There were a number of reasons why Vanguard didn't succeed.
The mismanagement of development time, the being forced out the door 6 months earlier than originally agreed upon, launched a week after WoW's first expansion, horrible game breaking performance and bug issues, and lack of support from SoE who didn't want it doing better than EverQuest 1 and 2.
Darkfall on the other hand, aimed at a much smaller niche market than just "oldschool". They went for a niche "oldschool", then a smaller niche "oldschool PvP", then even smaller niche "oldschool FFAPVP" and then smaller again with "oldschool FPS style FFAPVP". And despite all that, Darkfall is SUCCESSFUL. They've hired more developers, opened a second server, launched two expansions, moved into a bigger office building, while Age of Conan is busy merging servers, laying off half its development team, getting bail outs, ect, and companies like mythic are almost entirely dissolved.
All of this is because people would simply prefer to bitch and moan about having nothing to play, or a games short comings at launch. It's not the developers fault the community has forgotten these games are designed with an idea they will be available for a long time to come. Meaning any issue can be fixed. Regardless of that people still act as though they can never go back. As if there's some moral obligation not to.
Personally I think players are just to picky today, they want it all and they want no issues what-so-ever. Which if possible would have been done by now.
Take Vanguard as an example, today it's said VG is what it should have been at launch. The same thing is said regulary about a lot of other games. However lets focus on VG for a second more. VG is everything a majority of the oldschoolers ask for on a regular basis. Hard PVE, lots and lots of group focused content. FFA PVP, social aspects and none combat activities. Large sprawling open world, full of content. Lot's of options for race and class choices. Decent graphics etc...
Yet a majority of those who ask for such games simply ignore it's existence. We still find them here begging and pleading for such a game to exist, when it's sitting there right in front of them. For some reason it just isn't good enough. Then they blame SOE for not throwing their wallet into it. It doesn't work that way, they think in dollar signs. To them no one wants a game like VG, if they did they'd be playing it and they would be making money off it. They're not, so therefor they leave it as is.
The Vanguard thing is a whole other issue. There are still features that were planned for Vanguard launch that aren't in simply because they don't have the dev power to finish it.
People don't avoid Vanguard because its a bad game, they avoid Vanguard because SoE doesn't support it, it doesn't have a development team, it hardly has a community, it hardly has a population. People want a living game, not a game on the verge of being shut down. (I am currently subscribed to Vanguard actually) Vanguard is a wicked social game its true, but not enough players to support it, and it has very little in terms of end game past raids. The PvP, quite frankly, is a joke. The FFA PvP server is a standard in all games, and it doesn't work well with level based ones. The Guild vs Guild territory control stuff that was planned for the first expansion never made it because SoE got rid of the devs.
That's exactly what I'm talking about...
SOE got rid of the DEV's because the product wasn't making any money. Well it was making some money or it would have been shutdown. Still the point stands IMO, SOE has no obligation to support a product that isn't returning on it's investment. The reason it's not is because it's not good enough, if it's not what would be? Because as it stands today VG is a very deep game, with lots of interesting features, decent visuals, beautiful world etc..
As for the expansion of the game, again it's an issue of money and returns. What is telling SOE they should be investing into VG? Nothing....
SoE got rid of the development literally a month after the game launched. It wasn't anything to do with the game not making enough money, because back then it still had like 200k players.
There's a very good reason for SoE not to put any money into Vanguard, any money spent on it would just steal subscriptions away from EverQuest and EverQuest 2, so they'd not be making a net profit at all. Simple business economics, if you have a monopoly, you tend not to improve yourself, because you'd just be making your own tech obsolete.
Nothing to do with the game being good or not. If Microsoft still had Vanguard, or hell, if it had a team of more than 6 people working part time, it could be doing great things and would have a GROWING population.
SoE promised a relaunch of Vanguard a year or two ago in September, but it never happened. They're not interested.
SoE got rid of the development literally a month after the game launched. It wasn't anything to do with the game not making enough money, because back then it still had like 200k players.
There's a very good reason for SoE not to put any money into Vanguard, any money spent on it would just steal subscriptions away from EverQuest and EverQuest 2, so they'd not be making a net profit at all. Simple business economics, if you have a monopoly, you tend not to improve yourself, because you'd just be making your own tech obsolete.
Nothing to do with the game being good or not. If Microsoft still had Vanguard, or hell, if it had a team of more than 6 people working part time, it could be doing great things and would have a GROWING population.
SoE promised a relaunch of Vanguard a year or two ago in September, but it never happened. They're not interested.
I was in VG's CB and played until about 6 months in. By then the population was dismal, and lot's of cuts were made. The internal struggles didn't help much either. They went into a state of emergency and acted completely unprofessional. Part of the beginning issues with VG was on Sigil, part of it on SOE, as you're right they probably were worried about EQ2 losing capital.
The problem is we're the consumers, we decide which product is popular. The issues that plagued VG have been remedied for the most part, there's nothing wrong with the game now outside of the population. Which in a game so huge is a big problem.Especially one with so much group content.
We as the consumer have let SOE decide what is popular, and we leave at that. If everyone who wants a game like VG played VG, SOE would have no choice, they would have to support it. Otherwise those who created it would have ammunition to use to obtain the rights to it back, then sell it or Capitalize on it. Instead we let SOE have their way, hey we can always just bicth about it you know.. lol
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Vanguard = poor example as games leaning towards PvP have never been popular with mmorpg players. SOE is even a worse example, they simply destroy games and alienate customers... in recent years.
WoW is a poor example, when I played it it mainly featured RPG elements. It's an RPG'ers game, jsut as they pulled most of their player base from their RPG and RTS games.
You kind of lost me there.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Vanguard = poor example as games leaning towards PvP have never been popular with mmorpg players. SOE is even a worse example, they simply destroy games and alienate customers... in recent years.
WoW is a poor example, when I played it it mainly featured RPG elements. It's an RPG'ers game, jsut as they pulled most of their player base from their RPG and RTS games.
Again, you don't have any market research to the contrary. If so, please do show it. COurse you'll probably take the cop out of "I'm not the one having to prove anything here", in which case if you do take that route, let's just agree not to respond to each other's posts anymore as for me it cements a certain idea I have.
I'm not taking sides on the arguement here, but I'd like to point out that what you describe as a "cop out" here is actually called the "burden of proof" - a very basic rule of argumentation. Someone who makes a claim against the status quo must shoulder the burden of proof to back up their claim with evidence, or it could quite reasonably be dismissed. In this case, the popularly accepted view is that "old school" gamers comprise a very small part of the greater mmo player community and thus it is the status quo in this case. Whether or not he would be able to find said research is irrelevant to the statement you are trying to make. Also, you've committed an ad hominem fallacy by insulting him personally. That's generally not a good idea if you expect to be taken seriously.
Someone feel free to correct me if this is not the case.
Feel free to stand corrected. When I insult someone I use the direct. Unless you are a mind reader and know what idea in the specific I have (or do you only have your assumptions to go on in which case you'd be guilty of the same), then it was probably best you not have spoken up in that respect.
Making a claim that there enough gamers of the old school type to fund a game is not going against a "status quo" or against an accepted view. It is accepted that there are more "other gamers", sure, but on the ground of there being enough to populate a game, there has never been an established belief. Maybe in a few people's minds because they don't like those type of games, but no where has it been established a universal. Honestly, from having and seen this arguement a few times I doubt that there is any evidence the other side would ever admit to accepting no matter how telling.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Take a number and camp? Why not just spawn more baddies faster if there are more players in the immediate area?
Which is my point. Those who argue against it convieninetly read past the part when we say take the concepts/features in the older games and refine them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with fixes for the flaws and still maintain the overall concept. If you are a rocket scientist wormy, well...oops!
Isn't that what they have been trying to do? Like the above issue, this is why instancing was created and put to wide spread use.
FFA PVP, this is why PVP servers have become normal in most games today.
Hard PVE, scaling dungeons...
Group focused PVE, again scaling dungeons/zones.
For every complaint related to annoyances from past systems, there have been changes made. WOW basically set the standard for these changes. Other companies have taken these changes and ran with them.
These are simple signs of a genre that hasn't exactly found it's sweet spot. Some would say these changes have destroyed what made the older games great, some will feel the complete opposite. Such as those things are what made older games not so great. It's all a matter of preference, noone is right and noone is wrong. As you really can't be wrong about what you like or dislike.
Yep, and I'm saying it needs to rock back the other way a little. At least with a few games to offer some choice. I'm not one here saying that all games have to be made a certain way. For that sentiment you'll have to look across the aisle to my opponent. Especially when coming from the frame of position of telling others and deciding how many of others are in existence that like or dislike something and putting arbitrary value to it.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Vanguard = poor example as games leaning towards PvP have never been popular with mmorpg players. SOE is even a worse example, they simply destroy games and alienate customers... in recent years.
WoW is a poor example, when I played it it mainly featured RPG elements. It's an RPG'ers game, jsut as they pulled most of their player base from their RPG and RTS games.
You kind of lost me there.
Uhhh, yeah... Vanguard... PvP game... wut?
I didn't say fully PvP. If it were only PvP I'd probably like it, or fully PvM. But what I know of it, it was leaning towards PvP and broken at that. Never subscribed after the poor launch (I had SOE station access at the time), though I was intrigued by the shader based engine (don't mean engine with shaders). Reading up it looks like PvP was even less used than what has been said of it, so strike that.
Take a number and camp? Why not just spawn more baddies faster if there are more players in the immediate area?
Which is my point. Those who argue against it convieninetly read past the part when we say take the concepts/features in the older games and refine them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with fixes for the flaws and still maintain the overall concept. If you are a rocket scientist wormy, well...oops!
Isn't that what they have been trying to do? Like the above issue, this is why instancing was created and put to wide spread use.
FFA PVP, this is why PVP servers have become normal in most games today.
Hard PVE, scaling dungeons...
Group focused PVE, again scaling dungeons/zones.
For every complaint related to annoyances from past systems, there have been changes made. WOW basically set the standard for these changes. Other companies have taken these changes and ran with them.
These are simple signs of a genre that hasn't exactly found it's sweet spot. Some would say these changes have destroyed what made the older games great, some will feel the complete opposite. Such as those things are what made older games not so great. It's all a matter of preference, noone is right and noone is wrong. As you really can't be wrong about what you like or dislike.
Yep, and I'm saying it needs to rock back the other way a little. At least with a few games to offer some choice. I'm not one here saying that all games have to be made a certain way. For that sentiment you'll have to look across the aisle to my opponent. Especially when coming from the frame of position of telling others and deciding how many of others are in existence that like or dislike something and putting arbitrary value to it.
You have a good point. I agree MMO's do need to take a few steps back. I think more than that needs to happen as well. We as the consumer need to figure out exactly what it is we want from our experience. As well as find a common ground that mixes our desired preferences and well. I understand we're always going to want different things as a community, however as a genre there has to be a common ground that makes it as such. Otherwise it's just a sea of games with no real corresponding audience.
We have the old schoolers, new schoolers, noobs, etc.. All wanting different things from an MMO. This makes the job of a developer extremely hard IMO. Especially in a market that seems hell bent on massive success.
It's possible as you said to fill out any idea with players. The problem is noone seems to want to focus on just a small portion of our audience, they all want us all. There are growing pains then there are growing pains. This is the latter we're going through now.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I doubt many would argue that there is no market for the "old school" audience, whether it be niche or not - apparently all the market research done by gaming companies shows that it is, in fact, a niche audience. It's just good business to cater to the greatest number of consumers you can possibly appeal to. Apparently, more people have been asking for features not meeting your definition of "old school". That definition would not match up with those of many other players either, who saw old school games as having little meaningful content, being "grindfests", etc.
You have access to this market research? If so please do share. If not, don't cite it in assumption as it isn't a fact. These companies could very well just be trying to mimic WoW because it made lots of money so anything like it should too. THey very well could have not done any research with respect to old school mechanics.
I think the problem is that too many of those arguing against the idea think they are "enlightening" the opposition with the "hows and whys" of business. Sorry, many of us understand those ways very well. That doesn't invalidate the notion of wanting those types of games to play. We don't need a business 101 or economics 101 from people who are most likely in no way qualified to preach on such subjects. A desire is just being expressed that a certain kind of gameplay would be desired to be enjoyed again made in this modern time.
If someone expressing such views lights a fire in you to argue at them telling essentially "it'll never happen, get over it", well, then as one of the opposition said earlier, you(in the general) need to seek professional help. And I am qualified to make that assessment.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
I doubt many would argue that there is no market for the "old school" audience, whether it be niche or not - apparently all the market research done by gaming companies shows that it is, in fact, a niche audience. It's just good business to cater to the greatest number of consumers you can possibly appeal to. Apparently, more people have been asking for features not meeting your definition of "old school". That definition would not match up with those of many other players either, who saw old school games as having little meaningful content, being "grindfests", etc.
So Its good buisness to cater to a group of people who are only going to play for a few months until the next casual MMO comes out. I think Id rather have 200-300k subs over many years vs 1mil at release and substantially decline after that.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore) Now Playing: N/A Worst MMO: FFXIV Favorite MMO: FFXI
Take a number and camp? Why not just spawn more baddies faster if there are more players in the immediate area?
Which is my point. Those who argue against it convieninetly read past the part when we say take the concepts/features in the older games and refine them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with fixes for the flaws and still maintain the overall concept. If you are a rocket scientist wormy, well...oops!
Isn't that what they have been trying to do? Like the above issue, this is why instancing was created and put to wide spread use.
FFA PVP, this is why PVP servers have become normal in most games today.
Hard PVE, scaling dungeons...
Group focused PVE, again scaling dungeons/zones.
For every complaint related to annoyances from past systems, there have been changes made. WOW basically set the standard for these changes. Other companies have taken these changes and ran with them.
These are simple signs of a genre that hasn't exactly found it's sweet spot. Some would say these changes have destroyed what made the older games great, some will feel the complete opposite. Such as those things are what made older games not so great. It's all a matter of preference, noone is right and noone is wrong. As you really can't be wrong about what you like or dislike.
Yep, and I'm saying it needs to rock back the other way a little. At least with a few games to offer some choice. I'm not one here saying that all games have to be made a certain way. For that sentiment you'll have to look across the aisle to my opponent. Especially when coming from the frame of position of telling others and deciding how many of others are in existence that like or dislike something and putting arbitrary value to it.
You have a good point. I agree MMO's do need to take a few steps back. I think more than that needs to happen as well. We as the consumer need to figure out exactly what it is we want from our experience. As well as find a common ground that mixes our desired preferences and well. I understand we're always going to want different things as a community, however as a genre there has to be a common ground that makes it as such. Otherwise it's just a sea of games with no real corresponding audience.
We have the old schoolers, new schoolers, noobs, etc.. All wanting different things from an MMO. This makes the job of a developer extremely hard IMO. Especially in a market that seems hell bent on massive success.
It's possible as you said to fill out in any idea with players. The problem is noone seems to want to focus on just a small portion of our audience, they all want us all. There are growing pains then there are growing pains. This is the latter we're going through now.
Which brings me to theuse of the word "niche". You'll see many here use it and clearly have no idea what it means. Then you'll see others try to use it as a derogatory or emmasculating word. In truth, in the P2P world at least, all but WoW and Lineage (or it may be Lineage II) are million plus subscribers. Everything else is niche.Niche is a good word. Niche will certainly bring more variety and thus more content customers. Niche is what, I think, this genre needs to shoot for.
I tend to agree that the people (in the vast majority) playing WoW aren't leaving it. LOTRO was a decently solid game in the vein of WoW and it did not capture a million plus audience. I think it rests now at around either 300K or 500K. I think any decently solid game launched, old school or wow gen, would do that well. We just haven't had alot of decently solid games launched since 2004.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
I doubt many would argue that there is no market for the "old school" audience, whether it be niche or not - apparently all the market research done by gaming companies shows that it is, in fact, a niche audience. It's just good business to cater to the greatest number of consumers you can possibly appeal to. Apparently, more people have been asking for features not meeting your definition of "old school". That definition would not match up with those of many other players either, who saw old school games as having little meaningful content, being "grindfests", etc.
So Its good buisness to cater to a group of people who are only going to play for a few months until the next casual MMO comes out. I think Id rather have 200-300k subs over many years vs 1mil at release and substantially decline after that.
Well if the plan is to hit high marks, noone is succeeding in that outside of Blizzard. That being said, it's pretty hard to say they're practicing good business. As good business means you're meeting goals, which seemingly most aren't.
Yes a steady client is what you want as a business, 200k coming regulary is much better than one mil coming only once. Especially for an MMO.
This is actually the one issue I take against Bioware/EA and TOR (at least at this point). As it's a perfect example of this. Their goal is 2 million regular subscribers. To break even they need one mil. That's a very risky goal to have in place. Especially if it means they will shutdown with any less. Which I'm not saying will happen, but it's a possiblity of course especially with EA on board.
Companies need to set realistic goals, most seem to have a problem doing this in recent years.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Which brings me to theuse of the word "niche". You'll see many here use it and clearly have no idea what it means. Then you'll see others try to use it as a derogatory or emmasculating word. In truth, in the P2P world at least, all but WoW and Lineage (or it may be Lineage II) are million plus subscribers. Everything else is niche.Niche is a good word. Niche will certainly bring more variety and thus more content customers. Niche is what, I think, this genre needs to shoot for.
I tend to agree that the people (in the vast majority) playing WoW aren't leaving it. LOTRO was a decently solid game in the vein of WoW and it did not capture a million plus audience. I think it rests now at around either 300K or 500K. I think any decently solid game launched, old school or wow gen, would do that well. We just haven't had alot of decently solid games launched since 2004.
That's true as well.
I think a lot of the problem with no solid games launching is the fact they aren't trying to cater to a niche. They're trying to cater to the masses, which I also agree most don't seem to be leaving WOW anytime soon.
This begs the question what is it that WOW has, that these other games don't? Well it's a question I ask myself a lot anyway. Which I don't think there is something it has others don't. I think it boils down to the fact they really just haven't pissed their fans off enough at this point.
As I say above this is an issue I take up with Bioware and EA at present. They should be looking at LOTRO a lot closer IMO. As it's a perfect example for them to follow, and a realistic goal. Instead they're focusing on WOW, which stems from a popular VG enterprise. Meaning it already has an established gaming audience. Yes Bioware has that in a sense, Star Wars, like LOTRO doesn't. It simply has fans, not all of which are gamers, meaning 2 million regular subscribers is unlikely.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I doubt many would argue that there is no market for the "old school" audience, whether it be niche or not - apparently all the market research done by gaming companies shows that it is, in fact, a niche audience. It's just good business to cater to the greatest number of consumers you can possibly appeal to. Apparently, more people have been asking for features not meeting your definition of "old school". That definition would not match up with those of many other players either, who saw old school games as having little meaningful content, being "grindfests", etc.
So Its good buisness to cater to a group of people who are only going to play for a few months until the next casual MMO comes out. I think Id rather have 200-300k subs over many years vs 1mil at release and substantially decline after that.
Well if the plan is to hit high marks, noone is succeeding in that outside of Blizzard. That being said, it's pretty hard to say they're practicing good business. As good business means you're meeting goals, which seemingly most aren't.
Yes a steady client is what you want as a business, 200k coming regulary is much better than one mil coming only once. Especially for an MMO.
This is actually the one issue I take against Bioware/EA and TOR (at least at this point). As it's a perfect example of this. Their goal is 2 million regular subscribers. To break even they need one mil. That's a very risky goal to have in place. Especially if it means they will shutdown with any less. Which I'm not saying will happen, but it's a possiblity of course especially with EA on board.
Companies need to set realistic goals, most seem to have a problem doing this in recent years.
Those numbers seem bullshit though. I mean maybe they need to sell 1 million units to break even, but amount of subs has nothing to do with it. Having 500K subscribers for 2 years yield as much money as having 1 million subs for 1 years. So saying they NEED 1 million subs sound like simple greed in my opinion and the fact that investers these days are looking for a quick buck and not willing to be in for the long run.
Those numbers seem bullshit though. I mean maybe they need to sell 1 million units to break even, but amount of subs has nothing to do with it. Having 500K subscribers for 2 years yield as much money as having 1 million subs for 1 years. So saying they NEED 1 million subs sound like simple greed in my opinion and the fact that investers these days are looking for a quick buck and not willing to be in for the long run.
That's their own words, so make of it what you will, they didn't explain any further.
They did spend a small fortune so far, and it's still over a year from release.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Again, you don't have any market research to the contrary. If so, please do show it. COurse you'll probably take the cop out of "I'm not the one having to prove anything here", in which case if you do take that route, let's just agree not to respond to each other's posts anymore as for me it cements a certain idea I have.
I'm not taking sides on the arguement here, but I'd like to point out that what you describe as a "cop out" here is actually called the "burden of proof" - a very basic rule of argumentation. Someone who makes a claim against the status quo must shoulder the burden of proof to back up their claim with evidence, or it could quite reasonably be dismissed. In this case, the popularly accepted view is that "old school" gamers comprise a very small part of the greater mmo player community and thus it is the status quo in this case. Whether or not he would be able to find said research is irrelevant to the statement you are trying to make. Also, you've committed an ad hominem fallacy by insulting him personally. That's generally not a good idea if you expect to be taken seriously.
Someone feel free to correct me if this is not the case.
Feel free to stand corrected. When I insult someone I use the direct. Unless you are a mind reader and know what idea in the specific I have (or do you only have your assumptions to go on in which case you'd be guilty of the same), then it was probably best you not have spoken up in that respect.
Making a claim that there enough gamers of the old school type to fund a game is not going against a "status quo" or against an accepted view. It is accepted that there are more "other gamers", sure, but on the ground of there being enough to populate a game, there has never been an established belief. Maybe in a few people's minds because they don't like those type of games, but no where has it been established a universal. Honestly, from having and seen this arguement a few times I doubt that there is any evidence the other side would ever admit to accepting no matter how telling.
My apologies - I read that as a rather strong implication of insult, and wonder why you bothered to bring up said idea otherwise, but I won't speculate. I don't think my speaking up was unwarranted though, and for the sake of clear communication and enhanced understanding for everyone reading this forum, I feel it always better to point such things out.
You are right though on the second point, I probably went about describing the application for the burden of proof concept incorrectly there. What I should have said, was that when introducing a new claim to the discussion, such as you did with your original statement, the burden of proof must be shouldered. That does apply to those on either side of the arguement in this situation. However, since you made the original claim - the burden of proof is indeed on you and not the other person. Even should you counter as you did: "I have no evidence but neither do you", that's actually another fallacy known as 'tu quoque' (means 'you too'). The fallacy is that his lacking evidence has nothing to do with the claim you are trying to make.
I'm a bit rusty, but hopefully that clarified what I was trying to say a bit.
I doubt many would argue that there is no market for the "old school" audience, whether it be niche or not - apparently all the market research done by gaming companies shows that it is, in fact, a niche audience. It's just good business to cater to the greatest number of consumers you can possibly appeal to. Apparently, more people have been asking for features not meeting your definition of "old school". That definition would not match up with those of many other players either, who saw old school games as having little meaningful content, being "grindfests", etc.
You have access to this market research? If so please do share. If not, don't cite it in assumption as it isn't a fact. These companies could very well just be trying to mimic WoW because it made lots of money so anything like it should too. THey very well could have not done any research with respect to old school mechanics.
I think the problem is that too many of those arguing against the idea think they are "enlightening" the opposition with the "hows and whys" of business. Sorry, many of us understand those ways very well. That doesn't invalidate the notion of wanting those types of games to play. We don't need a business 101 or economics 101 from people who are most likely in no way qualified to preach on such subjects. A desire is just being expressed that a certain kind of gameplay would be desired to be enjoyed again made in this modern time.
If someone expressing such views lights a fire in you to argue at them telling essentially "it'll never happen, get over it", well, then as one of the opposition said earlier, you(in the general) need to seek professional help. And I am qualified to make that assessment.
I believe you've misinterpreted what I was trying to say there. I make no claims of special expertise in economics or business, nor do I actively attempt to take on a condescending tone.
I could have worded that statement more clearly though: "Probably, all (if any at all) market research done by mmo gaming producers shows that it is a niche audience." This with the assumption that industry games have been tested with focus groups, and developers received community feedback, which I think is a fairly safe assumption to make. I was merely making an inference based on my experience, not trying to pass it off as fact. You were keen in pointing out that I am indeed making an assumption though, and that certainly warrants some level of attention.
Again, you don't have any market research to the contrary. If so, please do show it. COurse you'll probably take the cop out of "I'm not the one having to prove anything here", in which case if you do take that route, let's just agree not to respond to each other's posts anymore as for me it cements a certain idea I have.
I'm not taking sides on the arguement here, but I'd like to point out that what you describe as a "cop out" here is actually called the "burden of proof" - a very basic rule of argumentation. Someone who makes a claim against the status quo must shoulder the burden of proof to back up their claim with evidence, or it could quite reasonably be dismissed. In this case, the popularly accepted view is that "old school" gamers comprise a very small part of the greater mmo player community and thus it is the status quo in this case. Whether or not he would be able to find said research is irrelevant to the statement you are trying to make. Also, you've committed an ad hominem fallacy by insulting him personally. That's generally not a good idea if you expect to be taken seriously.
Someone feel free to correct me if this is not the case.
Feel free to stand corrected. When I insult someone I use the direct. Unless you are a mind reader and know what idea in the specific I have (or do you only have your assumptions to go on in which case you'd be guilty of the same), then it was probably best you not have spoken up in that respect.
Making a claim that there enough gamers of the old school type to fund a game is not going against a "status quo" or against an accepted view. It is accepted that there are more "other gamers", sure, but on the ground of there being enough to populate a game, there has never been an established belief. Maybe in a few people's minds because they don't like those type of games, but no where has it been established a universal. Honestly, from having and seen this arguement a few times I doubt that there is any evidence the other side would ever admit to accepting no matter how telling.
My apologies - I read that as a rather strong implication of insult, and wonder why you bothered to bring up said idea otherwise, but I won't speculate. I don't think my speaking up was unwarranted though, and for the sake of clear communication and enhanced understanding for everyone reading this forum, I feel it always better to point such things out.
You are right though on the second point, I probably went about describing the application for the burden of proof concept incorrectly there. What I should have said, was that when introducing a new claim to the discussion, such as you did with your original statement, the burden of proof must be shouldered. That does apply to those on either side of the arguement in this situation. However, since you made the original claim - the burden of proof is indeed on you and not the other person. Even should you counter as you did: "I have no evidence but neither do you", that's actually another fallacy known as 'tu quoque' (means 'you too'). The fallacy is that his lacking evidence has nothing to do with the claim you are trying to make.
I'm a bit rusty, but hopefully that clarified what I was trying to say a bit.
Well, as I said before, the continual growth of subscriptions of Eve is, in my view, a valid indicator. Whether or not you or he accept it is up to you two. It's evidence enough for me especially when factoring, as i've said before, that most gamers want a humanoid avatar and Eve is handicapped sub wise because it does not offer that yet (indeed they have plans to add it soon).
Additionally, when factoring all the new gamers coming of age to play and considering the entire world's population, globally such an old school game seems plausible to pick up 200K-400K if it is a solid game. Will it challenge WoW? Of course not, just as the many efforts to mimic Wow haven't done so or even managed to break the million gamer mark. That stated an old school game would be no worse off that all those Charles E. Stuarts; Young Pretenders.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
I think it'd be best for companies if they just kept doing their own thing, only looking at WoW for learning points, just as Blizzard did with other MMO's when they made their MMO. Companies like CCP, ANet, Squarenet Enix and Funcom (with TSW) seem to be doing just that.
I also think that WoW distorted the way people regard the MMO market. Before WoW a subscription number of 100k-500k was a healthy number for a MMO - Everquest got in its days as good attention from the media as WoW, Second Life and Farmville get - and there was a large diversity of MMO's upcoming already between 2000-2005 who had sub numbers between 50k-500.000k that were doing fine. But since WoW those numbers are suddenly not enough and for many a sign that a game is just "niche" (in my eyes "niche" is a term to describe a specific brand of gameplay, not of sub numbers, but ok).
What many people forget, including game companies, is that WoW caused an influx of people into the MMO genre that came from outside it, and that a a large part aren't so much MMORPG players but WoW players: they'll stick to WoW and when they get bored of it, most of them won't jump to other MMO's but will return to other (singleplayer) games or just plain drop out of the MMO market again.
Sure, a number of those newcomers will try out other MMO's and some of those will like it so much that they will keep playing MMO's from time to time, so WoW has caused an increase in MMO players (not only WoW players), but the largest part of those millions that have played WoW will stick to it or just quit the MMO genre entirely when they get tired of WoW.
Meaning that game companies and investors could have been interpreting the MMO market and the overall MMO playerbase wrongly, which could have been the cause of the large number of (perceived) failures in the period 2006 - 2010 when compared to the more innovative timeperiod 2000-2005. The companies have been trying to woo the MMO playerbase in the wrong way.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Again, you don't have any market research to the contrary. If so, please do show it. COurse you'll probably take the cop out of "I'm not the one having to prove anything here", in which case if you do take that route, let's just agree not to respond to each other's posts anymore as for me it cements a certain idea I have.
I'm not taking sides on the arguement here, but I'd like to point out that what you describe as a "cop out" here is actually called the "burden of proof" - a very basic rule of argumentation. Someone who makes a claim against the status quo must shoulder the burden of proof to back up their claim with evidence, or it could quite reasonably be dismissed. In this case, the popularly accepted view is that "old school" gamers comprise a very small part of the greater mmo player community and thus it is the status quo in this case. Whether or not he would be able to find said research is irrelevant to the statement you are trying to make. Also, you've committed an ad hominem fallacy by insulting him personally. That's generally not a good idea if you expect to be taken seriously.
Someone feel free to correct me if this is not the case.
You're absolutely right, as I've pointed out time and time again, only to get ignored. It's much easier to just make baseless claims, refuse to back them up with evidence, and get upset when people don't blindly accept your claims as gospel truth. It just shows that the people who are making these claims are incapable of debating rationally, nor are they interested in finding the truth of the matter, only in supporting their own preconceived notions.
I doubt many would argue that there is no market for the "old school" audience, whether it be niche or not - apparently all the market research done by gaming companies shows that it is, in fact, a niche audience. It's just good business to cater to the greatest number of consumers you can possibly appeal to. Apparently, more people have been asking for features not meeting your definition of "old school". That definition would not match up with those of many other players either, who saw old school games as having little meaningful content, being "grindfests", etc.
So Its good buisness to cater to a group of people who are only going to play for a few months until the next casual MMO comes out. I think Id rather have 200-300k subs over many years vs 1mil at release and substantially decline after that.
Unfortunately, there's no way to guarantee a long-term paying audience. Starting with a million subs and having it drop off is certainly preferable to starting with only 300k subs and having it drop off.
I doubt many would argue that there is no market for the "old school" audience, whether it be niche or not - apparently all the market research done by gaming companies shows that it is, in fact, a niche audience. It's just good business to cater to the greatest number of consumers you can possibly appeal to. Apparently, more people have been asking for features not meeting your definition of "old school". That definition would not match up with those of many other players either, who saw old school games as having little meaningful content, being "grindfests", etc.
So Its good buisness to cater to a group of people who are only going to play for a few months until the next casual MMO comes out. I think Id rather have 200-300k subs over many years vs 1mil at release and substantially decline after that.
Unfortunately, there's no way to guarantee a long-term paying audience. Starting with a million subs and having it drop off is certainly preferable to starting with only 300k subs and having it drop off.
I have to disagree, make a game for a different group instead of every game catering to the same group. That way your game sets apart from the others, and we all know what the majority of games post wow have catered to. A couple of games like EvE and DF are a couple of exceptions, EvE has made more cash than some small countries they have been around since 2003. DF I am not to sure about because I have not followed it, but I bet it has a loyal following and with it being made a little cheaper I bet its pulling a profit. Theres a "hardcore" PvE croud out there thats dieing for a game. FFXIV might fill that role it would be the smartest move they could do especially with rift, tera,swtor,and gwII right around the corner.
Edit: my bad eve came out before wow.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore) Now Playing: N/A Worst MMO: FFXIV Favorite MMO: FFXI
Again, you don't have any market research to the contrary. If so, please do show it. COurse you'll probably take the cop out of "I'm not the one having to prove anything here", in which case if you do take that route, let's just agree not to respond to each other's posts anymore as for me it cements a certain idea I have.
I'm not taking sides on the arguement here, but I'd like to point out that what you describe as a "cop out" here is actually called the "burden of proof" - a very basic rule of argumentation. Someone who makes a claim against the status quo must shoulder the burden of proof to back up their claim with evidence, or it could quite reasonably be dismissed. In this case, the popularly accepted view is that "old school" gamers comprise a very small part of the greater mmo player community and thus it is the status quo in this case. Whether or not he would be able to find said research is irrelevant to the statement you are trying to make. Also, you've committed an ad hominem fallacy by insulting him personally. That's generally not a good idea if you expect to be taken seriously.
Someone feel free to correct me if this is not the case.
You're absolutely right, as I've pointed out time and time again, only to get ignored. It's much easier to just make baseless claims, refuse to back them up with evidence, and get upset when people don't blindly accept your claims as gospel truth. It just shows that the people who are making these claims are incapable of debating rationally, nor are they interested in finding the truth of the matter, only in supporting their own preconceived notions.
No real surprise there.
Your posts are always highly ironic. You're one of the crowd who makes the backless claim of 'what you want is in the minority' referencing 'old school' preferences. Despite countless challenges on backing your claims by many different posters, you always fail to deliver.
Ignorance, sometimes, is earned. (Fun lil' play on words there)
And if you're well-read, consider Bradbury's 'The Dwarf' to better understand the concept of preaching something and neglected to 'look into the mirror' as it were, as Ralph so aptly demonstrates.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Again, you don't have any market research to the contrary. If so, please do show it. COurse you'll probably take the cop out of "I'm not the one having to prove anything here", in which case if you do take that route, let's just agree not to respond to each other's posts anymore as for me it cements a certain idea I have.
I'm not taking sides on the arguement here, but I'd like to point out that what you describe as a "cop out" here is actually called the "burden of proof" - a very basic rule of argumentation. Someone who makes a claim against the status quo must shoulder the burden of proof to back up their claim with evidence, or it could quite reasonably be dismissed. In this case, the popularly accepted view is that "old school" gamers comprise a very small part of the greater mmo player community and thus it is the status quo in this case. Whether or not he would be able to find said research is irrelevant to the statement you are trying to make. Also, you've committed an ad hominem fallacy by insulting him personally. That's generally not a good idea if you expect to be taken seriously.
Someone feel free to correct me if this is not the case.
You're absolutely right, as I've pointed out time and time again, only to get ignored. It's much easier to just make baseless claims, refuse to back them up with evidence, and get upset when people don't blindly accept your claims as gospel truth. It just shows that the people who are making these claims are incapable of debating rationally, nor are they interested in finding the truth of the matter, only in supporting their own preconceived notions.
No real surprise there.
Your posts are always highly ironic. You're one of the crowd who makes the backless claim of 'what you want is in the minority' referencing 'old school' preferences. Despite countless challenges on backing your claims by many different posters, you always fail to deliver.
Ignorance, sometimes, is earned. (Fun lil' play on words there)
And if you're well-read, consider Bradbury's 'The Dwarf' to better understand the concept of preaching something and neglected to 'look into the mirror' as it were, as Ralph so aptly demonstrates.
Doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is still on the ones claiming that an old school MMO would be successful and the elements they present are wanted...
I doubt many would argue that there is no market for the "old school" audience, whether it be niche or not - apparently all the market research done by gaming companies shows that it is, in fact, a niche audience. It's just good business to cater to the greatest number of consumers you can possibly appeal to. Apparently, more people have been asking for features not meeting your definition of "old school". That definition would not match up with those of many other players either, who saw old school games as having little meaningful content, being "grindfests", etc.
So Its good buisness to cater to a group of people who are only going to play for a few months until the next casual MMO comes out. I think Id rather have 200-300k subs over many years vs 1mil at release and substantially decline after that.
Unfortunately, there's no way to guarantee a long-term paying audience. Starting with a million subs and having it drop off is certainly preferable to starting with only 300k subs and having it drop off.
I have to disagree, make a game for a different group instead of every game catering to the same group. That way your game sets apart from the others, and we all know what the majority of games post wow have catered to. A couple of games like EvE and DF are a couple of exceptions, EvE has made more cash than some small countries they have been around since 2003. DF I am not to sure about because I have not followed it, but I bet it has a loyal following and with it being made a little cheaper I bet its pulling a profit. Theres a "hardcore" PvE croud out there thats dieing for a game. FFXIV might fill that role it would be the smartest move they could do especially with rift, tera,swtor,and gwII right around the corner.
Edit: my bad eve came out before wow.
You can disagree all you want, but unless it's your money on the line, what you think doesn't make a whole lot of difference. The investors want a significant return on their investment. Catering to a niche audience is not going to provide that. You might think that's short-sighted and I'd even agree with you, but that's the way investors think. Want to change that? Put up $10 million of your own money and I'm sure you can find a developer who will do anything you want.
The thing is though, most of these companies don't have to make niche games because the majority of people who are vocal about their niche interests are still playing the games that come out, even if they bitch and whine about them. They don't even have to cater to you, they're still getting your money! And that's all they care about.
Comments
SoE got rid of the development literally a month after the game launched. It wasn't anything to do with the game not making enough money, because back then it still had like 200k players.
There's a very good reason for SoE not to put any money into Vanguard, any money spent on it would just steal subscriptions away from EverQuest and EverQuest 2, so they'd not be making a net profit at all. Simple business economics, if you have a monopoly, you tend not to improve yourself, because you'd just be making your own tech obsolete.
Nothing to do with the game being good or not. If Microsoft still had Vanguard, or hell, if it had a team of more than 6 people working part time, it could be doing great things and would have a GROWING population.
SoE promised a relaunch of Vanguard a year or two ago in September, but it never happened. They're not interested.
I was in VG's CB and played until about 6 months in. By then the population was dismal, and lot's of cuts were made. The internal struggles didn't help much either. They went into a state of emergency and acted completely unprofessional. Part of the beginning issues with VG was on Sigil, part of it on SOE, as you're right they probably were worried about EQ2 losing capital.
The problem is we're the consumers, we decide which product is popular. The issues that plagued VG have been remedied for the most part, there's nothing wrong with the game now outside of the population. Which in a game so huge is a big problem.Especially one with so much group content.
We as the consumer have let SOE decide what is popular, and we leave at that. If everyone who wants a game like VG played VG, SOE would have no choice, they would have to support it. Otherwise those who created it would have ammunition to use to obtain the rights to it back, then sell it or Capitalize on it. Instead we let SOE have their way, hey we can always just bicth about it you know.. lol
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You kind of lost me there.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Uhhh, yeah... Vanguard... PvP game... wut?
Feel free to stand corrected. When I insult someone I use the direct. Unless you are a mind reader and know what idea in the specific I have (or do you only have your assumptions to go on in which case you'd be guilty of the same), then it was probably best you not have spoken up in that respect.
Making a claim that there enough gamers of the old school type to fund a game is not going against a "status quo" or against an accepted view. It is accepted that there are more "other gamers", sure, but on the ground of there being enough to populate a game, there has never been an established belief. Maybe in a few people's minds because they don't like those type of games, but no where has it been established a universal. Honestly, from having and seen this arguement a few times I doubt that there is any evidence the other side would ever admit to accepting no matter how telling.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Yep, and I'm saying it needs to rock back the other way a little. At least with a few games to offer some choice. I'm not one here saying that all games have to be made a certain way. For that sentiment you'll have to look across the aisle to my opponent. Especially when coming from the frame of position of telling others and deciding how many of others are in existence that like or dislike something and putting arbitrary value to it.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
I didn't say fully PvP. If it were only PvP I'd probably like it, or fully PvM. But what I know of it, it was leaning towards PvP and broken at that. Never subscribed after the poor launch (I had SOE station access at the time), though I was intrigued by the shader based engine (don't mean engine with shaders). Reading up it looks like PvP was even less used than what has been said of it, so strike that.
I still stand by my WoW commment though lol
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
You have a good point. I agree MMO's do need to take a few steps back. I think more than that needs to happen as well. We as the consumer need to figure out exactly what it is we want from our experience. As well as find a common ground that mixes our desired preferences and well. I understand we're always going to want different things as a community, however as a genre there has to be a common ground that makes it as such. Otherwise it's just a sea of games with no real corresponding audience.
We have the old schoolers, new schoolers, noobs, etc.. All wanting different things from an MMO. This makes the job of a developer extremely hard IMO. Especially in a market that seems hell bent on massive success.
It's possible as you said to fill out any idea with players. The problem is noone seems to want to focus on just a small portion of our audience, they all want us all. There are growing pains then there are growing pains. This is the latter we're going through now.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You have access to this market research? If so please do share. If not, don't cite it in assumption as it isn't a fact. These companies could very well just be trying to mimic WoW because it made lots of money so anything like it should too. THey very well could have not done any research with respect to old school mechanics.
I think the problem is that too many of those arguing against the idea think they are "enlightening" the opposition with the "hows and whys" of business. Sorry, many of us understand those ways very well. That doesn't invalidate the notion of wanting those types of games to play. We don't need a business 101 or economics 101 from people who are most likely in no way qualified to preach on such subjects. A desire is just being expressed that a certain kind of gameplay would be desired to be enjoyed again made in this modern time.
If someone expressing such views lights a fire in you to argue at them telling essentially "it'll never happen, get over it", well, then as one of the opposition said earlier, you(in the general) need to seek professional help. And I am qualified to make that assessment.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
So Its good buisness to cater to a group of people who are only going to play for a few months until the next casual MMO comes out. I think Id rather have 200-300k subs over many years vs 1mil at release and substantially decline after that.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore)
Now Playing: N/A
Worst MMO: FFXIV
Favorite MMO: FFXI
Which brings me to theuse of the word "niche". You'll see many here use it and clearly have no idea what it means. Then you'll see others try to use it as a derogatory or emmasculating word. In truth, in the P2P world at least, all but WoW and Lineage (or it may be Lineage II) are million plus subscribers. Everything else is niche.Niche is a good word. Niche will certainly bring more variety and thus more content customers. Niche is what, I think, this genre needs to shoot for.
I tend to agree that the people (in the vast majority) playing WoW aren't leaving it. LOTRO was a decently solid game in the vein of WoW and it did not capture a million plus audience. I think it rests now at around either 300K or 500K. I think any decently solid game launched, old school or wow gen, would do that well. We just haven't had alot of decently solid games launched since 2004.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
Well if the plan is to hit high marks, noone is succeeding in that outside of Blizzard. That being said, it's pretty hard to say they're practicing good business. As good business means you're meeting goals, which seemingly most aren't.
Yes a steady client is what you want as a business, 200k coming regulary is much better than one mil coming only once. Especially for an MMO.
This is actually the one issue I take against Bioware/EA and TOR (at least at this point). As it's a perfect example of this. Their goal is 2 million regular subscribers. To break even they need one mil. That's a very risky goal to have in place. Especially if it means they will shutdown with any less. Which I'm not saying will happen, but it's a possiblity of course especially with EA on board.
Companies need to set realistic goals, most seem to have a problem doing this in recent years.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
That's true as well.
I think a lot of the problem with no solid games launching is the fact they aren't trying to cater to a niche. They're trying to cater to the masses, which I also agree most don't seem to be leaving WOW anytime soon.
This begs the question what is it that WOW has, that these other games don't? Well it's a question I ask myself a lot anyway. Which I don't think there is something it has others don't. I think it boils down to the fact they really just haven't pissed their fans off enough at this point.
As I say above this is an issue I take up with Bioware and EA at present. They should be looking at LOTRO a lot closer IMO. As it's a perfect example for them to follow, and a realistic goal. Instead they're focusing on WOW, which stems from a popular VG enterprise. Meaning it already has an established gaming audience. Yes Bioware has that in a sense, Star Wars, like LOTRO doesn't. It simply has fans, not all of which are gamers, meaning 2 million regular subscribers is unlikely.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Those numbers seem bullshit though. I mean maybe they need to sell 1 million units to break even, but amount of subs has nothing to do with it. Having 500K subscribers for 2 years yield as much money as having 1 million subs for 1 years. So saying they NEED 1 million subs sound like simple greed in my opinion and the fact that investers these days are looking for a quick buck and not willing to be in for the long run.
That's their own words, so make of it what you will, they didn't explain any further.
They did spend a small fortune so far, and it's still over a year from release.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
My apologies - I read that as a rather strong implication of insult, and wonder why you bothered to bring up said idea otherwise, but I won't speculate. I don't think my speaking up was unwarranted though, and for the sake of clear communication and enhanced understanding for everyone reading this forum, I feel it always better to point such things out.
You are right though on the second point, I probably went about describing the application for the burden of proof concept incorrectly there. What I should have said, was that when introducing a new claim to the discussion, such as you did with your original statement, the burden of proof must be shouldered. That does apply to those on either side of the arguement in this situation. However, since you made the original claim - the burden of proof is indeed on you and not the other person. Even should you counter as you did: "I have no evidence but neither do you", that's actually another fallacy known as 'tu quoque' (means 'you too'). The fallacy is that his lacking evidence has nothing to do with the claim you are trying to make.
I'm a bit rusty, but hopefully that clarified what I was trying to say a bit.
I believe you've misinterpreted what I was trying to say there. I make no claims of special expertise in economics or business, nor do I actively attempt to take on a condescending tone.
I could have worded that statement more clearly though: "Probably, all (if any at all) market research done by mmo gaming producers shows that it is a niche audience." This with the assumption that industry games have been tested with focus groups, and developers received community feedback, which I think is a fairly safe assumption to make. I was merely making an inference based on my experience, not trying to pass it off as fact. You were keen in pointing out that I am indeed making an assumption though, and that certainly warrants some level of attention.
Well, as I said before, the continual growth of subscriptions of Eve is, in my view, a valid indicator. Whether or not you or he accept it is up to you two. It's evidence enough for me especially when factoring, as i've said before, that most gamers want a humanoid avatar and Eve is handicapped sub wise because it does not offer that yet (indeed they have plans to add it soon).
Additionally, when factoring all the new gamers coming of age to play and considering the entire world's population, globally such an old school game seems plausible to pick up 200K-400K if it is a solid game. Will it challenge WoW? Of course not, just as the many efforts to mimic Wow haven't done so or even managed to break the million gamer mark. That stated an old school game would be no worse off that all those Charles E. Stuarts; Young Pretenders.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
I think it'd be best for companies if they just kept doing their own thing, only looking at WoW for learning points, just as Blizzard did with other MMO's when they made their MMO. Companies like CCP, ANet, Squarenet Enix and Funcom (with TSW) seem to be doing just that.
I also think that WoW distorted the way people regard the MMO market. Before WoW a subscription number of 100k-500k was a healthy number for a MMO - Everquest got in its days as good attention from the media as WoW, Second Life and Farmville get - and there was a large diversity of MMO's upcoming already between 2000-2005 who had sub numbers between 50k-500.000k that were doing fine. But since WoW those numbers are suddenly not enough and for many a sign that a game is just "niche" (in my eyes "niche" is a term to describe a specific brand of gameplay, not of sub numbers, but ok).
What many people forget, including game companies, is that WoW caused an influx of people into the MMO genre that came from outside it, and that a a large part aren't so much MMORPG players but WoW players: they'll stick to WoW and when they get bored of it, most of them won't jump to other MMO's but will return to other (singleplayer) games or just plain drop out of the MMO market again.
Sure, a number of those newcomers will try out other MMO's and some of those will like it so much that they will keep playing MMO's from time to time, so WoW has caused an increase in MMO players (not only WoW players), but the largest part of those millions that have played WoW will stick to it or just quit the MMO genre entirely when they get tired of WoW.
Meaning that game companies and investors could have been interpreting the MMO market and the overall MMO playerbase wrongly, which could have been the cause of the large number of (perceived) failures in the period 2006 - 2010 when compared to the more innovative timeperiod 2000-2005. The companies have been trying to woo the MMO playerbase in the wrong way.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
You're absolutely right, as I've pointed out time and time again, only to get ignored. It's much easier to just make baseless claims, refuse to back them up with evidence, and get upset when people don't blindly accept your claims as gospel truth. It just shows that the people who are making these claims are incapable of debating rationally, nor are they interested in finding the truth of the matter, only in supporting their own preconceived notions.
No real surprise there.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
Unfortunately, there's no way to guarantee a long-term paying audience. Starting with a million subs and having it drop off is certainly preferable to starting with only 300k subs and having it drop off.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
I have to disagree, make a game for a different group instead of every game catering to the same group. That way your game sets apart from the others, and we all know what the majority of games post wow have catered to. A couple of games like EvE and DF are a couple of exceptions, EvE has made more cash than some small countries they have been around since 2003. DF I am not to sure about because I have not followed it, but I bet it has a loyal following and with it being made a little cheaper I bet its pulling a profit. Theres a "hardcore" PvE croud out there thats dieing for a game. FFXIV might fill that role it would be the smartest move they could do especially with rift, tera,swtor,and gwII right around the corner.
Edit: my bad eve came out before wow.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore)
Now Playing: N/A
Worst MMO: FFXIV
Favorite MMO: FFXI
Your posts are always highly ironic. You're one of the crowd who makes the backless claim of 'what you want is in the minority' referencing 'old school' preferences. Despite countless challenges on backing your claims by many different posters, you always fail to deliver.
Ignorance, sometimes, is earned. (Fun lil' play on words there)
And if you're well-read, consider Bradbury's 'The Dwarf' to better understand the concept of preaching something and neglected to 'look into the mirror' as it were, as Ralph so aptly demonstrates.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof is still on the ones claiming that an old school MMO would be successful and the elements they present are wanted...
You can disagree all you want, but unless it's your money on the line, what you think doesn't make a whole lot of difference. The investors want a significant return on their investment. Catering to a niche audience is not going to provide that. You might think that's short-sighted and I'd even agree with you, but that's the way investors think. Want to change that? Put up $10 million of your own money and I'm sure you can find a developer who will do anything you want.
The thing is though, most of these companies don't have to make niche games because the majority of people who are vocal about their niche interests are still playing the games that come out, even if they bitch and whine about them. They don't even have to cater to you, they're still getting your money! And that's all they care about.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None