Just to clarify quickly on what i mean auto assault death is a good thing.
I was referring to the outlook of the future of mmos. Auto Assault failure will communicate to other developers and publishers in the future on what kind of games we, customers, will want to play. Ncsoft just lost $13 million on Auto Assault, other developers arent willing to give up that kind of money. So they rather invest their miillions on a genre that is more likely to give them profit. If fantasy MMOs are the type of mmos we, the customers, are willing to go to, then that what we will see in the future.
On top of that Auto Assault only had 11,000 people on its first month of operation. That says alot, that we, the customers, were not interested in a game like Auto Assault. Ive never played Auto Assault, but the point is that its initital out look on its first month was not that great. If you compared to other successful mmos, Auto Assault was a complete flop.
We, the customers, have the power to tell these developers what we want and dont want. This is how we do it by using our money. Next time will Ncsoft be willing to do another car themed mmo? No they wont. Why? because they dont want to lose money, they instead want to make it.
At the beginning I did appreicate NCsoft willing to try something new. Been inventive with the mmo market. Auto Assaults failure in a long run a good thing for us, because it will result in better games.
Have played: CoH, DDO EQ2, FFXI, L2, HZ, SoR, and WW2 online
No theme is going to appeal to everyone. How is AA any different than any other game in that respect?
The point is that given the popularity of WoW and other fantasy-based games, the "car wars" theme (apparently) had far less initial appeal than anything else out there.
If you can't even get people - like me - to try the game, how are you going to sell it?
By making it good enough that the people who it does appeal to, and do try it, actually enjoy it, and want to pay money to keep playing? Lots of player did give AA a shot, during open beta, and in free trials, but the vast majority of them didn't have enough fun with it to see spending a single dime on it.
Isn't that pretty fundamental? Or do you really think the majority appeal is all that matters, and all devs would do better making EverQuest clones, fighting over that same big pie slice, despite that it would mean competing more directly with giants like Blizzard and SOE? There are a few advantages to devs going after those smaller pie slices, but either way, the game has to be fun for the audience that it appeals to.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
By making it good enough that the people who it does appeal to, and do try it, actually enjoy it, and want to pay money to keep playing?
Thank you for making my point. The people to whom it did appeal represented such a small segment of the MMO market, that there simply were not enough people willing to pay for it to help keep it afloat.
This kind of reminds me of Earth and Beyond. starships not cars were the main avatars, yet in spaceports you still had a persona. The game was hella fun, but never had enough advertising once EA bought out westwood to attract a playerbase. Hell Europe never saw a single add, and even thou out of about 40k subs initially 10k were Eurasian it was word of mouth.
For a product to succeed it needs promotion. I never saw auto assault adds and I flit through gaming sites quite a bit.
Never played the game, and mind you cars just arent my thing, if I had come across something that had made me search up a review I may have tried it. For me it's about gameplay not friggin elves and dragons. Only fantasy game I have played (and currently play is DaoC) and that's mostly for multy team PvP (RvR).
I've lost games in the past and I know the hurt the players that feel this has potential have. Dont flame em plz.
perhaps you might get lucky. Anarchy online had about the worst launch in history. But funcom didnt write it off. They fought and kept it alive. And as outdated as it is they get new subsdaily because they offered the initial game free, pay for expansion content.
A quick preface...this thread was started over a year BEFORE Auto Assaults demise.
I know I'm reviving a four year old thread. Still, with the exception of a rabid troller, and a few users that allowed him to derail the thread for a short period, there is material in here that is very current and applicable to MMO's in 2010.
First, to all that say the forums on MMORPG.com are "teh suck", they're wrong. Do threads get derailed? Sure. But show me a forum where they don't. Are their way to may "doom and gloom" posts? Yeah, but that's mostly trollers trying to get fanbois riled up. What this particular thread demonstrates, however, is how many of the posts here are well thought out and articulate...even if they get a bit heated from time to time.
More intriguingly, this thread is a fantastic read for potential MMO developers. If you have a unique world environment, you had better create an equally innovative set of game mechanics (i.e. EVE) or you'll end up like AA. That said, Tabula Rasa had both, but still failed.
I also thought the single post that best described the reasoning for the current monoculture of MMO's that we have, was the one that imagined a dev team trying to decide what sort of game to make. It's not hard to understand why game companies are so reluctant to throw $50-$100 million at "revolutionary" MMO's.
So I thought the question could be asked again, and maybe some value judgements be given four years later:
Comments
Just to clarify quickly on what i mean auto assault death is a good thing.
I was referring to the outlook of the future of mmos. Auto Assault failure will communicate to other developers and publishers in the future on what kind of games we, customers, will want to play. Ncsoft just lost $13 million on Auto Assault, other developers arent willing to give up that kind of money. So they rather invest their miillions on a genre that is more likely to give them profit. If fantasy MMOs are the type of mmos we, the customers, are willing to go to, then that what we will see in the future.
On top of that Auto Assault only had 11,000 people on its first month of operation. That says alot, that we, the customers, were not interested in a game like Auto Assault. Ive never played Auto Assault, but the point is that its initital out look on its first month was not that great. If you compared to other successful mmos, Auto Assault was a complete flop.
We, the customers, have the power to tell these developers what we want and dont want. This is how we do it by using our money. Next time will Ncsoft be willing to do another car themed mmo? No they wont. Why? because they dont want to lose money, they instead want to make it.
At the beginning I did appreicate NCsoft willing to try something new. Been inventive with the mmo market. Auto Assaults failure in a long run a good thing for us, because it will result in better games.
Have played: CoH, DDO EQ2, FFXI, L2, HZ, SoR, and WW2 online
The point is that given the popularity of WoW and other fantasy-based games, the "car wars" theme (apparently) had far less initial appeal than anything else out there.
If you can't even get people - like me - to try the game, how are you going to sell it?
By making it good enough that the people who it does appeal to, and do try it, actually enjoy it, and want to pay money to keep playing? Lots of player did give AA a shot, during open beta, and in free trials, but the vast majority of them didn't have enough fun with it to see spending a single dime on it.
Isn't that pretty fundamental? Or do you really think the majority appeal is all that matters, and all devs would do better making EverQuest clones, fighting over that same big pie slice, despite that it would mean competing more directly with giants like Blizzard and SOE? There are a few advantages to devs going after those smaller pie slices, but either way, the game has to be fun for the audience that it appeals to.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
One final note on "Car Wars"..er...Auto Assault:
NCSoft released its second quarter balance sheet on 8/4/06. That report can be found here:
http://ncsoft.com/eng/nccompany/ir_data_report04.asp
Of interest to note for AA players: Auto Assault isn't even mentioned by name in the report. It's simply refered to as "Other."
This game won't make it past Christmas, if even that long.
Thank you for making my point. The people to whom it did appeal represented such a small segment of the MMO market, that there simply were not enough people willing to pay for it to help keep it afloat.
This kind of reminds me of Earth and Beyond. starships not cars were the main avatars, yet in spaceports you still had a persona. The game was hella fun, but never had enough advertising once EA bought out westwood to attract a playerbase. Hell Europe never saw a single add, and even thou out of about 40k subs initially 10k were Eurasian it was word of mouth.
For a product to succeed it needs promotion. I never saw auto assault adds and I flit through gaming sites quite a bit.
Never played the game, and mind you cars just arent my thing, if I had come across something that had made me search up a review I may have tried it. For me it's about gameplay not friggin elves and dragons. Only fantasy game I have played (and currently play is DaoC) and that's mostly for multy team PvP (RvR).
I've lost games in the past and I know the hurt the players that feel this has potential have. Dont flame em plz.
perhaps you might get lucky. Anarchy online had about the worst launch in history. But funcom didnt write it off. They fought and kept it alive. And as outdated as it is they get new subsdaily because they offered the initial game free, pay for expansion content.
Dont give up hope, but dont hold your breath.
A quick preface...this thread was started over a year BEFORE Auto Assaults demise.
I know I'm reviving a four year old thread. Still, with the exception of a rabid troller, and a few users that allowed him to derail the thread for a short period, there is material in here that is very current and applicable to MMO's in 2010.
First, to all that say the forums on MMORPG.com are "teh suck", they're wrong. Do threads get derailed? Sure. But show me a forum where they don't. Are their way to may "doom and gloom" posts? Yeah, but that's mostly trollers trying to get fanbois riled up. What this particular thread demonstrates, however, is how many of the posts here are well thought out and articulate...even if they get a bit heated from time to time.
More intriguingly, this thread is a fantastic read for potential MMO developers. If you have a unique world environment, you had better create an equally innovative set of game mechanics (i.e. EVE) or you'll end up like AA. That said, Tabula Rasa had both, but still failed.
I also thought the single post that best described the reasoning for the current monoculture of MMO's that we have, was the one that imagined a dev team trying to decide what sort of game to make. It's not hard to understand why game companies are so reluctant to throw $50-$100 million at "revolutionary" MMO's.
So I thought the question could be asked again, and maybe some value judgements be given four years later:
"Was Auto Assaults death a good thing for MMO's?"
Deleted by User...double post