there is a market - I never said there wasn't - it's just a very small market.
I am not assuming anything, I've seen the market research myself as far as player number projections for EQ1 vanilla style game.
This is a fact - it's not an assumption.
Rofl, market research conducted by the same people who concluded the best option for MMOs was to make them massively single player lobby games, no doubt.
Which has been more successful than EQ1, DAoC, AC, AO and all gen1 games put together.
Not sure whats so funny about that.
You might hate the style but the amount of money pulled in by modern lobby games like Overwatch, Destiny, COD etc....
Its an order of magnitude bigger than mmorpgs.
Hello?
Yes, and cars are a bigger industry than motorcycles. Apples and oranges. And I like how you tried to conflate all lobby games with MMO lobby games to lend credibility to your argument.
There were also over 2 BILLION more people on the internet when Destiny came out, than when first gen MMOs were in their prime.
How do you build memories in a short 3 week game ?
Why would you build your own community of friends in a 3 week mmo ?
How do you REALLY define and fine tune your character in a 3 week mmo ?
Why even call it an mmo in a 3 week game and not just a video game ?
How fun is making an alt that may be needed by your Guild if you play the exact same content over ?
Why craft in a 3 week game >
Well, by reading all the replies it seems the majority don't like short 3 week games anyway. This topic is really not needed.........However, I guess it needs to be mentioned to show developers to make mmos for us instead of their quick cash hit and run games !!!!
One reason I like Pantheon is that I have total faith in this development team
what you are completely failing to take into account is the typical F2P player will come back at some point - as the game is zero cost - so with patches, expansions etc... F2P players come back to play for a few more weeks.
it's not like - hey I'll play this game for 3 weeks and that's it. A good % do come back and keep coming back, because there is no fee to come back.
So the way it looks in F2P games - it's constant churn - launch population spike, then decline as players move on 2-6 weeks later... then you have a content patch, another (smaller) spike... then players leave again etc...
Now in a pure subscription model - you lose a player, it's a lot harder to "win" them back because even if they want to check out that new patch for 5minutes - they have to pay a full month price, which makes many say - no thanks.
Dude, you've been talking this crap for the past few years, and all we have gotten out of the genre is just that....crap. If you build a great game people will want to stay and play it for more than a few weeks. Also with a sub there is more of an investment in it. Show me a legit stat that shows people come back to free to play games more than they do sub games. Because even when I have gone back to a non-sub game like ESO, I still pay the sub. People that don't want to pay subs don't pay crap anyway. Why cater to freeloaders?
You are a minority representing view of a minority.
What stats do I need to show you - just look how pretty much every MMO in existence has transitioned from P2P to F2P/B2P
Pure P2P has ceased to exist.
Why?
Because players DONT STAY anymore like they did 17 years ago.
Instead of handful MMO to choose from back in 1999-2003, now there are 100s.
Also now we have a ton of other stuff to do like Netflix, Social media, Steam, console online games have taken off - so a modern player has a ton of stuff asking attention - focusing on a single game for months is very rare in majority players.
Pure P2P today is assured failure.
WoW and FFXIV were two of the top MMOs of 2016. Both sub-model MMO's.
The original MMO fanbase was niche, still is. I don't care what the "majority" wants, I only care about what I, the MMO fan, wants. I do not want a multiplayer experience, I want an MMO with a living, thriving economy and community, like back in the day. I don't give crap about what you want, I don't need you to have this experience for me to enjoy it. F2p MMOs are crap. Just because you like them does not change MY opinion of them. Get over yourself dude, no one cares anymore about your internet persona you created that has connections and a magical "deep" understanding of this genre that we plebs will never comprehend. It is laughable.
Which has been more successful than EQ1, DAoC, AC, AO and all gen1 games put together.
Not sure whats so funny about that.
You might hate the style but the amount of money pulled in by modern lobby games like Overwatch, Destiny, COD etc....
Its an order of magnitude bigger than mmorpgs.
Hello?
Yes, and cars are a bigger industry than motorcycles. Apples and oranges. And I like how you tried to conflate all lobby games with MMO lobby games to lend credibility to your argument.
There were also over 2 BILLION more people on the internet when Destiny came out, than when first gen MMOs were in their prime.
Hello?
To be completely fair, just because the market is larger doesn't mean you can expect to sell more. Try selling some antiquated technology. There might be a niche market for it, but it's unlikely that the size of that market changes much regardless of the population size.
What would be super interesting to see would be the age demographics for people interested in Pantheon. My guess is that it's mostly the 30+ crowd who have been playing MMOs for a decade or more. People who have been programmed to be persistent and that waiting is worthwhile. Anybody 30 and under are more likely to be accustomed to constant and frequent progression in MMOs, similar to what you see now. Also, it's due to popularized MMO-esque games like Destiny and The Division where progression is much more rewarding.
Can we agree that Pantheon is a niche game? If so then why are you arguing about numbers? We know it'll be a subset of the mass market, but there's really no way to tell what that subset actually looks like. What we DO know is that similar "old school" projects (like SotA) have had difficulties maintaining numbers. So what's the solution to that? Ignoring the realities of this genre isn't going to all of a sudden make millions flock to it, it'll only serve to make the game appear to under-perform when it doesn't meet the expectations that the community set for it.
Which has been more successful than EQ1, DAoC, AC, AO and all gen1 games put together.
Not sure whats so funny about that.
You might hate the style but the amount of money pulled in by modern lobby games like Overwatch, Destiny, COD etc....
Its an order of magnitude bigger than mmorpgs.
Hello?
Yes, and cars are a bigger industry than motorcycles. Apples and oranges. And I like how you tried to conflate all lobby games with MMO lobby games to lend credibility to your argument.
There were also over 2 BILLION more people on the internet when Destiny came out, than when first gen MMOs were in their prime.
Hello?
To be completely fair, just because the market is larger doesn't mean you can expect to sell more. Try selling some antiquated technology. There might be a niche market for it, but it's unlikely that the size of that market changes much regardless of the population size.
What would be super interesting to see would be the age demographics for people interested in Pantheon. My guess is that it's mostly the 30+ crowd who have been playing MMOs for a decade or more. People who have been programmed to be persistent and that waiting is worthwhile. Anybody 30 and under are more likely to be accustomed to constant and frequent progression in MMOs, similar to what you see now. Also, it's due to popularized MMO-esque games like Destiny and The Division where progression is much more rewarding.
Can we agree that Pantheon is a niche game? If so then why are you arguing about numbers? We know it'll be a subset of the mass market, but there's really no way to tell what that subset actually looks like. What we DO know is that similar "old school" projects (like SotA) have had difficulties maintaining numbers. So what's the solution to that? Ignoring the realities of this genre isn't going to all of a sudden make millions flock to it, it'll only serve to make the game appear to under-perform when it doesn't meet the expectations that the community set for it.
The whole "niche" "mainstream" classifications are ambiguous and misleading. We're talking about EQ, which was more popular than pretty much any current MMO on the market outside of WoW (largely due to China). Is half a million players niche today? I don't think so.
So how niche is it really. Depending on how polished and well executed Pantheon is, I think it has the potential to rival many of the games we commonly call mainstream.
Does that mean it would therefore be mainstream? Probably not, because it will be different than the usual games. However, describing games as niche to refer to their potential audience is not really very descriptive.
Yudore said: I think level cap should take roughly 3 months when playing 4 to 5 hours a day.
I'm curious what others think, post below!
I think level cap should take ~6 month when playing 4-5 hours a day, with a strong encouragement to invest significant time and effort into gearing and up and advancing skills as you level.
Simply farming XP should not be sufficient for either.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
The whole "niche" "mainstream" classifications are ambiguous and misleading. We're talking about EQ, which was more popular than pretty much any current MMO on the market outside of WoW (largely due to China). Is half a million players niche today? I don't think so.
What are you basing that on? Because it had 500k players for a short time? Define popularity here?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Which has been more successful than EQ1, DAoC, AC, AO and all gen1 games put together.
Not sure whats so funny about that.
You might hate the style but the amount of money pulled in by modern lobby games like Overwatch, Destiny, COD etc....
Its an order of magnitude bigger than mmorpgs.
Hello?
Yes, and cars are a bigger industry than motorcycles. Apples and oranges. And I like how you tried to conflate all lobby games with MMO lobby games to lend credibility to your argument.
There were also over 2 BILLION more people on the internet when Destiny came out, than when first gen MMOs were in their prime.
Hello?
To be completely fair, just because the market is larger doesn't mean you can expect to sell more. Try selling some antiquated technology. There might be a niche market for it, but it's unlikely that the size of that market changes much regardless of the population size.
What would be super interesting to see would be the age demographics for people interested in Pantheon. My guess is that it's mostly the 30+ crowd who have been playing MMOs for a decade or more. People who have been programmed to be persistent and that waiting is worthwhile. Anybody 30 and under are more likely to be accustomed to constant and frequent progression in MMOs, similar to what you see now. Also, it's due to popularized MMO-esque games like Destiny and The Division where progression is much more rewarding.
Can we agree that Pantheon is a niche game? If so then why are you arguing about numbers? We know it'll be a subset of the mass market, but there's really no way to tell what that subset actually looks like. What we DO know is that similar "old school" projects (like SotA) have had difficulties maintaining numbers. So what's the solution to that? Ignoring the realities of this genre isn't going to all of a sudden make millions flock to it, it'll only serve to make the game appear to under-perform when it doesn't meet the expectations that the community set for it.
The whole "niche" "mainstream" classifications are ambiguous and misleading. We're talking about EQ, which was more popular than pretty much any current MMO on the market outside of WoW (largely due to China). Is half a million players niche today? I don't think so.
So how niche is it really. Depending on how polished and well executed Pantheon is, I think it has the potential to rival many of the games we commonly call mainstream.
Does that mean it would therefore be mainstream? Probably not, because it will be different than the usual games. However, describing games as niche to refer to their potential audience is not really very descriptive.
Yes, you're right, Everquest did have 500,000 subscribers at one point. However, when WoW released that number was cut to like 200k in less than a year. So what does that mean? Does it mean that Everquest had run out of steam? Or does it mean that it was only popular because of a lack of choice?
You know what, though, I'm not here to rain on your parade, so if you really want to hang your hat on 500,000 subscribers, go for it. Fuck, WoW had 10 million at one point, so the true market is at least 10 million. Most of those people are disgruntled, too, so they're looking for a new game, and Pantheon offers what most MMORPG players have been asking for. Therefore, if they are able to deliver a great game, there's absolutely no reason that they shouldn't be able to secure 10% of those WoW numbers, so 1 million people, and that's being conservative! So the sky is the limit!
How do you build memories in a short 3 week game ?
Why would you build your own community of friends in a 3 week mmo ?
How do you REALLY define and fine tune your character in a 3 week mmo ?
Why even call it an mmo in a 3 week game and not just a video game ?
How fun is making an alt that may be needed by your Guild if you play the exact same content over ?
Why craft in a 3 week game >
Well, by reading all the replies it seems the majority don't like short 3 week games anyway. This topic is really not needed.........However, I guess it needs to be mentioned to show developers to make mmos for us instead of their quick cash hit and run games !!!!
One reason I like Pantheon is that I have total faith in this development team
what you are completely failing to take into account is the typical F2P player will come back at some point - as the game is zero cost - so with patches, expansions etc... F2P players come back to play for a few more weeks.
it's not like - hey I'll play this game for 3 weeks and that's it. A good % do come back and keep coming back, because there is no fee to come back.
So the way it looks in F2P games - it's constant churn - launch population spike, then decline as players move on 2-6 weeks later... then you have a content patch, another (smaller) spike... then players leave again etc...
Now in a pure subscription model - you lose a player, it's a lot harder to "win" them back because even if they want to check out that new patch for 5minutes - they have to pay a full month price, which makes many say - no thanks.
Dude, you've been talking this crap for the past few years, and all we have gotten out of the genre is just that....crap. If you build a great game people will want to stay and play it for more than a few weeks. Also with a sub there is more of an investment in it. Show me a legit stat that shows people come back to free to play games more than they do sub games. Because even when I have gone back to a non-sub game like ESO, I still pay the sub. People that don't want to pay subs don't pay crap anyway. Why cater to freeloaders?
You are a minority representing view of a minority.
What stats do I need to show you - just look how pretty much every MMO in existence has transitioned from P2P to F2P/B2P
Pure P2P has ceased to exist.
Why?
Because players DONT STAY anymore like they did 17 years ago.
Instead of handful MMO to choose from back in 1999-2003, now there are 100s.
Also now we have a ton of other stuff to do like Netflix, Social media, Steam, console online games have taken off - so a modern player has a ton of stuff asking attention - focusing on a single game for months is very rare in majority players.
Pure P2P today is assured failure.
WoW and FFXIV were two of the top MMOs of 2016. Both sub-model MMO's.
The original MMO fanbase was niche, still is. I don't care what the "majority" wants, I only care about what I, the MMO fan, wants. I do not want a multiplayer experience, I want an MMO with a living, thriving economy and community, like back in the day. I don't give crap about what you want, I don't need you to have this experience for me to enjoy it. F2p MMOs are crap. Just because you like them does not change MY opinion of them. Get over yourself dude, no one cares anymore about your internet persona you created that has connections and a magical "deep" understanding of this genre that we plebs will never comprehend. It is laughable.
Both WoW and FFXIV are not top 2 MMOs by a longshot - where are you getting your metrics?
Also neither game is pure sub - both make a significant profit from their cash shops.
Cash shops ARE the money maker.
Hearthstone made a lot more money than WoW and FFXIV in 2016.
Yeah.
So what you are saying that every game maker should pick out the game(s) that are making the most money and just clone or copy it. Nothing else should ever be made. All them WoW clones did not seem to do that well but guess they did the right thing according to this logic. Of course if all the games are copies of each other then the player has no reason to leave what he is playing now and try the new game as its the same. You need to talk to Ford and GM, the pickup sells the best and makes the most money, they should not waste their time making anything else.
Well, ideally, assuming that level 100 is maxlevel at release (which it probably wont, but correct accordingly), and you're playing 4 hours per day:
Level 1-10: About a day Level 11-20: About three days (total, so additional 2 days) Level 20-30: About a week (additional 4 days) Level 30-40: About two weeks (additional 7 days) Level 40-50: About a month (additional 14 days) Level 50-60: About two months (additional 28 days) Level 70-80: About four months (additional 56 days) Level 80-90: About eight months (additional 112 days) Level 90-100: About two to three+ years (additional 448+ days => the last levels have a real slowdown as well)
In short the traditional "endgame" shouldnt exist as such.
Also, there should be raid style content from level 50 on. You'll need two groups for these early raids, and they wont be too complex and hard just yet. You'll need three groups and increasing complexity later.
From level 90 on you should be considered "maxlevel" of sorts. All top gear should be wearable at level 90, its just hard to actually get it. An actual level 100 should be a rare sight.
And yes there will always be people who can manage faster. One will have to install mechanisms to stop them. For example it should be necessary from level 10 on to solve quests to actually continue leveling. And you should need to find items in the game to level skills. With such mechanisms one can make speedruns much harder.
The whole "niche" "mainstream" classifications are ambiguous and misleading. We're talking about EQ, which was more popular than pretty much any current MMO on the market outside of WoW (largely due to China). Is half a million players niche today? I don't think so.
So how niche is it really. Depending on how polished and well executed Pantheon is, I think it has the potential to rival many of the games we commonly call mainstream.
Does that mean it would therefore be mainstream? Probably not, because it will be different than the usual games. However, describing games as niche to refer to their potential audience is not really very descriptive.
Yes, you're right, Everquest did have 500,000 subscribers at one point. However, when WoW released that number was cut to like 200k in less than a year. So what does that mean? Does it mean that Everquest had run out of steam? Or does it mean that it was only popular because of a lack of choice?
You know what, though, I'm not here to rain on your parade, so if you really want to hang your hat on 500,000 subscribers, go for it. Fuck, WoW had 10 million at one point, so the true market is at least 10 million. Most of those people are disgruntled, too, so they're looking for a new game, and Pantheon offers what most MMORPG players have been asking for. Therefore, if they are able to deliver a great game, there's absolutely no reason that they shouldn't be able to secure 10% of those WoW numbers, so 1 million people, and that's being conservative! So the sky is the limit!
My question about Pantheon's market share has always been -- where are these 1 million / 500k / 200k / <your projected number here> at now? What game will Pantheon raid and take away their player base? The best case I can come up with is somewhere between 10k and 20k people, and even that is going to devastate games like P99, EQ1, EQ2 and other games with anemic populations already. Maybe people will flock to Pantheon from places like SW:TOR and LotRO (both older, trinity-based games with strong, compelling IPs), but I don't see that happening without a significant marketing effort, and I am unaware that VR has plans for such a campaign.
When projecting numbers for Pantheon, please keep in mind what these potential players are doing now. (There's only around 250-300 who are regularly commenting on sites like MMORPG.com, so it's very unlikely we are a hoard of unattached players waiting for Pantheon. Unless the vaunted subscription rate is going to be in the $350 (US) per month, we simply aren't going to cut it financially).
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
My question about Pantheon's market share has always been -- where are these 1 million / 500k / 200k / <your projected number here> at now? What game will Pantheon raid and take away their player base? The best case I can come up with is somewhere between 10k and 20k people, and even that is going to devastate games like P99, EQ1, EQ2 and other games with anemic populations already. Maybe people will flock to Pantheon from places like SW:TOR and LotRO (both older, trinity-based games with strong, compelling IPs), but I don't see that happening without a significant marketing effort, and I am unaware that VR has plans for such a campaign.
When projecting numbers for Pantheon, please keep in mind what these potential players are doing now. (There's only around 250-300 who are regularly commenting on sites like MMORPG.com, so it's very unlikely we are a hoard of unattached players waiting for Pantheon. Unless the vaunted subscription rate is going to be in the $350 (US) per month, we simply aren't going to cut it financially).
I am not sure what you are saying here? Are you saying there will only be a few thousand players playing Pantheon?
My question about Pantheon's market share has always been -- where are these 1 million / 500k / 200k / <your projected number here> at now? What game will Pantheon raid and take away their player base? The best case I can come up with is somewhere between 10k and 20k people, and even that is going to devastate games like P99, EQ1, EQ2 and other games with anemic populations already. Maybe people will flock to Pantheon from places like SW:TOR and LotRO (both older, trinity-based games with strong, compelling IPs), but I don't see that happening without a significant marketing effort, and I am unaware that VR has plans for such a campaign.
When projecting numbers for Pantheon, please keep in mind what these potential players are doing now. (There's only around 250-300 who are regularly commenting on sites like MMORPG.com, so it's very unlikely we are a hoard of unattached players waiting for Pantheon. Unless the vaunted subscription rate is going to be in the $350 (US) per month, we simply aren't going to cut it financially).
I am not sure what you are saying here? Are you saying there will only be a few thousand players playing Pantheon?
Yeah its hard to figure out some of these posts. The guild I was in while in EQ had 3 blizzard developers in it and I started hearing about WoW years before they announce it or even named it. Heck I should have been telling them that EQ only had around 450K people and that is all they can ever plan to have playing WoW. Wonder where all them other people that ended up playing WoW came from as EQ only went down to around 200K, they didn't all come from it. I not sure what the point of all the posts by people saying that Pantheon will only have 100K, 10K, 2K or even a half dozen playing it. We will not know until the game is finished and released and then we shall all see how well or bad it does. It seems some people just enjoy being doomsayers and they infest every game forum. Hmmm Maybe someone should make a game for doomsayers as we see a few dozens of them around in every forum.
My question about Pantheon's market share has always been -- where are these 1 million / 500k / 200k / <your projected number here> at now? What game will Pantheon raid and take away their player base? The best case I can come up with is somewhere between 10k and 20k people, and even that is going to devastate games like P99, EQ1, EQ2 and other games with anemic populations already. Maybe people will flock to Pantheon from places like SW:TOR and LotRO (both older, trinity-based games with strong, compelling IPs), but I don't see that happening without a significant marketing effort, and I am unaware that VR has plans for such a campaign.
When projecting numbers for Pantheon, please keep in mind what these potential players are doing now. (There's only around 250-300 who are regularly commenting on sites like MMORPG.com, so it's very unlikely we are a hoard of unattached players waiting for Pantheon. Unless the vaunted subscription rate is going to be in the $350 (US) per month, we simply aren't going to cut it financially).
I am not sure what you are saying here? Are you saying there will only be a few thousand players playing Pantheon?
Yeah its hard to figure out some of these posts. The guild I was in while in EQ had 3 blizzard developers in it and I started hearing about WoW years before they announce it or even named it. Heck I should have been telling them that EQ only had around 450K people and that is all they can ever plan to have playing WoW. Wonder where all them other people that ended up playing WoW came from as EQ only went down to around 200K, they didn't all come from it. I not sure what the point of all the posts by people saying that Pantheon will only have 100K, 10K, 2K or even a half dozen playing it. We will not know until the game is finished and released and then we shall all see how well or bad it does. It seems some people just enjoy being doomsayers and they infest every game forum. Hmmm Maybe someone should make a game for doomsayers as we see a few dozens of them around in every forum.
Yea I agree that we will not know what this game or any game will do until it is out. Hell look at Rift it was known as a WOW killer and well the game is a mess right now.
I do think people have their hopes that this could be a large game. I think that is a fair opinion to have. I personally hope this game becomes large enough that it will show that you do not have to clone WOW to be successful.
My question about Pantheon's market share has always been -- where are these 1 million / 500k / 200k / <your projected number here> at now? What game will Pantheon raid and take away their player base? The best case I can come up with is somewhere between 10k and 20k people, and even that is going to devastate games like P99, EQ1, EQ2 and other games with anemic populations already. Maybe people will flock to Pantheon from places like SW:TOR and LotRO (both older, trinity-based games with strong, compelling IPs), but I don't see that happening without a significant marketing effort, and I am unaware that VR has plans for such a campaign.
When projecting numbers for Pantheon, please keep in mind what these potential players are doing now. (There's only around 250-300 who are regularly commenting on sites like MMORPG.com, so it's very unlikely we are a hoard of unattached players waiting for Pantheon. Unless the vaunted subscription rate is going to be in the $350 (US) per month, we simply aren't going to cut it financially).
I am not sure what you are saying here? Are you saying there will only be a few thousand players playing Pantheon?
Yeah its hard to figure out some of these posts. The guild I was in while in EQ had 3 blizzard developers in it and I started hearing about WoW years before they announce it or even named it. Heck I should have been telling them that EQ only had around 450K people and that is all they can ever plan to have playing WoW. Wonder where all them other people that ended up playing WoW came from as EQ only went down to around 200K, they didn't all come from it. I not sure what the point of all the posts by people saying that Pantheon will only have 100K, 10K, 2K or even a half dozen playing it. We will not know until the game is finished and released and then we shall all see how well or bad it does. It seems some people just enjoy being doomsayers and they infest every game forum. Hmmm Maybe someone should make a game for doomsayers as we see a few dozens of them around in every forum.
It's relatively easy to see where WoW's population came from -- Blizzard converted a large number of Warcraft RTS players to the World of Warcraft. It's pretty much a unique occurrence in gaming history, players following a brand from one genre to another. No other IP has been able to bring as many people into the MMORPG space, not LotR, not Star Wars, not Star Trek.
Where are tomorrow's Pantheon players, and what are they doing now? The numbers I can reasonably predict are small, ridiculously small even. To get numbers in the range that I consider as a viable long-term player base really involves taking players from other games. In other words, I can see it becoming very competitive, very soon. Generally, having options is not a bad thing for players, but with so many games apparently struggling to keep the doors open, that competition is very likely to cause some companies to simply disappear. Lack of choice is rarely good for players, the developers or the industry.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Which has been more successful than EQ1, DAoC, AC, AO and all gen1 games put together.
How do you propose success be measured?
Total box/download sales?
Total revenue from subscriptions/cash shop sales?
Total number of players?
Player satisfaction?
Market share of then existing market?
Percentage of player retention over time?
Return on investment to investors?
Player, press and industry feedback as to quality?
Advancement of the genre through innovation?
Years in operation?
You really can't fairly compare the success of two games without choosing your criteria.
money made. That is the metric I use for success as that is what metric all business use.
The criteria in video game business is always money.
Seen many a game have huge box sales and crash a burn after. Im sure they made money but I would not call that success. Now an MMO like EQ1 thats been going for 18 years, does not cost much to keep running. Uses tools that make a community keep playing. Now thats something I would call a success both for the company and the gamers.
Yes, you're right, Everquest did have 500,000 subscribers at one point. However, when WoW released that number was cut to like 200k in less than a year. So what does that mean? Does it mean that Everquest had run out of steam? Or does it mean that it was only popular because of a lack of choice?
You know what, though, I'm not here to rain on your parade, so if you really want to hang your hat on 500,000 subscribers, go for it. Fuck, WoW had 10 million at one point, so the true market is at least 10 million. Most of those people are disgruntled, too, so they're looking for a new game, and Pantheon offers what most MMORPG players have been asking for. Therefore, if they are able to deliver a great game, there's absolutely no reason that they shouldn't be able to secure 10% of those WoW numbers, so 1 million people, and that's being conservative! So the sky is the limit!
WoW actually had 12 million, but the point I was making (and did so successfully), was that even before and after WoW, EQ had hundreds of thousands of players. Even by today's standard, that is a lot of people for "mainstream" games. WoW was an anomaly, and therefore doesn't represent the norm.
I would say yes, it was dated and running out of steam to some degree. It was a very different game at that point, and had started losing people for the first time in it's history after several of the previous expansions.
A fancy new game that's similar will naturally take some of the players. That they had changed some of the group focus to a more "end game" raid focus and traded world mechanics for convenience, also did not help.
Yes, you're right, Everquest did have 500,000 subscribers at one point. However, when WoW released that number was cut to like 200k in less than a year. So what does that mean? Does it mean that Everquest had run out of steam? Or does it mean that it was only popular because of a lack of choice?
You know what, though, I'm not here to rain on your parade, so if you really want to hang your hat on 500,000 subscribers, go for it. Fuck, WoW had 10 million at one point, so the true market is at least 10 million. Most of those people are disgruntled, too, so they're looking for a new game, and Pantheon offers what most MMORPG players have been asking for. Therefore, if they are able to deliver a great game, there's absolutely no reason that they shouldn't be able to secure 10% of those WoW numbers, so 1 million people, and that's being conservative! So the sky is the limit!
WoW actually had 12 million, but the point I was making (and did so successfully), was that even before and after WoW, EQ had hundreds of thousands of players. Even by today's standard, that is a lot of people for "mainstream" games. WoW was an anomaly, and therefore doesn't represent the norm.
I would say yes, it was dated and running out of steam to some degree. It was a very different game at that point, and had started losing people for the first time in it's history after several of the previous expansions.
A fancy new game that's similar will naturally take some of the players. That they had changed some of the group focus to a more "end game" raid focus and traded world mechanics for convenience, also did not help.
Let's keep in mind that out of WoW's 12 million, at least 7 million of those were Asia-based. The other 5 accounting for the west.
So, thinking that there's a "true market of 10 million" people potentially available for Pantheon is misleading yourself in an extreme way. Not to mention, there were very few MMOs in the early WoW days. Whereas, today, the market is drowning in them... so, people are spread thin, despite having more total players in the genre than back in those days.
Back in the EQ days, 500k was mind-blowingly amazing, since there weren't that many people around playing these games. Calling WoW an anomaly would be the greatest understatement of all time.
I have no clue what ESO's actual player numbers are, but it's probably the current most successful since WoW. And, I'm pretty sure they couldn't have more than a million-ish, at most. They had a huge IP to boost their numbers, unlike Pantheon. Pantheon is starting with no name and a mediocre(at best) reputation.
500k in an MMO, even today, is a raging success, due to how stretched and saturated the genre is now. If they could actually get that many, they'd be lucky and thrilled. I'd be incredibly surprised to see them get that high. I'd consider 200k to be a pretty solid success story in today's atmosphere.
Let's keep in mind that out of WoW's 12 million, at least 7 million of those were Asia-based. The other 5 accounting for the west.
So, thinking that there's a "true market of 10 million" people potentially available for Pantheon is misleading yourself in an extreme way. Not to mention, there were very few MMOs in the early WoW days. Whereas, today, the market is drowning in them... so, people are spread thin, despite having more total players in the genre than back in those days.
Back in the EQ days, 500k was mind-blowingly amazing, since there weren't that many people around playing these games. Calling WoW an anomaly would be the greatest understatement of all time.
I have no clue what ESO's actual player numbers are, but it's probably the current most successful since WoW. And, I'm pretty sure they couldn't have more than a million-ish, at most. They had a huge IP to boost their numbers, unlike Pantheon. Pantheon is starting with no name and a mediocre(at best) reputation.
500k in an MMO, even today, is a raging success, due to how stretched and saturated the genre is now. If they could actually get that many, they'd be lucky and thrilled. I'd be incredibly surprised to see them get that high. I'd consider 200k to be a pretty solid success story in today's atmosphere.
There's a lot more than 12 million people in the potential mmo market, but they won't likely come together and play one game again any time soon.
One thing I disagree with is the implication that everyone who will play a game like Pantheon, are currently playing other MMOs. There are a lot of people who aren't, or haven't. Furthermore, people who played EQ and Vanguard will end up being by far the minority, and will be outnumbered more and more by people who also find they have similar tastes, and did not know.
A lot of people will be surprised by how different Pantheon will be, for good or bad. They are going for a more dangerous, cooperative, gritty, simulated reality type of feel that just isn't comparable to anything currently offered. Those who never played MMOs before 2005 will have no concept of what that is like (though survival games come close minus the persistence).
No idea what exactly these numbers will be, but based on my observations over the last 15 years on various forums, the number is higher than people think.
money made. That is the metric I use for success as that is what metric all business use.
The criteria in video game business is always money.
It's not nearly that simple, but ok.
To measure "money made", you need to know how much a company has in sales, and then adjust it for money expended. How many games do you have this information for?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
money made. That is the metric I use for success as that is what metric all business use.
The criteria in video game business is always money.
It's not nearly that simple, but ok.
To measure "money made", you need to know how much a company has in sales, and then adjust it for money expended. How many games do you have this information for?
More than a dozen, sadly it cannot be shared as its private information.
Convenient. If you cannot provide facts for your claims due to the "high level of classification" you hold with game companies....maybe you should just not bring it up.
I'm with the slow leveling thing. I'd like have to log in 2 or 3 nights in a row and camp one spawn point for a couple hours each night before moving down the hall of the cave to the next spawn point and having to camp that for a bit. It's like @OP said, making it slowing will make it more intimate. Being "forced" to stay in one level range for a few days opens up opportunities of specific quest related specifically to that dungeon or level range you're in.
Why would you have raid style concent from level 50 on and not earlier? Or was it just an example for illustration?
Well, because I despise the concept of having an "endgame" and "maxlevel". The game should start when you start the game, and should "never end" until you stop playing it.
Thus, if a game has raid content, it should have raid content starting early, from tougher getting boss fights until you really need a second group to manage, and later a third, maybe a fourth group.
And maxlevel, basically, is something that you cannot reach, or will only reach after a really, really long time.
In Vanguard, when you hit level 48, basically all your job was getting to level 50, later 55. Because otherwise people wouldnt like you in raids. Additionally, they had the slowdown I described in my list. I felt that was way stupid, because you only existed at this point to farm xp. It was no fun at all.
Furthermore, people who played EQ and Vanguard will end up being
by far the minority, and will be outnumbered more and more by people who
also find they have similar tastes, and did not know.
I dont know about "far". In Vanguard, once the population had reduced itself, it felt like 80%+ of players had played EQ before. Not me though.
Comments
There were also over 2 BILLION more people on the internet when Destiny came out, than when first gen MMOs were in their prime.
Hello?
The original MMO fanbase was niche, still is. I don't care what the "majority" wants, I only care about what I, the MMO fan, wants. I do not want a multiplayer experience, I want an MMO with a living, thriving economy and community, like back in the day. I don't give crap about what you want, I don't need you to have this experience for me to enjoy it. F2p MMOs are crap. Just because you like them does not change MY opinion of them. Get over yourself dude, no one cares anymore about your internet persona you created that has connections and a magical "deep" understanding of this genre that we plebs will never comprehend. It is laughable.
To be completely fair, just because the market is larger doesn't mean you can expect to sell more. Try selling some antiquated technology. There might be a niche market for it, but it's unlikely that the size of that market changes much regardless of the population size.
What would be super interesting to see would be the age demographics for people interested in Pantheon. My guess is that it's mostly the 30+ crowd who have been playing MMOs for a decade or more. People who have been programmed to be persistent and that waiting is worthwhile. Anybody 30 and under are more likely to be accustomed to constant and frequent progression in MMOs, similar to what you see now. Also, it's due to popularized MMO-esque games like Destiny and The Division where progression is much more rewarding.
Can we agree that Pantheon is a niche game? If so then why are you arguing about numbers? We know it'll be a subset of the mass market, but there's really no way to tell what that subset actually looks like. What we DO know is that similar "old school" projects (like SotA) have had difficulties maintaining numbers. So what's the solution to that? Ignoring the realities of this genre isn't going to all of a sudden make millions flock to it, it'll only serve to make the game appear to under-perform when it doesn't meet the expectations that the community set for it.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
So how niche is it really. Depending on how polished and well executed Pantheon is, I think it has the potential to rival many of the games we commonly call mainstream.
Does that mean it would therefore be mainstream? Probably not, because it will be different than the usual games. However, describing games as niche to refer to their potential audience is not really very descriptive.
I think level cap should take ~6 month when playing 4-5 hours a day, with a strong encouragement to invest significant time and effort into gearing and up and advancing skills as you level.
Simply farming XP should not be sufficient for either.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Total box/download sales?
Total revenue from subscriptions/cash shop sales?
Total number of players?
Player satisfaction?
Market share of then existing market?
Percentage of player retention over time?
Return on investment to investors?
Player, press and industry feedback as to quality?
Advancement of the genre through innovation?
Years in operation?
You really can't fairly compare the success of two games without choosing your criteria.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Yes, you're right, Everquest did have 500,000 subscribers at one point. However, when WoW released that number was cut to like 200k in less than a year. So what does that mean? Does it mean that Everquest had run out of steam? Or does it mean that it was only popular because of a lack of choice?
You know what, though, I'm not here to rain on your parade, so if you really want to hang your hat on 500,000 subscribers, go for it. Fuck, WoW had 10 million at one point, so the true market is at least 10 million. Most of those people are disgruntled, too, so they're looking for a new game, and Pantheon offers what most MMORPG players have been asking for. Therefore, if they are able to deliver a great game, there's absolutely no reason that they shouldn't be able to secure 10% of those WoW numbers, so 1 million people, and that's being conservative! So the sky is the limit!
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
You need to talk to Ford and GM, the pickup sells the best and makes the most money, they should not waste their time making anything else.
Level 1-10: About a day
Level 11-20: About three days (total, so additional 2 days)
Level 20-30: About a week (additional 4 days)
Level 30-40: About two weeks (additional 7 days)
Level 40-50: About a month (additional 14 days)
Level 50-60: About two months (additional 28 days)
Level 70-80: About four months (additional 56 days)
Level 80-90: About eight months (additional 112 days)
Level 90-100: About two to three+ years (additional 448+ days => the last levels have a real slowdown as well)
In short the traditional "endgame" shouldnt exist as such.
Also, there should be raid style content from level 50 on. You'll need two groups for these early raids, and they wont be too complex and hard just yet. You'll need three groups and increasing complexity later.
From level 90 on you should be considered "maxlevel" of sorts. All top gear should be wearable at level 90, its just hard to actually get it. An actual level 100 should be a rare sight.
And yes there will always be people who can manage faster. One will have to install mechanisms to stop them. For example it should be necessary from level 10 on to solve quests to actually continue leveling. And you should need to find items in the game to level skills. With such mechanisms one can make speedruns much harder.
When projecting numbers for Pantheon, please keep in mind what these potential players are doing now. (There's only around 250-300 who are regularly commenting on sites like MMORPG.com, so it's very unlikely we are a hoard of unattached players waiting for Pantheon. Unless the vaunted subscription rate is going to be in the $350 (US) per month, we simply aren't going to cut it financially).
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Wonder where all them other people that ended up playing WoW came from as EQ only went down to around 200K, they didn't all come from it.
I not sure what the point of all the posts by people saying that Pantheon will only have 100K, 10K, 2K or even a half dozen playing it. We will not know until the game is finished and released and then we shall all see how well or bad it does. It seems some people just enjoy being doomsayers and they infest every game forum.
Hmmm Maybe someone should make a game for doomsayers as we see a few dozens of them around in every forum.
I do think people have their hopes that this could be a large game. I think that is a fair opinion to have. I personally hope this game becomes large enough that it will show that you do not have to clone WOW to be successful.
Where are tomorrow's Pantheon players, and what are they doing now? The numbers I can reasonably predict are small, ridiculously small even. To get numbers in the range that I consider as a viable long-term player base really involves taking players from other games. In other words, I can see it becoming very competitive, very soon. Generally, having options is not a bad thing for players, but with so many games apparently struggling to keep the doors open, that competition is very likely to cause some companies to simply disappear. Lack of choice is rarely good for players, the developers or the industry.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I would say yes, it was dated and running out of steam to some degree. It was a very different game at that point, and had started losing people for the first time in it's history after several of the previous expansions.
A fancy new game that's similar will naturally take some of the players. That they had changed some of the group focus to a more "end game" raid focus and traded world mechanics for convenience, also did not help.
So, thinking that there's a "true market of 10 million" people potentially available for Pantheon is misleading yourself in an extreme way. Not to mention, there were very few MMOs in the early WoW days. Whereas, today, the market is drowning in them... so, people are spread thin, despite having more total players in the genre than back in those days.
Back in the EQ days, 500k was mind-blowingly amazing, since there weren't that many people around playing these games. Calling WoW an anomaly would be the greatest understatement of all time.
I have no clue what ESO's actual player numbers are, but it's probably the current most successful since WoW. And, I'm pretty sure they couldn't have more than a million-ish, at most. They had a huge IP to boost their numbers, unlike Pantheon. Pantheon is starting with no name and a mediocre(at best) reputation.
500k in an MMO, even today, is a raging success, due to how stretched and saturated the genre is now. If they could actually get that many, they'd be lucky and thrilled. I'd be incredibly surprised to see them get that high. I'd consider 200k to be a pretty solid success story in today's atmosphere.
One thing I disagree with is the implication that everyone who will play a game like Pantheon, are currently playing other MMOs. There are a lot of people who aren't, or haven't. Furthermore, people who played EQ and Vanguard will end up being by far the minority, and will be outnumbered more and more by people who also find they have similar tastes, and did not know.
A lot of people will be surprised by how different Pantheon will be, for good or bad. They are going for a more dangerous, cooperative, gritty, simulated reality type of feel that just isn't comparable to anything currently offered. Those who never played MMOs before 2005 will have no concept of what that is like (though survival games come close minus the persistence).
No idea what exactly these numbers will be, but based on my observations over the last 15 years on various forums, the number is higher than people think.
To measure "money made", you need to know how much a company has in sales, and then adjust it for money expended. How many games do you have this information for?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Thus, if a game has raid content, it should have raid content starting early, from tougher getting boss fights until you really need a second group to manage, and later a third, maybe a fourth group.
And maxlevel, basically, is something that you cannot reach, or will only reach after a really, really long time.
In Vanguard, when you hit level 48, basically all your job was getting to level 50, later 55. Because otherwise people wouldnt like you in raids. Additionally, they had the slowdown I described in my list. I felt that was way stupid, because you only existed at this point to farm xp. It was no fun at all.
I dont know about "far". In Vanguard, once the population had reduced itself, it felt like 80%+ of players had played EQ before. Not me though.