On a positive note at least we have Eve Online and Fallen Earth.
B-b-b-b-but WoW makes it impossible for anyone to create MMOs that are unique. Right?
It isn't about WoW. It is about what is commercially viable.
I'm sure there'd be a few hundred happy people if Air Traffic Controller 2010 Simulation Edition Online was released. The shareholders of said developer, however would be weeping in the boardroom.
Developers don't start off by wanting to make a WoW-ripoff themepark MMO. In fact, I suspect most 'WoW-clones' were dumbed down during the development process to appease the financiers.
Do most people prefer a good game of football over a good game of chess?
I don't think that's a good analogy in that both are fundamentally different. One reason football is so big is because of team pride and rivalries. People familiarize with their local team and there's some enjoyment in that since there's camaraderie that comes out of that which, essentially, makes sports a sort of "social glue." You can go into a sports bar and strike conversation and meet new people just on the fact that you're all rooting for the same team. You really don't have that in chess.
On a positive note at least we have Eve Online and Fallen Earth.
B-b-b-b-but WoW makes it impossible for anyone to create MMOs that are unique. Right?
It isn't about WoW. It is about what is commercially viable.
Not really. EQ and UO never even hit 1 million subscriptions. Heck, I think EQ barely topped 500k. You're telling me those games weren't commercially viable? That's doesn't make any sense. Eve Online has proved that you can be commercially successful without needing a million+ subscribers. The problem isn't that WoW is somehow magically prohibiting unique MMOs from being released--because they have--the problem is that these unique MMOs tend to be utter crap. They are released buggy, broken, and incomplete. That's why there are so few unique MMOs that can be considered a success.
You can easily develop an MMO and allow it to be financially successful as long as you are realistic by not investing many millions of dollars in hopes of getting WoW-like subscription numbers. Eve Online is the model of that and that's why the game both respected and is doing so well.
Do most people prefer a good game of football over a good game of chess?
I don't think that's a good analogy in that both are fundamentally different. One reason football is so big is because of team pride and rivalries. People familiarize with their local team and there's some enjoyment in that since there's camaraderie that comes out of that which, essentially, makes sports a sort of "social glue." You can go into a sports bar and strike conversation and meet new people just on the fact that you're all rooting for the same team. You really don't have that in chess.
Exactly, this is the kind of social status WoW has, it is the 'football' of the MMO world. I have 40 year old upper management in my office that play the game and I chat to casually about it.
Do most people prefer a good game of football over a good game of chess?
I don't think that's a good analogy in that both are fundamentally different. One reason football is so big is because of team pride and rivalries. People familiarize with their local team and there's some enjoyment in that since there's camaraderie that comes out of that which, essentially, makes sports a sort of "social glue." You can go into a sports bar and strike conversation and meet new people just on the fact that you're all rooting for the same team. You really don't have that in chess.
Truly the most irrational part of sports, "rooting" for a team that you really have no connection to other than what you chose to make up in your head. (and for some reason, you need to see them win, why, I don't know).
But that's a bit off topic, its true, people tend to enjoy things that are simple vs the complex, hence suppliers cater to the masses (why do you think they call them that?)
A look at almost any other industry shows the same trend, movies, music, food, the masses prefer things cheap, easy and repetitive. Gaming is no different.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
On a positive note at least we have Eve Online and Fallen Earth.
B-b-b-b-but WoW makes it impossible for anyone to create MMOs that are unique. Right?
It isn't about WoW. It is about what is commercially viable.
Not really. EQ and UO never even hit 1 million subscriptions. Heck, I think EQ barely topped 500k. You're telling me those games weren't commercially viable? That's doesn't make any sense. Eve Online has proved that you can be commercially successful without needing a million+ subscribers. The problem isn't that WoW is somehow magically prohibiting unique MMOs from being released--because they have--the problem is that these unique MMOs tend to be utter crap. They are released buggy, broken, and incomplete. That's why there are so few unique MMOs that can be considered a success.
You can easily develop an MMO and allow it to be financially successful as long as you are realistic by not investing many millions of dollars in hopes of getting WoW-like subscription numbers. Eve Online is the model of that and that's why the game both respected and is doing so well.
The standards for what is commercially viable went out the window when WoW started building its success. I'll give you that.
The standards for polish, user-friendliness, balance and presentation were also raised simultaneously. This is not a bad thing by any means. WoW will not be the only MMO with over ten million subscribers. I see WoW more as an enabler, rather than an inhibitor. It has brought MMOs to the mainstream, this enables more 'specialized' games to also make their mark. Sadly, at least in the near future, a complex simulation type MMO will not be beating WoW in subscriber numbers, however.
Exactly, this is the kind of social status WoW has, it is the 'football' of the MMO world. I have 40 year old upper management in my office that play the game and I chat to casually about it.
all my friends will gladly say which Football team they support.
none of them says that they play wow,even if torchered,same as playing with Legos or like.
Exactly, this is the kind of social status WoW has, it is the 'football' of the MMO world. I have 40 year old upper management in my office that play the game and I chat to casually about it.
all my friends will gladly say what Football team they support.
none of them says that they play wow,even if torchered,same as playing with Legos or like.
so believe me its "Legos" of MMO world.
You are talking about a closed circle of friends that share the same preferences. I am talking about casual acquaintances, colleagues. Yes this might differ by country, and also by profession(I work for a software developer.).
On a positive note at least we have Eve Online and Fallen Earth.
B-b-b-b-but WoW makes it impossible for anyone to create MMOs that are unique. Right?
Not at all. I think the problem lies in the studios themselves who make poor business decisions of not looking at reality for budget projections based on development time and release poor products which hinders anything that could be unique, other studios then become afraid to take a risk.
I am glad WoW is what it is. But studios like CCP or Turbine are doing well with their own game designs. But they did it by building a strong foundation in the community. No one needs to copy EQ or WoW if they don't want to do this. But we have to look at the publisherinvestor and what a mafia operation it is. I think MMORPG's can introduce innovation. And so can WoW, Eve, Fallen Earth, LOTRO, Dark Fall, AION, AoC, AO, LII, etc, etc. They just have to say "hey let's try this". Load it to a test server. And get community response.
To me what hinders innovation is money. The investors. The publishers. The MMORPG that released broken. WoW does not hinder anything unique...upper management does!
On a positive note at least we have Eve Online and Fallen Earth.
B-b-b-b-but WoW makes it impossible for anyone to create MMOs that are unique. Right?
Not at all. I think the problem lies in the studios themselves who make poor business decisions of not looking at reality for budget projections based on development time and release poor products which hinders anything that could be unique, other studios then become afraid to take a risk.
I am glad WoW is what it is. But studios like CCP or Turbine are doing well with their own game designs. But they did it by building a strong foundation in the community. No one needs to copy EQ or WoW if they don't want to do this. But we have to look at the publisherinvestor and what a mafia operation it is. I think MMORPG's can introduce innovation. And so can WoW, Eve, Fallen Earth, LOTRO, Dark Fall, AION, AoC, AO, LII, etc, etc. They just have to say "hey let's try this". Load it to a test server. And get community response.
To me what hinders innovation is money. The investors. The publishers. The MMORPG that released broken. WoW does not hinder anything unique...upper management does!
I agree completely here, exactly my thoughts, just phrased better.
Do most people prefer a good game of football over a good game of chess?
I don't think that's a good analogy in that both are fundamentally different. One reason football is so big is because of team pride and rivalries. People familiarize with their local team and there's some enjoyment in that since there's camaraderie that comes out of that which, essentially, makes sports a sort of "social glue." You can go into a sports bar and strike conversation and meet new people just on the fact that you're all rooting for the same team. You really don't have that in chess.
Truly the most irrational part of sports, "rooting" for a team that you really have no connection to other than what you chose to make up in your head. (and for some reason, you need to see them win, why, I don't know).
You're talking about irrationality when you're whining about football on a video game forum. What's rational about that? This may come as as shock to you, but human nature is irrational. We spend countless hours each month playing games when we could be doing something more productive and important with our lives. Glass houses, my friend.
A look at almost any other industry shows the same trend, movies, music, food, the masses prefer things cheap, easy and repetitive. Gaming is no different.
Not really. Look at Ben and Jerry's. Look at Starbucks. Look at the countless of high-end restaurants. Look at BMW, Mercedez, Aston Martin, and so many other luxury car makers. If what you say is true then these groups would not exist. In fact, they do. The "McDonald's" analogy doesn't really hold up with MMOs because McDonald's is as big as it is because it's cheap and fast. If McDonald's costs the same as other more high-end burger places, like say Steak-n-Shake, then the higher quality would prevail. Well, in MMOs people don't have to make a compromise on cost. Most decent MMOs cost the same. WoW is $15/month, Eve Online is $15/month, Aion is $15/month. Ultimately, people choose their MMOs based on which they perceive as having the highest quality, and the highest quality MMOs often prevail considering how many crappy ones are left rotting, like Tabula Rasa, Hellgate: London, Auto Assault, etc.
What sense does it make to equate WoW's success is something akin to people's preference to partaking in things that are cheaper when in fact WoW is no less cheaper than most other options.
Dumbing down is a relative term, and like someone else said, inflammatory. The reality is that MMO's have never taken brains or skill beyond the ability to research builds and spend more time at the keyboard than your competitors.
MMOs have changed from virtual worlds to online games (which I find regrettable), but they've always been rather dumb if you're comparing them to other activities that require actual skill and intelligence.
Anyone with basic motor and reading comprehension skills can sit down at an MMO and be competitive in a matter of hours. I understand the elitism of the nerdy early genre adopters because I was one of them, but UO/EQ/AC/SWG didn't require skill at all. They required massive time investments.
If some developer can bring back the open world, communities, and non-combat aspects of those games while keeping the carrot-chasing to a minimum, they'll probably strike gold.
On a positive note at least we have Eve Online and Fallen Earth.
B-b-b-b-but WoW makes it impossible for anyone to create MMOs that are unique. Right?
Not at all. I think the problem lies in the studios themselves who make poor business decisions of not looking at reality for budget projections based on development time and release poor products which hinders anything that could be unique, other studios then become afraid to take a risk.
Bingo. What's hurting unique MMOs isn't WoW, it's companies that are both unrealistic and incompetent. They think that it's relatively easy making an MMO, so they end up borrowing and spending many millions of dollars in hopes of getting millions of subscribers. Ultimately, many run out of money before the game is finished and they're forced to release the game buggy and incomplete. If more developers decide "Hey, we expect to have about 200k subscribers" and base their budget and game on that reality, you'd have a lot more MMOs competing with WoW.
Unfortunately, what you have are dimwitted companies like Mythic who are filled with hubris that think they'll take the MMO genre by storm and steal away WoW's thunder. Well, I really don't have to tell anybody the game's current state, do I?
Don't point to flight sims or Mechwarrior as proof of dumbing down. They are different genres of game with different goals. MMORPGS are supposed to be like PnP RPGS. The GM takes care of the brain work, the player just says what they want to do. The player doesn't need to know very much, if anything, there is too much of a learning curve in MMORPGS.
Massive? In EQ or DAOC the most i think i ever interacted with directly was 10-20. Keep raids or keep defense had more people running around, but i never truly interacted with them. The massive term is thrown around too much. Unless you do damage or buy/sell somehow with another person, your interaction is negligible at best. And AFAIK, no one is doing that to more than 50 people in a day.
Exploration. That died the day servers got sufficiently populated. I bought the first expansion of RoK (EQs first expansion) solely for the exploration. Unfortunately, it took me a little longer to install it than others. Maybe half an hour. I immediately tried to explore the zones that i could find. No matter where i went, i aways passed someone coming back from there. My hopes of exploration died. It took 30 minutes of delay to kill it.
You're talking about irrationality when you're whining about football on a video game forum. What's rational about that? This may come as as shock to you, but human nature is irrational. We spend countless hours each month playing games when we could be doing something more productive and important with our lives. Glass houses, my friend.
Not really. Look at Ben and Jerry's. Look at Starbucks. Look at the countless of high-end restaurants. Look at BMW, Mercedez, Aston Martin, and so many other luxury car makers. If what you say is true then these groups would not exist. In fact, they do. The "McDonald's" analogy doesn't really hold up with MMOs because McDonald's is as big as it is because it's cheap and fast. If McDonald's costs the same as other more high-end burger places, like say Steak-n-Shake, then the higher quality would prevail. Well, in MMOs people don't have to make a compromise on cost. Most decent MMOs cost the same. WoW is $15/month, Eve Online is $15/month, Aion is $15/month. Ultimately, people choose their MMOs based on which they perceive as having the highest quality, and the highest quality MMOs often prevail considering how many crappy ones are left rotting, like Tabula Rasa, Hellgate: London, Auto Assault, etc. What sense does it make to equate WoW's success is something akin to people's preference to partaking in things that are cheaper when in fact WoW is no less cheaper than most other options.
Ben and Jerry's ice cream is no more complex than your cheap brand. It is better, with higher quality ingredients. In many cases the choice of car is made based upon image, not the actual use case for the automobile. Those are poor analogies as well.
I think Kyleran summed it up pretty well. The general public wants simple, proven fun, I would even argue something they expect to enjoy before even starting with the experience. Would you rather take your eight and nine-year-old kids to Disney world or some random new park with advanced, intuitive and engagin rides? Well, nevermind that, what would the kids rather want?
There is a reason why the popularity of a phenomena 'snowballs'. People want to know before doing something, whether it'll be enjoyable. As studies point out, beauty is about looking as average and symmetrical as possible. The same seems to apply to to entertainment on a general basis.
Dumbing down is a relative term, and like someone else said, inflammatory. The reality is that MMO's have never taken brains or skill beyond the ability to research builds and spend more time at the keyboard than your competitors. MMOs have changed from virtual worlds to online games (which I find regrettable), but they've always been rather dumb if you're comparing them to other activities that require actual skill and intelligence. Anyone with basic motor and reading comprehension skills can sit down at an MMO and be competitive in a matter of hours. I understand the elitism of the nerdy early genre adopters because I was one of them, but UO/EQ/AC/SWG didn't require skill at all. They required massive time investments. If some developer can bring back the open world, communities, and non-combat aspects of those games while keeping the carrot-chasing to a minimum, they'll probably strike gold.
One thing that made Oblivion such a highly acclaimed game is the virtual world. I also agree that MMO's are and never were what I would call hard. For those wanting a challenge I would point to Sonic type games or maybe Galaga. No quick saves or save points and after, what was it, three lives and your done. No respawning. Some single player games of today are still somewhat challenging such as Demons Souls and Ninga Guidan but as a whole its not just MMO's that are easier its games in general I believe.
You're talking about irrationality when you're whining about football on a video game forum. What's rational about that? This may come as as shock to you, but human nature is irrational. We spend countless hours each month playing games when we could be doing something more productive and important with our lives. Glass houses, my friend.
Not really. Look at Ben and Jerry's. Look at Starbucks. Look at the countless of high-end restaurants. Look at BMW, Mercedez, Aston Martin, and so many other luxury car makers. If what you say is true then these groups would not exist. In fact, they do. The "McDonald's" analogy doesn't really hold up with MMOs because McDonald's is as big as it is because it's cheap and fast. If McDonald's costs the same as other more high-end burger places, like say Steak-n-Shake, then the higher quality would prevail. Well, in MMOs people don't have to make a compromise on cost. Most decent MMOs cost the same. WoW is $15/month, Eve Online is $15/month, Aion is $15/month. Ultimately, people choose their MMOs based on which they perceive as having the highest quality, and the highest quality MMOs often prevail considering how many crappy ones are left rotting, like Tabula Rasa, Hellgate: London, Auto Assault, etc. What sense does it make to equate WoW's success is something akin to people's preference to partaking in things that are cheaper when in fact WoW is no less cheaper than most other options.
Ben and Jerry's ice cream is no more complex than your cheap brand. It is better, with higher quality ingredients. In many cases the choice of car is made based upon image, not the actual use case for the automobile. Those are poor analogies as well.
Do you even bother reading the posts? Kyleran was comparing cheap and easy food, movies, music, etc. to MMOs. How is Ben and Jerry's not less cheaper than some crappy generic brand, or a Ferrari cheaper than a Ford Taurus? Also, high-end cars are harder to drive due to them almost always being stick-shift vs automatic tranny that most consumer grade cars tend to be. The ultimate point is that outside of MMOs, the more popular options are the more economical options. However, they same does not apply here since MMO cost relatively the same, hence why his analogy is flawed. You really need to start paying attention.
There is a reason why the popularity of a phenomena 'snowballs'. People want to know before doing something, whether it'll be enjoyable. As studies point out, beauty is about looking as average and symmetrical as possible. The same seems to apply to to entertainment on a general basis.
Do you have a point here, or do you just like pretending to know something relevant? How does wanting "simple, proven fun" equate to "beauty is about looking as average and symmetrical as possible." The fact of the matter is, people want the highest quality option within their financial means. In simpler terms, they want the best bang for their buck. Had they the means, people would choose to buy Lambos over some sedan, but they simply can't afford it. You often here people say "Man, if I had the money that so-and-so car would be mine." You don't here people say "Man, if I had the money I'd be subbing to that MMO." Well, I guess you do at times which explains the proliferation of F2P games. Still, the fact of the matter is in the current MMO market, people are free to choose the highest quality option which is often not possible to anybody but the rich for most other forms of entertainment. Also, don't forget that even great movies like Dark Knight, District 9, the Godfather, Gone with the Wind, Citizens Kane, etc., are both highly praised and successful despite "dumber" options available.
Mate, I'm from Europe where its the other way around, automatic transmission vehicles are more expensive.
What I was trying to point out, and which you can't seem to get your head around, is that most people prefer the proven 'theme-park' option over a new alternative. Look at the vacation spots people visit, it is mostly major destinations and resorts. It is mass appeal which is making the developers design the games the way they do. In short, the general public are 'to blame' for the 'dumbing-down', not the people responsible for creating the games.
On a positive note at least we have Eve Online and Fallen Earth.
B-b-b-b-but WoW makes it impossible for anyone to create MMOs that are unique. Right?
Not at all. I think the problem lies in the studios themselves who make poor business decisions of not looking at reality for budget projections based on development time and release poor products which hinders anything that could be unique, other studios then become afraid to take a risk.
Bingo. What's hurting unique MMOs isn't WoW, it's companies that are both unrealistic and incompetent. They think that it's relatively easy making an MMO, so they end up borrowing and spending many millions of dollars in hopes of getting millions of subscribers. Ultimately, many run out of money before the game is finished and they're forced to release the game buggy and incomplete. If more developers decide "Hey, we expect to have about 200k subscribers" and base their budget and game on that reality, you'd have a lot more MMOs competing with WoW.
Unfortunately, what you have are dimwitted companies like Mythic who are filled with hubris that think they'll take the MMO genre by storm and steal away WoW's thunder. Well, I really don't have to tell anybody the game's current state, do I?
Well saying that the WoW title wasnt responsible for the current dilemma is a bit naive tbh .... and you can call me high again btw .
i agree that it doesnt excuse the failure of the other companies , but having such sub numbers on hand that Blizzard currently has,doesnt it put a huge ammount of pressure from investors /marketing on the developers and the direction a game takes ?So what space does it leave for new ideas when youve to deliver $$$$.?
Mate, I'm from Europe where its the other way around, automatic transmission vehicles are more expensive.
What I was trying to point out, and which you can't seem to get your head around, is that most people prefer the proven 'theme-park' option over a new alternative. Look at the vacation spots people visit, it is mostly major destinations and resorts. It is mass appeal which is making the developers design the games the way they do. In short, the general public are 'to blame' for the 'dumbing-down', not the people responsible for creating the games.
Your reasoning is pretty bad. You're comparing the popularity of literal theme parks to WoW? That's pretty dumb. That's as stupid as saying people don't like eating beef and trying to prove it by pointing out people generally don't eat beef in India. Funny how you keep ignoring the issue of economics. Maybe those popular vacation spots are so popular because it's relatively cheap. Maybe you're afraid of addressing the issue because there's validity to it. Also, you're also assuming the "theme park" experience is somehow of a less calibre than other experiences. Half-Life can be regarded as a theme park, yet how many game of year awards has it won, how much praise does it still get 10 years after it was released? I'm sorry, but your bias is showing.
The issue that I was addressing was the idiotic inclination that WoW's popularity is primarily due to people's inclination to go with the cheaper alternative. In reality, that's true as my car and restaurant analogy shows. However, you're too stubborn to acknowledge the fact that in the MMO genre people aren't forced to make such decisions since MMOs cost relatively the same and as a result people will always pick the higher quality option.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Blizzard's Cataclysm will only dumb down WoW even more. They are hoping to reel in more of the 70% that don't last past level 10. 30% retention is pretty sweet, but they want more players.
So, the game will be dumbed down and made to appeal to an even wider audience then before. The good news is that grinding quests will be reworked so they don't take as much time and aren't as frustrating, in the 1 to 60 zones anyway.
As more and more Corporations look to appeal to the masses rather then to the few elite MMORPG players you will continue to see this. I am not saying there won't be hardcore MMORPG's to come out though. These Corporations see gold and want their peice of the pie, and so the MMORPG war has begun. EA is looking to regain ground with SW:TOR, So you can bet that game will be dumbed down a bit!
Do not try to be a great gamer, just be a gamer. Cause, I don't care how good you are anyway.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Blizzard's Cataclysm will only dumb down WoW even more. They are hoping to reel in more of the 70% that don't last past level 10.
Or, what's more likely and intelligent, they want the level 1-60 content to not be ghost towns any longer.
They dumb it down so that more people can play which equates into more money for the developer. It is all about the money. Not many developers out there today are concerned about making a quality mmo anymore. Everything is theme park, quick, easy , add a montly fee+item mall and release it to the public. Thats the mentality of most mmo developers today.
So you are saying that whereas before, investors would be happy to get a 5x ROI, whereas because of WOW, they won't settle for less than 100x?
Nah, i don't buy that. If anything, the economy is making people more money conscious, not WOW. WOW may have brought in a lot of investors where there weren't any before, i can believe that because the money pulled them in.
So before WOW, you had 10 investor willing to take the gamble. Now you have 100 because of WOW. But 90 of those want a better guarantee of ROI.
So maybe the question is, do we want 3 indies, or do we want 3 indies + 10 mainstresm?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Blizzard's Cataclysm will only dumb down WoW even more. They are hoping to reel in more of the 70% that don't last past level 10.
Or, what's more likely and intelligent, they want the level 1-60 content to not be ghost towns any longer.
I do think that is definitely one of the reasons for their revamp. But I doubt Activision is saying, "Hey you guys can't make any more money off of this title we own (other then the level cap and new content from 80 -85), so why don't you just revamp the starting zones so they at least get used a little bit more." They could have left it all alone, except for Mt Hyjal, and just made flying mounts work only in the new high level zones they added, but they didn't
Trust me, it is a conscious effort to up their subscriber numbers even more if they can. I am not saying that they didn't want to give their loyal players a reason to play in the starting zones again as well, but why kill one bird when you could kill two in one hit?
Do not try to be a great gamer, just be a gamer. Cause, I don't care how good you are anyway.
Comments
B-b-b-b-but WoW makes it impossible for anyone to create MMOs that are unique. Right?
It isn't about WoW. It is about what is commercially viable.
I'm sure there'd be a few hundred happy people if Air Traffic Controller 2010 Simulation Edition Online was released. The shareholders of said developer, however would be weeping in the boardroom.
Developers don't start off by wanting to make a WoW-ripoff themepark MMO. In fact, I suspect most 'WoW-clones' were dumbed down during the development process to appease the financiers.
I don't think that's a good analogy in that both are fundamentally different. One reason football is so big is because of team pride and rivalries. People familiarize with their local team and there's some enjoyment in that since there's camaraderie that comes out of that which, essentially, makes sports a sort of "social glue." You can go into a sports bar and strike conversation and meet new people just on the fact that you're all rooting for the same team. You really don't have that in chess.
B-b-b-b-but WoW makes it impossible for anyone to create MMOs that are unique. Right?
It isn't about WoW. It is about what is commercially viable.
Not really. EQ and UO never even hit 1 million subscriptions. Heck, I think EQ barely topped 500k. You're telling me those games weren't commercially viable? That's doesn't make any sense. Eve Online has proved that you can be commercially successful without needing a million+ subscribers. The problem isn't that WoW is somehow magically prohibiting unique MMOs from being released--because they have--the problem is that these unique MMOs tend to be utter crap. They are released buggy, broken, and incomplete. That's why there are so few unique MMOs that can be considered a success.
You can easily develop an MMO and allow it to be financially successful as long as you are realistic by not investing many millions of dollars in hopes of getting WoW-like subscription numbers. Eve Online is the model of that and that's why the game both respected and is doing so well.
I don't think that's a good analogy in that both are fundamentally different. One reason football is so big is because of team pride and rivalries. People familiarize with their local team and there's some enjoyment in that since there's camaraderie that comes out of that which, essentially, makes sports a sort of "social glue." You can go into a sports bar and strike conversation and meet new people just on the fact that you're all rooting for the same team. You really don't have that in chess.
Exactly, this is the kind of social status WoW has, it is the 'football' of the MMO world. I have 40 year old upper management in my office that play the game and I chat to casually about it.
I don't think that's a good analogy in that both are fundamentally different. One reason football is so big is because of team pride and rivalries. People familiarize with their local team and there's some enjoyment in that since there's camaraderie that comes out of that which, essentially, makes sports a sort of "social glue." You can go into a sports bar and strike conversation and meet new people just on the fact that you're all rooting for the same team. You really don't have that in chess.
Truly the most irrational part of sports, "rooting" for a team that you really have no connection to other than what you chose to make up in your head. (and for some reason, you need to see them win, why, I don't know).
But that's a bit off topic, its true, people tend to enjoy things that are simple vs the complex, hence suppliers cater to the masses (why do you think they call them that?)
A look at almost any other industry shows the same trend, movies, music, food, the masses prefer things cheap, easy and repetitive. Gaming is no different.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
B-b-b-b-but WoW makes it impossible for anyone to create MMOs that are unique. Right?
It isn't about WoW. It is about what is commercially viable.
Not really. EQ and UO never even hit 1 million subscriptions. Heck, I think EQ barely topped 500k. You're telling me those games weren't commercially viable? That's doesn't make any sense. Eve Online has proved that you can be commercially successful without needing a million+ subscribers. The problem isn't that WoW is somehow magically prohibiting unique MMOs from being released--because they have--the problem is that these unique MMOs tend to be utter crap. They are released buggy, broken, and incomplete. That's why there are so few unique MMOs that can be considered a success.
You can easily develop an MMO and allow it to be financially successful as long as you are realistic by not investing many millions of dollars in hopes of getting WoW-like subscription numbers. Eve Online is the model of that and that's why the game both respected and is doing so well.
The standards for what is commercially viable went out the window when WoW started building its success. I'll give you that.
The standards for polish, user-friendliness, balance and presentation were also raised simultaneously. This is not a bad thing by any means. WoW will not be the only MMO with over ten million subscribers. I see WoW more as an enabler, rather than an inhibitor. It has brought MMOs to the mainstream, this enables more 'specialized' games to also make their mark. Sadly, at least in the near future, a complex simulation type MMO will not be beating WoW in subscriber numbers, however.
Exactly, this is the kind of social status WoW has, it is the 'football' of the MMO world. I have 40 year old upper management in my office that play the game and I chat to casually about it.
all my friends will gladly say which Football team they support.
none of them says that they play wow,even if torchered,same as playing with Legos or like.
so believe me its "Legos" of MMO world.
Generation P
Exactly, this is the kind of social status WoW has, it is the 'football' of the MMO world. I have 40 year old upper management in my office that play the game and I chat to casually about it.
all my friends will gladly say what Football team they support.
none of them says that they play wow,even if torchered,same as playing with Legos or like.
so believe me its "Legos" of MMO world.
You are talking about a closed circle of friends that share the same preferences. I am talking about casual acquaintances, colleagues. Yes this might differ by country, and also by profession(I work for a software developer.).
B-b-b-b-but WoW makes it impossible for anyone to create MMOs that are unique. Right?
Not at all. I think the problem lies in the studios themselves who make poor business decisions of not looking at reality for budget projections based on development time and release poor products which hinders anything that could be unique, other studios then become afraid to take a risk.
I am glad WoW is what it is. But studios like CCP or Turbine are doing well with their own game designs. But they did it by building a strong foundation in the community. No one needs to copy EQ or WoW if they don't want to do this. But we have to look at the publisherinvestor and what a mafia operation it is. I think MMORPG's can introduce innovation. And so can WoW, Eve, Fallen Earth, LOTRO, Dark Fall, AION, AoC, AO, LII, etc, etc. They just have to say "hey let's try this". Load it to a test server. And get community response.
To me what hinders innovation is money. The investors. The publishers. The MMORPG that released broken. WoW does not hinder anything unique...upper management does!
B-b-b-b-but WoW makes it impossible for anyone to create MMOs that are unique. Right?
Not at all. I think the problem lies in the studios themselves who make poor business decisions of not looking at reality for budget projections based on development time and release poor products which hinders anything that could be unique, other studios then become afraid to take a risk.
I am glad WoW is what it is. But studios like CCP or Turbine are doing well with their own game designs. But they did it by building a strong foundation in the community. No one needs to copy EQ or WoW if they don't want to do this. But we have to look at the publisherinvestor and what a mafia operation it is. I think MMORPG's can introduce innovation. And so can WoW, Eve, Fallen Earth, LOTRO, Dark Fall, AION, AoC, AO, LII, etc, etc. They just have to say "hey let's try this". Load it to a test server. And get community response.
To me what hinders innovation is money. The investors. The publishers. The MMORPG that released broken. WoW does not hinder anything unique...upper management does!
I agree completely here, exactly my thoughts, just phrased better.
I don't think that's a good analogy in that both are fundamentally different. One reason football is so big is because of team pride and rivalries. People familiarize with their local team and there's some enjoyment in that since there's camaraderie that comes out of that which, essentially, makes sports a sort of "social glue." You can go into a sports bar and strike conversation and meet new people just on the fact that you're all rooting for the same team. You really don't have that in chess.
Truly the most irrational part of sports, "rooting" for a team that you really have no connection to other than what you chose to make up in your head. (and for some reason, you need to see them win, why, I don't know).
You're talking about irrationality when you're whining about football on a video game forum. What's rational about that? This may come as as shock to you, but human nature is irrational. We spend countless hours each month playing games when we could be doing something more productive and important with our lives. Glass houses, my friend.
A look at almost any other industry shows the same trend, movies, music, food, the masses prefer things cheap, easy and repetitive. Gaming is no different.
Not really. Look at Ben and Jerry's. Look at Starbucks. Look at the countless of high-end restaurants. Look at BMW, Mercedez, Aston Martin, and so many other luxury car makers. If what you say is true then these groups would not exist. In fact, they do. The "McDonald's" analogy doesn't really hold up with MMOs because McDonald's is as big as it is because it's cheap and fast. If McDonald's costs the same as other more high-end burger places, like say Steak-n-Shake, then the higher quality would prevail. Well, in MMOs people don't have to make a compromise on cost. Most decent MMOs cost the same. WoW is $15/month, Eve Online is $15/month, Aion is $15/month. Ultimately, people choose their MMOs based on which they perceive as having the highest quality, and the highest quality MMOs often prevail considering how many crappy ones are left rotting, like Tabula Rasa, Hellgate: London, Auto Assault, etc.
What sense does it make to equate WoW's success is something akin to people's preference to partaking in things that are cheaper when in fact WoW is no less cheaper than most other options.
Dumbing down is a relative term, and like someone else said, inflammatory. The reality is that MMO's have never taken brains or skill beyond the ability to research builds and spend more time at the keyboard than your competitors.
MMOs have changed from virtual worlds to online games (which I find regrettable), but they've always been rather dumb if you're comparing them to other activities that require actual skill and intelligence.
Anyone with basic motor and reading comprehension skills can sit down at an MMO and be competitive in a matter of hours. I understand the elitism of the nerdy early genre adopters because I was one of them, but UO/EQ/AC/SWG didn't require skill at all. They required massive time investments.
If some developer can bring back the open world, communities, and non-combat aspects of those games while keeping the carrot-chasing to a minimum, they'll probably strike gold.
...
B-b-b-b-but WoW makes it impossible for anyone to create MMOs that are unique. Right?
Not at all. I think the problem lies in the studios themselves who make poor business decisions of not looking at reality for budget projections based on development time and release poor products which hinders anything that could be unique, other studios then become afraid to take a risk.
Bingo. What's hurting unique MMOs isn't WoW, it's companies that are both unrealistic and incompetent. They think that it's relatively easy making an MMO, so they end up borrowing and spending many millions of dollars in hopes of getting millions of subscribers. Ultimately, many run out of money before the game is finished and they're forced to release the game buggy and incomplete. If more developers decide "Hey, we expect to have about 200k subscribers" and base their budget and game on that reality, you'd have a lot more MMOs competing with WoW.
Unfortunately, what you have are dimwitted companies like Mythic who are filled with hubris that think they'll take the MMO genre by storm and steal away WoW's thunder. Well, I really don't have to tell anybody the game's current state, do I?
To the OP:
Don't point to flight sims or Mechwarrior as proof of dumbing down. They are different genres of game with different goals. MMORPGS are supposed to be like PnP RPGS. The GM takes care of the brain work, the player just says what they want to do. The player doesn't need to know very much, if anything, there is too much of a learning curve in MMORPGS.
Massive? In EQ or DAOC the most i think i ever interacted with directly was 10-20. Keep raids or keep defense had more people running around, but i never truly interacted with them. The massive term is thrown around too much. Unless you do damage or buy/sell somehow with another person, your interaction is negligible at best. And AFAIK, no one is doing that to more than 50 people in a day.
Exploration. That died the day servers got sufficiently populated. I bought the first expansion of RoK (EQs first expansion) solely for the exploration. Unfortunately, it took me a little longer to install it than others. Maybe half an hour. I immediately tried to explore the zones that i could find. No matter where i went, i aways passed someone coming back from there. My hopes of exploration died. It took 30 minutes of delay to kill it.
Ben and Jerry's ice cream is no more complex than your cheap brand. It is better, with higher quality ingredients. In many cases the choice of car is made based upon image, not the actual use case for the automobile. Those are poor analogies as well.
I think Kyleran summed it up pretty well. The general public wants simple, proven fun, I would even argue something they expect to enjoy before even starting with the experience. Would you rather take your eight and nine-year-old kids to Disney world or some random new park with advanced, intuitive and engagin rides? Well, nevermind that, what would the kids rather want?
There is a reason why the popularity of a phenomena 'snowballs'. People want to know before doing something, whether it'll be enjoyable. As studies point out, beauty is about looking as average and symmetrical as possible. The same seems to apply to to entertainment on a general basis.
Ben and Jerry's ice cream is no more complex than your cheap brand. It is better, with higher quality ingredients. In many cases the choice of car is made based upon image, not the actual use case for the automobile. Those are poor analogies as well.
Do you even bother reading the posts? Kyleran was comparing cheap and easy food, movies, music, etc. to MMOs. How is Ben and Jerry's not less cheaper than some crappy generic brand, or a Ferrari cheaper than a Ford Taurus? Also, high-end cars are harder to drive due to them almost always being stick-shift vs automatic tranny that most consumer grade cars tend to be. The ultimate point is that outside of MMOs, the more popular options are the more economical options. However, they same does not apply here since MMO cost relatively the same, hence why his analogy is flawed. You really need to start paying attention.
There is a reason why the popularity of a phenomena 'snowballs'. People want to know before doing something, whether it'll be enjoyable. As studies point out, beauty is about looking as average and symmetrical as possible. The same seems to apply to to entertainment on a general basis.
Do you have a point here, or do you just like pretending to know something relevant? How does wanting "simple, proven fun" equate to "beauty is about looking as average and symmetrical as possible." The fact of the matter is, people want the highest quality option within their financial means. In simpler terms, they want the best bang for their buck. Had they the means, people would choose to buy Lambos over some sedan, but they simply can't afford it. You often here people say "Man, if I had the money that so-and-so car would be mine." You don't here people say "Man, if I had the money I'd be subbing to that MMO." Well, I guess you do at times which explains the proliferation of F2P games. Still, the fact of the matter is in the current MMO market, people are free to choose the highest quality option which is often not possible to anybody but the rich for most other forms of entertainment. Also, don't forget that even great movies like Dark Knight, District 9, the Godfather, Gone with the Wind, Citizens Kane, etc., are both highly praised and successful despite "dumber" options available.
Mate, I'm from Europe where its the other way around, automatic transmission vehicles are more expensive.
What I was trying to point out, and which you can't seem to get your head around, is that most people prefer the proven 'theme-park' option over a new alternative. Look at the vacation spots people visit, it is mostly major destinations and resorts. It is mass appeal which is making the developers design the games the way they do. In short, the general public are 'to blame' for the 'dumbing-down', not the people responsible for creating the games.
B-b-b-b-but WoW makes it impossible for anyone to create MMOs that are unique. Right?
Not at all. I think the problem lies in the studios themselves who make poor business decisions of not looking at reality for budget projections based on development time and release poor products which hinders anything that could be unique, other studios then become afraid to take a risk.
Bingo. What's hurting unique MMOs isn't WoW, it's companies that are both unrealistic and incompetent. They think that it's relatively easy making an MMO, so they end up borrowing and spending many millions of dollars in hopes of getting millions of subscribers. Ultimately, many run out of money before the game is finished and they're forced to release the game buggy and incomplete. If more developers decide "Hey, we expect to have about 200k subscribers" and base their budget and game on that reality, you'd have a lot more MMOs competing with WoW.
Unfortunately, what you have are dimwitted companies like Mythic who are filled with hubris that think they'll take the MMO genre by storm and steal away WoW's thunder. Well, I really don't have to tell anybody the game's current state, do I?
Well saying that the WoW title wasnt responsible for the current dilemma is a bit naive tbh .... and you can call me high again btw .
i agree that it doesnt excuse the failure of the other companies , but having such sub numbers on hand that Blizzard currently has,doesnt it put a huge ammount of pressure from investors /marketing on the developers and the direction a game takes ?So what space does it leave for new ideas when youve to deliver $$$$.?
Mate, I'm from Europe where its the other way around, automatic transmission vehicles are more expensive.
What I was trying to point out, and which you can't seem to get your head around, is that most people prefer the proven 'theme-park' option over a new alternative. Look at the vacation spots people visit, it is mostly major destinations and resorts. It is mass appeal which is making the developers design the games the way they do. In short, the general public are 'to blame' for the 'dumbing-down', not the people responsible for creating the games.
Your reasoning is pretty bad. You're comparing the popularity of literal theme parks to WoW? That's pretty dumb. That's as stupid as saying people don't like eating beef and trying to prove it by pointing out people generally don't eat beef in India. Funny how you keep ignoring the issue of economics. Maybe those popular vacation spots are so popular because it's relatively cheap. Maybe you're afraid of addressing the issue because there's validity to it. Also, you're also assuming the "theme park" experience is somehow of a less calibre than other experiences. Half-Life can be regarded as a theme park, yet how many game of year awards has it won, how much praise does it still get 10 years after it was released? I'm sorry, but your bias is showing.
The issue that I was addressing was the idiotic inclination that WoW's popularity is primarily due to people's inclination to go with the cheaper alternative. In reality, that's true as my car and restaurant analogy shows. However, you're too stubborn to acknowledge the fact that in the MMO genre people aren't forced to make such decisions since MMOs cost relatively the same and as a result people will always pick the higher quality option.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Blizzard's Cataclysm will only dumb down WoW even more. They are hoping to reel in more of the 70% that don't last past level 10. 30% retention is pretty sweet, but they want more players.
So, the game will be dumbed down and made to appeal to an even wider audience then before. The good news is that grinding quests will be reworked so they don't take as much time and aren't as frustrating, in the 1 to 60 zones anyway.
As more and more Corporations look to appeal to the masses rather then to the few elite MMORPG players you will continue to see this. I am not saying there won't be hardcore MMORPG's to come out though. These Corporations see gold and want their peice of the pie, and so the MMORPG war has begun. EA is looking to regain ground with SW:TOR, So you can bet that game will be dumbed down a bit!
Do not try to be a great gamer, just be a gamer. Cause, I don't care how good you are anyway.
Or, what's more likely and intelligent, they want the level 1-60 content to not be ghost towns any longer.
They dumb it down so that more people can play which equates into more money for the developer. It is all about the money. Not many developers out there today are concerned about making a quality mmo anymore. Everything is theme park, quick, easy , add a montly fee+item mall and release it to the public. Thats the mentality of most mmo developers today.
So you are saying that whereas before, investors would be happy to get a 5x ROI, whereas because of WOW, they won't settle for less than 100x?
Nah, i don't buy that. If anything, the economy is making people more money conscious, not WOW. WOW may have brought in a lot of investors where there weren't any before, i can believe that because the money pulled them in.
So before WOW, you had 10 investor willing to take the gamble. Now you have 100 because of WOW. But 90 of those want a better guarantee of ROI.
So maybe the question is, do we want 3 indies, or do we want 3 indies + 10 mainstresm?
Or, what's more likely and intelligent, they want the level 1-60 content to not be ghost towns any longer.
I do think that is definitely one of the reasons for their revamp. But I doubt Activision is saying, "Hey you guys can't make any more money off of this title we own (other then the level cap and new content from 80 -85), so why don't you just revamp the starting zones so they at least get used a little bit more." They could have left it all alone, except for Mt Hyjal, and just made flying mounts work only in the new high level zones they added, but they didn't
Trust me, it is a conscious effort to up their subscriber numbers even more if they can. I am not saying that they didn't want to give their loyal players a reason to play in the starting zones again as well, but why kill one bird when you could kill two in one hit?
Do not try to be a great gamer, just be a gamer. Cause, I don't care how good you are anyway.