WoW wasn't an EQ clone. WoW built upon some systems in EQ (as pretty much any fantasy MMORPG these days does), but the gameplay and progression - in general - is far removed from EQ. EQ2 came before WoW, and WoW was more similar to that game. Both of them were in development at the same time. But EQ2 is very dissimilar from EQ. This is why EQ2 never displaced or replaced EQ.
My point is that the changes that came with WoW were not WoW innovations - they were MMORPG survival requirements. They were demands that players put on the industry developing these games, and these started getting implemented well before EQ2 and WoW even hit the market - in games like EQ and DAoC.
The difference is that EQ2 and WoW were developed with these assumptions built into the game and its gameplay, while games like EQ, DAoC and others had to bolt it onto an already existing base game designed for a bygone era. This is what makes EQ2 and WoW look like clones. You probably barely played EQ before they started dumping these features into the game, so you don't have the correct perspective or experience to see how the industry and the playerbases changed over the years.
The game that EQ is right now is not what most EQ players from 1999 probably would have asked for, but if a game has to survive, it has to cater to its players... The ACTUAL players, not the theoretical players some company wants to design for (simply because those theoretical players agree with their own gameplay preferences).
By the time WoW released, we were at EverQuest: Dragons of Norrath, and things like instancing (LDoN), vendor/token gear (LDoN), fast travel (PoP), easy corpse recovery (OoW), veteran rewards/XP Boosts, Dailies/Tasks (OoW), mounted combat (permanent medding) (GoD), etc. had already become mainstays in EverQuest.
EQ2 and WoW were simply better games for most people because they were designed with these systems from the ground up and had better Graphics and Gameplay. They were designed for that new generation of players, which was the very vast majority of players in the market. This is why a lot of the games seem similar. Games like Eve are and have always been extremely niche in the MMORPG genre, so they are a pretty good proof that the market cannot sustain more than a few of these types of games (otherwise the saturation would eventually kill off all but one or two - as has been happening in the Fantasy MMORPG sub-genre).
WoW was not an EQ clone. Sharing common characteristics is part and parcel of being part of the same genre. Overwatch isn't a CoD clone simply because it's an FPS.
This obsession with calling games clones of something is unfounded and typically based on ignorance or a lack of knowledge of how these games evolved or were developed.
Both EQ2 and WoW launched with a ton of similarities. These were due to market demands. Blizzard recruited a lot of EQ players and personalities, and the result of this were systems very unlike what was in EQ - and those that were in EQ were usually later additions added due to player demand... Many of which exist and are expected to exist in practically any decent MMORPG these days.
Lots of MMORPG did try to work off of the WoW formula (barely extend it, or clone it entirely), but that doesn't work well because WoW was designed for the [still, IMO] current market and Blizzard develops it heavily. This means they tend to react to player demands pretty decently, and can easily steal/copy/clone features from other games that their players want. Smaller developers aren't as agile, aren't as well funded, and don't have the Lore Backing of WoW upon which they can build compelling content. A lot of other games also focused too much on graphics, which made their games unplayable for a lot of less affluent MMORPG players. FFXIV cited the obsessions on graphics as one of the reason why their 1.0 launch failed, for example, and the Vanguard Developers cited the massive system requirements as a big reason why that game failed.
WoW benefited from being the "de facto viable choice" for millions of players who wanted a decently modern MMORPG to play, which wouldn't force them to buy a new computer system.
Shaniqua from the Compton could get a cheap computer from Rent-A-Center and it would run WoW flawlessly, while choking in EQ2, Vanguard, Even, Rift, and a bevy of other games.
All of these classes, at least, could solo in EverQuest.
That's most classes in the game, so "many" totally applies.
I'm not sure what game you were playing.
Lots of content in EQ was designed explicitly not to be soloed, so that was a clear limiting factor - this became more and more direct through the expansions (Summon Mechanic for example). And, of course, degrees of solo prowess were in flux. But all of those classes I listed could solo.
Not even Bards and Necros could solo MOBs that Summoned and had Melee Hits designed for Tank Classes. You'd just get summoned and lose half+ your HP. This didn't become possible until gear got OP (as often happens in old MMORPGs), but SoE usually responded by simply making new expansion MOBs hit increasingly harder (compare PoP PoFire MOBs to Tipt/Vxed (on release) MOBs in GoD).
There were a few classes that were pretty SoL when it came to soloing, yes... But most classes could solo. It simply didn't make sense to solo if you were a class that could easily get a party (or was wanted in a party). You could solo, slowly, on a Cleric... But why would you ever do that, when you could find a group almost instantaneously at almost any hour of the day or night?
@Darkswom - While EQ is not a WoW clone strictly speaking, it falls into the same general category as WoW is an EQ clone.
WoW Clones AKA Themeparks always follow the same predictable patterns.
The primary focus of early game revolves around level grinding, generally primarily through quests. There are preset races and classes you choose upon character creation that cannot be changed. And once the level grinding is done the game shifts focus over to gear progression earned by running "endgame content".
These basic principles of a themepark/WoW-Clone and they cover every single game you mentioned in your posts. They are all the same game in a different skin with less meaningful variation then is found in any true genre. For instance within the RTS genre you can kind both Total War titles and Age of Empires / Starcraft / Warcraft / Halo Wars. The later all being close enough in format to be considered clones, but the former existing in the same genre while only sharing a few general principles with the later.
To understand what a truly different title is, you have to look at MMOs such as EVE, Planetside, Runescape or a whole score of indie MMOs such as Darkfall, Life is Feudal, Wurm Online, or upcoming titles such as Star Citizen and Crowfall that all completely reject the model of WoW clones and make game completely different in concept and form.
While true, it isn't the method by which EVE delivers content that is the primary driver there, but the method by which a player's skill progress independently of their in-game actions.
Even with that, EVE centers around grinding ISK to pay for upgrades, new ships, and replacing ships lost. You aren't magically alleviating that by utilizing a skill-based system or a sandbox.
You might argue it provides more emergent gameplay, and I agree. Emergent gameplay has it's own downsides, though, one onown very well to anyone who knows a modicum about the reputation of EVE regarding scamming and griefing.
The thing with a sandbox like EVE is how do you make your isk?
Mining, exploration, faction warfare, missions, complexes, trading etc. Many different ways and you can choose whichever one engages you most.
With a WoW clone it's quests until you switch over to dungeons and raids. Maybe an enjoyable option for PvP arenas and a halfassed crafting system on the side if you are lucky.
I'm not doing any specific content purely because that is what I need to be doing to progress. When currency is the main way to progress and there are many ways to earn it, that's a liberating and enjoyable system.
The thing with a sandbox like EVE is how do you make your isk?
Mining, exploration, faction warfare, missions, complexes, trading etc. Many different ways and you can choose whichever one engages you most.
With a WoW clone it's quests until you switch over to dungeons and raids. Maybe an enjoyable option for PvP arenas and a halfassed crafting system on the side if you are lucky.
I'm not doing any specific content purely because that is what I need to be doing to progress. When currency is the main way to progress and there are many ways to earn it, that's a liberating and enjoyable system.
Quests in a Game like WoW, EQ2, ESO, GW2, and others (many of which are not very similar to WoW, BTW) is the primary means by which Lore and Story is delivered to the user.
That's why the quests exists. The leveling experience familiarizes users who may not know anything at all about the Lore to it, so that they can understand the base upon which later content is built.
Because Guldan wans't just a randomly generated MOB. He was a specific MOB that existed for specific reasons.
You're not looking at it in the right way, and you aren't even understanding WHY the quest driven gameplay (primarily the leveling and solo content) became a mainstay in the genre.
One could argue that the Warcraft lore was the primary reason why WoW was successful, in comparison to EQ whose player base was generally not nearly as invested or even interested in the lore, because the first game did a very poor job at exposing players to it and getting them invested in it.
FFXIV isn't even that good (it's like an MMORPG Diablo III, in the grand scheme of things), but the Lore and the fact that it's Final Fantasy single-handedly carries the game.
The quests are the means by which this is delivered to the user. There is currently no better delivery mechanism for the story content in MMORPGs than Quests...
LOTs of quests.
The quests are never an issue when you're invested and very interested in the lore.
It only becomes a drag when you're not that interested in the story and simply want to get to the group/raid content ASAP.
More and more people are playing MMORPGs, these days, with little to no interest in the story content, so your "mistaken perspective" is not surprising to me.
The thing with a sandbox like EVE is how do you make your isk?
Mining, exploration, faction warfare, missions, complexes, trading etc. Many different ways and you can choose whichever one engages you most.
With a WoW clone it's quests until you switch over to dungeons and raids. Maybe an enjoyable option for PvP arenas and a halfassed crafting system on the side if you are lucky.
I'm not doing any specific content purely because that is what I need to be doing to progress. When currency is the main way to progress and there are many ways to earn it, that's a liberating and enjoyable system.
I don't disagree. But consider a game in which ISK is grinded, but there's quests for faction warfare, exploration, mining, etc.. Is that possible? If so, are quests the real issue? Or is the game's focus around combat activities exclusively to progress the issue?
Quests are merely the way in which progression is segmented and displayed for the player. It's just a framework of activities to do that progress your character. In that sense, they have little effect on the issue you're getting at.
I don't disagree with you that theme parks have an ultra-laser focus on combat and that's an issue. I just wanted to caution you when you start throwing around questing and dungeons/raids like it's part of the issue. Quests can reward any given activity with any given currency. Theme park MMORPGs have simply refrained from using these themes to their best potential.
EDIT- Allow me to say that you may not be intending to include dungeons/quests/raids as part of the issue, but the vibe of your responses have seemed to include them. So apologies if I mistook it!
I agree with poster upthread. A balance can be met. I actually think WoW has balance, especially since the introduction of Mythic+. Warfronts and Expeditions will increase that balance next expansion.
You'll have Quests, World Quests, Crafting, etc. for solo players.
You'll have Dungeons, Mythic+, Expeditions, etc. for groupers.
Then there are raids.
With Tier Sets and Azerite Armor, raiding will be less of a "hard requirement." The game will allow all types of players to benefit more from more types of content.
Don't have an issue with the leveling content in modern MMORPGs, because there is not a large market for grinders. Additionally, with faster-paced combat gameplay, grinding for hours means hours of button mashing. It's not fun, and it ends up not being very social. FFXIV's new Eureka zone is a good example.
Go grind Elemental XP there. You'll be exhausted within an hour.
The problem is that there simply aren't enough WoW-quality MMORPPGs on the market, and players are too worried about finding the "perfect game" and not content enough with what is currently on the market. This causes most games to have small pedestrian player populations, which exacerbates the current trend towards Cash Shops and Pay to Win.
When developers don't have the players to sustain their game through subscriptions, it's only understandable that they'll cash grab in other ways.
The cash shop monetization has created a vicious cycle. We have AAA production values with pubs going "okay, we'll set the value of the game itself to zero, then try to make it up by taxing the shit out of a small protion of the playerbase."
Well, now gamers expect AAA production MMORPGs for free. Take a guess at how sustainable that will be long-term in attracting and retaining large investors?
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
Because of an attempt to make MMOs more like single player games ironically. Single player games historically have been story driven because it works in that format.
MMOs have many players so not everyone can be the "chosen one" the one that "slayed the litch king" etc. Or clearly they can but it seriously detracts from immersion IMO.
I like MMOs where you create your own unique story. The only way to allow players to create a unique story is when it's not scripted. That's why sandboxes offer a world to interact and other players to write the story with. Not scripted content.
The cash shop monetization has created a vicious cycle. We have AAA production values with pubs going "okay, we'll set the value of the game itself to zero, then try to make it up by taxing the shit out of a small protion of the playerbase."
Well, now gamers expect AAA production MMORPGs for free. Take a guess at how sustainable that will be long-term in attracting and retaining large investors?
Agree. I actually think the players have done the most damage to this genre; not the actual companies running the games.
Unless there is some sort of VR revolution (and this is accompanied by a drop in equipment prices), I don't see MMORPGs having a "resurgence."
Sooner or later, debt slaves will realize just how much they're wasting on these cash grabs, and will start to move on. There's a reason why other genres are becoming more popular, now.
MMORPGs have layered money sink on top of cash sink, and people simply aren't buying into the delusion anymore.
So they want everything for free, but "free" often ends up being more expensive than a subscription - predictably and laughably.
The only time a game is free is when there are enough true believer "whales" to buy overpriced supporter packs and fund the game for everyone else (leechers).
Problem is if there is a choice for solo no one groups so there are exceptions to the rule. Played FFXI when it was forced group mmorpg back at release and it was the best game experience ever.
1 reason why i started to play these survival type games. Have many (not all) some crap, some good, even though it does feel the same old repeated thing. Just online MMO's are the same but too greedy thesedays in wanting you to buy the game, buy the expansions (ok thats fine but the cost has doubled/trebbled) then cash shops (which aint that cheap either) and are really starting to become a must use too. Take for instance Arkage - you MUST be a monthly subscriber and MUST use the cash shop on a weekly basis to have the full effect = i dont touch this and wont.
ESO - optional cash shop but you do have to buy the game to play (that is fair), to get access and play more you have to purchase the expansions thats fair too. Best one out there but does get boring.
WoW - Must be a monthly subscriber and purchase the game+ expansions (dont mind that) HOWEVER you are segregated via your region you live in, you can play in other regions but you MUST purchase everythign all over again from that region and have someone that will buy gametime in that regions currency (why dont they have the same as everyone else and thier other games) give you a choice what region servers to play on (with no transfering between regions or anything like that).
SWL - can be played for free entirely, however to get the most out of it you MUST become a monthly subscriber and use the cashop (preferably buying keys to open the random loot crates you find) <--- yup fucking junk usually and every other game that has this sort of thing. I wont put money into them and ask nobody else does either. That way they would have to change it to something thats fair and not just a money grab.
How many of these buy 2 play games have now changed to F2P but requires cashop usage with a patron option (monthly subscription) that just does not warrant the cost.
The reason why Regions are segregated is because of the internet.
No one wants half their raid to have 500 Ping and fail mechanics or perform poorly because their actions aren't being registered quickly. PvP is very dependent on your connection quality. You cannot do WoW arenas with high Ping. You'd get demolished all the time by people with a better connection or better proximity to the servers/data center.
This seems, to me, a very very odd complaint.
Also, you ignored the fact that ESO also has Regional Segregation. You choose a region and play on it, and you aren't playing with the other people on the other region.
Can't really speak to the repurchase concern, since I've never tried to play in another WoW Region, but why would I? The experience would be awful.
The idea of F2P "but you need to subscribe to get anything of worth" is a common bait and switch tactic in the market. Age of Conan went F2P with that kind of model, and so did EQ2 (where returning players couldn't even equip their own raid gear without subscribing).
I think FFXI was kind of terrible, and it really didn't compete well in the market - for good reason - even against other games that were more group-biased and grind heavy. There was no comparison between FFXI and EQ gameplay, IMO, and EQ had better classes. FFXI was good for the lore, though, if you were into FF stuff.
I did play it, briefly, but that didn't last long.
I do think Square was innovative in the sense that they were the first MMORPG developer to really commit to console gaming (SOE did EQOA, but it wasn't really a priority to them).
Comments
My point is that the changes that came with WoW were not WoW innovations - they were MMORPG survival requirements. They were demands that players put on the industry developing these games, and these started getting implemented well before EQ2 and WoW even hit the market - in games like EQ and DAoC.
The difference is that EQ2 and WoW were developed with these assumptions built into the game and its gameplay, while games like EQ, DAoC and others had to bolt it onto an already existing base game designed for a bygone era. This is what makes EQ2 and WoW look like clones. You probably barely played EQ before they started dumping these features into the game, so you don't have the correct perspective or experience to see how the industry and the playerbases changed over the years.
The game that EQ is right now is not what most EQ players from 1999 probably would have asked for, but if a game has to survive, it has to cater to its players... The ACTUAL players, not the theoretical players some company wants to design for (simply because those theoretical players agree with their own gameplay preferences).
By the time WoW released, we were at EverQuest: Dragons of Norrath, and things like instancing (LDoN), vendor/token gear (LDoN), fast travel (PoP), easy corpse recovery (OoW), veteran rewards/XP Boosts, Dailies/Tasks (OoW), mounted combat (permanent medding) (GoD), etc. had already become mainstays in EverQuest.
EQ2 and WoW were simply better games for most people because they were designed with these systems from the ground up and had better Graphics and Gameplay. They were designed for that new generation of players, which was the very vast majority of players in the market. This is why a lot of the games seem similar. Games like Eve are and have always been extremely niche in the MMORPG genre, so they are a pretty good proof that the market cannot sustain more than a few of these types of games (otherwise the saturation would eventually kill off all but one or two - as has been happening in the Fantasy MMORPG sub-genre).
WoW was not an EQ clone. Sharing common characteristics is part and parcel of being part of the same genre. Overwatch isn't a CoD clone simply because it's an FPS.
This obsession with calling games clones of something is unfounded and typically based on ignorance or a lack of knowledge of how these games evolved or were developed.
Both EQ2 and WoW launched with a ton of similarities. These were due to market demands. Blizzard recruited a lot of EQ players and personalities, and the result of this were systems very unlike what was in EQ - and those that were in EQ were usually later additions added due to player demand... Many of which exist and are expected to exist in practically any decent MMORPG these days.
Lots of MMORPG did try to work off of the WoW formula (barely extend it, or clone it entirely), but that doesn't work well because WoW was designed for the [still, IMO] current market and Blizzard develops it heavily. This means they tend to react to player demands pretty decently, and can easily steal/copy/clone features from other games that their players want. Smaller developers aren't as agile, aren't as well funded, and don't have the Lore Backing of WoW upon which they can build compelling content. A lot of other games also focused too much on graphics, which made their games unplayable for a lot of less affluent MMORPG players. FFXIV cited the obsessions on graphics as one of the reason why their 1.0 launch failed, for example, and the Vanguard Developers cited the massive system requirements as a big reason why that game failed.
WoW benefited from being the "de facto viable choice" for millions of players who wanted a decently modern MMORPG to play, which wouldn't force them to buy a new computer system.
Shaniqua from the Compton could get a cheap computer from Rent-A-Center and it would run WoW flawlessly, while choking in EQ2, Vanguard, Even, Rift, and a bevy of other games.
All of these classes, at least, could solo in EverQuest.
That's most classes in the game, so "many" totally applies.
I'm not sure what game you were playing.
Lots of content in EQ was designed explicitly not to be soloed, so that was a clear limiting factor - this became more and more direct through the expansions (Summon Mechanic for example). And, of course, degrees of solo prowess were in flux. But all of those classes I listed could solo.
Not even Bards and Necros could solo MOBs that Summoned and had Melee Hits designed for Tank Classes. You'd just get summoned and lose half+ your HP. This didn't become possible until gear got OP (as often happens in old MMORPGs), but SoE usually responded by simply making new expansion MOBs hit increasingly harder (compare PoP PoFire MOBs to Tipt/Vxed (on release) MOBs in GoD).
There were a few classes that were pretty SoL when it came to soloing, yes... But most classes could solo. It simply didn't make sense to solo if you were a class that could easily get a party (or was wanted in a party). You could solo, slowly, on a Cleric... But why would you ever do that, when you could find a group almost instantaneously at almost any hour of the day or night?
Even with that, EVE centers around grinding ISK to pay for upgrades, new ships, and replacing ships lost. You aren't magically alleviating that by utilizing a skill-based system or a sandbox.
You might argue it provides more emergent gameplay, and I agree. Emergent gameplay has it's own downsides, though, one onown very well to anyone who knows a modicum about the reputation of EVE regarding scamming and griefing.
Mining, exploration, faction warfare, missions, complexes, trading etc. Many different ways and you can choose whichever one engages you most.
With a WoW clone it's quests until you switch over to dungeons and raids. Maybe an enjoyable option for PvP arenas and a halfassed crafting system on the side if you are lucky.
I'm not doing any specific content purely because that is what I need to be doing to progress. When currency is the main way to progress and there are many ways to earn it, that's a liberating and enjoyable system.
Quests in a Game like WoW, EQ2, ESO, GW2, and others (many of which are not very similar to WoW, BTW) is the primary means by which Lore and Story is delivered to the user.
That's why the quests exists. The leveling experience familiarizes users who may not know anything at all about the Lore to it, so that they can understand the base upon which later content is built.
Because Guldan wans't just a randomly generated MOB. He was a specific MOB that existed for specific reasons.
You're not looking at it in the right way, and you aren't even understanding WHY the quest driven gameplay (primarily the leveling and solo content) became a mainstay in the genre.
One could argue that the Warcraft lore was the primary reason why WoW was successful, in comparison to EQ whose player base was generally not nearly as invested or even interested in the lore, because the first game did a very poor job at exposing players to it and getting them invested in it.
FFXIV isn't even that good (it's like an MMORPG Diablo III, in the grand scheme of things), but the Lore and the fact that it's Final Fantasy single-handedly carries the game.
The quests are the means by which this is delivered to the user. There is currently no better delivery mechanism for the story content in MMORPGs than Quests...
LOTs of quests.
The quests are never an issue when you're invested and very interested in the lore.
It only becomes a drag when you're not that interested in the story and simply want to get to the group/raid content ASAP.
More and more people are playing MMORPGs, these days, with little to no interest in the story content, so your "mistaken perspective" is not surprising to me.
Quests are merely the way in which progression is segmented and displayed for the player. It's just a framework of activities to do that progress your character. In that sense, they have little effect on the issue you're getting at.
I don't disagree with you that theme parks have an ultra-laser focus on combat and that's an issue. I just wanted to caution you when you start throwing around questing and dungeons/raids like it's part of the issue. Quests can reward any given activity with any given currency. Theme park MMORPGs have simply refrained from using these themes to their best potential.
EDIT- Allow me to say that you may not be intending to include dungeons/quests/raids as part of the issue, but the vibe of your responses have seemed to include them. So apologies if I mistook it!
You'll have Quests, World Quests, Crafting, etc. for solo players.
You'll have Dungeons, Mythic+, Expeditions, etc. for groupers.
Then there are raids.
With Tier Sets and Azerite Armor, raiding will be less of a "hard requirement." The game will allow all types of players to benefit more from more types of content.
Don't have an issue with the leveling content in modern MMORPGs, because there is not a large market for grinders. Additionally, with faster-paced combat gameplay, grinding for hours means hours of button mashing. It's not fun, and it ends up not being very social. FFXIV's new Eureka zone is a good example.
Go grind Elemental XP there. You'll be exhausted within an hour.
The problem is that there simply aren't enough WoW-quality MMORPPGs on the market, and players are too worried about finding the "perfect game" and not content enough with what is currently on the market. This causes most games to have small pedestrian player populations, which exacerbates the current trend towards Cash Shops and Pay to Win.
When developers don't have the players to sustain their game through subscriptions, it's only understandable that they'll cash grab in other ways.
Well, now gamers expect AAA production MMORPGs for free. Take a guess at how sustainable that will be long-term in attracting and retaining large investors?
MMOs have many players so not everyone can be the "chosen one" the one that "slayed the litch king" etc. Or clearly they can but it seriously detracts from immersion IMO.
I like MMOs where you create your own unique story. The only way to allow players to create a unique story is when it's not scripted. That's why sandboxes offer a world to interact and other players to write the story with. Not scripted content.
Agree. I actually think the players have done the most damage to this genre; not the actual companies running the games.
Unless there is some sort of VR revolution (and this is accompanied by a drop in equipment prices), I don't see MMORPGs having a "resurgence."
Sooner or later, debt slaves will realize just how much they're wasting on these cash grabs, and will start to move on. There's a reason why other genres are becoming more popular, now.
MMORPGs have layered money sink on top of cash sink, and people simply aren't buying into the delusion anymore.
So they want everything for free, but "free" often ends up being more expensive than a subscription - predictably and laughably.
The only time a game is free is when there are enough true believer "whales" to buy overpriced supporter packs and fund the game for everyone else (leechers).
Problem is if there is a choice for solo no one groups so there are exceptions to the rule. Played FFXI when it was forced group mmorpg back at release and it was the best game experience ever.
ESO - optional cash shop but you do have to buy the game to play (that is fair), to get access and play more you have to purchase the expansions thats fair too. Best one out there but does get boring.
WoW - Must be a monthly subscriber and purchase the game+ expansions (dont mind that) HOWEVER you are segregated via your region you live in, you can play in other regions but you MUST purchase everythign all over again from that region and have someone that will buy gametime in that regions currency (why dont they have the same as everyone else and thier other games) give you a choice what region servers to play on (with no transfering between regions or anything like that).
SWL - can be played for free entirely, however to get the most out of it you MUST become a monthly subscriber and use the cashop (preferably buying keys to open the random loot crates you find) <--- yup fucking junk usually and every other game that has this sort of thing. I wont put money into them and ask nobody else does either. That way they would have to change it to something thats fair and not just a money grab.
How many of these buy 2 play games have now changed to F2P but requires cashop usage with a patron option (monthly subscription) that just does not warrant the cost.
No one wants half their raid to have 500 Ping and fail mechanics or perform poorly because their actions aren't being registered quickly. PvP is very dependent on your connection quality. You cannot do WoW arenas with high Ping. You'd get demolished all the time by people with a better connection or better proximity to the servers/data center.
This seems, to me, a very very odd complaint.
Also, you ignored the fact that ESO also has Regional Segregation. You choose a region and play on it, and you aren't playing with the other people on the other region.
Can't really speak to the repurchase concern, since I've never tried to play in another WoW Region, but why would I? The experience would be awful.
The idea of F2P "but you need to subscribe to get anything of worth" is a common bait and switch tactic in the market. Age of Conan went F2P with that kind of model, and so did EQ2 (where returning players couldn't even equip their own raid gear without subscribing).
I think FFXI was kind of terrible, and it really didn't compete well in the market - for good reason - even against other games that were more group-biased and grind heavy. There was no comparison between FFXI and EQ gameplay, IMO, and EQ had better classes. FFXI was good for the lore, though, if you were into FF stuff.
I did play it, briefly, but that didn't last long.
I do think Square was innovative in the sense that they were the first MMORPG developer to really commit to console gaming (SOE did EQOA, but it wasn't really a priority to them).