---

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

---

Originally posted by DavisFlight

---

Originally posted by lizardbones  

---

Originally posted by DavisFlight Most WoW clones are in decline, because they offer nothing new and by their very design principles, are all about short burn and not long term.   But, the better made innovative MMOs are doing well. Eve and Darkfall for instance, have both been steadily growing.

---

Eve's player counts have plateaued or are now slightly down from their peak of over 400,000 players. There's no good way to tell how Darkfall is doing. Adventurine is just as tight lipped about their players as most other game companies.  

---

Eve was at 350k this time last year. It's still growing. And you can see Darkfall success through Aventurine's. The game has obviously done well if AV has managed to hire 40 new employees (from the 20 they had at Darkfall launch), move into a bigger building, open a second server, and launch a sequel to their game.

---

 Darkfall's population tanked like a stone, however that does not mean it wasn't successfull enough to generate a profit and expand the company.

Eve's population is now stabilized. Link below states that in 2010 they had 357,000 subs, so if there subs are approximately that now, that is the definition of stable.  In July it states 350,000.  I don't have any links but rumors are that the subs dropped last year, and climbed back  a bit this year, which is again the definition of stable. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_Online#Demographics

---

MMO's are going downhill because every mmo released lately is bascally trying to copy world of warcrafts mechanics and such instead of trying to do their own thing, Rift for example even had some skill info's ripped right out of wow, even had exact same numbers on the skills at the same level as well. Point is mmorpg devs have gotten really lazy and they don't even try anymore, the upcoming darkfall is bascally the same orignal game just with noob protection in the first zone, other than that its bascally the same shit you did in darkfall in a slightly updated wrapper. The problem is people are stupid enough to buy into crap like that. Single player games at least on the pc are going downhill fast because everything is bascally a piss-poorly done non-optimized for pc console port, only saving grace is the small indie devs that actually produce some unique stuff, like makers of Terraria, binding of issac, minecrat, starbound, space pirates and zombies and others. I mean on one hand I don't blame them for not bothering to really optimize the game for pc, since pc games are very easy to pirate. I'll be honest though I have played most games that have come out in recent years, but I have only ever bought the odd indie title, the rest well.. all I can say is may the gods bless the one who created torrents, because most of the games coming out aren't worth the plastic they printed on. I would have never bought saints row 3, or red faction armageddon if it wasn't in that thq humble bundle, paid 6 bucks got those 2 games and 5 others.  Call of duty is a prime example of a game not worth the plastic its printed on, every single iteriation of that game is the exact same game just in a slightly diffrent wrapper.

I'm still waiting for a mmo worth playing, last mmo I played that was actually worth playing past the included month was FF11, because its not just a solo to cap in 2 day single player game. Another issue with most mmo's is their endgame raiding is pointless, because the games do not include anything to use the raid gear for, daoc, rift, everquest 2 I think as well, all have raid gear as the best gear for pvp, so it gives raiding a real purpose. Daoc to this day has some of the best pvp I have seen on the classic server that has almost all expansions, only one it left out was trials of atlantis because it broke the game to the point most just quit, no game has come close to it yet. Though now a days in daoc you just spell craft your gear at max lv, everyone has the same gear that caps theior stats, which makes the pvp very skill based, since everyone has the same quality gear it depends more on player skill, compared to most mmo's where whoever has better gear is almost always the winner.

Then we have games like Darkfall UW.. I have to say does the makers of this game really think a FFA mmo with full looting of corpses whether killed by monsters or players will survive? These kinds of games have failed time and time again, mostly due to the immaturity of its playerbase, They go around on max lv chars ganking and greifing new players, and they just get tired of it and quit. I like my pvp, I don't mind the game is a FFA gank fest, but what made me lose most of my interest in the title has been the full looting. At least this time the dev team was smart enough to grant newbies some protection, however the second they leave that protection the same stuff will happen again. I give darkfall UW 3-6 months before it is either f2p or goes under. Anyway games like darkfall UW end up dying due to the immature playerbase they attract. Eve online is only still alive because of plex, you can play for free on someone elses dollar (Plex is something u can buy in game for ingame funds, and it is bascally gametime). They went that route because the game almost died.

Personally, I think the newer generation of gamers is full of some really cheap ass people, unwilling to spend any kind of money on a game, regardless of the actual value.  Everyone wants "free to play" where it means the game is litterally free with little or no real restrictions, like that's somehow a viable business model.  Coupled with a general social tendancy of having zero attention spans, it means people end up just hopping from one crap F2P game to another, over and over again, all the while complaining about how it's not sandbox enough, whatever that actually means.

Imagine yourself as a potential investor or game developer thinking about releasing something in this kind of financially hostile market.  It's no wonder their going F2P with cash shops revolving around gambling boxes and stuff.  Their having to target the same habbits that casino's target, namely by trying to take as much money as possible from each person because they're only going to be around for a short while anyway.

Originally posted by asmkm22

Personally, I think the newer generation of gamers is full of some really cheap ass people, unwilling to spend any kind of money on a game, regardless of the actual value.  Everyone wants "free to play" where it means the game is litterally free with little or no real restrictions, like that's somehow a viable business model.  Coupled with a general social tendancy of having zero attention spans, it means people end up just hopping from one crap F2P game to another, over and over again, all the while complaining about how it's not sandbox enough, whatever that actually means.

 

 

That obviously is not true. COD sold millions of copices. Deus Ex sold millions. Diablo 3 sold 10M. Dishonored sold almost half a M copies in OCT alone.

So people will pay for good games.

Didn't GW2 also sold a lot too?

And what is wrong with game hopping? That is an opportunities for dev to sell more games. You just have to dev accordingly.

Personaly the value of a game is how fun it is, not whether it last a long time.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by asmkm22

Personally, I think the newer generation of gamers is full of some really cheap ass people, unwilling to spend any kind of money on a game, regardless of the actual value.  Everyone wants "free to play" where it means the game is litterally free with little or no real restrictions, like that's somehow a viable business model.  Coupled with a general social tendancy of having zero attention spans, it means people end up just hopping from one crap F2P game to another, over and over again, all the while complaining about how it's not sandbox enough, whatever that actually means.

 

 

That obviously is not true. COD sold millions of copices. Deus Ex sold millions. Diablo 3 sold 10M. Dishonored sold almost half a M copies in OCT alone.

So people will pay for good games.

Didn't GW2 also sold a lot too?

And what is wrong with game hopping? That is an opportunities for dev to sell more games. You just have to dev accordingly.

Personaly the value of a game is how fun it is, not whether it last a long time.

That would be true for the games you mentioned, although it is not so much for MMO's.  At least, not before the current generation of players, circa 2006 or so on.

Part of the main attraction to an MMO versus other games was that it was persistent.  The whole, your characters will be here as long as the game is alive thing.  It's like that thread about how players don't want games, they want worlds.  There's a lot of truth in that, in terms of MMO's.  If an MMO doesn't have any sort of longevity to it, why even market it as an MMO rather than just another game with multiplayer?

---

Originally posted by asmkm22

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by asmkm22 Personally, I think the newer generation of gamers is full of some really cheap ass people, unwilling to spend any kind of money on a game, regardless of the actual value.  Everyone wants "free to play" where it means the game is litterally free with little or no real restrictions, like that's somehow a viable business model.  Coupled with a general social tendancy of having zero attention spans, it means people end up just hopping from one crap F2P game to another, over and over again, all the while complaining about how it's not sandbox enough, whatever that actually means.    

---

That obviously is not true. COD sold millions of copices. Deus Ex sold millions. Diablo 3 sold 10M. Dishonored sold almost half a M copies in OCT alone. So people will pay for good games. Didn't GW2 also sold a lot too? And what is wrong with game hopping? That is an opportunities for dev to sell more games. You just have to dev accordingly. Personaly the value of a game is how fun it is, not whether it last a long time.

---

That would be true for the games you mentioned, although it is not so much for MMO's.  At least, not before the current generation of players, circa 2006 or so on.

Part of the main attraction to an MMO versus other games was that it was persistent.  The whole, your characters will be here as long as the game is alive thing.  It's like that thread about how players don't want games, they want worlds.  There's a lot of truth in that, in terms of MMO's.  If an MMO doesn't have any sort of longevity to it, why even market it as an MMO rather than just another game with multiplayer?

---

Originally posted by asmkm22

That obviously is not true. COD sold millions of copices. Deus Ex sold millions. Diablo 3 sold 10M. Dishonored sold almost half a M copies in OCT alone.

So people will pay for good games.

Didn't GW2 also sold a lot too?

And what is wrong with game hopping? That is an opportunities for dev to sell more games. You just have to dev accordingly.

Personaly the value of a game is how fun it is, not whether it last a long time.

That would be true for the games you mentioned, although it is not so much for MMO's.  At least, not before the current generation of players, circa 2006 or so on.

Part of the main attraction to an MMO versus other games was that it was persistent.  The whole, your characters will be here as long as the game is alive thing.  It's like that thread about how players don't want games, they want worlds.  There's a lot of truth in that, in terms of MMO's.  If an MMO doesn't have any sort of longevity to it, why even market it as an MMO rather than just another game with multiplayer?

You don't need a MMO to have character persistencies. Diablo 3 has it. WOT has it. LOL has some. There are quite a few instanced based games with character persistency.

To be honest, i don't think MMO is that special. The only difference of MMO from a online MP game, is the open world, and that is less and less of a focal point of good gameplay (at least from my perspective). The only one that bucks the trend is PS2.

And personally, i don't distinguish between MMO, and online MP games. I judge all these games by their game play. I probably won't like PS2 any less if the battle are instanced (as long as they are as big).

Originally posted by lizardbones


How many people actually share that opinion?

What I'd wonder is how many people like the idea of a persistent, online environment, but really only care about the environment they are playing in for a couple months?

The reason I wonder is because gaming as entertainment is growing. More games are being made and even more MMORPG are being made. More and more money is flowing into the development of these games. That wouldn't be happening if more and more people weren't playing and paying for the games. What I think is happening is that while individual game numbers are going to shrink over time, with a few exceptions, the overall genre is growing.

 

Personally, i think the idea of persistent progression is alluring and popular, but not so much the persistent world. By the popularity of Diablo, and instanced dungeon, i think people care about making their toons more powerful, but there is no need to do it in the same world as everyone else.

They do want to be able to show off but you don't need a world to do that .... a lobby with an inspect function suffice.

There is more of a need for a OW in a pvp game if you like BIG battles. But even that .. the point is that the battle is big, and not that the world is persistent.

Originally posted by lizardbones

 

---

Originally posted by asmkm22

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by asmkm22 Personally, I think the newer generation of gamers is full of some really cheap ass people, unwilling to spend any kind of money on a game, regardless of the actual value.  Everyone wants "free to play" where it means the game is litterally free with little or no real restrictions, like that's somehow a viable business model.  Coupled with a general social tendancy of having zero attention spans, it means people end up just hopping from one crap F2P game to another, over and over again, all the while complaining about how it's not sandbox enough, whatever that actually means.    

---

That obviously is not true. COD sold millions of copices. Deus Ex sold millions. Diablo 3 sold 10M. Dishonored sold almost half a M copies in OCT alone. So people will pay for good games. Didn't GW2 also sold a lot too? And what is wrong with game hopping? That is an opportunities for dev to sell more games. You just have to dev accordingly. Personaly the value of a game is how fun it is, not whether it last a long time.

---

That would be true for the games you mentioned, although it is not so much for MMO's.  At least, not before the current generation of players, circa 2006 or so on.

 

Part of the main attraction to an MMO versus other games was that it was persistent.  The whole, your characters will be here as long as the game is alive thing.  It's like that thread about how players don't want games, they want worlds.  There's a lot of truth in that, in terms of MMO's.  If an MMO doesn't have any sort of longevity to it, why even market it as an MMO rather than just another game with multiplayer?

---

How many people actually share that opinion?

What I'd wonder is how many people like the idea of a persistent, online environment, but really only care about the environment they are playing in for a couple months?

The reason I wonder is because gaming as entertainment is growing. More games are being made and even more MMORPG are being made. More and more money is flowing into the development of these games. That wouldn't be happening if more and more people weren't playing and paying for the games. What I think is happening is that while individual game numbers are going to shrink over time, with a few exceptions, the overall genre is growing.

 

I imagine very few of the people who share my opinion are from the newer MMO generation of players.  That's sort of my point.  I just find it kind of funny how we get people saying one thing (what they want out of a game) and doing something else (not INVESTING in games that have those qualities).

Short attention spans, it's that simple.  And, like I said before, it's no real surprise that game dev's are making nothing but shallow MMO's designed to maximize profits in as short a time as possible, rather than create a long-term service.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by asmkm22

That obviously is not true. COD sold millions of copices. Deus Ex sold millions. Diablo 3 sold 10M. Dishonored sold almost half a M copies in OCT alone.

So people will pay for good games.

Didn't GW2 also sold a lot too?

And what is wrong with game hopping? That is an opportunities for dev to sell more games. You just have to dev accordingly.

Personaly the value of a game is how fun it is, not whether it last a long time.

That would be true for the games you mentioned, although it is not so much for MMO's.  At least, not before the current generation of players, circa 2006 or so on.

Part of the main attraction to an MMO versus other games was that it was persistent.  The whole, your characters will be here as long as the game is alive thing.  It's like that thread about how players don't want games, they want worlds.  There's a lot of truth in that, in terms of MMO's.  If an MMO doesn't have any sort of longevity to it, why even market it as an MMO rather than just another game with multiplayer?

You don't need a MMO to have character persistencies. Diablo 3 has it. WOT has it. LOL has some. There are quite a few instanced based games with character persistency.

To be honest, i don't think MMO is that special. The only difference of MMO from a online MP game, is the open world, and that is less and less of a focal point of good gameplay (at least from my perspective). The only one that bucks the trend is PS2.

And personally, i don't distinguish between MMO, and online MP games. I judge all these games by their game play. I probably won't like PS2 any less if the battle are instanced (as long as they are as big).

 

That's the very attitude I'm trying to point out.  People are now unable to tell the difference between a lobby game and an MMO.  It's sad.

I'm hardly an Old Man of the Sea here, opining about the good old days.  It's just that there is a noticeable change in attitudes and expectation between the old guard and the new.  That's normal, but it's still kind of annoying to deal with.  The industry is definitely changing and I, for one, really miss the older MMO expectations.

Originally posted by asmkm22

 

That's the very attitude I'm trying to point out.  People are now unable to tell the difference between a lobby game and an MMO.  It's sad.

I'm hardly an Old Man of the Sea here, opining about the good old days.  It's just that there is a noticeable change in attitudes and expectation between the old guard and the new.  That's normal, but it's still kind of annoying to deal with.  The industry is definitely changing and I, for one, really miss the older MMO expectations.

Let me clarify, MMOs are becoming more like lobby games ... true and agreed. But there is no confusion .. i certainly understand the difference between an open world online game, and one taht based in lobby. However, in many cases, i found the lobby style more fun.

I do not apologize for that preference. I have played UO beta. I have played EQ. For me, most lobby game (or a MMO with a lobby) is more fun. So i play what i think is fun, and vote with my wallet. Very simple.

And "sad"? We are just talking about games ... entertaniment here. I like to read lock room mystery .. and they weren't written (much) in the US after the 30s .. 40s. So what? There are other entertainment. I think people place too much emotion in leisure activities.

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by Xiaoki  

---

Originally posted by dreamscaper Eve is the only MMORPG I'm aware of that has steadily grown over the years, instead of slowly bleeding subs like most others.

---

Yeah, even WoW sold big at launch then sank like a stone.  

---

???

It added subs over the year to 12M, dropped back down to 9M 2 year ago, and back up to 10M.

So what sank like a stone?

---

/sarcasmdetector 1

Perhaps you should read the post I responded to first before knee jerk reacting to mine.

Originally posted by Xiaoki

 

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon

---

Originally posted by Xiaoki  

---

Originally posted by dreamscaper Eve is the only MMORPG I'm aware of that has steadily grown over the years, instead of slowly bleeding subs like most others.

---

Yeah, even WoW sold big at launch then sank like a stone.  

---

???

 

It added subs over the year to 12M, dropped back down to 9M 2 year ago, and back up to 10M.

So what sank like a stone?

---

Type this:

 

/sarcasmdetector 1

Perhaps you should read the post I responded to first before knee jerk reacting to mine.

Hey, I almost missed the sarcasm -_- 

Yeah, love it or hate it, WoW is holding steady.  

Originally posted by Teala
They're all mediocre at best, even WoW has losts its shine, so yeah...I'd say MMO's are on the decline.    Until games designers of this genre go back to making persistent virtual game worlds - these games will continue to decline in popularity.   

I agree. The latest trend to give these big epic personal stories just doesn't fit the MMO genre. An MMO's story needs to be about the world itself, not the individual player's character. They need to do that by making a very detailed world that feels like a world, not an amusement park. The more they add and rely on  things of convenience like the auction house, a minimap and map with every detail of the world pointed out to the player, and large identifiers where quests are, the more it moves away from the virtual world.

OR....

Are you just posting to get views?

Originally posted by 3-4thElf

Most any noteworthy game release, be it on PC, console, mobile, contains all of the novel aspects that MMORPGs used to exclusivly offer.

MMOs aren't on the decline. They're just spread really thin now.

It does range from crafting / collecting players playing casual social games like Farmville, and compeditive PVPers finding more action on games like League of Legends, to explorers and world shapers finding better experiences on games like Skyrim.

The MMORPG as a single entity is archaic tech now.

MMORPG developers haven't progressed what so ever in the last decade with MMO design. Other game platforms have.

This.

The "MMOs" that people are gravitating towards are Team Fortress 2, Torchlight 2, the uber number of Zynga Facebook games, Skyrim, and so on.

Are these "MMOs?"  No, but the MMOs abandoned these players far earlier than they abandoned the MMOs they used to play.  And they are cheaper.  And they give everything these players want without all the MMO stuff they don't need.

We average 5 or 6 new games a year? 1 gets shut down every 2 years?

The numbers are thinning.

I honestly believe not all MMOs have to choose either $15 or f2p. Honesly, going $8-10 for some games keeps a constant stream of cash every month, weeds out several "want it free" players and hopefully maintaining the game's mentality instead of elitist/gold buying mentalities, and provides gamers a feel that they should keep playing till the end.

Of course, thats just in a view of how a perfect game would go. Until I find people planning out MMOs from absolute scratch rather than going on with what they found successful in other games, not much will be changed if it's RPG style.