WoW crowd are the ones who started thier MMO experience with WoW, they were the warcraft/starcraft/diablo players from the start.
When WoW hit the shelves even more none MMO gamers flocked to the game to see what all the fuzz was about.
WoW was thier first MMO so they played that for years on end pretty much like first love you'll never forget that feeling.
So when new MMOs comes out, the WoW crowd tries them and spam the chat/forums how that game copied WoW and how much better WoW is in many ways bla bla bla.
This is WoW crowd, everyone knows this and still for some strange reason this frikkin thread had 15 pages arguments about something that is crystal clear.
Please re-read the first paragraph of the OP:
There is a common belief among many posters in this forum that the MMORPG market is dominated by this incomprehensible group called the "WoW Crowd." And by this, I don't just mean "those who play WoW." I mean a group consisting of players who disdain any kind of game that is not almost exactly like WoW. Anytime we discuss a game that deviates from the WoW, someone will inevitably say "well the WoW crowd won't get it."
All I know about that crowd is, it wasn't that atrocious back in the Vanilla and even BC days but after introducing badge gear and nerfing "heroics" all went downhill fast. Compared to other games the crowd never was welcoming, knowledgable or social but after things gone downhill it became horrendous. I know many people who only stopped playing this game cause of the community and the pure ignorance Blizzard is showing, by supporting such "players".
When I write something like the "WoW crowd won't like it" it basically means the game has features your new wow generation wouldn't like. Till that part its okay for me but they are still trying out the game and then whining about them instead of just going back to WoW and enjoying their game.
Sure there are still some really great people playing WoW but the usual WoW crowd is a crowd I wouldn't wanna be part of again nor do I wish meeting them ever again in another game.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
WoW crowd are the ones who started thier MMO experience with WoW, they were the warcraft/starcraft/diablo players from the start.
When WoW hit the shelves even more none MMO gamers flocked to the game to see what all the fuzz was about.
WoW was thier first MMO so they played that for years on end pretty much like first love you'll never forget that feeling.
So when new MMOs comes out, the WoW crowd tries them and spam the chat/forums how that game copied WoW and how much better WoW is in many ways bla bla bla.
This is WoW crowd, everyone knows this and still for some strange reason this frikkin thread had 15 pages arguments about something that is crystal clear.
Please re-read the first paragraph of the OP:
There is a common belief among many posters in this forum that the MMORPG market is dominated by this incomprehensible group called the "WoW Crowd." And by this, I don't just mean "those who play WoW." I mean a group consisting of players who disdain any kind of game that is not almost exactly like WoW. Anytime we discuss a game that deviates from the WoW, someone will inevitably say "well the WoW crowd won't get it."
then I suggest you fix the topic name, beacuse there is no myth of Wow crowd they are a fact, the topic name is missleading.
I don't believe you are completely wrong, but I do believe that of the 12 million people that have played wow, for a lot of them, wow was their first mmo and unfortunately, that seems to carry a lot more weight than it should.
I wonder now that I write that .. what the estimate would be on the total number of players that have every player wow? I'd have to guess that it is a fairly staggering number.
A lot of people do want a game that has certain features that wow has. The biggest problem there is that in many cases different people want different wow features. An obvious nightmare when trying to please everyone.
That being said, where I agree for the most part is that I don't think most gamers would discount a game simply because it had pandas .. uhm, I mean just because it doesn't have a feature wow has that they like, so I agree that using "the wow crowd" as a foundation for an argument is probably pretty flawed, but I wouldn't completely discount the existence of such a subset of people.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity. I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
OP you compare Box Sells of a NON SUB game to the Monthly Sub numbers of a MMORPG
lol,, just,, lol.
That remind me of the GW1 fanboys that would argue that it had 6 million sells compared to WoW's 12 million subs per month.
The reason you cant compare the two, is because
Console games are a 1 time fee. this means that the developers dont need to retain your interest after the purchase. They want you to be interested enough to get their next product, but they dont need to keep you interested in the same game.
Maga Man 1-7 Capcom wants players to buy the new games, but they dont simply dont need or even want players to play the same game( Magaman 1)over and over again.
MMORPG with subs, like WoW for example, need to keep players interested, in order to retain high sub numbers. Unlike console games, the player doesnt just buy the WoW once and thats it. They have to Buy the game(box sell) as well as pay some money once every month. This is why the Sub concept, isnt much accepted outside of this genre of gaming.
Remember the reaction DCUO got from the Non MMORPG players that got the game, not knowing about the sub part.
also keep in Mind, the way Blizzard defines a Sub, is any account that pays money at anytime (no matter what value is), to play the game, or have access to playing the game. In China, they pay by the min or something like that. But they still have to pay to play (during a time period within a Month)
So for each time a player account pays to gain access to the game per month, they get counted in the monthly sub. some players pay, but dont play. these people still are counted, because of the above rule. they still pay to "GAIN ACCESS" within a month's time frame.
WoW crowd are the ones who started thier MMO experience with WoW, they were the warcraft/starcraft/diablo players from the start.
When WoW hit the shelves even more none MMO gamers flocked to the game to see what all the fuzz was about.
WoW was thier first MMO so they played that for years on end pretty much like first love you'll never forget that feeling.
So when new MMOs comes out, the WoW crowd tries them and spam the chat/forums how that game copied WoW and how much better WoW is in many ways bla bla bla.
This is WoW crowd, everyone knows this and still for some strange reason this frikkin thread had 15 pages arguments about something that is crystal clear.
Please re-read the first paragraph of the OP:
There is a common belief among many posters in this forum that the MMORPG market is dominated by this incomprehensible group called the "WoW Crowd." And by this, I don't just mean "those who play WoW." I mean a group consisting of players who disdain any kind of game that is not almost exactly like WoW. Anytime we discuss a game that deviates from the WoW, someone will inevitably say "well the WoW crowd won't get it."
then I suggest you fix the topic name, beacuse there is no myth of Wow crowd they are a fact, the topic name is missleading.
So you couldn't be bothered to read the first paragraph before responding and you suggest that I change the topic name? Seriously?
The topic name may be misleading...but that's why I elaborated on it further in inside the post.
What would you want me to name the topic anyway so that it's not misleading?
"The myth of the stereotypical "WoW crowd" which is purported to dominate the MMORPG market and resents any game that is not identical to WoW."
If you're not going to take the time to read the post...then don't take the time to respond.
OP you compare Box Sells of a NON SUB game to the Monthly Sub numbers of a MMORPG
lol,, just,, lol.
That remind me of the GW1 fanboys that would argue that it had 6 million sells compared to WoW's 12 million subs per month.
The reason you cant compare the two, is because
Console games are a 1 time fee. this means that the developers dont need to retain your interest after the purchase. They want you to be interested enough to get their next product, but they dont need to keep you interested in the same game.
Maga Man 1-7 Capcom wants players to buy the new games, but they dont simply dont need or even want players to play the same game( Magaman 1)over and over again.
MMORPG with subs, like WoW for example, need to keep players interested, in order to retain high sub numbers. Unlike console games, the player doesnt just buy the WoW once and thats it. They have to Buy the game(box sell) as well as pay some money once every month. This is why the Sub concept, isnt much accepted outside of this genre of gaming.
Remember the reaction DCUO got from the Non MMORPG players that got the game, not knowing about the sub part.
also keep in Mind, the way Blizzard defines a Sub, is any account that pays money at anytime (no matter what value is), to play the game, or have access to playing the game. In China, they pay by the min or something like that. But they still have to pay to play (during a time period within a Month)
So for each time a player account pays to gain access to the game per month, they get counted in the monthly sub. some players pay, but dont play. these people still are counted, because of the above rule. they still pay to "GAIN ACCESS" within a month's time frame.
It makes sense in the context of what I was talking about.
I was arguing against the presumption that the overwhelming majority of gamers don't like open-ended, sandboxy games and prefer games that are strictly linear with a lot of hand-holding.
Hmmm...so how could you argue against this?
I know! If there exists a game (any game) that is sandboxy and open-ended, yet was purchased by a very high number of players, then maybe that presumption isn't true. The fact that Oblivion sold millions of copies pretty much proves that a lot of gamers still enjoy that type of gameplay. The gameplay could be in an MMORPG or SPRPG...it doesn't matter. If the game sold millions of copies, clearly PEOPLE liked it.
I don't see why you think you can never compare an MMORPG to an SPRPG...if I had to guess, I would think an EXTREMELY large percentage of MMORPG players also play SPRPGs. And really, certain MMORPGs are FAR more similar to certain SPRPGs than they are to other MMORPGs.
For example, WoW is pretty similar to Borderlands, but not at all like Eve or UO.
OP you compare Box Sells of a NON SUB game to the Monthly Sub numbers of a MMORPG
lol,, just,, lol.
That remind me of the GW1 fanboys that would argue that it had 6 million sells compared to WoW's 12 million subs per month.
The reason you cant compare the two, is because
Console games are a 1 time fee. this means that the developers dont need to retain your interest after the purchase. They want you to be interested enough to get their next product, but they dont need to keep you interested in the same game.
Maga Man 1-7 Capcom wants players to buy the new games, but they dont simply dont need or even want players to play the same game( Magaman 1)over and over again.
MMORPG with subs, like WoW for example, need to keep players interested, in order to retain high sub numbers. Unlike console games, the player doesnt just buy the WoW once and thats it. They have to Buy the game(box sell) as well as pay some money once every month. This is why the Sub concept, isnt much accepted outside of this genre of gaming.
Remember the reaction DCUO got from the Non MMORPG players that got the game, not knowing about the sub part.
also keep in Mind, the way Blizzard defines a Sub, is any account that pays money at anytime (no matter what value is), to play the game, or have access to playing the game. In China, they pay by the min or something like that. But they still have to pay to play (during a time period within a Month)
So for each time a player account pays to gain access to the game per month, they get counted in the monthly sub. some players pay, but dont play. these people still are counted, because of the above rule. they still pay to "GAIN ACCESS" within a month's time frame.
It makes sense in the context of what I was talking about.
I was arguing against the presumption that the overwhelming majority of gamers don't like open-ended, sandboxy games and prefer games that are strictly linear with a lot of hand-holding.
Hmmm...so how could you argue against this?
I know! If there exists a game (any game) that is sandboxy and open-ended, yet was purchased by a very high number of players, then maybe that presumption isn't true. The fact that Oblivion sold millions of copies pretty much proves that a lot of gamers still enjoy that type of gameplay. The gameplay could be in an MMORPG or SPRPG...it doesn't matter. If the game sold millions of copies, clearly PEOPLE liked it.
I don't see why you think you can never compare an MMORPG to an SPRPG...if I had to guess, I would think an EXTREMELY large percentage of MMORPG players also play SPRPGs. And really, certain MMORPGs are FAR more similar to certain SPRPGs than they are to other MMORPGs.
For example, WoW is pretty similar to Borderlands, but not at all like Eve or UO.
Here is my opinion on this.
Sandbox is not whats unpopular...
its what comes with Sandboxs, most of the time, that is unpopular.
Sorry to bring a culture example of this, not to offend women, but I remember Oprah doing a show about Men being afraid to date Successful women.
Well similar to her, and many other supporters of her understanding, she completely overlook why, and what about successful women, that men dont find attractive. such as over ego, and aggressiveness.
well in your case, you are taking the general outcome response from the consumer, which is, "Sandbox MMO arent popular compared to themepark"
without addressing WHY/WHAT ABOUT SANDBOX MMORPG that makes them unpopular.
once developers actually take a look at Why its unpopular model, they will see this common "mistake" that developers continue to make. I call it a mistake from personal point of view.
but what I believe this mistake is,,,
ITS THE PVP MODEL...
Most people simply DO NOT LIKE FFA,,,, let alone FFA WITH FULL LOOT.
But Developers that make Sandbox MMO, simply will not make Sandbox MMO that dont have FREE FOR ALL, nor FULL LOOT, or any LOOTing for that matter.
if a Sandbox Developer could step out of the box and make that, then we can see what I been saying for a while now...
The FFA + Harsh Death Penalty = Small Niche Group MMO = Indie Developer.
OP you compare Box Sells of a NON SUB game to the Monthly Sub numbers of a MMORPG
lol,, just,, lol.
That remind me of the GW1 fanboys that would argue that it had 6 million sells compared to WoW's 12 million subs per month.
The reason you cant compare the two, is because
Console games are a 1 time fee. this means that the developers dont need to retain your interest after the purchase. They want you to be interested enough to get their next product, but they dont need to keep you interested in the same game.
Maga Man 1-7 Capcom wants players to buy the new games, but they dont simply dont need or even want players to play the same game( Magaman 1)over and over again.
MMORPG with subs, like WoW for example, need to keep players interested, in order to retain high sub numbers. Unlike console games, the player doesnt just buy the WoW once and thats it. They have to Buy the game(box sell) as well as pay some money once every month. This is why the Sub concept, isnt much accepted outside of this genre of gaming.
Remember the reaction DCUO got from the Non MMORPG players that got the game, not knowing about the sub part.
also keep in Mind, the way Blizzard defines a Sub, is any account that pays money at anytime (no matter what value is), to play the game, or have access to playing the game. In China, they pay by the min or something like that. But they still have to pay to play (during a time period within a Month)
So for each time a player account pays to gain access to the game per month, they get counted in the monthly sub. some players pay, but dont play. these people still are counted, because of the above rule. they still pay to "GAIN ACCESS" within a month's time frame.
It makes sense in the context of what I was talking about.
I was arguing against the presumption that the overwhelming majority of gamers don't like open-ended, sandboxy games and prefer games that are strictly linear with a lot of hand-holding.
Hmmm...so how could you argue against this?
I know! If there exists a game (any game) that is sandboxy and open-ended, yet was purchased by a very high number of players, then maybe that presumption isn't true. The fact that Oblivion sold millions of copies pretty much proves that a lot of gamers still enjoy that type of gameplay. The gameplay could be in an MMORPG or SPRPG...it doesn't matter. If the game sold millions of copies, clearly PEOPLE liked it.
I don't see why you think you can never compare an MMORPG to an SPRPG...if I had to guess, I would think an EXTREMELY large percentage of MMORPG players also play SPRPGs. And really, certain MMORPGs are FAR more similar to certain SPRPGs than they are to other MMORPGs.
For example, WoW is pretty similar to Borderlands, but not at all like Eve or UO.
Here is my opinion on this.
Sandbox is not whats unpopular...
its what comes with Sandboxs, most of the time, that is unpopular.
Sorry to bring a culture example of this, not to offend women, but I remember Oprah doing a show about Men being afraid to date Successful women.
Well similar to her, and many other supporters of her understanding, she completely overlook why, and what about successful women, that men dont find attractive. such as over ego, and aggressiveness.
well in your case, you are taking the general outcome response from the consumer, which is, "Sandbox MMO arent popular compared to themepark"
without addressing WHY/WHAT ABOUT SANDBOX MMORPG that makes them unpopular.
once developers actually take a look at Why its unpopular model, they will see this common "mistake" that developers continue to make. I call it a mistake from personal point of view.
but what I believe this mistake is,,,
ITS THE PVP MODEL...
Most people simply DO NOT LIKE FFA,,,, let alone FFA WITH FULL LOOT.
But Developers that make Sandbox MMO, simply will not make Sandbox MMO that dont have FREE FOR ALL, nor FULL LOOT, or any LOOTing for that matter.
if a Sandbox Developer could step out of the box and make that, then we can see what I been saying for a while now...
The FFA + Harsh Death Penalty = Small Niche Group MMO = Indie Developer.
AAA Developer = Want Large Numbers
Small Niche != Large Numbers
so
Sandbox FFA + HDP != AAA Developers
I....
actually completely agree with you .
I never saw FFA , full loot PvP as intrinsic to the sandbox model, but apparently a bunch of developers do for some reason. I actually had more fun in UO post Trammel (blasphemy, I know). Trammel was when they introduced the "non-PvP" world if you were wondering.
I just liked having a free-form world where players could build cities, form communities, and yes, even do more theme-parky things like hunt monsters and explore deungeons together.
One of the coolest things about the old UO system was that you were always striving to make a bigger impact on the world. Houses cost gold, and bigger houses (castles) cost LOTS of gold. So being able to buy a really cool house/castle always gave you a reason to grind crap and make money.
But anyway, UO is old, and I don't think its model would do well nowadays. There just wasn't enough "stuff" for the average player to do.
Instead though, I would really like to see a new MMORPGs that "evolves" the sandbox concept, takes it to the next level. I think ArcheAge is trying to do this...so we'll have to see how that goes. And actually, the dynamic events in GW2 are a step in the sandbox direction even though GW2 is still very much a theme park.
I had more trouble in UO AFTER Trammel.....People could be jerks, without fear of being taken care of for the most part....I did a lot of crafting, pve, and stuff, and was on the anti-pk side for the most part (when you got news of pks, you ran out to help fight them off/get killed or whatever)....Sure I could do trades in Trammel easier, but I had way more fustrations from people that used mob loot rules against you and such...Sure they changed things, but then it became a problem of who bends/fixes the rules better...
I mean yeah, people would kill me, take my ore when I mined, but I had fighting skills and even initiated combat on someone I knew was a pk or punk pk (blue pk)...I just would adjust what I did...Most pks couldn't smelt, so I made it tougher, I did recall runs to the bank...Then later, I would recall mine rare ore (in my nice GM Valorite armor that pks wanted, but I had enough non-trade skills to always get away)....I just never saw pks as that big of a problem...I died here and there, sure...Then I would get my tank mage usually or fighter and try to get revenge...Or if I didn't feel like it, I would go grab the bare minimums and start mining again...No biggy.
UO had more of an anti-pk crowd though, due to it being the only big thing going, I think if it were to launch now, you would have more of the pk crowd, than you did before, just to be honest....But I just left UO again (still 2D client fan), if they did a classic relaunch, and kept the game in that mode...I would go back, I am not a big fan of the new skill system.
I agree on GW2, and other games coming out like TSW / Archeage, some sandbox seems to be coming back into the fold, which makes me very happy.
OP you compare Box Sells of a NON SUB game to the Monthly Sub numbers of a MMORPG
lol,, just,, lol.
That remind me of the GW1 fanboys that would argue that it had 6 million sells compared to WoW's 12 million subs per month.
The reason you cant compare the two, is because
Console games are a 1 time fee. this means that the developers dont need to retain your interest after the purchase. They want you to be interested enough to get their next product, but they dont need to keep you interested in the same game.
Maga Man 1-7 Capcom wants players to buy the new games, but they dont simply dont need or even want players to play the same game( Magaman 1)over and over again.
MMORPG with subs, like WoW for example, need to keep players interested, in order to retain high sub numbers. Unlike console games, the player doesnt just buy the WoW once and thats it. They have to Buy the game(box sell) as well as pay some money once every month. This is why the Sub concept, isnt much accepted outside of this genre of gaming.
Remember the reaction DCUO got from the Non MMORPG players that got the game, not knowing about the sub part.
also keep in Mind, the way Blizzard defines a Sub, is any account that pays money at anytime (no matter what value is), to play the game, or have access to playing the game. In China, they pay by the min or something like that. But they still have to pay to play (during a time period within a Month)
So for each time a player account pays to gain access to the game per month, they get counted in the monthly sub. some players pay, but dont play. these people still are counted, because of the above rule. they still pay to "GAIN ACCESS" within a month's time frame.
It makes sense in the context of what I was talking about.
I was arguing against the presumption that the overwhelming majority of gamers don't like open-ended, sandboxy games and prefer games that are strictly linear with a lot of hand-holding.
Hmmm...so how could you argue against this?
I know! If there exists a game (any game) that is sandboxy and open-ended, yet was purchased by a very high number of players, then maybe that presumption isn't true. The fact that Oblivion sold millions of copies pretty much proves that a lot of gamers still enjoy that type of gameplay. The gameplay could be in an MMORPG or SPRPG...it doesn't matter. If the game sold millions of copies, clearly PEOPLE liked it.
I don't see why you think you can never compare an MMORPG to an SPRPG...if I had to guess, I would think an EXTREMELY large percentage of MMORPG players also play SPRPGs. And really, certain MMORPGs are FAR more similar to certain SPRPGs than they are to other MMORPGs.
For example, WoW is pretty similar to Borderlands, but not at all like Eve or UO.
Here is my opinion on this.
Sandbox is not whats unpopular...
its what comes with Sandboxs, most of the time, that is unpopular.
Sorry to bring a culture example of this, not to offend women, but I remember Oprah doing a show about Men being afraid to date Successful women.
Well similar to her, and many other supporters of her understanding, she completely overlook why, and what about successful women, that men dont find attractive. such as over ego, and aggressiveness.
well in your case, you are taking the general outcome response from the consumer, which is, "Sandbox MMO arent popular compared to themepark"
without addressing WHY/WHAT ABOUT SANDBOX MMORPG that makes them unpopular.
once developers actually take a look at Why its unpopular model, they will see this common "mistake" that developers continue to make. I call it a mistake from personal point of view.
but what I believe this mistake is,,,
ITS THE PVP MODEL...
Most people simply DO NOT LIKE FFA,,,, let alone FFA WITH FULL LOOT.
But Developers that make Sandbox MMO, simply will not make Sandbox MMO that dont have FREE FOR ALL, nor FULL LOOT, or any LOOTing for that matter.
if a Sandbox Developer could step out of the box and make that, then we can see what I been saying for a while now...
The FFA + Harsh Death Penalty = Small Niche Group MMO = Indie Developer.
AAA Developer = Want Large Numbers
Small Niche != Large Numbers
so
Sandbox FFA + HDP != AAA Developers
I....
actually completely agree with you .
I never saw FFA , full loot PvP as intrinsic to the sandbox model, but apparently a bunch of developers do for some reason. I actually had more fun in UO post Trammel (blasphemy, I know). Trammel was when they introduced the "non-PvP" world if you were wondering.
I just liked having a free-form world where players could build cities, form communities, and yes, even do more theme-parky things like hunt monsters and explore deungeons together.
One of the coolest things about the old UO system was that you were always striving to make a bigger impact on the world. Houses cost gold, and bigger houses (castles) cost LOTS of gold. So being able to buy a really cool house/castle always gave you a reason to grind crap and make money.
But anyway, UO is old, and I don't think its model would do well nowadays. There just wasn't enough "stuff" for the average player to do.
Instead though, I would really like to see a new MMORPGs that "evolves" the sandbox concept, takes it to the next level. I think ArcheAge is trying to do this...so we'll have to see how that goes. And actually, the dynamic events in GW2 are a step in the sandbox direction even though GW2 is still very much a theme park.
I agree as well and add that the sandboxes that aren't FFA pvp just don't offer enough tools to actually be called sandboxes. Like Ryzom, reputed to be one of the great sandboxes but really offers very very little activities. It has decent crafting and a skill selection but thats it, there is no way to really impact the world, no way to set up cities, there are no structures you can build, politics and virtually no economy - almost no player created or derived content. Just digging in the dirt, fighting mobs or organizing a raid to take an outpost. In Ryzom all the crafting is exactly the same, all the gathering is exactly the same, all the melle fighting is exactly the same and all the magic is exactly the same. There are no differences.
And for the most part that has been the sandboxes: either FFA pvp, or virtually no content. Or something like Istaria that does have content and isn't pvp, yet has been through 1 remake and many developers and now runs on a skeleton due to severly bad coding.
Venge
edit - this has been one of the oddest threads I think I've seen here. We've talked about WoW crowds fact or fallacy, gravity, dark energy/dark matter, the expansion of the universe and now sandboxes and themeparks. Sheesh.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
The myth of the "WoW Crowd"? Isn't it here that everyone is begging for a drastically different game than WoW? Who has ever said "the WoW crowd won't get it", ever?
LOL did this OP just say OBLIVION DOESNT HOLD YOUR HAND!!??!!!?!!!!!!?!! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!??!!!?!! ITS THE NUMBER ONE REASON WHY TONS AND TONS OF PEOPLE CAN'T STAND THAT DAMN GAME!?!!!!!! IF I NEED TO EXPLAIN HOW IT HOLDS YOUR DAMN HAND MORE THEN ANY OTHER RPG EVER MADE, THEN I KNOW YOU HAVE NO GOD DAMN IDEA WHAT "HOLDING YOU HAND" MEANS. PLAY MIRROWIND OR GOTCH 1-2 IF YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFERENCE.
Now that my rage is out of the way, dont make topics that you clam are facts or false when you know nothing about what you are talking about. Saying that DarkSouls had sold 600k in units is a reason why the "WoW crowd" is a myth means nothing. Do all WoW players have a 360 or PS3? NOPE. So thats pretty much fasle. Also do you know how many damn people retruned that game? A fucking ton, because they could handle it. So yet another false.
After them reports of reasons you gave I stop reading because I'm more then sure you have no damn idea what you are talking about.
So what are your thoughts? After reading my counters to common arguments, do you agree or disagree?
In seven of eight (the eighth was out of genre) of the opening days that I've attended post-WoW, the majority of the "early talk" about those games included a fairly large quantity of "Why isn't this just like WoW" and/or "Why can't we have {this} feature?" (that happens to be present in WoW).
I think we have to remember that for roughly half of the current MMO gaming population, WoW was their very first MMO. The North American total gaming population was smaller (in 2004) than WoW's North American Market Share (by 2006). Which means for every old fart, there's a player that played something outside the MMO field, or had never played at all, prior to 2004.
The influence on the industry is huge, even if most of the rhetoric about it is fallacious in one way or another.
Now if what you're trying to say is that the evils often assigned to Blizzard's development are overstated--yep, absolutely.
Most of the arguments from the other side aren't very plausible either >:P
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
LOL did this OP just say OBLIVION DOESNT HOLD YOUR HAND!!??!!!?!!!!!!?!! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!??!!!?!! ITS THE NUMBER ONE REASON WHY TONS AND TONS OF PEOPLE CAN'T STAND THAT DAMN GAME!?!!!!!! IF I NEED TO EXPLAIN HOW IT HOLDS YOUR DAMN HAND MORE THEN ANY OTHER RPG EVER MADE, THEN I KNOW YOU HAVE NO GOD DAMN IDEA WHAT "HOLDING YOU HAND" MEANS. PLAY MIRROWIND OR GOTCH 1-2 IF YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFERENCE.
Now that my rage is out of the way, dont make topics that you clam are facts or false when you know nothing about what you are talking about. Saying that DarkSouls had sold 600k in units is a reason why the "WoW crowd" is a myth means nothing. Do all WoW players have a 360 or PS3? NOPE. So thats pretty much fasle. Also do you know how many damn people retruned that game? A fucking ton, because they could handle it. So yet another false.
After them reports of reasons you gave I stop reading because I'm more then sure you have no damn idea what you are talking about.
End of Thread
You raged about the OP claiming facts, but then made some claims of your own without evidence to back it up? Hypocritical nonsense. Pointing out flaws in someone's statement does not make you right and any statement can be picked apart to point out wrongs.
I would also like to point out that Oblivion was quite successful. Here are a few links for you.
Considering Oblivion focused on a specific type of player based on those sales figures and the average it did pretty well monetarily.
I can only speak for myself, when I was a cable guy I had been in well over ten thousand houses, and among those I met hundreds upon hundreds of WoW players and I can say from personal experience the majority of them had never played a single player RPG before and their knowledge of games and game history was nonexistant. Not a big deal necessarily, but as an opinion I would venture that the majority of WoW players never come onto these forums, never read about video games, and thus are never really present overtly. That goes for the WoW general forums as well.
Anyway, Oblivion had a fairly extensive tutorial and finding out how to play was not difficult. I think it would be best to do a little research and use links and resources to challenge posts such as these. If only to have a decent discussion with hopefully an outcome of realization.
Also, I would like to offer another opinion. Comparing any video game whether it is single player or online is certainly not off limits, perhaps those within the same genre, but online/offline is irrelevant these days. Perhaps it is this line of thinking that prevents a sophisticated behavioral based AI such as what was in Oblivion, and now Skyrim, from being implemented into an MMO.
OP you compare Box Sells of a NON SUB game to the Monthly Sub numbers of a MMORPG
lol,, just,, lol.
That remind me of the GW1 fanboys that would argue that it had 6 million sells compared to WoW's 12 million subs per month.
The reason you cant compare the two, is because
Console games are a 1 time fee. this means that the developers dont need to retain your interest after the purchase. They want you to be interested enough to get their next product, but they dont need to keep you interested in the same game.
Maga Man 1-7 Capcom wants players to buy the new games, but they dont simply dont need or even want players to play the same game( Magaman 1)over and over again.
MMORPG with subs, like WoW for example, need to keep players interested, in order to retain high sub numbers. Unlike console games, the player doesnt just buy the WoW once and thats it. They have to Buy the game(box sell) as well as pay some money once every month. This is why the Sub concept, isnt much accepted outside of this genre of gaming.
Remember the reaction DCUO got from the Non MMORPG players that got the game, not knowing about the sub part.
also keep in Mind, the way Blizzard defines a Sub, is any account that pays money at anytime (no matter what value is), to play the game, or have access to playing the game. In China, they pay by the min or something like that. But they still have to pay to play (during a time period within a Month)
So for each time a player account pays to gain access to the game per month, they get counted in the monthly sub. some players pay, but dont play. these people still are counted, because of the above rule. they still pay to "GAIN ACCESS" within a month's time frame.
It makes sense in the context of what I was talking about.
I was arguing against the presumption that the overwhelming majority of gamers don't like open-ended, sandboxy games and prefer games that are strictly linear with a lot of hand-holding.
Hmmm...so how could you argue against this?
I know! If there exists a game (any game) that is sandboxy and open-ended, yet was purchased by a very high number of players, then maybe that presumption isn't true. The fact that Oblivion sold millions of copies pretty much proves that a lot of gamers still enjoy that type of gameplay. The gameplay could be in an MMORPG or SPRPG...it doesn't matter. If the game sold millions of copies, clearly PEOPLE liked it.
I don't see why you think you can never compare an MMORPG to an SPRPG...if I had to guess, I would think an EXTREMELY large percentage of MMORPG players also play SPRPGs. And really, certain MMORPGs are FAR more similar to certain SPRPGs than they are to other MMORPGs.
For example, WoW is pretty similar to Borderlands, but not at all like Eve or UO.
OP, There are two games right now that are successful sandbox games, one in particular is still popular and has a very large learning curve. Eve Online. Also, believe it or not, but Ultima Online is still an active, successful, pay to play game.
While other pay to play models fail, are canceled, or switch to f2p to salvage some kind of monetary loss these two MMORPGs continue to be successful with a p2p model. In fact, Ultima Online, just from doing a quick gander at their website just released their 8th expansion in 12 years...
while i think you have good intentions, this topic completely ignores the numerous examples of hand holding games that sell as much as three to ten times more than the ones you listed as proof of your point. this topic is basically invalid and fallacious.
Comments
Please re-read the first paragraph of the OP:
There is a common belief among many posters in this forum that the MMORPG market is dominated by this incomprehensible group called the "WoW Crowd." And by this, I don't just mean "those who play WoW." I mean a group consisting of players who disdain any kind of game that is not almost exactly like WoW. Anytime we discuss a game that deviates from the WoW, someone will inevitably say "well the WoW crowd won't get it."
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
All I know about that crowd is, it wasn't that atrocious back in the Vanilla and even BC days but after introducing badge gear and nerfing "heroics" all went downhill fast. Compared to other games the crowd never was welcoming, knowledgable or social but after things gone downhill it became horrendous. I know many people who only stopped playing this game cause of the community and the pure ignorance Blizzard is showing, by supporting such "players".
When I write something like the "WoW crowd won't like it" it basically means the game has features your new wow generation wouldn't like. Till that part its okay for me but they are still trying out the game and then whining about them instead of just going back to WoW and enjoying their game.
Sure there are still some really great people playing WoW but the usual WoW crowd is a crowd I wouldn't wanna be part of again nor do I wish meeting them ever again in another game.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
then I suggest you fix the topic name, beacuse there is no myth of Wow crowd they are a fact, the topic name is missleading.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
I don't believe you are completely wrong, but I do believe that of the 12 million people that have played wow, for a lot of them, wow was their first mmo and unfortunately, that seems to carry a lot more weight than it should.
I wonder now that I write that .. what the estimate would be on the total number of players that have every player wow? I'd have to guess that it is a fairly staggering number.
A lot of people do want a game that has certain features that wow has. The biggest problem there is that in many cases different people want different wow features. An obvious nightmare when trying to please everyone.
That being said, where I agree for the most part is that I don't think most gamers would discount a game simply because it had pandas .. uhm, I mean just because it doesn't have a feature wow has that they like, so I agree that using "the wow crowd" as a foundation for an argument is probably pretty flawed, but I wouldn't completely discount the existence of such a subset of people.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
OP you compare Box Sells of a NON SUB game to the Monthly Sub numbers of a MMORPG
lol,, just,, lol.
That remind me of the GW1 fanboys that would argue that it had 6 million sells compared to WoW's 12 million subs per month.
The reason you cant compare the two, is because
Console games are a 1 time fee. this means that the developers dont need to retain your interest after the purchase. They want you to be interested enough to get their next product, but they dont need to keep you interested in the same game.
Maga Man 1-7 Capcom wants players to buy the new games, but they dont simply dont need or even want players to play the same game( Magaman 1)over and over again.
MMORPG with subs, like WoW for example, need to keep players interested, in order to retain high sub numbers. Unlike console games, the player doesnt just buy the WoW once and thats it. They have to Buy the game(box sell) as well as pay some money once every month. This is why the Sub concept, isnt much accepted outside of this genre of gaming.
Remember the reaction DCUO got from the Non MMORPG players that got the game, not knowing about the sub part.
also keep in Mind, the way Blizzard defines a Sub, is any account that pays money at anytime (no matter what value is), to play the game, or have access to playing the game. In China, they pay by the min or something like that. But they still have to pay to play (during a time period within a Month)
So for each time a player account pays to gain access to the game per month, they get counted in the monthly sub. some players pay, but dont play. these people still are counted, because of the above rule. they still pay to "GAIN ACCESS" within a month's time frame.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
So you couldn't be bothered to read the first paragraph before responding and you suggest that I change the topic name? Seriously?
The topic name may be misleading...but that's why I elaborated on it further in inside the post.
What would you want me to name the topic anyway so that it's not misleading?
"The myth of the stereotypical "WoW crowd" which is purported to dominate the MMORPG market and resents any game that is not identical to WoW."
If you're not going to take the time to read the post...then don't take the time to respond.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
It makes sense in the context of what I was talking about.
I was arguing against the presumption that the overwhelming majority of gamers don't like open-ended, sandboxy games and prefer games that are strictly linear with a lot of hand-holding.
Hmmm...so how could you argue against this?
I know! If there exists a game (any game) that is sandboxy and open-ended, yet was purchased by a very high number of players, then maybe that presumption isn't true. The fact that Oblivion sold millions of copies pretty much proves that a lot of gamers still enjoy that type of gameplay. The gameplay could be in an MMORPG or SPRPG...it doesn't matter. If the game sold millions of copies, clearly PEOPLE liked it.
I don't see why you think you can never compare an MMORPG to an SPRPG...if I had to guess, I would think an EXTREMELY large percentage of MMORPG players also play SPRPGs. And really, certain MMORPGs are FAR more similar to certain SPRPGs than they are to other MMORPGs.
For example, WoW is pretty similar to Borderlands, but not at all like Eve or UO.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Here is my opinion on this.
Sandbox is not whats unpopular...
its what comes with Sandboxs, most of the time, that is unpopular.
Sorry to bring a culture example of this, not to offend women, but I remember Oprah doing a show about Men being afraid to date Successful women.
Well similar to her, and many other supporters of her understanding, she completely overlook why, and what about successful women, that men dont find attractive. such as over ego, and aggressiveness.
well in your case, you are taking the general outcome response from the consumer, which is, "Sandbox MMO arent popular compared to themepark"
without addressing WHY/WHAT ABOUT SANDBOX MMORPG that makes them unpopular.
once developers actually take a look at Why its unpopular model, they will see this common "mistake" that developers continue to make. I call it a mistake from personal point of view.
but what I believe this mistake is,,,
ITS THE PVP MODEL...
Most people simply DO NOT LIKE FFA,,,, let alone FFA WITH FULL LOOT.
But Developers that make Sandbox MMO, simply will not make Sandbox MMO that dont have FREE FOR ALL, nor FULL LOOT, or any LOOTing for that matter.
if a Sandbox Developer could step out of the box and make that, then we can see what I been saying for a while now...
The FFA + Harsh Death Penalty = Small Niche Group MMO = Indie Developer.
AAA Developer = Want Large Numbers
Small Niche != Large Numbers
so
Sandbox FFA + HDP != AAA Developers
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
I....
actually completely agree with you
.
I never saw FFA , full loot PvP as intrinsic to the sandbox model, but apparently a bunch of developers do for some reason. I actually had more fun in UO post Trammel (blasphemy, I know). Trammel was when they introduced the "non-PvP" world if you were wondering.
I just liked having a free-form world where players could build cities, form communities, and yes, even do more theme-parky things like hunt monsters and explore deungeons together.
One of the coolest things about the old UO system was that you were always striving to make a bigger impact on the world. Houses cost gold, and bigger houses (castles) cost LOTS of gold. So being able to buy a really cool house/castle always gave you a reason to grind crap and make money.
But anyway, UO is old, and I don't think its model would do well nowadays. There just wasn't enough "stuff" for the average player to do.
Instead though, I would really like to see a new MMORPGs that "evolves" the sandbox concept, takes it to the next level. I think ArcheAge is trying to do this...so we'll have to see how that goes. And actually, the dynamic events in GW2 are a step in the sandbox direction even though GW2 is still very much a theme park.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I had more trouble in UO AFTER Trammel.....People could be jerks, without fear of being taken care of for the most part....I did a lot of crafting, pve, and stuff, and was on the anti-pk side for the most part (when you got news of pks, you ran out to help fight them off/get killed or whatever)....Sure I could do trades in Trammel easier, but I had way more fustrations from people that used mob loot rules against you and such...Sure they changed things, but then it became a problem of who bends/fixes the rules better...
I mean yeah, people would kill me, take my ore when I mined, but I had fighting skills and even initiated combat on someone I knew was a pk or punk pk (blue pk)...I just would adjust what I did...Most pks couldn't smelt, so I made it tougher, I did recall runs to the bank...Then later, I would recall mine rare ore (in my nice GM Valorite armor that pks wanted, but I had enough non-trade skills to always get away)....I just never saw pks as that big of a problem...I died here and there, sure...Then I would get my tank mage usually or fighter and try to get revenge...Or if I didn't feel like it, I would go grab the bare minimums and start mining again...No biggy.
UO had more of an anti-pk crowd though, due to it being the only big thing going, I think if it were to launch now, you would have more of the pk crowd, than you did before, just to be honest....But I just left UO again (still 2D client fan), if they did a classic relaunch, and kept the game in that mode...I would go back, I am not a big fan of the new skill system.
I agree on GW2, and other games coming out like TSW / Archeage, some sandbox seems to be coming back into the fold, which makes me very happy.
I agree as well and add that the sandboxes that aren't FFA pvp just don't offer enough tools to actually be called sandboxes. Like Ryzom, reputed to be one of the great sandboxes but really offers very very little activities. It has decent crafting and a skill selection but thats it, there is no way to really impact the world, no way to set up cities, there are no structures you can build, politics and virtually no economy - almost no player created or derived content. Just digging in the dirt, fighting mobs or organizing a raid to take an outpost. In Ryzom all the crafting is exactly the same, all the gathering is exactly the same, all the melle fighting is exactly the same and all the magic is exactly the same. There are no differences.
And for the most part that has been the sandboxes: either FFA pvp, or virtually no content. Or something like Istaria that does have content and isn't pvp, yet has been through 1 remake and many developers and now runs on a skeleton due to severly bad coding.
Venge
edit - this has been one of the oddest threads I think I've seen here. We've talked about WoW crowds fact or fallacy, gravity, dark energy/dark matter, the expansion of the universe and now sandboxes and themeparks. Sheesh.
The myth of the "WoW Crowd"? Isn't it here that everyone is begging for a drastically different game than WoW? Who has ever said "the WoW crowd won't get it", ever?
LOL did this OP just say OBLIVION DOESNT HOLD YOUR HAND!!??!!!?!!!!!!?!! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!!??!!!?!! ITS THE NUMBER ONE REASON WHY TONS AND TONS OF PEOPLE CAN'T STAND THAT DAMN GAME!?!!!!!! IF I NEED TO EXPLAIN HOW IT HOLDS YOUR DAMN HAND MORE THEN ANY OTHER RPG EVER MADE, THEN I KNOW YOU HAVE NO GOD DAMN IDEA WHAT "HOLDING YOU HAND" MEANS. PLAY MIRROWIND OR GOTCH 1-2 IF YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFERENCE.
Now that my rage is out of the way, dont make topics that you clam are facts or false when you know nothing about what you are talking about. Saying that DarkSouls had sold 600k in units is a reason why the "WoW crowd" is a myth means nothing. Do all WoW players have a 360 or PS3? NOPE. So thats pretty much fasle. Also do you know how many damn people retruned that game? A fucking ton, because they could handle it. So yet another false.
After them reports of reasons you gave I stop reading because I'm more then sure you have no damn idea what you are talking about.
End of Thread
In seven of eight (the eighth was out of genre) of the opening days that I've attended post-WoW, the majority of the "early talk" about those games included a fairly large quantity of "Why isn't this just like WoW" and/or "Why can't we have {this} feature?" (that happens to be present in WoW).
I think we have to remember that for roughly half of the current MMO gaming population, WoW was their very first MMO. The North American total gaming population was smaller (in 2004) than WoW's North American Market Share (by 2006). Which means for every old fart, there's a player that played something outside the MMO field, or had never played at all, prior to 2004.
The influence on the industry is huge, even if most of the rhetoric about it is fallacious in one way or another.
Now if what you're trying to say is that the evils often assigned to Blizzard's development are overstated--yep, absolutely.
Most of the arguments from the other side aren't very plausible either >:P
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
You raged about the OP claiming facts, but then made some claims of your own without evidence to back it up? Hypocritical nonsense. Pointing out flaws in someone's statement does not make you right and any statement can be picked apart to point out wrongs.
I would also like to point out that Oblivion was quite successful. Here are a few links for you.
Awards won by Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462271/awards
You will see amidst those 'Game of the Year' award. Which is, of course, NOT based on sales.
Here is a breakdown of the sales figures if that is what you are after:
http://video-games.findthebest.com/l/201/The-Elder-Scrolls-IV-Oblivion
Considering Oblivion focused on a specific type of player based on those sales figures and the average it did pretty well monetarily.
I can only speak for myself, when I was a cable guy I had been in well over ten thousand houses, and among those I met hundreds upon hundreds of WoW players and I can say from personal experience the majority of them had never played a single player RPG before and their knowledge of games and game history was nonexistant. Not a big deal necessarily, but as an opinion I would venture that the majority of WoW players never come onto these forums, never read about video games, and thus are never really present overtly. That goes for the WoW general forums as well.
Anyway, Oblivion had a fairly extensive tutorial and finding out how to play was not difficult. I think it would be best to do a little research and use links and resources to challenge posts such as these. If only to have a decent discussion with hopefully an outcome of realization.
Also, I would like to offer another opinion. Comparing any video game whether it is single player or online is certainly not off limits, perhaps those within the same genre, but online/offline is irrelevant these days. Perhaps it is this line of thinking that prevents a sophisticated behavioral based AI such as what was in Oblivion, and now Skyrim, from being implemented into an MMO.
OP, There are two games right now that are successful sandbox games, one in particular is still popular and has a very large learning curve. Eve Online. Also, believe it or not, but Ultima Online is still an active, successful, pay to play game.
While other pay to play models fail, are canceled, or switch to f2p to salvage some kind of monetary loss these two MMORPGs continue to be successful with a p2p model. In fact, Ultima Online, just from doing a quick gander at their website just released their 8th expansion in 12 years...
There is of course a market for it.
/agree
Free online MMOs