Actually pretty much all of them are successful. Almost all have lasted for years with no signs of closing have stable populations similar to pre wow and are making profit and releasing expansions.
The model used to generate money has never been an indicator of success.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
There are ways to have your cake and eat it too. Soloers and team based players can have a place in the same game. Problem is developers are lazy. I will give you one small example. Solo quests and solo Dungeons. IMO a must have in every MMO. Now scale the content and the reward for doing it teamed. Do so on a level that solo players will consider joining people putting the work together to make a team and you have a win win.
Doing this will only make a stronger end game community as the more friends people make on the way, the better it is for the game and the community. Why dont most MMOs do this? Costs more and the common focus is to make MMOs that are a bit of everything and doing no one thing really well. The few developers that post on these forums like DMKano show me how little they get what made MMOs good.
Most developers defend how the majority plays and says games should be designed for this. I think a middle ground can be found that will not only make better games but also better communities. That will also slow down the MMO hopping. Why? Because people made friends and didnt solo 50 levels and are chucked into an end game where they are now forced to play a different game where they need to team.
I would say my biggest problem is I don't know how to trust a clan. I'd join a group/clan in a game if I trusted them, but the last time I joined a group they banned me from the private server without warning and all unfriended me on Steam, so I never found out why they stopped liking me and all the work I'd done on the server went to nothing.
Read the thread, in the end they talk about Crowfall, and how many interesting idea there are...
In a few years, if there are even people caring about Crowfall let me know.
Face it, Wow and Wow clone is what most people wanted. That's why most of the budget went into those games.
Developers are making games for you guys, people just look away, because blaming on the "few" AAA wow clone is easy for them.
But, almost none of the WOW clones were ever successful, long-term. At least, not in paid sub format. Only WOW achieved this.
Exactly, people didnt want WoW clones, they wanted WoW but refused to go back to it for whatever reason. Games that are different enough dont succeed because they are too different from WoW. WoW clones fail because they are WoW clones.
There are ways to have your cake and eat it too. Soloers and team based players can have a place in the same game. Problem is developers are lazy. I will give you one small example. Solo quests and solo Dungeons. IMO a must have in every MMO. Now scale the content and the reward for doing it team. Do so on a level that solo players will consider joining people putting the work together to make a team and you have a win win.
DMKano show me how little they get what made MMOs good.
Most developers defend how the majority plays and says games should be designed for this. I think a middle ground can be found that will not only make better games but also better communities. That will also slow down the MMO hopping. Why? Because people made friends and didnt solo 50 levels and are chucked into an end game where they are now forced to play a different game where they need to team.
I have always had a problem with the 'lazy' argument. Game developers, famously, have some of the longest hours and bad working conditions in the industry, with little, to no job security and less pay than those who work in a similar field outside of gaming. They're hardly sitting around flicking pencils at the ceiling.
There are ways to have your cake and eat it too. Soloers and team based players can have a place in the same game. Problem is developers are lazy. I will give you one small example. Solo quests and solo Dungeons. IMO a must have in every MMO. Now scale the content and the reward for doing it team. Do so on a level that solo players will consider joining people putting the work together to make a team and you have a win win.
Doing this will only make a stronger end game community as the more friends people make on the way, the better it is for the game and the community. Why dont most MMOs do this? Costs more and the common focus is to make MMOs that are a bit of everything and doing no one thing really well. The few developers that post on these forums like DMKano show me how little they get what made MMOs good.
Most developers defend how the majority plays and says games should be designed for this. I think a middle ground can be found that will not only make better games but also better communities. That will also slow down the MMO hopping. Why? Because people made friends and didnt solo 50 levels and are chucked into an end game where they are now forced to play a different game where they need to team.
I have always had a problem with the 'lazy' argument. Game developers, famously, have some of the longest hours and bad working conditions in the industry, with little, to no job security and less pay than those who work in a similar field outside of gaming. They're hardly sitting around flicking pencils at the ceiling.
Ok, drop lazy and say instead cutting corners. Ooo wait that what lazy people do. FYI, most people have bad working conditions and stressful jobs. Im to feel bad for them for the line of work they picked?
At this point, this entire thread has become irrational. There is someone in here saying that a dictionary is irrelevant, seriously Whisky Tango Foxtrot?
How people use words dictate what dictionary definitions are, not the other way around.
Not at all, in this age of improved communication tools we are far more able to resist and correct those who muddle the meaning of words and language.
Ignorance can easily be pointed out , and language migrations slowed down if not stopped entirely.
Already major corporations have established a standard "Business English" which not only is consistently used in world-wide communication, but in the firm I work for actually won't let you be promoted to VP unless one has a solid command of it.
It is a great example of standards driving people, and not the other way around.
I am not talking about your elite businessman super secret language. People used words with established meanings before dictionaries came around, and claiming words get their meanings from dictionaries is ignorance at maximum level.
Well, perhaps it would be ignorance on my part if I had actually said dictionaries dictate a word's meaning, but I didn't.
Clearly they capture a word's usage/spelling in language and even have a solution for misuse of a meaning by flagging them with a small "ir." (irregular)
Example regardless vs irregardless and for real fun look up the word "gay" and it's many misuses.
Or how the word fag is used in British english (cigarette) vs US.
Best if we keep words to their proper meanings and not let them be bastardized by the masses.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
At this point, this entire thread has become irrational. There is someone in here saying that a dictionary is irrelevant, seriously Whisky Tango Foxtrot?
How people use words dictate what dictionary definitions are, not the other way around.
Not at all, in this age of improved communication tools we are far more able to resist and correct those who muddle the meaning of words and language.
Ignorance can easily be pointed out , and language migrations slowed down if not stopped entirely.
Already major corporations have established a standard "Business English" which not only is consistently used in world-wide communication, but in the firm I work for actually won't let you be promoted to VP unless one has a solid command of it.
It is a great example of standards driving people, and not the other way around.
I am not talking about your elite businessman super secret language. People used words with established meanings before dictionaries came around, and claiming words get their meanings from dictionaries is ignorance at maximum level.
Well, perhaps it would be ignorance on my part if I had actually said dictionaries dictate a word's meaning, but I didn't.
Clearly they capture a word's usage/spelling in language and even have a solution for misuse of a meaning by flagging them with a small "ir." (irregular)
Example regardless vs irregardless and for real fun look up the word "gay" and it's many misuses.
Or how the word fag is used in British english (cigarette) vs US.
Best if we keep words to their proper meanings and not let them be bastardized by the masses.
Same roots. Faggot means bundle of sticks ready for burning. It's a term for cigarettes here in UK for well obvious reasons. In US homosexuals are called faggots because in the old days they used to tie them together and burn them.
Gaming Rocks next gen. community for last gen. gamers launching soon.
Same roots. Faggot means bundle of sticks ready for burning. It's a term for cigarettes here in UK for well obvious reasons. In US homosexuals are called faggots because in the old days they used to tie them together and burn them.
And then there is fanny... which makes one wonder about some people's anatomical confusion
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
For me, there was a steady change in how MMORPG's played.
1) playing Morrowind, I always thought it would be cool to play with friends 2) when DAOC came out, I was amazed that I could play with friends, the "golden" years 3) DAOC had specialized characters, so it took a team to really shine 4) then ToA came out, and it became a chore, a grind. "Be here on time. Be specced right. Do what we say to get this over with as soon as possible." 5) I never played WoW, but in CoH and Vanguard it was the same. Have fun until end-game, and then it's a chore, a grind.
And then a major shift happened. Companies wanted to expand the market for MMORPG's, so they started making games that appealed to the Mortal Kombat punks. They don't want to invest months in a character. They don't want to be forced to team up to shine. So it became:
6) MMO characters are less specialized, many characters can solo just fine 7) the kids want instant gratification, they don't want to carefully build a character over months or years 8) twitch based action MMO's appeal to the Motral Kombat punks, leading to a bad community, which wasn't really needed anymore anyway. 9) the end-game grind became a monetization scheme. The grind costs $ now.
I'm seeing a lot of familiar tropes here. A lot of commentary about what doesn't work in current MMORPGs and amorphous speculation about what would work that typically boil down to what someone once had fun with and thinks everyone else should also enjoy.
The common theme seems to be that current MMOs lack something because people don't stick around, which is just trying to shoehorn a cause into the effect. People don't stick around like the once did for one very simple reason: there is an ever growing number of choices instead of just 3 or 4 like in the "good ole days."
It's quite normal and perfectly OK to want to try new version of the type of game we enjoy with their own minor or major twists. This is why we don't stick around. It's not because of any inherent flaw in the previous game we're leaving behind or its lack of an infinitely enjoyable gimmick - that mythical game play feature that just never gets old doesn't exist and never will.
It sort of reminds me of conversation I had recently with a couple of very intelligent and learned individuals both of whom have multiple degrees in somewhat disparate disciplines. We were speculating about "genius" and we were all of the opinion that there is a large dose of OCD in having the interest to focus on one small subject to the exclusion of all else, which is what it takes to really be at the top of that subject... or to play one game to the exclusion of all others.
So is that what we really want? One perfect virtual world to rule them all that we all play and never leave? Not me, thanks.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Long before MMORPGs became a homogenized cultural phenomenon thanks
to World of Warcraft, pioneering virtual world players felt they were
embarking on a journey in a genre that had no boundaries or limits. It
was only natural to believe that this unique participatory virtual
existence — only possible in fantasy MMORPGs — was the start of
something special. Even though the first MMORPGs were very basic, we had
a sense of anticipation that more exciting, immersive, living and
breathing virtual worlds were ahead on the horizon.
It never happened. Instead, it got worse.
If you had told me in 1999 that in 17 years the MMORPG genre had
devolved into an anti-social, massively multiplayer solo video game
experience, I would have laughed at you.
We were dead wrong.
What is by far more stunning to me is that if you had told me 17 years ago that MMOs change very little and all contain the same 15+ year old formula of fantasy based class system running around chasing quest lines nearly all of which involves killing something'
I would say 'that just validates my already disappointed view on humanity'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What did you grind for in CoH? There was really nothing there at the end game, well not till years later anyway (those special double attribute loot thingies, can't remember what they were). But even then coin (prestige, infamy) was so easy to get, you could buy a full set with just a couple days work.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
What did you grind for in CoH? There was really nothing there at the end game, well not till years later anyway (those special double attribute loot thingies, can't remember what they were). But even then coin (prestige, infamy) was so easy to get, you could buy a full set with just a couple days work.
I wonder if that wasn't the thing that killed CoH in the end, where everyone reached max level with their favorite character and had no real reason to keep playing that character. There was a ton to do in the game overall (which meant what you usually were grinding for was XP, since leveling took up most of your time) but with the one character I got to max level it just felt like there was no reason to keep playing them.
And while a lot of CoH's systems were really well designed, those set Enhancements (I also forget the name) didn't quite cut it. Maybe the lack of soulbinding was a big part of that (as you mentioned, you could just buy them off the black market.) I also don't remember having very good control over which ones I could get (whereas in WOW I know there are certain bosses I need to kill to get the next upgrade.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The only posts that get above 5 pages are doom and gloom posts. C'mon MMORPG community, you can do better than this, you are not a bunch of negative "what could have been" gamers are you?
Now Playing: Bless / Summoners War Looking forward to: Crowfall / Lost Ark / Black Desert Mobile
Best if we keep words to their proper meanings and not let them be bastardized by the masses.
But I like that doughnut evolved into donut. I like that gelatin was effectively superseded by Jello. I like that SCUBA and LASER left acronym-land to become real (gosh Virginia) words.
Static language feels like Death. Academia wins, everyone else loses.
The only posts that get above 5 pages are doom and gloom posts. C'mon MMORPG community, you can do better than this, you are not a bunch of negative "what could have been" gamers are you?
Er, yes, that is totally what type of gamer I am and only play MMORPGS first released 13 years ago.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Humans by nature are no more social than animals. Our brain affects our perception and beliefs as we cast judgement and opinions.
Pack of wolves, herd of elephants, colony of ants, flock of birds, school of fish, I would say animals are pretty damn social. Some of which have no self interest, but self aware and would willingly kill themselves in defense of their own.
We are at the top of the food chain because we are smarter than other earth animals. There is certainly animals stronger than us.
"We" are at the top of the food chain because it's a "we". You would have been dead a long time ago without the help of countless individuals. Even today, from the Dr. who gave you immunizations to the farmers who feed you. Are you some how suggesting that you would have survived alone in a jungle against a lion because you're smarter, or that a single cell organism wouldn't take you down because you knew how to cover your twigs and berries with leaves?
The reason we are smarter is because we have had forums that allowed people to gather and pass down collective knowledge. Thank your cave drawers and your teachers.
You could take down any animal alive with a gun if you are proficient at it, don't need other people for that. Disease has the ability to take you down whether you hang out around no one or a billion people. I am suggesting the ability to survive against any animal due to your wits.
It's the modern culture that forgot how to be individually strong and self sufficient. We depend on our governments for many things. If the food industry ever goes down. Millions of people would starve because they don't know how to farm or hunt themselves.
What I'm saying is this; born alone with no human interaction you wouldn't even know what a gun was. Even today, without several industries working together you wouldn't have that gun. Without the help of of people you wouldn't have "wits", you would be a blathering idiot who couldn't even figure out how to sniff his own farts.
I'm not saying disease can't take you down while "around" people. I said people spent life times of learning to offer you an immunization to prevent it. I'm not sure if you're trolling me or if you honestly believe you were raised alone, and some how naturally survived because you were born smart. Maybe you just play too many mainstream MMORPGs and believe that all other humans, past and present, are simply here to help populate your single player experience.
Ok let's say we didn't know what a gun was. One would still fashion some means of killing any animal, just as your ancestors did in the past. You are born with your brain, no one is saying there would be no human interaction. But you are born with enough brains to determine when something can be improved on your own.
People did spend lifetimes learning many things to write in books and pass stories on. However, you would find that once you become a big boy, and move out of mommy and daddy's house. No one can really look after you or advance your wisdom in life but you. Second hand knowledge of others is great, but it will never compare to 1st hand experience. Just look at how etiquette and morals break down when groups face annihilation, people steal from and kill each other.
Maybe? Maybe I am Santa Clause? It doesn't matter what I play or you play for that matter. I love grouping in mainstream mmos and not so popular mmos. I was just stating truths about socialism.
I think that the main difference is scope. Where at first MMORPGs were more like the indie games industry, trying out new things, with players following who like to try new game types. There was no expectation for millions of subs yet, also because the production budgets were a lot lower. This meant developers got the chance to try out completely new things and were not pushed towards tried formats.
But then when WoW showed that a MMO could be big business, other companies stepped in, trying to copy WoW's succes. This pushed for bigger budgets, but less innovation. And avoiding completely new concepts to avoid too much risk.
Late AAA MMO's didn't cater to what players wanted. They looked at past successful MMO's to see what players used to like. It shows now how wrong they can be and that players don't always want the same in a new MMO, otherwise they could just as well go back to a MMO they are familiar with (WoW).
Indie games industry atm shows that there is always a market for new game concepts. It is just the MMO industry that doesn't seem to be interested. They keep looking to the past instead.
I always feel there's this eerie Stockholm Syndrone feel to people who nostalgia-post about early MMORPGs. The article literally uses "There was a feeling that anything and everything was possible" to describe a game where the activity set I imagine was objectively narrower than WOW's. I just get the sense of a player held captive by a game that provides little more than endless mob-grinding, where any trickle of non-grind blossomed into this strange abuse-spawned love.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Long read, but yeah for a mmorpg player brought up by eq, pretty much sums it all up. We thought this was only the beginning of a great way to play games, and the future would hold amazing worlds full of wonders, as the developers got better and the technical possibilities expanded. It did not. Eq carried the torch for some years, and then it all deflated into storydriven themepark, instead of growing into complex amazing game worlds.
Today we have in my opinion only one game that although only as charter statements, give hints of trying to advance the virtual world mmorpg as a concept, and that is EqNext - Yes I know it will probably not happen, and even if it does very likely nothing like the original charters described. Yeah sorry, as much as I like Pantheon, it is not showing any signs of trying to move the concepts forward, it is hopefully going to take up from where eq started loosing touch, and don'tget me wrong that is the best news in years, but I don't expect to see much of that future dreaming we had in early 2000. As for the rest pvp focused mmorpgs comming up, the segment of players they need to please, leaves not much doubt for me that those will not be pushing virtual worlds ideas forward. Maybe some survival/mmorpg blend will emerge and shake things up?
Comments
Read the thread, in the end they talk about Crowfall, and how many interesting idea there are...
In a few years, if there are even people caring about Crowfall let me know.
Face it, Wow and Wow clone is what most people wanted. That's why most of the budget went into those games.
Developers are making games for you guys, people just look away, because blaming on the "few" AAA wow clone is easy for them.
The model used to generate money has never been an indicator of success.
Doing this will only make a stronger end game community as the more friends people make on the way, the better it is for the game and the community. Why dont most MMOs do this? Costs more and the common focus is to make MMOs that are a bit of everything and doing no one thing really well. The few developers that post on these forums like DMKano show me how little they get what made MMOs good.
Most developers defend how the majority plays and says games should be designed for this. I think a middle ground can be found that will not only make better games but also better communities. That will also slow down the MMO hopping. Why? Because people made friends and didnt solo 50 levels and are chucked into an end game where they are now forced to play a different game where they need to team.
People just cant make up their minds.
Clearly they capture a word's usage/spelling in language and even have a solution for misuse of a meaning by flagging them with a small "ir." (irregular)
Example regardless vs irregardless and for real fun look up the word "gay" and it's many misuses.
Or how the word fag is used in British english (cigarette) vs US.
Best if we keep words to their proper meanings and not let them be bastardized by the masses.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
In US homosexuals are called faggots because in the old days they used to tie them together and burn them.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
1) playing Morrowind, I always thought it would be cool to play with friends
2) when DAOC came out, I was amazed that I could play with friends, the "golden" years
3) DAOC had specialized characters, so it took a team to really shine
4) then ToA came out, and it became a chore, a grind. "Be here on time. Be specced right. Do what we say to get this over with as soon as possible."
5) I never played WoW, but in CoH and Vanguard it was the same. Have fun until end-game, and then it's a chore, a grind.
And then a major shift happened. Companies wanted to expand the market for MMORPG's, so they started making games that appealed to the Mortal Kombat punks. They don't want to invest months in a character. They don't want to be forced to team up to shine. So it became:
6) MMO characters are less specialized, many characters can solo just fine
7) the kids want instant gratification, they don't want to carefully build a character over months or years
8) twitch based action MMO's appeal to the Motral Kombat punks, leading to a bad community, which wasn't really needed anymore anyway.
9) the end-game grind became a monetization scheme. The grind costs $ now.
MMORPG's have lost their appeal to me, now.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
The common theme seems to be that current MMOs lack something because people don't stick around, which is just trying to shoehorn a cause into the effect. People don't stick around like the once did for one very simple reason: there is an ever growing number of choices instead of just 3 or 4 like in the "good ole days."
It's quite normal and perfectly OK to want to try new version of the type of game we enjoy with their own minor or major twists. This is why we don't stick around. It's not because of any inherent flaw in the previous game we're leaving behind or its lack of an infinitely enjoyable gimmick - that mythical game play feature that just never gets old doesn't exist and never will.
It sort of reminds me of conversation I had recently with a couple of very intelligent and learned individuals both of whom have multiple degrees in somewhat disparate disciplines. We were speculating about "genius" and we were all of the opinion that there is a large dose of OCD in having the interest to focus on one small subject to the exclusion of all else, which is what it takes to really be at the top of that subject... or to play one game to the exclusion of all others.
So is that what we really want? One perfect virtual world to rule them all that we all play and never leave? Not me, thanks.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I would say 'that just validates my already disappointed view on humanity'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
And while a lot of CoH's systems were really well designed, those set Enhancements (I also forget the name) didn't quite cut it. Maybe the lack of soulbinding was a big part of that (as you mentioned, you could just buy them off the black market.) I also don't remember having very good control over which ones I could get (whereas in WOW I know there are certain bosses I need to kill to get the next upgrade.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Looking forward to: Crowfall / Lost Ark / Black Desert Mobile
Static language feels like Death. Academia wins, everyone else loses.
They really could have been so much more...
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
People did spend lifetimes learning many things to write in books and pass stories on. However, you would find that once you become a big boy, and move out of mommy and daddy's house. No one can really look after you or advance your wisdom in life but you. Second hand knowledge of others is great, but it will never compare to 1st hand experience. Just look at how etiquette and morals break down when groups face annihilation, people steal from and kill each other.
Maybe? Maybe I am Santa Clause? It doesn't matter what I play or you play for that matter. I love grouping in mainstream mmos and not so popular mmos. I was just stating truths about socialism.
But then when WoW showed that a MMO could be big business, other companies stepped in, trying to copy WoW's succes. This pushed for bigger budgets, but less innovation. And avoiding completely new concepts to avoid too much risk.
Late AAA MMO's didn't cater to what players wanted. They looked at past successful MMO's to see what players used to like. It shows now how wrong they can be and that players don't always want the same in a new MMO, otherwise they could just as well go back to a MMO they are familiar with (WoW).
Indie games industry atm shows that there is always a market for new game concepts. It is just the MMO industry that doesn't seem to be interested. They keep looking to the past instead.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
We thought this was only the beginning of a great way to play games, and the future would hold amazing worlds full of wonders, as the developers got better and the technical possibilities expanded.
It did not. Eq carried the torch for some years, and then it all deflated into storydriven themepark, instead of growing into complex amazing game worlds.
Today we have in my opinion only one game that although only as charter statements, give hints of trying to advance the virtual world mmorpg as a concept, and that is EqNext - Yes I know it will probably not happen, and even if it does very likely nothing like the original charters described.
Yeah sorry, as much as I like Pantheon, it is not showing any signs of trying to move the concepts forward, it is hopefully going to take up from where eq started loosing touch, and don'tget me wrong that is the best news in years, but I don't expect to see much of that future dreaming we had in early 2000.
As for the rest pvp focused mmorpgs comming up, the segment of players they need to please, leaves not much doubt for me that those will not be pushing virtual worlds ideas forward. Maybe some survival/mmorpg blend will emerge and shake things up?
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0