View From the Road: Not Quite So Massive
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
The trouble with the equilibrium is the level at which it settles. Sure, 50 thousand players can sustain a game and cover costs, but 100 thousand can cover more costs, leading to more being invested back into the game. A bigger game can afford to develop bigger content patches, or release them more frequently, or spend more time bugfixing and polishing stuff, or employ more GMs to improve response times, etc. The smaller the subscription count, the less you get back, even though the price is the same $15 per month. The number of players is not all that important for a game to be fun which is most important, but the more players the game has, the more your $15 is worth, and that's why we are obsessed with numbers.
It doesn't seem like it should be that difficult to make an MMO that competes. The one thing that would make me play an MMO (gave them up a few years ago) is to minimize grinding throughout the lower levels and not have stupid limits to where you have to camp an item drop for hours on end. I guess what I'm saying is that I hate down time.
That actually sounds pretty awesome. I agree with teh rest that I removed.Hopeless Bastard said:
While I did cut out most the body of the post, it basically comes down to this sentence. Can you please turn the fanboy down a little bit, theres a lot of hot air in here already.Hopeless Bastard said:
MMOs can succeed with a modest fan base. and that isnt to say that they can survive, basically with no further support, but succeed. But to surmise that only blizzard has the magic formula for MMOs is naive because theres a whole lot of people out there, and for every one person who cant get enough of WoWs raid or wallow in mediocrity mentallity theres at least one if not more who isnt.
Wows popularity is based on several things. First and foremost accesibility. I played WoW once getting about 25fps on a 10 year old PC. I would say that would be about the bottom end, but just consider how many PCs have been made in the last decade, thats a lot of boxes that have the potential to run WoW, giving it a degree of farmville effect that it has a large player base in part to how many PCs it can actually run on.
Secondly uber instant gratification. Im not saying WoW is easy, but seriously compared to some other MMOs of note it plays like a preschool MMO. (I would love to see how Wow players could handle something like Pandemonium warder from FFXI after 18 hours and still not getting any xp or loot, but I get the feeling it would result in a tirade laced with profanity and crying.) There really is nothing thats genuinely challenging in WoW outside of figuring out the proper number vs class ratio for the encounter you need to employ. Now im not saying thats a bad thing. Honestly, people play games to have fun and relax which Wow rewards players for playing. Its a good thing. That explains why alot of people are drawn to it, they like being rewarded for their effort. However there are plenty of people who look down on that and seek an actual challenge. Again, all the more reason for a myriad of different style MMOs to exist.
I do think that we are in a spot now where we are beyond the point of MMO oversaturation. I know ive played over 50 MMOs since 1999. I also know theres an abundance out there that ive not played. The market would do itself a world of good if it would start to contract instead of expand, but again... more MMOs, more styles, more choice. The real problem is that the largest bulk of these MMOs out there in one way or another are blatant or subtle wow clones. And really, argue all you like about this, but fact is even WoW started out as a clone itself, as have most the MMOs that have decended from the ultima/EQ mold.
Absofrigginglootly.
Given it took wow something like 5 years after launch to hit costs of 100 million, which is hardly a small team with low costs, I think the 100 million + ideas are hyperbole.
As is the idea that you should bank on an MMO getting a million subscribers. I would bet the wow team was aiming for Half a million.
I still think that is the mark for western MMOs with subscription models.
Given it took wow something like 5 years after launch to hit costs of 100 million, which is hardly a small team with low costs, I think the 100 million + ideas are hyperbole.
As is the idea that you should bank on an MMO getting a million subscribers. I would bet the wow team was aiming for Half a million.
I still think that is the mark for western MMOs with subscription models.
What about the free to play online games? How are they surviving through this? That is what always confuses me when it comes to this. Every week I am getting emails to beta test this or try that. I don't think WOW owns as much of the market as you think TBH.
Hmmm, well I tend to disagree with some of the assumptions there. I mean I can understand the "aiming small" thing and it would be nice if more developers had that attitude. On the other hand I think the problem with competing with "World Of Warcraft" has simply been that while a lot of people wanted it's success, nobody wanted to invest the money in trying because of the potential risks involved... well that and impatience, not many producers want their money in limbo for that long without seeing attempts to get a return on the investment.
"The Old Republic" is the only game so far that seems like it might not be all hype in trying to compete on that level, the needed money is being spent on it, and it seems to me that they aren't making the mistake of trying to think that they are competing with WoW as it was when it launched, but what it is now. As a gamer your comparable content to what WoW launched with doesn't matter if your looking to play an MMO and can choose to play WoW as it is at the moment and pay your subscription fee there, as opposed to another game in hopes that your investment in time, money, and dedication might be rewarded with more content down the road.
Niche markets are all well and good, but to look at games like "Age Of Conan" and "Warhammer Online" they at least talked the talk of wanting to compete with WoW and being the next big thing. Even going so far as to promise content that wasn't there, and they might not have ever really had any intention of producing. I remember when "Age Of Conan" was going to have like 40+ character types, and formation based PVP involving hundreds of players. All excuses aside, you'll notice what they promised isn't exactly what they wound up delivering. It was all stripped away a piece at a time "well, we're not really going to be able to do this".
Not to mention that I don't think many of the games have been trying to avoid WoW's flaws, instead looking at emulating what it did right. I look at say Warhammers massive and easy to predict "Order/Destruction" imbalance right from it's launch. Truthfully as much as I like "Old Republic", what will really sell me on it is if they can tell me how they plan to resolve "Sith Mania" and keep the factions balanced and competitive both in PVE and PVP. My big concern here is that even by the cinematics the good guys seem so underwhelming that I don't think much time was spent on them. The last thing we ned is another case of "Alliance Syndrome" and "Penny Arcade" calling rolling Republic a gip on the level of rolling "Alliance" in WoW.
Bioware has said very little on the above concern that I have seen other than some basic and very generic reassurances.
"The Old Republic" is the only game so far that seems like it might not be all hype in trying to compete on that level, the needed money is being spent on it, and it seems to me that they aren't making the mistake of trying to think that they are competing with WoW as it was when it launched, but what it is now. As a gamer your comparable content to what WoW launched with doesn't matter if your looking to play an MMO and can choose to play WoW as it is at the moment and pay your subscription fee there, as opposed to another game in hopes that your investment in time, money, and dedication might be rewarded with more content down the road.
Niche markets are all well and good, but to look at games like "Age Of Conan" and "Warhammer Online" they at least talked the talk of wanting to compete with WoW and being the next big thing. Even going so far as to promise content that wasn't there, and they might not have ever really had any intention of producing. I remember when "Age Of Conan" was going to have like 40+ character types, and formation based PVP involving hundreds of players. All excuses aside, you'll notice what they promised isn't exactly what they wound up delivering. It was all stripped away a piece at a time "well, we're not really going to be able to do this".
Not to mention that I don't think many of the games have been trying to avoid WoW's flaws, instead looking at emulating what it did right. I look at say Warhammers massive and easy to predict "Order/Destruction" imbalance right from it's launch. Truthfully as much as I like "Old Republic", what will really sell me on it is if they can tell me how they plan to resolve "Sith Mania" and keep the factions balanced and competitive both in PVE and PVP. My big concern here is that even by the cinematics the good guys seem so underwhelming that I don't think much time was spent on them. The last thing we ned is another case of "Alliance Syndrome" and "Penny Arcade" calling rolling Republic a gip on the level of rolling "Alliance" in WoW.
Bioware has said very little on the above concern that I have seen other than some basic and very generic reassurances.
The smaller MMOs have a number of additional advantages if the they reach equilibrium.
1. Its much, much easier to listen and respond to a player base in the thousands than a player base in the millions. Finding the diamond idea in the noise that is the wow forums is next to impossible, even if you ignore all the trolls and the screamers. You are going to have a large number of poeple vehemently opposed to any new idea however good or bad it is. The forums after a certain point stop providing decent feedback to the devs. With a smaller player base sorting the wheat from the chaff becomes much easier and also its easier to gauge the level of support an idea has.
2. Longevity means your costs drop over time. Take everquest, its been going 11 years now and just look at the advancement in processing power since then. What was bleeding edge then is old slow now. What would have taken a large cluster in 1999 now only requires a single server now.
1. Its much, much easier to listen and respond to a player base in the thousands than a player base in the millions. Finding the diamond idea in the noise that is the wow forums is next to impossible, even if you ignore all the trolls and the screamers. You are going to have a large number of poeple vehemently opposed to any new idea however good or bad it is. The forums after a certain point stop providing decent feedback to the devs. With a smaller player base sorting the wheat from the chaff becomes much easier and also its easier to gauge the level of support an idea has.
2. Longevity means your costs drop over time. Take everquest, its been going 11 years now and just look at the advancement in processing power since then. What was bleeding edge then is old slow now. What would have taken a large cluster in 1999 now only requires a single server now.
Hrm..well I remember 2004 pretty well. I also know that as it related to MMOs Blizzard had basically no name recognition. The warcraft franchise really didnt have a massive widespread appeal and was still seen as a niche RTS franchise, that wasnt even the top of the pack at the time. Try to think back.. in 2004 there was a fair amount of trepidation toward Wow, thanks to Blizzards previous online efforts with things like Diablo being prone to hacking, duping, and other related security issues. I even remember a lot of people speculating that FFXI would crush WoW simply under the weight of having an established franchise name entering into the MMO arena.Hopeless Bastard said:
Actually, I basically listed 2 things. Accessibility, which As I mentioned before I once played wow with what is now a 11 year old PC. in 2004 that was a 5 year old PC.. which in gaming standards that is still highly accessible. Also remember WoW had lower spec requirements than other MMOs that came out before it such as EQ2.
Secondly was instant gratification. While the depth and polish of WoW has certainly increased over the years, The further you go back into its history, the easier the game was. Which again is what initially drew alot of players in before they exploded with numbers thanks to marketing.
So to say those things didn't exist in 2004 release of warcraft is a little bit off. Just as much as my notion of fanboyism might be off. However when you make a statement like Blizzard made wow successful based on the power and notoriety of the blizzard name, especially when they really weren't all that popular globally at the time opens yourself up to have the fanboy comparison made.
EDIT: Got clipped: None the less... There is plenty of room for all sorts of MMO experiences. I think what we need to see now is the genera branch away from the RPG element to other types of game experiences. What is dissapointing is that people have this notion that an MMORPG cannot be viable unless it has greater than 1million subs, when its simply not true. If it were we wouldnt have 1/5th of the active MMOs in existence that we do right now.
I honestly cant think of anything good to say about Wow. Ive played the game for a couple months back in 2008-09, or the pre WotLK time, and I thought it was just the most awesome thing when I first started. When I stopped, I realized that it sucked on so many levels. One of the biggest which killed it for me the "end-game drive"; this is what everyone strives for, reaching Outworld or whatever the fuck its called and going on the level 70 raids. It was near impossible to find a group of people that are willing to go on Azeroth raids. And the people sucked also, yeah I could play it on my old shit laptop, but that didnt mean it was a good thing.
Im hoping for a MMOG that I dont need to grind and shit in order to be able to "play" with the big boys.
Im hoping for a MMOG that I dont need to grind and shit in order to be able to "play" with the big boys.
I actually don't believe that you can make MMO out of everything(to whoever said that). For example RTS and FPS players just don't have the mentality to go on a year long games. They usually just want to sit in front of the PC/MAC/TV and play for half an hour before doing something else.
I'm sorry but your last line there just kind of grated on me. So what you are saying is that you want a game that allows you to be as good as someone who has given hours upon hours of time and effort to this game when you yourself have put forth almost nothing? I really can't comprehend how you could even conceive that as being fair. Why should you be allowed to experience the same things they are experiencing when you obviously are not as dedicated as they are? You get what you work for, simple as that. As far as I see it, maybe MMOs just aren't the right type of game for you. To each his own etc, etc...WanderingFool said:
Hmmm, obviously didnt say what I said clearly enough to explain.VegetaPrinceofSaiyans said:
I never said that, I want a game where I can do things. You make it sound like I want to have access to everything in the game right off the bat, I want to work for the stuff to, thats where the fun is suppose to be. But the is such a great devide between new players and vets, and from my experience there is hardly anyone will to help a lower level run through the older raids. One of the most anoying things I kept hearing was, "The game starts at level 70." Im not sure if it was just the server or if all of them are like that, but when you have to grind 70 levels just to participate in events, it loses what was suppose to be fun. Almost all MMOGs I played were like this, everyone who is a higher level is off doing their thing, and all the lower levels are doing their thing, but none of the lower levels ever want to "work togwther" to accompliush goals or missions, they just want to level up and get better gear. For a game thats suppose to be a "massive multiplayer online", when your a new player in a level based game, its really fucking lonly.
Also how is it people who spend more time playing this one game desearve to be treated differently from people who dont? Just because they spend 50% of the week playing as oppose to my two hours a day? I honeslty think everyone should have a shot at something, not just those who are "dedicated". And why do you make me sound like someone who feels etitled to have things given to me without any effort? I never said that. You took what I said and cuorrupted it. I never said anything about have things easy, I want the fair chance to achieve this things. While it is fair that everyone has to go to level 70 before they can head to Black Temple, that doesnt mean its any fun grind all that way.
What I meant with this was a MMOG that didnt have such a level disparity, or hell, maybe no levels at all! Why does a MMO need a leveling system? Its not like the higher level you are, the more skilled you are; Ive seen pleanty of players who play like noob, even at 70. Theres no defining of skill, just tenacity. It works for a game like Wow, which is a MMORPG, which typically is defined by leveling (course this is just my own experience with RPGs). But I didnt say MMORPG, I said MMO. Is leveling that important to every MMO? I think not.
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe there just needs to be a MMO that isnt trying to be Wow...