Exactly.. and Nari is the one earlier preaching that there is "no bad" designs or preference. OH except when he doesn't like it.. His philosophy is "my way or the highway".. Anyways.. EQN is suppose to have large explorable dungeons, KUDO's to that, I just not comfortable with their combat class formula.. But we'll see soon enough how that plays out..
I didn't say complex dungeon is bad design. I said it is not popular .. BIG difference.
Plus, of course i don't compromise on mere entertainment. Why should I? If devs don't want to cater to me, it is their freedom but don't expect me to change my preferences.
If EQN have huge dungeons and no save point, good ... one less game to spend time on. It is not like i don't already have a backlog to play. But i respect their right to cater to whoever.
1) There is a market, comprised of a quarter million people, who all have the same preferences for an MMORPG. We'll label that preference "Old School", ignoring all the different, conflicting desires that fall under the umbrella of "Old School".
They're not conflicting. Essentially, when WoW became a hit all other type of MMORPG in the genre got left behind and never made the leap into the modern age. Well except games that play like City of Heroes. The heavily instanced rabbit hole action games like Champions, DDO, NWO etc. .
2) This market is invisible and unknowable. We must assume it exists.
Again, there on every MMORPG site I've been on. THere are articles and developers talking about where the genre might be wrong. I don't think you can compare these to NES old school players who number in the hundreds of millions while pre-2004 MMORPG players likely number in the 10s of Millions being generous.
3) There are MMORPGs that have already been developed for markets smaller than a quarter million people. Perpetuum, Mortal Online and Darkfall were all developed for markets much smaller than a quarter million people. A Tale in the Desert and Pirates of Whatever were also written for smaller markets, and seem to be doing fine.
Honestly, the genre is just not in a place where unexperienced and underfunded developers can make solid games. There's just a big gap in quality.
4) Given a budget of $10 million dollars (this is just my minimum buy in to write a decent MMORPG), and a box price of $40, if a quarter million people just bought the box, the production costs of the game would be covered. The game would generate $3.75 million a month in revenue because it would be a subscription game, per the "Old School" style.
Because the reality is that your not going to getting that making a game on a 10 million dollar budget. MMORPGs already have low playability and the low budget ones generally suffering.
Conclusion: Nobody wants to write a game for this market.
Yes, that has been the case but it seems to be changing somewhat.
What possible reason would every single developer in existence have for not wanting to write the game that this market wants?
Your answer: All the developers want to only write WoW, at the scale of WoW, so they opt to not write the old school style game in spite of the fact that the market is captive, has no other options, and true to their old school roots would want to play the game for a long period of time and pay a subscription for the game. Nobody wants to make a game for a market willing to pay $10 million ($40 box price) at launch, and $3.75 million ($15 subscription) a month. Even the developers who really like old school MMORPGs and the developers who wrote the old school MMORPGs.
Addendum to your answer: The market does exist, and the developer want to write a game for it, but the market will not accept anything less than a AAA game, so even if someone writes a $10 million game, the market would refuse to buy it.
This pretty much is what I'm saying.
My answer: Because the market must be assumed to exist, nobody in their right mind is going to try and write a game for them. They have gone into stealth mode, and show no signs of coming out.
My other answer: That market that we have to assume exists isn't actually an assumption. It's not invisible and unknowable. It just isn't composed of a quarter million people who all agree on what kind of game they want to play. It's a very small market and it isn't worth anyone's time to write a game for that market.
I am not entirely sure what your metrics are for looking up people talking about old school MMORPGS? Are you looking at them games themselves? Terms like sandbox, EQ like or just the term old school? Why do they have to be uniformed? You do realize that after 2004 basically all other types of MMORPG have not been made. There wasn't failure after failure of other types of games. They basically just didn't get made anymore. Like if Turnbased single player RPGs became the only ones made should the rest wanting a RPG have to be uniformed in the wants?
The views of "Old School" are conflicting because views of MMORPGs are conflicting. Instance raid based or open world boss based end game? What form of alternatiave advancement? There are as many "Old School" game designs as there are "New School" game designs. For all the talk of an "Old School" market, nobody has defined what that market wants, except in very general terms. Build something reminiscent of UO, and the people who prefer EQ or DAoC will not be happy. Build something reminiscent of EQ and the UO and DAoC people will not be happy. And so on. The Devil, as they say, is in the details, and that's where the conflict exists. Writing a game for the "Old School" market can't even get past the first step of designing the game.
Of that smattering of people on every forum you've been on, how many actually agree about what they are talking about? Sure, the new games suck. That's easy. But how many of them actually discuss what an "Old School" game would look like now, rather than argue with people who like newer games? Not many. I've tried, on these forums and others. The "Old School" gamers would much rather argue with people about how newer games suck than actually discuss how great "Old School" games were, or how an "Old School" game would look now.
The bottom line is the same, regardless of which tact is taken. The market is non-existent, no game will get made. The market cannot agree on what game mechanics actually constitute an "Old School" game, no game will get made. The market has unreasonable expectations concerning development budgets relative to the market size, no game will get made. The bottom line is that no game will get made. "Old School" is not a viable market niche.
**
Just apply all this to the whole dungeon discussion. People can't agree on whether or not instanced dungeons were an improvement over open world dungeons. Sure, they can all agree that the new dungeons suck, but they won't agree on what a developer should actually create to appeal to the "Old School" dungeoneer.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Just apply all this to the whole dungeon discussion. People can't agree on whether or not instanced dungeons were an improvement over open world dungeons. Sure, they can all agree that the new dungeons suck, but they won't agree on what a developer should actually create to appeal to the "Old School" dungeoneer.
Of course not. I don't even agree that devs need to appeal to "old school" players because i am not one, and the market seems to be small.
1) There is a market, comprised of a quarter million people, who all have the same preferences for an MMORPG. We'll label that preference "Old School", ignoring all the different, conflicting desires that fall under the umbrella of "Old School".
They're not conflicting. Essentially, when WoW became a hit all other type of MMORPG in the genre got left behind and never made the leap into the modern age. Well except games that play like City of Heroes. The heavily instanced rabbit hole action games like Champions, DDO, NWO etc. .
2) This market is invisible and unknowable. We must assume it exists.
Again, there on every MMORPG site I've been on. THere are articles and developers talking about where the genre might be wrong. I don't think you can compare these to NES old school players who number in the hundreds of millions while pre-2004 MMORPG players likely number in the 10s of Millions being generous.
3) There are MMORPGs that have already been developed for markets smaller than a quarter million people. Perpetuum, Mortal Online and Darkfall were all developed for markets much smaller than a quarter million people. A Tale in the Desert and Pirates of Whatever were also written for smaller markets, and seem to be doing fine.
Honestly, the genre is just not in a place where unexperienced and underfunded developers can make solid games. There's just a big gap in quality.
4) Given a budget of $10 million dollars (this is just my minimum buy in to write a decent MMORPG), and a box price of $40, if a quarter million people just bought the box, the production costs of the game would be covered. The game would generate $3.75 million a month in revenue because it would be a subscription game, per the "Old School" style.
Because the reality is that your not going to getting that making a game on a 10 million dollar budget. MMORPGs already have low playability and the low budget ones generally suffering.
Conclusion: Nobody wants to write a game for this market.
Yes, that has been the case but it seems to be changing somewhat.
What possible reason would every single developer in existence have for not wanting to write the game that this market wants?
Your answer: All the developers want to only write WoW, at the scale of WoW, so they opt to not write the old school style game in spite of the fact that the market is captive, has no other options, and true to their old school roots would want to play the game for a long period of time and pay a subscription for the game. Nobody wants to make a game for a market willing to pay $10 million ($40 box price) at launch, and $3.75 million ($15 subscription) a month. Even the developers who really like old school MMORPGs and the developers who wrote the old school MMORPGs.
Addendum to your answer: The market does exist, and the developer want to write a game for it, but the market will not accept anything less than a AAA game, so even if someone writes a $10 million game, the market would refuse to buy it.
This pretty much is what I'm saying.
My answer: Because the market must be assumed to exist, nobody in their right mind is going to try and write a game for them. They have gone into stealth mode, and show no signs of coming out.
My other answer: That market that we have to assume exists isn't actually an assumption. It's not invisible and unknowable. It just isn't composed of a quarter million people who all agree on what kind of game they want to play. It's a very small market and it isn't worth anyone's time to write a game for that market.
I am not entirely sure what your metrics are for looking up people talking about old school MMORPGS? Are you looking at them games themselves? Terms like sandbox, EQ like or just the term old school? Why do they have to be uniformed? You do realize that after 2004 basically all other types of MMORPG have not been made. There wasn't failure after failure of other types of games. They basically just didn't get made anymore. Like if Turnbased single player RPGs became the only ones made should the rest wanting a RPG have to be uniformed in the wants?
The views of "Old School" are conflicting because views of MMORPGs are conflicting. Instance raid based or open world boss based end game? What form of alternatiave advancement? There are as many "Old School" game designs as there are "New School" game designs. For all the talk of an "Old School" market, nobody has defined what that market wants, except in very general terms. Build something reminiscent of UO, and the people who prefer EQ or DAoC will not be happy. Build something reminiscent of EQ and the UO and DAoC people will not be happy. And so on. The Devil, as they say, is in the details, and that's where the conflict exists. Writing a game for the "Old School" market can't even get past the first step of designing the game.
Of that smattering of people on every forum you've been on, how many actually agree about what they are talking about? Sure, the new games suck. That's easy. But how many of them actually discuss what an "Old School" game would look like now, rather than argue with people who like newer games? Not many. I've tried, on these forums and others. The "Old School" gamers would much rather argue with people about how newer games suck than actually discuss how great "Old School" games were, or how an "Old School" game would look now.
The bottom line is the same, regardless of which tact is taken. The market is non-existent, no game will get made. The market cannot agree on what game mechanics actually constitute an "Old School" game, no game will get made. The market has unreasonable expectations concerning development budgets relative to the market size, no game will get made. The bottom line is that no game will get made. "Old School" is not a viable market niche.
**
Just apply all this to the whole dungeon discussion. People can't agree on whether or not instanced dungeons were an improvement over open world dungeons. Sure, they can all agree that the new dungeons suck, but they won't agree on what a developer should actually create to appeal to the "Old School" dungeoneer.
Rewards and punishments are the only thing different now than from an old school game.
It not like everyone used to agree, or people agree new mmorpgs are better. Im sure we can all agree there are far more bribes now.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
This issue really needs more light shined on it. You should never be able to sum up dungeon design with a lower case "b". It's so pathetic and lazy. Dungeons should be the most expansive, hardest, deepest, interesting part of the game not copy/paste holes in the ground or hallways people run through.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
This issue really needs more light shined on it. You should never be able to sum up dungeon design with a lower case "b". It's so pathetic and lazy. Dungeons should be the most expansive, hardest, deepest, interesting part of the game not copy/paste holes in the ground or hallways people run through.
It is already so .. just that they are not big.
hard .. deep .. interesting .... do not equate big (as in taking hours to complete).
What's wrong with MMOs? Well, MMORPGs are extremely expensive compared to other games, have boring gameplay compared to other games, are pay2win, and have as only redeeming feature that you share a game world with other people. Though even that's not really the case anymore, what with all the phasing and instancing.
1) There is a market, comprised of a quarter million people, who all have the same preferences for an MMORPG. We'll label that preference "Old School", ignoring all the different, conflicting desires that fall under the umbrella of "Old School".
They're not conflicting. Essentially, when WoW became a hit all other type of MMORPG in the genre got left behind and never made the leap into the modern age. Well except games that play like City of Heroes. The heavily instanced rabbit hole action games like Champions, DDO, NWO etc. .
2) This market is invisible and unknowable. We must assume it exists.
Again, there on every MMORPG site I've been on. THere are articles and developers talking about where the genre might be wrong. I don't think you can compare these to NES old school players who number in the hundreds of millions while pre-2004 MMORPG players likely number in the 10s of Millions being generous.
3) There are MMORPGs that have already been developed for markets smaller than a quarter million people. Perpetuum, Mortal Online and Darkfall were all developed for markets much smaller than a quarter million people. A Tale in the Desert and Pirates of Whatever were also written for smaller markets, and seem to be doing fine.
Honestly, the genre is just not in a place where unexperienced and underfunded developers can make solid games. There's just a big gap in quality.
4) Given a budget of $10 million dollars (this is just my minimum buy in to write a decent MMORPG), and a box price of $40, if a quarter million people just bought the box, the production costs of the game would be covered. The game would generate $3.75 million a month in revenue because it would be a subscription game, per the "Old School" style.
Because the reality is that your not going to getting that making a game on a 10 million dollar budget. MMORPGs already have low playability and the low budget ones generally suffering.
Conclusion: Nobody wants to write a game for this market.
Yes, that has been the case but it seems to be changing somewhat.
What possible reason would every single developer in existence have for not wanting to write the game that this market wants?
Your answer: All the developers want to only write WoW, at the scale of WoW, so they opt to not write the old school style game in spite of the fact that the market is captive, has no other options, and true to their old school roots would want to play the game for a long period of time and pay a subscription for the game. Nobody wants to make a game for a market willing to pay $10 million ($40 box price) at launch, and $3.75 million ($15 subscription) a month. Even the developers who really like old school MMORPGs and the developers who wrote the old school MMORPGs.
Addendum to your answer: The market does exist, and the developer want to write a game for it, but the market will not accept anything less than a AAA game, so even if someone writes a $10 million game, the market would refuse to buy it.
This pretty much is what I'm saying.
My answer: Because the market must be assumed to exist, nobody in their right mind is going to try and write a game for them. They have gone into stealth mode, and show no signs of coming out.
My other answer: That market that we have to assume exists isn't actually an assumption. It's not invisible and unknowable. It just isn't composed of a quarter million people who all agree on what kind of game they want to play. It's a very small market and it isn't worth anyone's time to write a game for that market.
I am not entirely sure what your metrics are for looking up people talking about old school MMORPGS? Are you looking at them games themselves? Terms like sandbox, EQ like or just the term old school? Why do they have to be uniformed? You do realize that after 2004 basically all other types of MMORPG have not been made. There wasn't failure after failure of other types of games. They basically just didn't get made anymore. Like if Turnbased single player RPGs became the only ones made should the rest wanting a RPG have to be uniformed in the wants?
The views of "Old School" are conflicting because views of MMORPGs are conflicting. Instance raid based or open world boss based end game? What form of alternatiave advancement? There are as many "Old School" game designs as there are "New School" game designs. For all the talk of an "Old School" market, nobody has defined what that market wants, except in very general terms. Build something reminiscent of UO, and the people who prefer EQ or DAoC will not be happy. Build something reminiscent of EQ and the UO and DAoC people will not be happy. And so on. The Devil, as they say, is in the details, and that's where the conflict exists. Writing a game for the "Old School" market can't even get past the first step of designing the game.
Of that smattering of people on every forum you've been on, how many actually agree about what they are talking about? Sure, the new games suck. That's easy. But how many of them actually discuss what an "Old School" game would look like now, rather than argue with people who like newer games? Not many. I've tried, on these forums and others. The "Old School" gamers would much rather argue with people about how newer games suck than actually discuss how great "Old School" games were, or how an "Old School" game would look now.
The bottom line is the same, regardless of which tact is taken. The market is non-existent, no game will get made. The market cannot agree on what game mechanics actually constitute an "Old School" game, no game will get made. The market has unreasonable expectations concerning development budgets relative to the market size, no game will get made. The bottom line is that no game will get made. "Old School" is not a viable market niche.
**
Just apply all this to the whole dungeon discussion. People can't agree on whether or not instanced dungeons were an improvement over open world dungeons. Sure, they can all agree that the new dungeons suck, but they won't agree on what a developer should actually create to appeal to the "Old School" dungeoneer.
But that's the whole point of the old school MMORPG's there were different filled niche's of a the genre. Right now not many niches are being filled because they largely are the same type of games at the core with combat and lore being the main differences.
As far as market size goes right now themepark questhub games have been forced down our throats. These games are still largely in the 250-500k range outside of a few games. What is the difference between UO's 250k and Rifts 150k in Subs? Essentially the mainsteam market is the niche its always been outside of a few titles even if potential is WoW. It simply has panned out in 10 years and likely never will.
1) There is a market, comprised of a quarter million people, who all have the same preferences for an MMORPG. We'll label that preference "Old School", ignoring all the different, conflicting desires that fall under the umbrella of "Old School". They're not conflicting. Essentially, when WoW became a hit all other type of MMORPG in the genre got left behind and never made the leap into the modern age. Well except games that play like City of Heroes. The heavily instanced rabbit hole action games like Champions, DDO, NWO etc. . 2) This market is invisible and unknowable. We must assume it exists.Again, there on every MMORPG site I've been on. THere are articles and developers talking about where the genre might be wrong. I don't think you can compare these to NES old school players who number in the hundreds of millions while pre-2004 MMORPG players likely number in the 10s of Millions being generous. 3) There are MMORPGs that have already been developed for markets smaller than a quarter million people. Perpetuum, Mortal Online and Darkfall were all developed for markets much smaller than a quarter million people. A Tale in the Desert and Pirates of Whatever were also written for smaller markets, and seem to be doing fine.Honestly, the genre is just not in a place where unexperienced and underfunded developers can make solid games. There's just a big gap in quality.4) Given a budget of $10 million dollars (this is just my minimum buy in to write a decent MMORPG), and a box price of $40, if a quarter million people just bought the box, the production costs of the game would be covered. The game would generate $3.75 million a month in revenue because it would be a subscription game, per the "Old School" style.Because the reality is that your not going to getting that making a game on a 10 million dollar budget. MMORPGs already have low playability and the low budget ones generally suffering.Conclusion: Nobody wants to write a game for this market. Yes, that has been the case but it seems to be changing somewhat. What possible reason would every single developer in existence have for not wanting to write the game that this market wants? Your answer: All the developers want to only write WoW, at the scale of WoW, so they opt to not write the old school style game in spite of the fact that the market is captive, has no other options, and true to their old school roots would want to play the game for a long period of time and pay a subscription for the game. Nobody wants to make a game for a market willing to pay $10 million ($40 box price) at launch, and $3.75 million ($15 subscription) a month. Even the developers who really like old school MMORPGs and the developers who wrote the old school MMORPGs. Addendum to your answer: The market does exist, and the developer want to write a game for it, but the market will not accept anything less than a AAA game, so even if someone writes a $10 million game, the market would refuse to buy it. This pretty much is what I'm saying. My answer: Because the market must be assumed to exist, nobody in their right mind is going to try and write a game for them. They have gone into stealth mode, and show no signs of coming out.My other answer: That market that we have to assume exists isn't actually an assumption. It's not invisible and unknowable. It just isn't composed of a quarter million people who all agree on what kind of game they want to play. It's a very small market and it isn't worth anyone's time to write a game for that market.I am not entirely sure what your metrics are for looking up people talking about old school MMORPGS? Are you looking at them games themselves? Terms like sandbox, EQ like or just the term old school? Why do they have to be uniformed? You do realize that after 2004 basically all other types of MMORPG have not been made. There wasn't failure after failure of other types of games. They basically just didn't get made anymore. Like if Turnbased single player RPGs became the only ones made should the rest wanting a RPG have to be uniformed in the wants?
The views of "Old School" are conflicting because views of MMORPGs are conflicting. Instance raid based or open world boss based end game? What form of alternatiave advancement? There are as many "Old School" game designs as there are "New School" game designs. For all the talk of an "Old School" market, nobody has defined what that market wants, except in very general terms. Build something reminiscent of UO, and the people who prefer EQ or DAoC will not be happy. Build something reminiscent of EQ and the UO and DAoC people will not be happy. And so on. The Devil, as they say, is in the details, and that's where the conflict exists. Writing a game for the "Old School" market can't even get past the first step of designing the game.Of that smattering of people on every forum you've been on, how many actually agree about what they are talking about? Sure, the new games suck. That's easy. But how many of them actually discuss what an "Old School" game would look like now, rather than argue with people who like newer games? Not many. I've tried, on these forums and others. The "Old School" gamers would much rather argue with people about how newer games suck than actually discuss how great "Old School" games were, or how an "Old School" game would look now.The bottom line is the same, regardless of which tact is taken. The market is non-existent, no game will get made. The market cannot agree on what game mechanics actually constitute an "Old School" game, no game will get made. The market has unreasonable expectations concerning development budgets relative to the market size, no game will get made. The bottom line is that no game will get made. "Old School" is not a viable market niche.**Just apply all this to the whole dungeon discussion. People can't agree on whether or not instanced dungeons were an improvement over open world dungeons. Sure, they can all agree that the new dungeons suck, but they won't agree on what a developer should actually create to appeal to the "Old School" dungeoneer.
But that's the whole point of the old school MMORPG's there were different filled niche's of a the genre. Right now not many niches are being filled because they largely are the same type of games at the core with combat and lore being the main differences.
As far as market size goes right now themepark questhub games have been forced down our throats. These games are still largely in the 250-500k range outside of a few games. What is the difference between UO's 250k and Rifts 150k in Subs? Essentially the mainsteam market is the niche its always been outside of a few titles even if potential is WoW. It simply has panned out in 10 years and likely never will.
I would say the difference is that they are holding that 250 - 500k in a time when there are 100x the number of games as there were when UO and EQ were top dogs.
And there are still different niches being filled, more than ever before IMO, however they are not the AAA that people want.
That's the paradox. Want the AAA then you MUST accept that the game will be expensive and so needs to cater to a wider majority. They shoot for millions and get the 250-500k. If they shoot for the 250-500k they will get less and the budget will be scaled accordingly.
Until something changes you can't have it both ways. You can't have a AAA game without the devs catering to a large number of people.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Comments
I didn't say complex dungeon is bad design. I said it is not popular .. BIG difference.
Plus, of course i don't compromise on mere entertainment. Why should I? If devs don't want to cater to me, it is their freedom but don't expect me to change my preferences.
If EQN have huge dungeons and no save point, good ... one less game to spend time on. It is not like i don't already have a backlog to play. But i respect their right to cater to whoever.
ouch - agree
EQ2 fan sites
The views of "Old School" are conflicting because views of MMORPGs are conflicting. Instance raid based or open world boss based end game? What form of alternatiave advancement? There are as many "Old School" game designs as there are "New School" game designs. For all the talk of an "Old School" market, nobody has defined what that market wants, except in very general terms. Build something reminiscent of UO, and the people who prefer EQ or DAoC will not be happy. Build something reminiscent of EQ and the UO and DAoC people will not be happy. And so on. The Devil, as they say, is in the details, and that's where the conflict exists. Writing a game for the "Old School" market can't even get past the first step of designing the game.
Of that smattering of people on every forum you've been on, how many actually agree about what they are talking about? Sure, the new games suck. That's easy. But how many of them actually discuss what an "Old School" game would look like now, rather than argue with people who like newer games? Not many. I've tried, on these forums and others. The "Old School" gamers would much rather argue with people about how newer games suck than actually discuss how great "Old School" games were, or how an "Old School" game would look now.
The bottom line is the same, regardless of which tact is taken. The market is non-existent, no game will get made. The market cannot agree on what game mechanics actually constitute an "Old School" game, no game will get made. The market has unreasonable expectations concerning development budgets relative to the market size, no game will get made. The bottom line is that no game will get made. "Old School" is not a viable market niche.
**
Just apply all this to the whole dungeon discussion. People can't agree on whether or not instanced dungeons were an improvement over open world dungeons. Sure, they can all agree that the new dungeons suck, but they won't agree on what a developer should actually create to appeal to the "Old School" dungeoneer.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Of course not. I don't even agree that devs need to appeal to "old school" players because i am not one, and the market seems to be small.
Rewards and punishments are the only thing different now than from an old school game.
It not like everyone used to agree, or people agree new mmorpgs are better. Im sure we can all agree there are far more bribes now.
"If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"
Whatever works to bring in the whales.
This issue really needs more light shined on it. You should never be able to sum up dungeon design with a lower case "b". It's so pathetic and lazy. Dungeons should be the most expansive, hardest, deepest, interesting part of the game not copy/paste holes in the ground or hallways people run through.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/It is already so .. just that they are not big.
hard .. deep .. interesting .... do not equate big (as in taking hours to complete).
Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)
Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)
But that's the whole point of the old school MMORPG's there were different filled niche's of a the genre. Right now not many niches are being filled because they largely are the same type of games at the core with combat and lore being the main differences.
As far as market size goes right now themepark questhub games have been forced down our throats. These games are still largely in the 250-500k range outside of a few games. What is the difference between UO's 250k and Rifts 150k in Subs? Essentially the mainsteam market is the niche its always been outside of a few titles even if potential is WoW. It simply has panned out in 10 years and likely never will.
I would say the difference is that they are holding that 250 - 500k in a time when there are 100x the number of games as there were when UO and EQ were top dogs.
And there are still different niches being filled, more than ever before IMO, however they are not the AAA that people want.
That's the paradox. Want the AAA then you MUST accept that the game will be expensive and so needs to cater to a wider majority. They shoot for millions and get the 250-500k. If they shoot for the 250-500k they will get less and the budget will be scaled accordingly.
Until something changes you can't have it both ways. You can't have a AAA game without the devs catering to a large number of people.