Originally posted by Consuetudo

The success of something is an objective quality that it not affected by what you subjectively consider makes something successful in your eyes.

The game is a success because it has the most population; in order for its having the most population to be the case, it needs to actually offer that collection of qualities which makes it actually superior than all other MMORPGS with the exception of any that retrospectively currently exist with enough potential to someday go on to become the most populated MMORPG, which, naturally, will soon come to absorb the most population from all of the other games. 

Don't focus too readily upon the fact of the population itself, but what having the most population actually implies about the game. 

All of you people in general are quick to sophistically point out a flaw in argument or logic, but when you don't actually take the argument and logic into account, those criticisms are invalid. 

What determines if an MMO is successful is its population, not because of the brute fact of its population, but because of what it actually requires for an MMO to have the most population. 

In a close second to population is, as others like to argue for, net revenue. The brute fact of net revenue isn't what makes it a success, but the fact of what it requires for that net revenue to be positive is what makes it a success. Though that game which happens to have a net revenue at one point, being a success then, if it later on goes to lose its population entirely, such as SWG, then, presently, it is not a success, but was.

My main counterargument therefore to the revenue people is that their consideration of success fails to take into account the temporal factor: if no-one is actually playing the game, then, in comparison to WoW, which most people are playing, I find it impossible to presently consider it as being successful. 

You seem absolute like theres only 2 ways, an MMO with alot of people, an mmo with no to little people playing the game. Theres an in between you know? you seem close-minded to me and tbh I just skim'd through your post and its the same invalid argument you've been making lol. There are many ways to look at things in life and its all perspective, theres plenty of ways to look at success, literally or not literally or exaggeration or sarcasm with its specific meaning........

Originally posted by Zorgo

I'm confused. 

If 'one' choses the game with the highest population, who are these people playing less populated games. Apparently, 'one' doesn't chose, but 'most' chose more populated games.

In addition, what number of subscribers constitutes a 'high' population? Is WoW the 'only' successful game? Given that EQ has been live for 13 years now, and is still releasing expansions, would this game be considered a 'failure' or 'failing'? That doesn't even mention its impact on gaming.

Why is there only one form of success? Can't there be multiple successes?

Successful launch. Successful financially. Successful critically. Successful in retention. Successful in innovation. Successful marketing. Successful pay model. 

My guess is the world is slightly more complex than the OP wants it to be. 

Go ahead, chose only the games with the highest populations, or WoW. Believe that population makes it the best. There are millions of gamers who disagree with you by their choices.

The people playing less populated games are one of many forms: 

• The game is a niche, and its definition is that it is a niche rather than that it is an MMORPG
• The game is a "less massive" MORPG, meaning that it isn't of the same tier as massively MORPGs, and it can only be qualified from within those parameters (less massive MORPGS)
• Their disillusionment with the successful MMORPG is not only superior to their actual desire to play it, but their net desire to play MMORPGS is superior to their disillusionment from playing them. They delude themselves into believing that what determines if an MMO is successful is not its population, and their longevity of playing the game in question lasts only as long as they can maintain that delusion, which isn't very long. Eventually their disillusionment from MMORPGs will superior to their desire to play them, and they will wait until a new MMORPG surpasses the present successful one, and this is the only one they will be able to fully enjoy with any lasting longevity.

I think people are confusing "success" and "value" in their arguments here. One is based on factual criteria, the other based on opinion.

Is American Idol a success? Yes (viewer data supports it). Does it provide value to television entertainment? No, it's a jackass gameshow knockoff (IMO).

Is GW2 a success? Yes (sales support it). Does it provide value to the MMO genre? No, it's just another themepark knockoff (IMO).

So yes, population can be a criterion of success.

Originally posted by grimgryphon

I think people are confusing "success" and "value" in their arguments here. One is based on factual criteria, the other based on opinion.

Is American Idol a success? Yes (viewer data supports it). Does it provide value to television entertainment? No, it's a jackass gameshow knockoff (IMO).

Is GW2 a success? Yes (sales support it). Does it provide value to the MMO genre? No, it's just another themepark knockoff (IMO).

So yes, population can be a criterion of success.

That's an excellent thing to point out, and useful distinction to make. I'll ammend your quote to the OP.

Sorry. This is idiotic. The LAST thing I worry about when considering a game to play is the number of subscribers. As long as there are enough to be enjoyable, then that is sufficient. The FIRST things I look at are divided equally between story, gameplay, and graphic look. I played WoW for a few months. I played CoH for 8.5 years. 

You don't speak for me. I doubt you speak for many people. Yes, WoW is a sucess. So are a number of other games.

Originally posted by rochrist

Sorry. This is idiotic. The LAST thing I worry about when considering a game to play is the number of subscribers. As long as there are enough to be enjoyable, then that is sufficient. The FIRST things I look at are divided equally between story, gameplay, and graphic look. I played WoW for a few months. I played CoH for 8.5 years. 

 

You don't speak for me. I doubt you speak for many people. Yes, WoW is a sucess. So are a number of other games.

You've already long ago taken into account what the most popular game is, and, therefore, having already done that, you're permanently in the second stage of considering other factors. 

That's not even close to being accurate. 1) When I first started playing MMORPG, WoW DIDN"T EXIST. When it came along and amassed 10 million players, I had NO interest in playing it. I only tried it at all when it began to decline. And frankly, it was pretty much as bad as I feared. You think huge numbers are attractive? When they're as huge as WoW, I find it the exact opposite, because a game with that many players is over run with asshats. And I have no use for asshats. I've tried probably 20-25 MMORPGs in my time. WoW was probably the least pleasing playing experience among all of them. Well, except for a couple of asian F2Ps. They were pretty annoying.

The point is, you have NO IDEA what I think, or how I make my decisions. In point of fact, WoWs huge success made me LESS LIKELY to play it, not more. And I can guarentee you that there are plenty of other people who think the way I do.

Originally posted by Castillle
Facebook games fit your profile!
Farmvile -
Has lots of players
Offers massive multiplayer thats asynchronous
Allows you to play the role of a farmer
Has more players than wow and is therefore more successful
Has pretty much the same amount of multipalyer content as themeparks (aks solo a lot)

You guys share the same environment (zynga servers)

Allows you to play cooperatively and cisit each other

Etc

ZOMG FARMVILLE MOST SUCCESSFUL MMORPG EVER!

Farmville is a social networking browser game by definition. Nice try though.

Originally posted by rochrist

That's not even close to being accurate. 1) When I first started playing MMORPG, WoW DIDN"T EXIST. When it came along and amassed 10 million players, I had NO interest in playing it. I only tried it at all when it began to decline. And frankly, it was pretty much as bad as I feared. You think huge numbers are attractive? When they're as huge as WoW, I find it the exact opposite, because a game with that many players is over run with asshats. And I have no use for asshats. I've tried probably 20-25 MMORPGs in my time. WoW was probably the least pleasing playing experience among all of them. Well, except for a couple of asian F2Ps. They were pretty annoying.

 

The point is, you have NO IDEA what I think, or how I make my decisions. In point of fact, WoWs huge success made me LESS LIKELY to play it, not more. And I can guarentee you that there are plenty of other people who think the way I do.

 

Ah, then you prove my point exactly: you take into account the fact of its population, and, from doing that, decide not to play it because the force of your edginess is superior to your desire to play the successful game. 

I haven't specified any of my thoughts. 

If my mage is like how I want him to be,its a success.

If my mage is just like everybody elses,it is not a success.

But ,because there is 1000000 of the same it must be a success.

Originally posted by rochrist

That's not even close to being accurate. 1) When I first started playing MMORPG, WoW DIDN"T EXIST. When it came along and amassed 10 million players, I had NO interest in playing it. I only tried it at all when it began to decline. And frankly, it was pretty much as bad as I feared. You think huge numbers are attractive? When they're as huge as WoW, I find it the exact opposite, because a game with that many players is over run with asshats. And I have no use for asshats. I've tried probably 20-25 MMORPGs in my time. WoW was probably the least pleasing playing experience among all of them. Well, except for a couple of asian F2Ps. They were pretty annoying.

 

The point is, you have NO IDEA what I think, or how I make my decisions. In point of fact, WoWs huge success made me LESS LIKELY to play it, not more. And I can guarentee you that there are plenty of other people who think the way I do.

 

I hear myopic viewpoints can now be treated with medication.

Anyway, your single experience determines nothing about the game as a whole. You're not the only person playing.

The OP is talking about the larger game, and you're trying to turn your personal experience into a data point and then using it to pass a value judgment under the guise of "fact". That will never work out in your favor.

Originally posted by rochrist
Internet troll is troll.

Visit WoW forums where everybody is a troll,therefore you are not a troll.isnt that amazing?

Originally posted by grimgryphon

I think people are confusing "success" and "value" in their arguments here. One is based on factual criteria, the other based on opinion.

Reification.  "Success" is not a concrete, no matter how often the op repeats his ad nauseam.  It's an abstract concept, like "Justice".  And being abstract, it is subjective rather than objective.

And this forum contains a lot of smart people, who nevertheless get drawn into arguments about semantics and pedantry easily.  Thus, the big troll nearly every weekend consists of someone equivocating.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/composition/abstract.htm  "Examples of abstract terms include love, success, freedom, good, moral, democracy, and any -ism (chauvinism, Communism, feminism, racism, sexism)."

And....done with this thread. Good luck op, keep up the repetition, it's bound to work if you're determined enough.

Originally posted by Consuetudo

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Quizzical

As for the substance of your argument, the population is really only relevant if it is enough to support the game.  Spiral Knights, for example, would be playable even if it only had 50 people online at a time.  Aion, on the other hand, would need a huge number of players in order to make it practical to get enough players for endgame raiding.

And furthermore, what matters is whether there are enough players online that you have access to, not merely the total number online.  If you need 1000 players per server for a game to be viable, and the game has 10000 players online, but split between 100 servers, it might not be playable on any of them.  See the problems that SWTOR had before the server merges, for example.

But no, what really determines whether a game is successful is how much revenue it brings in, as compared to how much it cost to build.  A game that cost $100 million to make but only brings in $10 million in revenue is a spectacular failure.  A game that costs $1 million to make but brings in the same $10 million in revenue is a runaway success.  The primary reason SWTOR is probably a commercial failure is nothing about game mechanics, but rather merely that it cost far too much to make.

This---^

Population doesn't determine success - revenue vs cost and target profit margin does. Puzzle Pirates was built for a couple thousand and got 34k players. ATITD was built for about 1,000 and was at about 2.5k at one point. Both saw healthy, active in-game populations and exceeded subscriber numbers needed to be profitable. 400k would be troubled waters for SWTOR, a profitable number for EVE and a year of swimming in hookers and blow for the Asheron's Call team.

What you've really done that is add a new factor of subgenre: provided that this MMO inherently is designed not to become the most populated one by design, then the need of its population depends alone on those players to whom the love of a certain game mechanic rather than a massively multiplayer experience. After all, if WoW is a game that is massively multiplayer, a game that barely dents a fraction of its population by design of it can't be called massive. 

The desire of the players in choosing a game that inherently cannot have a massive population are therefore looking for a game for different reasons.

This is the type of masterpiece usually posted by an Emergence alt, but in case you're actually someone else capable of such amazing inane reasoning, I'll try to help you out.

"After all, if WoW is a game that is massively multiplayer, a game that barely dents a fraction of its population by design of it can't be called massive. "

Number of people that own the game client has never been the gauge for whether a game is an MMO or not. If it was, UT and Quake would have kicked most MMOs to the curb. Neither has been the number of people online across the game's servers, as once again, DOTA and TF2 probably hand WOW its ass in that category. It is not based on some sliding scale of upperlimit of concurrency on one server because then WoT and EVE would probably be the only MMOs in existence. 

This appears to you as "a new factor to the genre" because of the very "unique" way you are looking at the numbers.

Originally posted by grimgryphon

I hear myopic viewpoints can now be treated with medication.

Anyway, your single experience determines nothing about the game as a whole. You're not the only person playing.

The OP is talking about the larger game, and you're trying to turn your personal experience into a data point and then using it to pass a value judgment under the guise of "fact". That will never work out in your favor.

Actually, it's the OP that's doing that. I don't claim that my experience is identical to everyone elses. But I'm experienced enough to know that there are PLENTY of people out there who don't blindly say 'Oh, WoW has the most player, must haz success, I play!!!'

OP is refusing to consider any other factor, not game play, not community, not IP. None of it matters in his view. So, I guess

Maple Story is the only succesful game. After all, it has over 100 million accounts.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by grimgryphon

I think people are confusing "success" and "value" in their arguments here. One is based on factual criteria, the other based on opinion.

Examples of Abstract and Concrete Objects

Abstractum	Concreta
Tennis	A tennis game
Redness	The red coloring of an apple
Five	Five cats
Justice	A just action
Human	Socrates

Reification.  "Success" is not a concrete, no matter how often the op repeats his ad nauseam.  It's an abstract concept, like "Justice".  And being abstract, it is subjective rather than objective.

And this forum contains a lot of smart people, who nevertheless get drawn into arguments about semantics and pedantry easily.  Thus, the big troll nearly every weekend consists of someone equivocating.

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/composition/abstract.htm  "Examples of abstract terms include love, success, freedom, good, moral, democracy, and any -ism (chauvinism, Communism, feminism, racism, sexism)."

And....done with this thread. Good luck op, keep up the repetition, it's bound to work if you're determined enough.

You can try and apply the abstract defintion of success here, but that's not what were talking about. MMOs are not a religion, politico, philosophy or idea, they are a business product. A successful product as defined in business is one which comes to fruition through the efforts of the developer, provides a revenue stream and some level of longevity in the marketplace. Using those criteria commonly accepted in business to define success, WoW is successful. EQ2 is successful. Even GW2 is successful (although at this point, you could still argue the longevity component).

However, value is something different and is primarily the thing people confuse with fact, hence my response to the OP.

Originally posted by grimgryphon

You can try and apply the abstract defintion of success here, but that's not what were talking about. MMOs are not a religion, politico, philosophy or idea, they are a business product. A successful product as defined in business is one which comes to fruition through the efforts of the developer, provides a revenue stream and some level of longevity in the marketplace. Using those criteria commonly accepted in business to define success, WoW is successful. EQ2 is successful. Even GW2 is successful (although at this point, you could still argue the longevity component).

However, value is something different and is primarily the thing people confuse with fact, hence my response to the OP.

Thank you for playing!  Did you notice that, as you defined success, in a 'business product' sense, there are virtually no MMO failures in the last 15 years?  Not SWTOR, not AoC, not WAR.

Huh.  Sounds kind of like there are varying degrees of success, rather than a binary state.

I suspect that's not quite what the op was shooting for.

"You may think you understand and agree with me when I say, "We all want success." But surely we don't all want the same things. Success means different things to each of us, and you can't be sure of what I mean by that abstract term. On the other hand, if I say "I want a gold Rolex on my wrist and a Mercedes in my driveway," you know exactly what I mean (and you know whether you want the same things or different things)."

Urging writers to use concretes over abstracts is just a matter of asking them, please please please, to use a concrete here and there in order to define (for other people) what then hell they think they mean.  Reduction of obscurity, rather than equivocation's goal--maximum of obscurity, thus maximization of argument.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by grimgryphon

You can try and apply the abstract defintion of success here, but that's not what were talking about. MMOs are not a religion, politico, philosophy or idea, they are a business product. A successful product as defined in business is one which comes to fruition through the efforts of the developer, provides a revenue stream and some level of longevity in the marketplace. Using those criteria commonly accepted in business to define success, WoW is successful. EQ2 is successful. Even GW2 is successful (although at this point, you could still argue the longevity component).

However, value is something different and is primarily the thing people confuse with fact, hence my response to the OP.

Thank you for playing!  Did you notice that, as you defined success, in a 'business product' sense, there are virtually no MMO failures in the last 15 years?  Not SWTOR, not AoC, not WAR.

You're right, there are few failures. I'm not sure I agree with SWTOR, mainly because I've heard (yes, hearsay) the game lost money, which would not place it in the category of successes.

Huh.  Sounds kind of like there are varying degrees of success, rather than a binary state.

IMO, you either succeed or fail. How is a "partial success" a success? As an aside, I'm glad you don't work for me because partial successes still get you canned in my playbook. I don't keep people who do half-assed jobs. Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

The point I'm making is that players usually define success for an entitre game from personal opinion, which is subjective can never be true for all others. Better to focus on discussing why they feel a game meets or doesn't meet their expectations.  A person always trying to pass off opinion as fact and says that same thing, over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be a bore.

I suspect that's not quite what the op was shooting for.

You should be asking the OP, not me.

"You may think you understand and agree with me when I say, "We all want success." But surely we don't all want the same things. Success means different things to each of us, and you can't be sure of what I mean by that abstract term. On the other hand, if I say "I want a gold Rolex on my wrist and a Mercedes in my driveway," you know exactly what I mean (and you know whether you want the same things or different things)."

Urging writers to use concretes over abstracts is just a matter of asking them, please please please, to use a concrete here and there in order to define (for other people) what then hell they think they mean.  Reduction of obscurity, rather than equivocation's goal--maximum of obscurity, thus maximization of argument.

Your last paragraph is nothing more than intellectual "nouveau riche", pure and simple. Seriously, no one wants to watch that movie. This is a forum, not the VCU First Novelist Award submissions. People generally come through loud and clear around here, even if the terminology and grammar are questionable.