"North America's share fell from 25 per cent to 13 per cent, while Europe fell from 18 per cent to 8 per cent. The company's biggest seller for Q1 2013 was Lineage 1, but Guild Wars 2 still maintained a 21 per cent share."
I don't dislike GW2, but it was never set up to be an MMO like the old days, just another gimmick to make as much money as they can with the cash shop
"North America's share fell from 25 per cent to 13 per cent, while Europe fell from 18 per cent to 8 per cent. The company's biggest seller for Q1 2013 was Lineage 1, but Guild Wars 2 still maintained a 21 per cent share."
I don't dislike GW2, but it was never set up to be an MMO like the old days, just another gimmick to make as much money as they can with the cash shop
You guys still arent getting my point. Its not talking about going back to pen or paper or even to 1998. Im looking for features and MMORPG types games they used to make in the past to have the polish and innovation of the current MMOs. Not jut remaking the same game over again. I would like to see more sandbox games being tried. I want more variety in the type of games being made period.
Im saying that with the 99% of current AAA MMORPGs being of only a certain type there is not proof that these are the only type of games people will play. But people readily claim this. It reminds me of people saying that you cant run college plays in the NFL because players are too fast. Yet college plays are being run in the NFL and successful despite everyone saying it wouldnt. The big issue is they wouldnt try and too many experts saying it was not possible. You actually have to try other MMORPG types to say they wont work or its hypothetical both ways.
The best analogy I can come up with is looking at MMORPGs as cakes. You have used to have all types of cakes in the beginning like yellow, chocolate, cheesecake, lemon cake etc. These cakes are very rich but have a flawed baking method made them tough or rough around the edges. The chocolate cake (EQ) just happens to sells the best. We have a few other chocolate cakes made. While these cakes are chocolate have different cores of having almonds or whatever. We also have indie cake makers who are forced to use inferior cooking materials.
Now here comes the double layer chocolate cake (WoW) with chocolate icing. The cake is not as rich as the pervious ones but its good quality and it sells like crazy. This cake has a new baking method so that the cake is evenly cooked and just polished. Now all of the big manufactures start exclusively making these double layer chocolate cakes. These cakes largely have the same core just different toppings. The imitation cakes are less rich though still baked with the new method. You do have a few with a different core ingredient but largely these cakes again are still double layer chocolate. The imitation cakes dont sell well but the manufactures found they could give cakes away and sell special figurines to go on the top for more money then actually selling the cakes.
Now you have cake eaters who used to have variety and richer cake clamoring for the old cakes made with the new method because theyre tired of chocolate cake or never liked it. Some just want rich chocolate like they had in the past. You then have people pointing to all the chocolate cakes being made and saying this is what everyone wants because they wouldnt being making them. You have people pointing to the old baking method sucking and saying who would want to back to that missing the point totally. Well I tried lol.
You guys still aren’t getting my point. It’s not talking about going back to pen or paper or even to 1998. I’m looking for features and MMORPG types games they used to make in the past to have the polish and innovation of the current MMOs. Not jut remaking the same game over again. I would like to see more sandbox games being tried. I want more variety in the type of games being made period.
My take on it is that the variety is there. I'd venture to suggest that those who are asking for variety on what was done in the past may simply think they want more variety, but in reality just want a new version of what they played before. I suggest that because the more an MMO deviates from the design of the past, the more it is rejected as not even being a 'real' or 'true' MMO.
Saga and Sword Girls Online have character progression, quests and fantasy settings, but my bet is that most of the people pining for the old days wouldn't consider either to be an MMO because of the RTS or TCG elements. Vindictus, Scarlet Legacy and Dragonica all have group content, quests and character progression in a fantasy setting, but they are action RPGs, so they too would probably be rejected. Dare I suggest the community and interaction-focused Travian? One could go down the list of scores of MMOs that are the result of innovation or evolution, and it seems from most of the posts here that those who want more variety and innovation will reject each new attempt for deviating from the old MMO they judge the rest by.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You are right Lokto that many want a game in the same vain but modernized. Me personally I have tried many MMORPGs and largely non AAA games do not hold up well in polish or game play despite the features in the genre. That is why I stuck to AAA MMORPGs in my discussion.
I want to see a quality sandbox with features pushed beyond what UO or SWG did and modern polish. This evolution is what was lost when the AAA static world only to me. Others want more difficulty or more community supporting elements which are even more subtle changes.
My take on it is that the variety is there. I'd venture to suggest that those who are asking for variety on what was done in the past may simply think they want more variety, but in reality just want a new version of what they played before. I suggest that because the more an MMO deviates from the design of the past, the more it is rejected as not even being a 'real' or 'true' MMO.
I agree. There is a huge variety. There is a Star Trek MMO. There is a modern world conspiracy theory based (TSW). There is a super hero MMO based on Marvel, and one based on DC.
To argue that they are the same is as absurd as suggesting Dishonored and Deus Ex are the same because they can be played as a stealth game.
The cake analogy doesn't work for me in the MMORPG genre because the analogy implied that from the beginning there was a large variety of MMO's which isn't true at all, it was actually quite the opposite. It's one of the factors that led to WoW's insanely large success. The double layered chocolate cake wasn't JUST successful because of its quality, but because there wasn't many options in terms of cake. There was only vanilla and regular chocolate cake and let's say the chocolate cake was Everquest. Their brand new method wasn't brand new at all but an enhanced version of the features that already existed mostly from the chocolate cake (I guess by adding another layer).
In today's MMO market, there is by far more variety now than existed back from the beginning where MMO players only options were Ultima Online -> Asheron's Call + Everquest + Dark Age of Camelot -> World of Warcraft + Final Fantasy XI + Star Wars Galaxy. In a matter of several years there really were only 7 major MMO's and there wasn't a boom in MMO production until a couple years after World of Warcraft was released initially many company's trying to follow and improve upon what WoW did. (IMO it was also impossible to copy that success because I believed a major factor was the fact that it had very little competition compared to later when there was more MMO's competing for the same market).
Today I think its easier to see that developers are actually starting to try new things a little more than they used to (aka expanding on cake variety). I don't see how the genre is homogenizing at all as the analogy is implying especially having been a player since the beginning of MMO's and experiencing it first hand.
The cake analogy doesn't work for me in the MMORPG genre because the analogy implied that from the beginning there was a large variety of MMO's which isn't true at all, it was actually quite the opposite. It's one of the factors that led to WoW's insanely large success. The double layered chocolate cake wasn't JUST successful because of its quality, but because there wasn't many options in terms of cake. There was only vanilla and regular chocolate cake and let's say the chocolate cake was Everquest. Their brand new method wasn't brand new at all but an enhanced version of the features that already existed mostly from the chocolate cake (I guess by adding another layer).
In today's MMO market, there is by far more variety now than existed back from the beginning where MMO players only options were Ultima Online -> Asheron's Call + Everquest + Dark Age of Camelot -> World of Warcraft + Final Fantasy XI + Star Wars Galaxy. In a matter of several years there really were only 7 major MMO's and there wasn't a boom in MMO production until a couple years after World of Warcraft was released initially many company's trying to follow and improve upon what WoW did. (IMO it was also impossible to copy that success because I believed a major factor was the fact that it had very little competition compared to later when there was more MMO's competing for the same market).
Today I think its easier to see that developers are actually starting to try new things a little more than they used to (aka expanding on cake variety). I don't see how the genre is homogenizing at all as the analogy is implying especially having been a player since the beginning of MMO's and experiencing it first hand.
I wouldn't expect you to agree with the analogy. I'm just trying to give prospective on how a lot of gamers feel about MMORPG's. I still play them but to a lesser degree because I feel like I've already completed the task I'm going to be sent to do.
This is how most MMORPG's feel to me in most cases. I log on and create a character. I notice UI is WoW like. I know there's a minimap. I do tutorial to learn this twist of combat. I get sent to local quest hub usually following highlighted path. I go complete all the quest that are one of usually 7 types. I move on to the next quest hub. Expect very little difficulty. Higher levels I may have 1-3 places to level. I can get put in random groups or dungeons but usually never do because nobody talks and I can kill alone just as well if nobody is talking. You can do this solo content to the cap. Then you can do WoW like battlegrounds or raid. This is where I usually quit if not earlier. What MMORPG am I describing? Or should I say how many?
I wouldn't expect you to agree with the analogy. I'm just trying to give prospective on how a lot of gamers feel about MMORPG's. I still play them but to a lesser degree because I feel like I've already completed the task I'm going to be sent to do.
This is how most MMORPG's feel to me in most cases. I log on and create a character. I notice UI is WoW like. I know there's a minimap. I do tutorial to learn this twist of combat. I get sent to local quest hub usually following highlighted path. I go complete all the quest that are one of usually 7 types. I move on to the next quest hub. Expect very little difficulty. Higher levels I may have 1-3 places to level. I can get put in random groups or dungeons but usually never do because nobody talks and I can kill alone just as well if nobody is talking. You can do this solo content to the cap. Then you can do WoW like battlegrounds or raid. This is where I usually quit if not earlier. What MMORPG am I describing? Or should I say how many?
So 'go to X -> Talk to NPC Y -> go to Z -> Kill / talk / get / escort something' = same?
You just described almost every RPG out there including classics like Baldurs Gate series, Neverwinter NIghts series, KOTOR, Planescape Torment, Divinity series etc
If you are complaining that MMORPG nowadays are RPGs, I don't think that's a legit complaint that most people will agree on.
If I see cake, I might complain about the size or taste but I probably won't complain that it is in fact a cake.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I wouldn't expect you to agree with the analogy. I'm just trying to give prospective on how a lot of gamers feel about MMORPG's. I still play them but to a lesser degree because I feel like I've already completed the task I'm going to be sent to do.
This is how most MMORPG's feel to me in most cases. I log on and create a character. I notice UI is WoW like. I know there's a minimap. I do tutorial to learn this twist of combat. I get sent to local quest hub usually following highlighted path. I go complete all the quest that are one of usually 7 types. I move on to the next quest hub. Expect very little difficulty. Higher levels I may have 1-3 places to level. I can get put in random groups or dungeons but usually never do because nobody talks and I can kill alone just as well if nobody is talking. You can do this solo content to the cap. Then you can do WoW like battlegrounds or raid. This is where I usually quit if not earlier. What MMORPG am I describing? Or should I say how many?
So 'go to X -> Talk to NPC Y -> go to Z -> Kill / talk / get / escort something' = same?
You just described almost every RPG out there including classics like Baldurs Gate series, Neverwinter NIghts series, KOTOR, Planescape Torment, Divinity series etc
If you are complaining that MMORPG nowadays are RPGs, I don't think that's a legit complaint that most people will agree on.
If I see cake, I might complain about the size or taste but I probably won't complain that it is in fact a cake.
You can even include games like Deus Ex, and Dishonored. To claim that they are the same is essentially saying all the FPSes are the same because there is shooting, or that all RPGs are the same because there is leveling.
Personally, i play STO and Marvel Heroes. Those two games play and feel very differently in terms of combat mechanics, setting, atmosphere and meta-game considerations. There are many other examples. There are a lot of variety in MMOs. In fact, that is why i play them in the first place.
Alot of this has to do with economics. EQ required a PC and cash for the box game and cash for a monthly sub. The game was mostly played by adults. Now, kids get consoles and Laptops for Christmas. Kids get alot given to them by parents with money to spend on them. And adults seem to spend more on themselves as well.
There are now alot of games out there and alot of people try alot of games but don't stick to them. Certain games keep their player base and certain games do not. Games like Rift for instance, that you can max level in days to me are single player games anyways that are packaged as an MMO. There are ALOT of games today like RIFT, AION and SWTOR to name two. Designed from the ground up for Solo and Molo play. The problem is short attention spans.
EQ, EQ2, WoW, AO, games that have been around for a long time still have memberships. Large ones of fans who have stuck to their games. I am among them but I also try new games. But not for very long and I do not do cash shops or RMT, even when they are legal.
What people do not seem to understand is...'the initial hit' is what games are after now. They have done their market investigations and they know that games with little content will not last so long. So what do they do? Hype and swipe. They 'hype' their games (single player games in an MMO package) and people 'swipe' their credit cards to buy the Download/License/Software. $60-$100 for most newer games. That is the money they are after and if they get you to hit up their cash shops for their short-lived game. Hey, bonus! Say what you like about EQ or Wow or EQ2. But those games are vast and anytime that you burn 25-40 hours a week on a game, is a RIFT or SWTOR or a Clone of these going to suit you long? Nope but who cares, they still got their $. And you will pay for full content to F2P games as well. You will pay to keep up with the joneses and to prance around in that new armor you just bought off of the cash shop. What is an accomplishment if everyone does it and within a month? Not much and thus, no addiction factor.
Addiction factor is what keeps people logging into their same games for over a decade. The games coming out now just do not have that for me. Oh, maybe at first. They are new and challenging. But after I get the hang of it and the lay of the land...it's smooth sailing and I lose interest. PvP...how many times do you have to win or lose before it gets boring? Not long for me. The AF is in the content for me and in the vastness and difficulty of the game. I am willing to help my guildmates with their quests and in return, I get help from mine.
Gear scores and who did it first scores mean nothing to me if a cash shop is involved. But getting all my friends in on a raid to bust up something that we all wiped going after the first two times? That's what keeps me interested and logging in and as long as I have that, I'll be there.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
I wouldn't expect you to agree with the analogy. I'm just trying to give prospective on how a lot of gamers feel about MMORPG's. I still play them but to a lesser degree because I feel like I've already completed the task I'm going to be sent to do.
This is how most MMORPG's feel to me in most cases. I log on and create a character. I notice UI is WoW like. I know there's a minimap. I do tutorial to learn this twist of combat. I get sent to local quest hub usually following highlighted path. I go complete all the quest that are one of usually 7 types. I move on to the next quest hub. Expect very little difficulty. Higher levels I may have 1-3 places to level. I can get put in random groups or dungeons but usually never do because nobody talks and I can kill alone just as well if nobody is talking. You can do this solo content to the cap. Then you can do WoW like battlegrounds or raid. This is where I usually quit if not earlier. What MMORPG am I describing? Or should I say how many?
So 'go to X -> Talk to NPC Y -> go to Z -> Kill / talk / get / escort something' = same?
You just described almost every RPG out there including classics like Baldurs Gate series, Neverwinter NIghts series, KOTOR, Planescape Torment, Divinity series etc
If you are complaining that MMORPG nowadays are RPGs, I don't think that's a legit complaint that most people will agree on.
If I see cake, I might complain about the size or taste but I probably won't complain that it is in fact a cake.
Lol, so your saying that Kotor, Planescape, Divinity, Neverwinter Nights series and BG series all play like reskinned WoW with a twist on combat and maybe a gimmick or two? Your cherry picking one thing out of the bunch.
All I have to say, is that just about all of the "classic" old time MMORPGs running up to WoW actually INCREASED their subs after launch at least for a time (a radical concept, I know).
Now the high water mark is at launch and things nosedive from there.
So those old games had to be doing something right the the new games don't seem to be able to.
In response to burntvet, its easy to misconstrue the past as being better than the present even though there are conflicting evidence that doesn't support the case. If the old mmos existed today, no one would be saying or claiming that the old mmos were in fact better, but it's easy to argue from a stand point that cannot be directly disputed because those mmos don't currently exist in its original state today but we can at least say if those models were in fact so successful then they would exist today.
The nostalgic mmo players imo just want to be able to hold something over the newer mmo players. Something to assure themselves that they are better then them. Imo this is where all this nostalgic nonsensical claims stem from. I find the title of the thread ironic because the glasses never came off for many on this thread. Asserting a claim or opinion does not make fact.
Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal You are right Lokto that many want a game in the same vain but modernized. Me personally I have tried many MMORPGs and largely non AAA games do not hold up well in polish or game play despite the features in the genre. That is why I stuck to AAA MMORPGs in my discussion.
I want to see a quality sandbox with features pushed beyond what UO or SWG did and modern polish. This evolution is what was lost when the AAA static world only to me. Others want more difficulty or more community supporting elements which are even more subtle changes.
Might I suggest checking out World Alpha? It's not a AAA title, but it is a unique approach to the virtual world and how players can impact or affect it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Jairoe03 In response to burntvet, its easy to misconstrue the past as being better than the present even though there are conflicting evidence that doesn't support the case. If the old mmos existed today, no one would be saying or claiming that the old mmos were in fact better, but it's easy to argue from a stand point that cannot be directly disputed because those mmos don't currently exist in its original state today but we can at least say if those models were in fact so successful then they would exist today.
The nostalgic mmo players imo just want to be able to hold something over the newer mmo players. Something to assure themselves that they are better then them. Imo this is where all this nostalgic nonsensical claims stem from. I find the title of the thread ironic because the glasses never came off for many on this thread. Asserting a claim or opinion does not make fact.
I can't speak for anyone else but I could give a damn about being superior to newer players.
But most of the games still do exist and were subscription based for years with F2P and newer games coming out and bleeding subs like a stuck pig. They're just old games and many of them lack polish. Even WoW is long in the tooth at 8 years old and still king. WoW is much closer to older school games then many games out now with his large open world and exploration.
There are threads on specific things MMORPG's are lacking these days. Its not just not rose colored glasses. I don't think any of those games were perfect. Far from polished. But they had much more substance, community and uniqueness to them. Going through the quest hub motions gets old.
Originally posted by jpnz Originally posted by Vermillion_Raventhal
There has been has been very little change in the genre in the AAA mainstream besides making games less challenging and more single player like. I can see the differences in the game lore and maybe a few wrinkles but the core game is the same. The difference between FPS and MMORPGs is that there is a narrower definition of what a FPS is vs. the vast range of an RPG presentation. Even within that range I would say FPS are more diverse despite COD flood. I don't blame players for what has happened. I don't blame WoW for doing what they do. I think you miss the point of my post. Its I am tired of people telling those who want progress from a branch of MMORPGs outside of WoW styled or quest hub exclusive games that bring back some aspects lost we're out of touch with the current market. The current market trends is not based on success or hard evidence of what players want. The market trend is based on emulation of success of another game with very little options of diverse quality choices. Even then just about every game that emulated failed until they were forced to gave it away while many older games ran strong. How do these people know what MMORPG gamers will accept or want when a majority if not all AAA games are some sort of emulation of a single branch of MMORPG? What you call 'progress' is not what I would classify as 'progress'.
I don't recall the pre-WoW age as something even close to 'progress'.
Me shunning MMORPG players cause they were considered 'not normal' by the general society is not 'progress'.
Giving me a character with no story to follow isn't what I would say is progress (you might view this differently).
If you want to go back to the 'blank paper with pencil' age, you go ahead.
Just don't be surprised if the vast majority of people would rather read a story than write one.
JPNZ, you are an asshole if you really judged a person by their personal interests. It's just sad, and your not making a point, just a fool of yourself. As for the rest of the post, I'm not going to argue, I've done enough already.
Never fear, your dream MMO will be here.... just give me a decade or two to finely hone my Game development and design abilities as well as start a Game Design Studio. Thank you for your patience.
So those old games had to be doing something right the the new games don't seem to be able to.
LoL is bigger than WoW. WoT is highly successful. GW2 sold 3.5M copies in a month.
Tell me .. which old MMO sold 3.5M copies in a month. In fact, it was claimed that GW2 is the fastest selling MMO.
Lol and WoT and the others of their ilk have less than 10% of the players paying anything, ever. So the vast majority pay nothing. So who cares? The companies do not care about people (being as you have admitted yourself) who don't pay. You, as a class, don't matter.
When original EQ had 500k players, it had 500k people paying every month. And sold 500k boxes. How many boxes did lol or WoT sell?
Lol might be bigger than WoW, but it has no where near the revenue, and that is what counts when you get rid of the smoke and mirrors. It is the only thing you can count on a 1 to 1 basis.
As to GW2 selling 3.5 mil in a month, good on them. How many of those people were still playing after 3 months? Not 3.5 mil. And they front loaded all their revenue so that cost them down the line.
Games now are launch and crash, they weren't then.
So those old games had to be doing something right the the new games don't seem to be able to.
LoL is bigger than WoW. WoT is highly successful. GW2 sold 3.5M copies in a month.
Tell me .. which old MMO sold 3.5M copies in a month. In fact, it was claimed that GW2 is the fastest selling MMO.
Lol and WoT and the others of their ilk have less than 10% of the players paying anything, ever. So the vast majority pay nothing. So who cares? The companies do not care about people (being as you have admitted yourself) who don't pay. You, as a class, don't matter.
Is it that you don't understand how the business model works or don't want to understand how it works?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
To everyone who so strongly opposes F2P. Stop making long winded threads based on total 100% grade A BS.
F2P is not new, it goes back to 1996, you don't know this because you don't know 1/10th you think you know about the genre and no amount of equating early MMOs you have played makes the pay option more viable. While games like UO, AC, EQ1, DaoC and SWG was making their peak amounts of money via subscriptions, Nexon was making MORE money off its first free game during the SAME TIME PERIOD.
Here is the WORLD --->
Here is what you know of it --->
Now quick, go pre-oder Wildstar and TESO, they are going to be sub based and thus MUST be higher quality and worth playing...it makes them DIFFERENT just because you have a monthly fee! Sure means it cant possibly be low quality like every other sub based MMO of the last 7 years...
So those old games had to be doing something right the the new games don't seem to be able to.
LoL is bigger than WoW. WoT is highly successful. GW2 sold 3.5M copies in a month.
Tell me .. which old MMO sold 3.5M copies in a month. In fact, it was claimed that GW2 is the fastest selling MMO.
Lol and WoT and the others of their ilk have less than 10% of the players paying anything, ever. So the vast majority pay nothing. So who cares? The companies do not care about people (being as you have admitted yourself) who don't pay. You, as a class, don't matter.
Is it that you don't understand how the business model works or don't want to understand how it works?
I understand perfectly the business strategy and underlying factors (perhaps better than most) of lowering the barrier to entry and getting people to play your game and such. If people can't/won't/aren't playing your game then they won't pay you anything. That much is true.
But what is also true is that we keep seeing reports that under 10% of F2P game players ever buy anything. Sure, they might some day, and keeping them in the game makes that possible, but the fact is that most of the time, they aren't. And many, like this Nuriussledon guy, never will (if you believe what he says). And those people, the companies don't care about and would frankly, rather have go away.
A direct result of which is that crappy/restrictive F2P systems are in place: they either make people spend money in the cash shop, which the companies want, or are so restrictive that the people paying nothing quit, which is also what the companies want. Players that never pay anything, are not wanted.
And while they are not buying anything, they are sucking up bandwidth, server space, and CS time, for no gain. (It is only because bandwidth and server space are so cheap that F2P MMOs can exist at all, and why CS in F2P games is usually terrible.)
That is the problem with the business model, and why having 5 mil "active accts" doesn't mean much if only 3-400k ever pay anything.
Originally posted by JasonJ Originally posted by DrCokePepsiTo everyone who so strongly opposes P2P.
To everyone who so strongly opposes F2P. Stop making long winded threads based on total 100% grade A BS.
F2P is not new, it goes back to 1996, you don't know this because you don't know 1/10th you think you know about the genre and no amount of equating early MMOs you have played makes the pay option more viable. While games like UO, AC, EQ1, DaoC and SWG was making their peak amounts of money via subscriptions, Nexon was making MORE money off its first free game during the SAME TIME PERIOD.
Here is the WORLD --->
Here is what you know of it --->
Now quick, go pre-oder Wildstar and TESO, they are going to be sub based and thus MUST be higher quality and worth playing...it makes them DIFFERENT just because you have a monthly fee! Sure means it cant possibly be low quality like every other sub based MMO of the last 7 years...
Don't insult my intelligence or my knowledge of the world. You don't know me, what I've done in life, or who I am. These are videogames not the world.
...as for videogames or MMORPG's specifically, these games weren't judged by financial success, in fact SWG was shut down. Those F2P games you mentioned I've never heard of probably because they were nothing special and/or terrible and an off-chance legitimately good games. SWG/UO/ the sorts all had an extremely loyal following and offered a strong experience.
Never fear, your dream MMO will be here.... just give me a decade or two to finely hone my Game development and design abilities as well as start a Game Design Studio. Thank you for your patience.
Originally posted by DrCokePepsi Don't insult my intelligence or my knowledge of the world. You don't know me, what I've done in life, or who I am. These are videogames not the world.
Those F2P games you mentioned I've never heard of probably because they were nothing special and/or terrible and an off-chance legitimately good games. SWG/UO/ the sorts all had an extremely loyal following and offered a strong experience.
Your posts tell me all I need to know about you and your intelligence.
If you don't know about it, it cant be good and only the games you like can possibly fit into the idea of being worth anything. Time to change the title of this thread to "remember the good old MMOs? Gluing on my rose-colored glasses to blind my view of reality." Your entire argument was made invalid by the fact that subscriptions mean nothing, even meant nothing at the time you based your limited view on.
really loved the ending...only games you "know of" and "played" were possible of giving those things...lol.
Comments
Umm... yeah.. about that...
http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/08/28/guild-wars-2s-first-birthday-by-the-numbers/
3.5 Million sales..
Look, you said 'The proof is in the last few years of MMOs, look at the failure'
Just admit you made a mistake and move on.
I mean, GW2 sold 3.5 Million in 1 year. You are calling that a failure? really?
Okay, then the 'old school' MMOs sold more right? /Facepalm
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Huge failure, mega disasters
Compared to the MMO classics like EQ and DAOC, they are epic failures
Like I said, huge profits compared to what? Both SWTOR and GW2 cost over 100 million to develop, and millions more each year to keep going
And, after more than 10 years, DAOC is still up and still a sub to play. That's what I call success!
You guys still arent getting my point. Its not talking about going back to pen or paper or even to 1998. Im looking for features and MMORPG types games they used to make in the past to have the polish and innovation of the current MMOs. Not jut remaking the same game over again. I would like to see more sandbox games being tried. I want more variety in the type of games being made period.
Im saying that with the 99% of current AAA MMORPGs being of only a certain type there is not proof that these are the only type of games people will play. But people readily claim this. It reminds me of people saying that you cant run college plays in the NFL because players are too fast. Yet college plays are being run in the NFL and successful despite everyone saying it wouldnt. The big issue is they wouldnt try and too many experts saying it was not possible. You actually have to try other MMORPG types to say they wont work or its hypothetical both ways.
The best analogy I can come up with is looking at MMORPGs as cakes. You have used to have all types of cakes in the beginning like yellow, chocolate, cheesecake, lemon cake etc. These cakes are very rich but have a flawed baking method made them tough or rough around the edges. The chocolate cake (EQ) just happens to sells the best. We have a few other chocolate cakes made. While these cakes are chocolate have different cores of having almonds or whatever. We also have indie cake makers who are forced to use inferior cooking materials.
Now here comes the double layer chocolate cake (WoW) with chocolate icing. The cake is not as rich as the pervious ones but its good quality and it sells like crazy. This cake has a new baking method so that the cake is evenly cooked and just polished. Now all of the big manufactures start exclusively making these double layer chocolate cakes. These cakes largely have the same core just different toppings. The imitation cakes are less rich though still baked with the new method. You do have a few with a different core ingredient but largely these cakes again are still double layer chocolate. The imitation cakes dont sell well but the manufactures found they could give cakes away and sell special figurines to go on the top for more money then actually selling the cakes.
Now you have cake eaters who used to have variety and richer cake clamoring for the old cakes made with the new method because theyre tired of chocolate cake or never liked it. Some just want rich chocolate like they had in the past. You then have people pointing to all the chocolate cakes being made and saying this is what everyone wants because they wouldnt being making them. You have people pointing to the old baking method sucking and saying who would want to back to that missing the point totally. Well I tried lol.
My take on it is that the variety is there. I'd venture to suggest that those who are asking for variety on what was done in the past may simply think they want more variety, but in reality just want a new version of what they played before. I suggest that because the more an MMO deviates from the design of the past, the more it is rejected as not even being a 'real' or 'true' MMO.
Saga and Sword Girls Online have character progression, quests and fantasy settings, but my bet is that most of the people pining for the old days wouldn't consider either to be an MMO because of the RTS or TCG elements. Vindictus, Scarlet Legacy and Dragonica all have group content, quests and character progression in a fantasy setting, but they are action RPGs, so they too would probably be rejected. Dare I suggest the community and interaction-focused Travian?
One could go down the list of scores of MMOs that are the result of innovation or evolution, and it seems from most of the posts here that those who want more variety and innovation will reject each new attempt for deviating from the old MMO they judge the rest by.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I want to see a quality sandbox with features pushed beyond what UO or SWG did and modern polish. This evolution is what was lost when the AAA static world only to me. Others want more difficulty or more community supporting elements which are even more subtle changes.
I agree. There is a huge variety. There is a Star Trek MMO. There is a modern world conspiracy theory based (TSW). There is a super hero MMO based on Marvel, and one based on DC.
To argue that they are the same is as absurd as suggesting Dishonored and Deus Ex are the same because they can be played as a stealth game.
The cake analogy doesn't work for me in the MMORPG genre because the analogy implied that from the beginning there was a large variety of MMO's which isn't true at all, it was actually quite the opposite. It's one of the factors that led to WoW's insanely large success. The double layered chocolate cake wasn't JUST successful because of its quality, but because there wasn't many options in terms of cake. There was only vanilla and regular chocolate cake and let's say the chocolate cake was Everquest. Their brand new method wasn't brand new at all but an enhanced version of the features that already existed mostly from the chocolate cake (I guess by adding another layer).
In today's MMO market, there is by far more variety now than existed back from the beginning where MMO players only options were Ultima Online -> Asheron's Call + Everquest + Dark Age of Camelot -> World of Warcraft + Final Fantasy XI + Star Wars Galaxy. In a matter of several years there really were only 7 major MMO's and there wasn't a boom in MMO production until a couple years after World of Warcraft was released initially many company's trying to follow and improve upon what WoW did. (IMO it was also impossible to copy that success because I believed a major factor was the fact that it had very little competition compared to later when there was more MMO's competing for the same market).
Today I think its easier to see that developers are actually starting to try new things a little more than they used to (aka expanding on cake variety). I don't see how the genre is homogenizing at all as the analogy is implying especially having been a player since the beginning of MMO's and experiencing it first hand.
I wouldn't expect you to agree with the analogy. I'm just trying to give prospective on how a lot of gamers feel about MMORPG's. I still play them but to a lesser degree because I feel like I've already completed the task I'm going to be sent to do.
This is how most MMORPG's feel to me in most cases. I log on and create a character. I notice UI is WoW like. I know there's a minimap. I do tutorial to learn this twist of combat. I get sent to local quest hub usually following highlighted path. I go complete all the quest that are one of usually 7 types. I move on to the next quest hub. Expect very little difficulty. Higher levels I may have 1-3 places to level. I can get put in random groups or dungeons but usually never do because nobody talks and I can kill alone just as well if nobody is talking. You can do this solo content to the cap. Then you can do WoW like battlegrounds or raid. This is where I usually quit if not earlier. What MMORPG am I describing? Or should I say how many?
So 'go to X -> Talk to NPC Y -> go to Z -> Kill / talk / get / escort something' = same?
You just described almost every RPG out there including classics like Baldurs Gate series, Neverwinter NIghts series, KOTOR, Planescape Torment, Divinity series etc
If you are complaining that MMORPG nowadays are RPGs, I don't think that's a legit complaint that most people will agree on.
If I see cake, I might complain about the size or taste but I probably won't complain that it is in fact a cake.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
You can even include games like Deus Ex, and Dishonored. To claim that they are the same is essentially saying all the FPSes are the same because there is shooting, or that all RPGs are the same because there is leveling.
Personally, i play STO and Marvel Heroes. Those two games play and feel very differently in terms of combat mechanics, setting, atmosphere and meta-game considerations. There are many other examples. There are a lot of variety in MMOs. In fact, that is why i play them in the first place.
Alot of this has to do with economics. EQ required a PC and cash for the box game and cash for a monthly sub. The game was mostly played by adults. Now, kids get consoles and Laptops for Christmas. Kids get alot given to them by parents with money to spend on them. And adults seem to spend more on themselves as well.
There are now alot of games out there and alot of people try alot of games but don't stick to them. Certain games keep their player base and certain games do not. Games like Rift for instance, that you can max level in days to me are single player games anyways that are packaged as an MMO. There are ALOT of games today like RIFT, AION and SWTOR to name two. Designed from the ground up for Solo and Molo play. The problem is short attention spans.
EQ, EQ2, WoW, AO, games that have been around for a long time still have memberships. Large ones of fans who have stuck to their games. I am among them but I also try new games. But not for very long and I do not do cash shops or RMT, even when they are legal.
What people do not seem to understand is...'the initial hit' is what games are after now. They have done their market investigations and they know that games with little content will not last so long. So what do they do? Hype and swipe. They 'hype' their games (single player games in an MMO package) and people 'swipe' their credit cards to buy the Download/License/Software. $60-$100 for most newer games. That is the money they are after and if they get you to hit up their cash shops for their short-lived game. Hey, bonus! Say what you like about EQ or Wow or EQ2. But those games are vast and anytime that you burn 25-40 hours a week on a game, is a RIFT or SWTOR or a Clone of these going to suit you long? Nope but who cares, they still got their $. And you will pay for full content to F2P games as well. You will pay to keep up with the joneses and to prance around in that new armor you just bought off of the cash shop. What is an accomplishment if everyone does it and within a month? Not much and thus, no addiction factor.
Addiction factor is what keeps people logging into their same games for over a decade. The games coming out now just do not have that for me. Oh, maybe at first. They are new and challenging. But after I get the hang of it and the lay of the land...it's smooth sailing and I lose interest. PvP...how many times do you have to win or lose before it gets boring? Not long for me. The AF is in the content for me and in the vastness and difficulty of the game. I am willing to help my guildmates with their quests and in return, I get help from mine.
Gear scores and who did it first scores mean nothing to me if a cash shop is involved. But getting all my friends in on a raid to bust up something that we all wiped going after the first two times? That's what keeps me interested and logging in and as long as I have that, I'll be there.
First PC Game: Pool of Radiance July 10th, 1990. First MMO: Everquest April 23, 1999
Lol, so your saying that Kotor, Planescape, Divinity, Neverwinter Nights series and BG series all play like reskinned WoW with a twist on combat and maybe a gimmick or two? Your cherry picking one thing out of the bunch.
All I have to say, is that just about all of the "classic" old time MMORPGs running up to WoW actually INCREASED their subs after launch at least for a time (a radical concept, I know).
Now the high water mark is at launch and things nosedive from there.
So those old games had to be doing something right the the new games don't seem to be able to.
LoL is bigger than WoW. WoT is highly successful. GW2 sold 3.5M copies in a month.
Tell me .. which old MMO sold 3.5M copies in a month. In fact, it was claimed that GW2 is the fastest selling MMO.
The nostalgic mmo players imo just want to be able to hold something over the newer mmo players. Something to assure themselves that they are better then them. Imo this is where all this nostalgic nonsensical claims stem from. I find the title of the thread ironic because the glasses never came off for many on this thread. Asserting a claim or opinion does not make fact.
Might I suggest checking out World Alpha? It's not a AAA title, but it is a unique approach to the virtual world and how players can impact or affect it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I can't speak for anyone else but I could give a damn about being superior to newer players.
But most of the games still do exist and were subscription based for years with F2P and newer games coming out and bleeding subs like a stuck pig. They're just old games and many of them lack polish. Even WoW is long in the tooth at 8 years old and still king. WoW is much closer to older school games then many games out now with his large open world and exploration.
There are threads on specific things MMORPG's are lacking these days. Its not just not rose colored glasses. I don't think any of those games were perfect. Far from polished. But they had much more substance, community and uniqueness to them. Going through the quest hub motions gets old.
What you call 'progress' is not what I would classify as 'progress'.
I don't recall the pre-WoW age as something even close to 'progress'.
Me shunning MMORPG players cause they were considered 'not normal' by the general society is not 'progress'.
Giving me a character with no story to follow isn't what I would say is progress (you might view this differently).
If you want to go back to the 'blank paper with pencil' age, you go ahead.
Just don't be surprised if the vast majority of people would rather read a story than write one.
JPNZ, you are an asshole if you really judged a person by their personal interests. It's just sad, and your not making a point, just a fool of yourself. As for the rest of the post, I'm not going to argue, I've done enough already.
Never fear, your dream MMO will be here....
just give me a decade or two to finely hone my Game development
and design abilities as well as start a Game Design Studio.
Thank you for your patience.
Lol and WoT and the others of their ilk have less than 10% of the players paying anything, ever. So the vast majority pay nothing. So who cares? The companies do not care about people (being as you have admitted yourself) who don't pay. You, as a class, don't matter.
When original EQ had 500k players, it had 500k people paying every month. And sold 500k boxes. How many boxes did lol or WoT sell?
Lol might be bigger than WoW, but it has no where near the revenue, and that is what counts when you get rid of the smoke and mirrors. It is the only thing you can count on a 1 to 1 basis.
As to GW2 selling 3.5 mil in a month, good on them. How many of those people were still playing after 3 months? Not 3.5 mil. And they front loaded all their revenue so that cost them down the line.
Games now are launch and crash, they weren't then.
Is it that you don't understand how the business model works or don't want to understand how it works?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
To everyone who so strongly opposes F2P. Stop making long winded threads based on total 100% grade A BS.
F2P is not new, it goes back to 1996, you don't know this because you don't know 1/10th you think you know about the genre and no amount of equating early MMOs you have played makes the pay option more viable. While games like UO, AC, EQ1, DaoC and SWG was making their peak amounts of money via subscriptions, Nexon was making MORE money off its first free game during the SAME TIME PERIOD.
Here is the WORLD --->
Here is what you know of it --->
Now quick, go pre-oder Wildstar and TESO, they are going to be sub based and thus MUST be higher quality and worth playing...it makes them DIFFERENT just because you have a monthly fee! Sure means it cant possibly be low quality like every other sub based MMO of the last 7 years...
I understand perfectly the business strategy and underlying factors (perhaps better than most) of lowering the barrier to entry and getting people to play your game and such. If people can't/won't/aren't playing your game then they won't pay you anything. That much is true.
But what is also true is that we keep seeing reports that under 10% of F2P game players ever buy anything. Sure, they might some day, and keeping them in the game makes that possible, but the fact is that most of the time, they aren't. And many, like this Nuriussledon guy, never will (if you believe what he says). And those people, the companies don't care about and would frankly, rather have go away.
A direct result of which is that crappy/restrictive F2P systems are in place: they either make people spend money in the cash shop, which the companies want, or are so restrictive that the people paying nothing quit, which is also what the companies want. Players that never pay anything, are not wanted.
And while they are not buying anything, they are sucking up bandwidth, server space, and CS time, for no gain. (It is only because bandwidth and server space are so cheap that F2P MMOs can exist at all, and why CS in F2P games is usually terrible.)
That is the problem with the business model, and why having 5 mil "active accts" doesn't mean much if only 3-400k ever pay anything.
F2P is not new, it goes back to 1996, you don't know this because you don't know 1/10th you think you know about the genre and no amount of equating early MMOs you have played makes the pay option more viable. While games like UO, AC, EQ1, DaoC and SWG was making their peak amounts of money via subscriptions, Nexon was making MORE money off its first free game during the SAME TIME PERIOD.
Here is the WORLD --->
Here is what you know of it --->
Now quick, go pre-oder Wildstar and TESO, they are going to be sub based and thus MUST be higher quality and worth playing...it makes them DIFFERENT just because you have a monthly fee! Sure means it cant possibly be low quality like every other sub based MMO of the last 7 years...
Don't insult my intelligence or my knowledge of the world. You don't know me, what I've done in life, or who I am. These are videogames not the world.
...as for videogames or MMORPG's specifically, these games weren't judged by financial success, in fact SWG was shut down. Those F2P games you mentioned I've never heard of probably because they were nothing special and/or terrible and an off-chance legitimately good games. SWG/UO/ the sorts all had an extremely loyal following and offered a strong experience.
Never fear, your dream MMO will be here....
just give me a decade or two to finely hone my Game development
and design abilities as well as start a Game Design Studio.
Thank you for your patience.
Your posts tell me all I need to know about you and your intelligence.
If you don't know about it, it cant be good and only the games you like can possibly fit into the idea of being worth anything. Time to change the title of this thread to "remember the good old MMOs? Gluing on my rose-colored glasses to blind my view of reality." Your entire argument was made invalid by the fact that subscriptions mean nothing, even meant nothing at the time you based your limited view on.
really loved the ending...only games you "know of" and "played" were possible of giving those things...lol.