 deliver just that but I can honestly not mention a single game that I played that had both things right.
The best thing would surely to make PvE mobs act more like humans because in current games with the holy triad a lot of skills and gear is useless if you play PvP.
THe main thing with PVP oriented games is that the DEVELOPER looks at it like they dont have to add any new content - cause the players themselfs will be enjoying PVPing each other. This is simply not the case. Thus - PVP oriented games like AOC - WAR and now Aion are taking massive blows after the inital hype. World of Warcraft was at the same point in its lifecycle keeping their players - and getting new ones that realised that the devs were backing the game 100% with new content regularly.
PVPs are niche games because they have alot less chance to grow. While the PVE oriented ones are built on growing.
Agreed !!!!! I'm sure that some will not agree but a PVP/PVE game that offers a choice has a far better chance of being around for a longer time. not to mention, more successful. ...more players=more profit=more updates and support...
There is a reason for tha,t few MMOs have succeeded with both good PvE and PvP, it is a lot harder to make a game for everyone and you must have all the mechanics for that in by launch, adding stuff like that later is a sure way to mess the game up.
It is surely possible to offer a great experience for both but it takes a lot of work, hopefully will Guildwars 2 deliver just that but I can honestly not mention a single game that I played that had both things right.
The best thing would surely to make PvE mobs act more like humans because in current games with the holy triad a lot of skills and gear is useless if you play PvP.
Point taken but I wonder how hard it is to offer an option. I played MUDs since they were 30 levels and even then they could make the option work. Players were simply flagged PK of NPK.
I to have hopes for GW2. The trailers look great but only time will tell. I am concerned with the promise of a smaller, less confusing set of skills. What does that mean? The original GW had a ton of (to many??) skills for each class that imo made for some great PVP action. Skill was hugely important as was an understanding of skill mechanics. You never knew what you would be up against and had to plan for a balance. This became less important as time went by and there were some 'cookie cutter' builds that became the meta. Even with this there were surprises. Someone would come up with a so-called gimmic build that destroyed the meta and the meta would change...just loved it !!!
RE: It featured the same series of "kill 10" quests, "Fed-Ex" quests and "Go Meet Fred" quests as most MMOs had for years,
Requesting comments on this.
In talking with vets of the early games, I've come to a conclusion that WoW did change the role questing served in-game. From what I understand (easily could be flawed) prior to WoW, the role of quests was primarily a means to advance storyline and reward a character with gear, but they were not the primary means of advancing in the game (aka not THE major source of XP).
Did WoW replace the XP grind (via kills) with an XP grind (via quests and kills) ???
Ken
www.ActionMMORPG.com
One man, a small pile of money, and the screwball idea of a DIY Indie MMORPG? Yep, that's him. ~sigh~
I hate to be picky but decade ends in 2010 and not in 2009.
No fate but what we make, so make me a ham sandwich please.