I am ok with a similar game but done properly,Blizzard doesn't do games properly.
BY that i mean ,questing is ok,lose the yellow markers and ALL hand holding and NO xp for quests.Weapons should be skill based and since the game uses enhancing then utilize elemental properties and all mobs should also have similar affinities.
The world should feel like a world,meaning perhaps separate currencies for different regions,an over world leader for each region,a KING or whatever,the world is just not a place to litter npc's and mobs to get quest xp.
Characters should be multi classed but still focus on a MAIN/ROLE.I could go on and on but it is not my job to make the games for Blizzard,they can stick to making superficial EASY games with Esport gimmicks to make profits and let the more immersive developers make the better mmorpgs. Problem is that the Blizzard method is SIMPLE,so everyone keeps copying it,especially with costs being so high,nobody wants to put in the work to make a good well done mmorpg.
Problem is it wouldn't appeal to the mainstream audience that Blizzard aims for
Tell me if i got this wrong but my impression is that you never got to Wow endgame but your qualified to compare games and name them clones?
I got to SWTOR endgame so, essentially I got there. Just not in WoW. Unless you really want to dispute that SWTOR isn't WoW with voice acting and lightsabers.
Also on your ridiculous car comparisons themeparks are more like this:
WoW:
SWTOR:
ESO:
While Sandboxes are more like this:
EVE:
Entropia:
Wurm:
Your genre is defined by having the same core content. Take away the questing, the endgame, and the things that make it a WoW clone and it ceases to be a themepark as well. The whole reason it's called a "themepark" is it's an on rails experience not that unlike any other themepark but with a different theme.
The reason it's called a sandbox is because of freedom. And that freedom comes in many forms with many types of gameplay that are completely different.
Your genre is defined by being a clone of the same general model over, and over, and over. At this point sandbox is kind of just a catch all phrase for any MMO that doesn't fall under that model.
Anyway I think we've reached the end of productive debate so I will just give my answer to the original question.
The Age of Themeparks is dead. They will always be a presence in MMOs but they will never be the king of a dominant genre again. We're currently in the dark ages of MMOs in which Themeparks are still the king of a dying genre. When we recover and see a renaissance it will be because fresh ideas gain dominance in this industry and attract people back to it.
There is no future for MMOs in which they are both successful and the people guiding the industry think that ESO, GW2, and FF14 are truly innovative titles.
The problem with threads like these is that we cannot even agree on defining the foundation on which the definition of a "WoW Clone" would rest upon. Meaning, we can't even agree on what a sand box vs what a theme park is. How the hell can we define a WoW clone? Game X is a Theme Park, therefore it's a WoW clone.........It's not a theme park, so it's not a WoW clone.
But then there is the argument that says, not all theme parks are WoW clones....... There are no definitions, Only a loose general consensus that doesn't even agree. This means, that while the question posed by this thread is a good one, it's also pointless.
The problem with threads like these is that we cannot even agree on defining the foundation on which the definition of a "WoW Clone" would rest upon. Meaning, we can't even agree on what a sand box vs what a theme park is. How the hell can we define a WoW clone? Game X is a Theme Park, therefore it's a WoW clone.........It's not a theme park, so it's not a WoW clone.
But then there is the argument that says, not all theme parks are WoW clones....... There are no definitions, Only a loose general consensus that doesn't even agree. This means, that while the question posed by this thread is a good one, it's also pointless.
Go figure.
A much better question would be is MMO "X" more entertaining (engaging, challenging... whatever makes things better for you) than WOW.
There's a lot of crap that is just very different for no particularly good reason and definitely not an improvement on WOW just like there are some things very similar to how WOW does it that actually improve on it.
These threads typically degenerate into a themepark vs. sandbox thread complete with very fuzzy ideas of what either of those terms means.
"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
The problem with threads like these is that we cannot even agree on defining the foundation on which the definition of a "WoW Clone" would rest upon. Meaning, we can't even agree on what a sand box vs what a theme park is. How the hell can we define a WoW clone? Game X is a Theme Park, therefore it's a WoW clone.........It's not a theme park, so it's not a WoW clone.
But then there is the argument that says, not all theme parks are WoW clones....... There are no definitions, Only a loose general consensus that doesn't even agree. This means, that while the question posed by this thread is a good one, it's also pointless.
Go figure.
I think the definition of "clone" that truly matters is "What is different enough that people playing these new titles don't feel like they are just playing the same old titles they tried over a decade ago?"
If the decline of this genre is any indication, most consumers have voted with their dollar that the meaningful innovation coming out of the MMO industry constitutes little to nothing in their eyes.
If the decline of this genre is any indication, most consumers have voted with their dollar that the meaningful innovation coming out of the MMO industry constitutes little to nothing in their eyes.
Which consumers? The ones who played MMOs before they were a mainstream gaming choice or the new accidental tourists?
The vast majority of mainstream players always preferred FPS and MOBAs (once they became a thing) to MMOs and, if anything, the number of people playing full-fledged MMORPGs (not just survival or other minimally multiplayer "shared world" games) is actually higher now than it has ever been.
The problem with doom and gloom MMOs are not popular statements is that they compare MMORPG populations to total gaming population and, guess what? We're still niche just like we always were.
Development money is not going other places because our relative numbers are declining it's just that there are more megabucks to be made where the mainstream casuals are.
"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
I thought people vote with their dollar they don't actually want to play mmorpg. Theme park games are just a mash up of SRPG, MOBA, dungeon crawler, etc, etc. The problem with themepark mmorpg is people really interested in certain game type would just play that specific game type.
Same with sandbox game. People keep saying because minecraft or warz is successful, it'll work in sandbox mmorpg. The reality is most people will just play builder or king of hill games.
If the decline of this genre is any indication, most consumers have voted with their dollar that the meaningful innovation coming out of the MMO industry constitutes little to nothing in their eyes.
Which consumers? The ones who played MMOs before they were a mainstream gaming choice or the new accidental tourists?
The vast majority of mainstream players always preferred FPS and MOBAs (once they became a thing) to MMOs and, if anything, the number of people playing full-fledged MMORPGs (not just survival or other minimally multiplayer "shared world" games) is actually higher now than it has ever been.
The problem with doom and gloom MMOs are not popular statements is that they compare MMORPG populations to total gaming population and, guess what? We're still niche just like we always were.
Development money is not going other places because our relative numbers are declining it's just that there are more megabucks to be made where the mainstream casuals are.
Absolutely. The genre was a small niche when it began, it will likely return to a small niche once WoW actually does die (whenever that actually happens).
Anyone who think themeparks are on the rise has to be straight delusional. None of them are growing in size, they are pretty much universally shrinking. On the horizon we have an unnamed amazon MMO that may or may not be a themepark. We have a Magic the Gathering MMO with literally no information on it other than that is has the same developer as City of Heros. Also may or may not be a themepark. And based on the recent track record of AAA MMOs I give them each a 25% chance of ever releasing.
Maybe Pantheon will be a themepark? Haven't done enough research into it to say either way.
So that leaves us with... 0-1 confirmed themeparks on the horizon. (Unless you count the re-release of Dragon's Prophet that only took like 2 years to fail the first time around.) If you're looking for confirmed sandboxes on the horizon just take a look at the hype list. Crowfall, Chronicles of Elyria, Star Citizen, Ashes of Creation, Life is Feudal, etc. etc. Prettymuch any upcoming MMO we know anything about.
Yeah... Themeparks are really coming into their own right now... Totally a genre on the rise.
As far as MMOs being a niche genre. MMOs weren't so much a niche genre before 2004 as much as they were a promising new genre on the rise. 2004 saw the rise of a popular new MMO that exploded them to the forefront of the gaming world and then a complete lack of any meaningful innovation over the last 13 years killed that promise.
There is absolutely no reason massively multiplayer games need be a niche genre. The hundreds of millions of dollars that innovative MMO ideas have been able to raise for unreleased games shows it's actually a genre that has massive interest if you aren't making a clone of existing games. They've just had all the potential strangled out of them by lazy developers and a rapidly dwindling fanbase who has absolutely no expectations for them anymore.
Anyone who think themeparks are on the rise has to be straight delusional. None of them are growing in size, they are pretty much universally shrinking.
And where is your example of sandbox mmorpg growing in size?
Anyone who think themeparks are on the rise has to be straight delusional. None of them are growing in size, they are pretty much universally shrinking.
And where is your example of sandbox mmorpg growing in size?
I don't have one but I can point to several multi-million dollar sandbox projects currently in production (Star Citizen, Crowfall and Ashes of Creation seem to be the ones with the highest amount of funding.) So it can easily be argued the sandbox genre is growing atm where the themepark genre has dwindling titles and no major titles coming to replace them.
What would you say a genre is doing when all existing titles are shrinking and the rate at which new titles are releasing is slowing to a near stop? Does that sound like a growing genre to you?
Sandbox MMOs make up 10% of existing MMOs at most while they make up about 95% of the ones in production. Does that sound like a genre on the decline to you?
Like I said. We are on the edge of an MMO renaissance. One that will be built on top of the corpse of themeparks. And it's about damn time!
Anyone who think themeparks are on the rise has to be straight delusional. None of them are growing in size, they are pretty much universally shrinking.
And where is your example of sandbox mmorpg growing in size?
I don't have one but I can point to several multi-million dollar sandbox projects currently in production (Star Citizen, Crowfall and Ashes of Creation seem to be the ones with the highest amount of funding.) So it can easily be argued the sandbox genre is growing atm where the themepark genre has dwindling titles and no major titles coming to replace them.
What would you say a genre is doing when all existing titles are shrinking and the rate at which new titles are releasing is slowing to a near stop? Does that sound like a growing genre to you?
Sandbox MMOs make up 10% of existing MMOs at most while they make up about 95% of the ones in production. Does that sound like a genre on the decline to you?
Like I said. We are on the edge of an MMO renaissance. One that will be built on top of the corpse of themeparks. And it's about damn time!
I wouldn't say that titles in crowdfunded development because AAA publishers don't think they're monetarily viable is a good poster boy for "this is the way the genre is headed," at least not until you can actually show a release product that has been universally (or even mostly) acclaimed by the industry (media and gamers).
Somehow people can deny this but I would think that when a game has raised almost 175 million dollars for their unreleased product and AAA titles have almost completely abandoned MMOs that it would seem to be a pretty good indication of what people want, and what people just aren't having anymore.
Whether SC never releases or is the next WoW gamers have spoken loudly and clearly about what they want from their next MMO. Anything but another themepark. People don't pay 175 million dollars for something they don't want. Not including the nearly 20 million Crowfall has raised or any of these other titles.
Somehow people can deny this but I would think that when a game has raised almost 175 million dollars for their unreleased product and AAA titles have almost completely abandoned MMOs that it would seem to be a pretty good indication of what people want, and what people just aren't having anymore.
Whether SC never releases or is the next WoW gamers have spoken loudly and clearly about what they want from their next MMO. Anything but another themepark. People don't pay 175 million dollars for something they don't want. Not including the nearly 20 million Crowfall has raised or any of these other titles.
People kickstarted potato salad to the tune of $10,000. You're reading way too much into crowdfunding before we've seen the viability of the end products "in the wild."
EDIT- as an aside, I previously looked at these projects as a sign of player desires. The evolution of crowdfunding and monetization techniques used to fleece more cash has since softened that view in my mind, giving way to a larger emphasis on the desperation of a relatively small group of gamers that indie devs are currently exploiting full steam ahead.
Somehow people can deny this but I would think that when a game has raised almost 175 million dollars for their unreleased product and AAA titles have almost completely abandoned MMOs that it would seem to be a pretty good indication of what people want, and what people just aren't having anymore.
That does not follow logically. All you can say with confidence about where AAA studios are focusing their efforts is that they are going where they think they can get the best ROI: FPS, MOBAs, mobile, "games as a service," etc.
You could make a more plausible argument for your point by quoting what the Admin on this site recently said about mmorpg.com hits per year and how they're down to less than a third of what they once got. But even that does not get you to the conclusion you want since there are many factors influencing that, not the least of which is that reddit didn't even exist in the good old days he's referring to and many games didn't even have their own discussion forums.
What has changed, and the only thing that has changed, is that AAA studios for the most part have stopped believing that the draw of MMOs is worth the development hassle. They expected once upon a time that they could grow mmorpgs well beyond what WOW achieved and when they couldn't, they moved on to other more profitable genres.
"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
People kickstarted potato salad to the tune of $10,000.
That's a ridiculous argument. There are people who could float that all by themselves. SC has raised over seventeen thousand times that much money alone. The millions of dollars flowing into SC each month aren't because they think it's a funny joke. It's because what people paying into it are seeing is a game that doesn't hold your hand, immerses you in it's universe, and more important is nothing like any game that has ever come before it.
And there is a massive market of people who are desperate to see something like that. So desperate they'll put down thousands of dollars on a game that may or may not ever release. Same people are paying into Crowfall, Ashes of Creation, Life is Feudal etc.
The reason AAA developers are withdrawing from the market is they are unwilling to take risks. The fact people want something different doesn't mean giving them something different will be a success. So with theme parks being a near guaranteed flop at this point and other MMO types banking heavily on you creating something the players will actually respond well to... they've decided that they'd rather go clone games fresher than WoW than take any actual risks.
Once one of these indie developers hits on a model that is a radical success you can guarantee there will be AAA studios popping up all over to offer their own take on that game for the next decade or two.
People kickstarted potato salad to the tune of $10,000.
That's a ridiculous argument. There are people who could float that all by themselves. SC has raised over seventeen thousand times that much money alone. The millions of dollars flowing into SC each month aren't because they think it's a funny joke. It's because what people paying into it are seeing is a game that doesn't hold your hand, immerses you in it's universe, and more important is nothing like any game that has ever come before it.
And there is a massive market of people who are desperate to see something like that. So desperate they'll put down thousands of dollars on a game that may or may not ever release. Same people are paying into Crowfall, Ashes of Creation, Life is Feudal etc.
The reason AAA developers are withdrawing from the market is they are unwilling to take risks. The fact people want something different doesn't mean giving them something different will be a success. So with theme parks being a near guaranteed flop at this point and other MMO types banking heavily on you creating something the players will actually respond well to... they've decided that they'd rather go clone games fresher than WoW than take any actual risks.
Once one of these indie developers hits on a model that is a radical success you can guarantee there will be AAA studios popping up all over to offer their own take on that game for the next decade or two.
The point was that crowdfunding success =/= a viable end product is proven.
The desperation of a relatively small group of gamers also doesn't mean the end product is viable. It doesn't even mean, at this point, an end product is achievable.
Star Citizen may or may not be an achievable project (I believe it will be released and be a good game but will only offer like half of what they are promising for a good many years after it's release.) That's not the point. A good MMO not built on the WoW model that appeals to people for many of the same reasons (Freedom, immersion etc.) is a very accomplishable task. But not one has been attempted by a company with any kind of realistic budget for an MMO up until now. And two of those shoestring budget games (EVE and Runescape) took off anyway because people loved them so much.
The thing is in your example people were delivered exactly what they wanted and paid for. A joke. Nobody paid into that project because they wanted a potato salad. They paid into it because the idea of a project like that raising 10k dollars was amusing to them and they got the laugh they desired in the end. Your example proves that people are willing to pay 10k dollars to have something to laugh about, not that people don't care what they are kickstarting. If you don't believe me go start your own kickstarter for potato salad and see how well you do.
Star Citizen may or may not be an achievable project (I believe it will be released and be a good game but will only offer like half of what they are promising for a good many years after it's release.) That's not the point. A good MMO not built on the WoW model that appeals to people for many of the same reasons (Freedom, immersion etc.) is a very accomplishable task. Just not one that has been attempted by a company with any kind of realistic budget for an MMO up until now.
The thing is in your example people were delivered exactly what they wanted and paid for. A joke. Nobody paid into that project because they wanted a potato salad. They paid into it because the idea of a project like that raising 10k dollars was amusing to them and they got the laugh they desired in the end. Your example proves that people are willing to pay 10k dollars to have something to laugh about, not that people don't care what they are kickstarting.
Crowdfunding Success = Proof of Demand
To say anything else is ridiculous.
Unfortunately, there's been no proof whatsoever the demand is enough to field and maintain an MMORPG product in today's market. That's the entire reason these developers are having to turn to crowdfunding.
Your proof of demand here in no way guarantees the end product will be financially successful. It in no way guarantees the end product will even be viable. It doesn't even guarantee there will be an end product, since in this genre, the idea of raising enough money from Kickstarter to fund the entire creation of an MMORPG is completely ludicrous.
There's only been one project that has garnered enough funding from crowdfunding alone to even compete with the development and production budget of the AAA MMORPG releases, and it's not even reached an MVP yet. The situation here, like many others, is not binary: there may be demand, but that doesn't mean there's a market niche big enough for all these projects, much less that there's some kind of wave of desire permeating throughout the consumer base that AAA developers are ignoring out of utter ignorance.
It's more cowardous than ignorance. For instance I have some serious concerns about Star Citizen. If you've played Arena Commander it isn't an easy game to just pick up and play. I've played a lot of space fighter sims and it's by far the most difficult one I've ever played. That seems like a risky move as it alienates them from a lot of more casual players that might have bought into some of the other bold concepts they were pushing.
Any number of missteps like that can sink a game. Simply making a game that offers freedom and immersion isn't a recipe for success. It's about the whole package and all the elements coming together to make a game that will truly speak to people.
It's easier to sit back and watch which kickstarter projects appeal to people and which don't and then sweep in and be the WoW to their EverQuest once someone hits upon a truly great model. And I think that's what a lot of AAA developers may be doing. Why take risks themselves when consumers will fund your research for you?
The problem with threads like these is that we cannot even agree on defining the foundation on which the definition of a "WoW Clone" would rest upon. Meaning, we can't even agree on what a sand box vs what a theme park is. How the hell can we define a WoW clone? Game X is a Theme Park, therefore it's a WoW clone.........It's not a theme park, so it's not a WoW clone.
But then there is the argument that says, not all theme parks are WoW clones....... There are no definitions, Only a loose general consensus that doesn't even agree. This means, that while the question posed by this thread is a good one, it's also pointless.
Go figure.
I think the definition of "clone" that truly matters is "What is different enough that people playing these new titles don't feel like they are just playing the same old titles they tried over a decade ago?"
If the decline of this genre is any indication, most consumers have voted with their dollar that the meaningful innovation coming out of the MMO industry constitutes little to nothing in their eyes.
This is what I am saying. Your definition isn't an unreasonable one, but not everyone's going to agree or subscribe to it. For those that do not, and it will be more than you think, your argument is baseless because it's founded on a premise that makes no sense to them.
At the end of the day...."WoW clone" is a subjective term and one person is sick of seeing all these dam WoW clones that keep surfacing and the next is happy as a pig in poop because there haven't been any new "WoW Clones" in years......yet it is the same market.
It's funny to hear people say the quality of MMORPGs is going down, and no good MMORPGs are being released . . . and that means the gaming population as a whole doesn't want MMORPGs . . . XD I don't believe there are any gaming "Band Wagons", as far as I can tell when someone makes a good fun game people play it. When a good MMORPG does come out and it goes way beyond niche, I won't want to say I told you so . . . no, that is a huge lie, I will definitely be happily saying I told you so. :P
As far as defining what a clone means, it should be pretty obvious, it should be near identical. There has to be a difference between a game in the same category and a clone. All the things discussed here that indicate something being a WoW clone are pretty much the staple of MMORPGs. When I think something is cloning WoW it's because they took something right from WoW that didn't really need to be done. Champions cloned WoW's quest dialogs. People didn't play WoW for the format of the quest dialog, people didn't drop other games because the quest dialogs were different from WoW, and thus confusing. But someone in Cryptic obviously though the quest dialogs better be just like WoW's. Other games clone the action bar format.
When one product is popular, others will create similar products, that's not called cloning, that called modern business. It happens in movies, snacks, clothes, cars, everything. Would I like to see more innovation? Sure. But it seems most investors want to go the safer route.
Almost all games games rip elements off of other games and they should. The difference between a clone and a non-clone though is "Is the entire core premise of your game a rip-off of another game?"
That's at least why I have no issues when I use a mailbox in Wurm Online or use the auction house in Runescape. They ripped elements off, not the entire premise of their game.
But when the core gameplay of your game is a slightly altered version of the core gameplay from another game, it's a clone. And clone isn't even the worst title in the world.
Cloning a title that has few existing clones and doing it better than it's ever been done before can sometimes have merits. Afterall, WoW itself is a clone of EQ that simply addressed some the issues people found more unpalatable about it and thus appealed to a far wider audience.
When the same model is clone over, and over, and over again ad nauseum with many of the clones making no meaningful improvements over the original then it becomes a major issue and in the case of MMOs eventually a genre killer. There are numerous well done WoW clones one has to choose from if they want a game that adheres to the general WoW model. The problem is that isn't a model that speaks to people anymore than than Super Mario clones do these days. If we say we started with EQ (Not sure if it did or not but we'll go with that for the sake of simplicity) it's a model that will be 19 years old come this March. The same amount of time that elapsed between the release of the original Super Mario and World of Warcraft. It's a very outdated model to be going off of in 2017.
Comments
WoW:
SWTOR:
ESO:
While Sandboxes are more like this:
EVE:
Entropia:
Wurm:
Your genre is defined by having the same core content. Take away the questing, the endgame, and the things that make it a WoW clone and it ceases to be a themepark as well. The whole reason it's called a "themepark" is it's an on rails experience not that unlike any other themepark but with a different theme.
The reason it's called a sandbox is because of freedom. And that freedom comes in many forms with many types of gameplay that are completely different.
Your genre is defined by being a clone of the same general model over, and over, and over. At this point sandbox is kind of just a catch all phrase for any MMO that doesn't fall under that model.
The Age of Themeparks is dead. They will always be a presence in MMOs but they will never be the king of a dominant genre again. We're currently in the dark ages of MMOs in which Themeparks are still the king of a dying genre. When we recover and see a renaissance it will be because fresh ideas gain dominance in this industry and attract people back to it.
There is no future for MMOs in which they are both successful and the people guiding the industry think that ESO, GW2, and FF14 are truly innovative titles.
But then there is the argument that says, not all theme parks are WoW clones....... There are no definitions, Only a loose general consensus that doesn't even agree. This means, that while the question posed by this thread is a good one, it's also pointless.
Go figure.
There's a lot of crap that is just very different for no particularly good reason and definitely not an improvement on WOW just like there are some things very similar to how WOW does it that actually improve on it.
These threads typically degenerate into a themepark vs. sandbox thread complete with very fuzzy ideas of what either of those terms means.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
If the decline of this genre is any indication, most consumers have voted with their dollar that the meaningful innovation coming out of the MMO industry constitutes little to nothing in their eyes.
The vast majority of mainstream players always preferred FPS and MOBAs (once they became a thing) to MMOs and, if anything, the number of people playing full-fledged MMORPGs (not just survival or other minimally multiplayer "shared world" games) is actually higher now than it has ever been.
The problem with doom and gloom MMOs are not popular statements is that they compare MMORPG populations to total gaming population and, guess what? We're still niche just like we always were.
Development money is not going other places because our relative numbers are declining it's just that there are more megabucks to be made where the mainstream casuals are.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Same with sandbox game. People keep saying because minecraft or warz is successful, it'll work in sandbox mmorpg. The reality is most people will just play builder or king of hill games.
Maybe Pantheon will be a themepark? Haven't done enough research into it to say either way.
So that leaves us with... 0-1 confirmed themeparks on the horizon. (Unless you count the re-release of Dragon's Prophet that only took like 2 years to fail the first time around.) If you're looking for confirmed sandboxes on the horizon just take a look at the hype list. Crowfall, Chronicles of Elyria, Star Citizen, Ashes of Creation, Life is Feudal, etc. etc. Prettymuch any upcoming MMO we know anything about.
Yeah... Themeparks are really coming into their own right now... Totally a genre on the rise.
As far as MMOs being a niche genre. MMOs weren't so much a niche genre before 2004 as much as they were a promising new genre on the rise. 2004 saw the rise of a popular new MMO that exploded them to the forefront of the gaming world and then a complete lack of any meaningful innovation over the last 13 years killed that promise.
There is absolutely no reason massively multiplayer games need be a niche genre. The hundreds of millions of dollars that innovative MMO ideas have been able to raise for unreleased games shows it's actually a genre that has massive interest if you aren't making a clone of existing games. They've just had all the potential strangled out of them by lazy developers and a rapidly dwindling fanbase who has absolutely no expectations for them anymore.
What would you say a genre is doing when all existing titles are shrinking and the rate at which new titles are releasing is slowing to a near stop? Does that sound like a growing genre to you?
Sandbox MMOs make up 10% of existing MMOs at most while they make up about 95% of the ones in production. Does that sound like a genre on the decline to you?
Like I said. We are on the edge of an MMO renaissance. One that will be built on top of the corpse of themeparks. And it's about damn time!
Whether SC never releases or is the next WoW gamers have spoken loudly and clearly about what they want from their next MMO. Anything but another themepark. People don't pay 175 million dollars for something they don't want. Not including the nearly 20 million Crowfall has raised or any of these other titles.
EDIT- as an aside, I previously looked at these projects as a sign of player desires. The evolution of crowdfunding and monetization techniques used to fleece more cash has since softened that view in my mind, giving way to a larger emphasis on the desperation of a relatively small group of gamers that indie devs are currently exploiting full steam ahead.
You could make a more plausible argument for your point by quoting what the Admin on this site recently said about mmorpg.com hits per year and how they're down to less than a third of what they once got. But even that does not get you to the conclusion you want since there are many factors influencing that, not the least of which is that reddit didn't even exist in the good old days he's referring to and many games didn't even have their own discussion forums.
What has changed, and the only thing that has changed, is that AAA studios for the most part have stopped believing that the draw of MMOs is worth the development hassle. They expected once upon a time that they could grow mmorpgs well beyond what WOW achieved and when they couldn't, they moved on to other more profitable genres.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
And there is a massive market of people who are desperate to see something like that. So desperate they'll put down thousands of dollars on a game that may or may not ever release. Same people are paying into Crowfall, Ashes of Creation, Life is Feudal etc.
The reason AAA developers are withdrawing from the market is they are unwilling to take risks. The fact people want something different doesn't mean giving them something different will be a success. So with theme parks being a near guaranteed flop at this point and other MMO types banking heavily on you creating something the players will actually respond well to... they've decided that they'd rather go clone games fresher than WoW than take any actual risks.
Once one of these indie developers hits on a model that is a radical success you can guarantee there will be AAA studios popping up all over to offer their own take on that game for the next decade or two.
The desperation of a relatively small group of gamers also doesn't mean the end product is viable. It doesn't even mean, at this point, an end product is achievable.
The thing is in your example people were delivered exactly what they wanted and paid for. A joke. Nobody paid into that project because they wanted a potato salad. They paid into it because the idea of a project like that raising 10k dollars was amusing to them and they got the laugh they desired in the end. Your example proves that people are willing to pay 10k dollars to have something to laugh about, not that people don't care what they are kickstarting. If you don't believe me go start your own kickstarter for potato salad and see how well you do.
Crowdfunding Success = Proof of Demand
To say anything else is ridiculous.
Your proof of demand here in no way guarantees the end product will be financially successful. It in no way guarantees the end product will even be viable. It doesn't even guarantee there will be an end product, since in this genre, the idea of raising enough money from Kickstarter to fund the entire creation of an MMORPG is completely ludicrous.
There's only been one project that has garnered enough funding from crowdfunding alone to even compete with the development and production budget of the AAA MMORPG releases, and it's not even reached an MVP yet. The situation here, like many others, is not binary: there may be demand, but that doesn't mean there's a market niche big enough for all these projects, much less that there's some kind of wave of desire permeating throughout the consumer base that AAA developers are ignoring out of utter ignorance.
Any number of missteps like that can sink a game. Simply making a game that offers freedom and immersion isn't a recipe for success. It's about the whole package and all the elements coming together to make a game that will truly speak to people.
It's easier to sit back and watch which kickstarter projects appeal to people and which don't and then sweep in and be the WoW to their EverQuest once someone hits upon a truly great model. And I think that's what a lot of AAA developers may be doing. Why take risks themselves when consumers will fund your research for you?
At the end of the day...."WoW clone" is a subjective term and one person is sick of seeing all these dam WoW clones that keep surfacing and the next is happy as a pig in poop because there haven't been any new "WoW Clones" in years......yet it is the same market.
As far as defining what a clone means, it should be pretty obvious, it should be near identical. There has to be a difference between a game in the same category and a clone. All the things discussed here that indicate something being a WoW clone are pretty much the staple of MMORPGs. When I think something is cloning WoW it's because they took something right from WoW that didn't really need to be done. Champions cloned WoW's quest dialogs. People didn't play WoW for the format of the quest dialog, people didn't drop other games because the quest dialogs were different from WoW, and thus confusing. But someone in Cryptic obviously though the quest dialogs better be just like WoW's. Other games clone the action bar format.
When one product is popular, others will create similar products, that's not called cloning, that called modern business. It happens in movies, snacks, clothes, cars, everything. Would I like to see more innovation? Sure. But it seems most investors want to go the safer route.
That's at least why I have no issues when I use a mailbox in Wurm Online or use the auction house in Runescape. They ripped elements off, not the entire premise of their game.
But when the core gameplay of your game is a slightly altered version of the core gameplay from another game, it's a clone. And clone isn't even the worst title in the world.
Cloning a title that has few existing clones and doing it better than it's ever been done before can sometimes have merits. Afterall, WoW itself is a clone of EQ that simply addressed some the issues people found more unpalatable about it and thus appealed to a far wider audience.
When the same model is clone over, and over, and over again ad nauseum with many of the clones making no meaningful improvements over the original then it becomes a major issue and in the case of MMOs eventually a genre killer. There are numerous well done WoW clones one has to choose from if they want a game that adheres to the general WoW model. The problem is that isn't a model that speaks to people anymore than than Super Mario clones do these days. If we say we started with EQ (Not sure if it did or not but we'll go with that for the sake of simplicity) it's a model that will be 19 years old come this March. The same amount of time that elapsed between the release of the original Super Mario and World of Warcraft. It's a very outdated model to be going off of in 2017.