http://www.newzoo.com/infographics/infographic-2012-us/

On the surface, these info graphics aren't that complementary. MMOs represent the smallest platform for gaming.

Think about that for a second. Wait for it...

MMOs are represented as a platform in themselves. The other platforms are "PC/Mac", "Mobile" and "Console", among others. More money is spent on MMOs than on Social Networks and Casual Websites. More money is spent on MMOs than on Mobile games.

The only downside is that games like LoL, CoD, etc. are included as MMOs. So it's not all roses there, but still...big enough to be represented as a gaming platform, and more money is being pumped in than in Mobile gaming. Not too bad MMO Genre, not too bad.

Originally posted by lizardbones

http://www.newzoo.com/infographics/infographic-2012-us/

On the surface, these info graphics aren't that complementary. MMOs represent the smallest platform for gaming.

Think about that for a second. Wait for it...

MMOs are represented as a platform in themselves. The other platforms are "PC/Mac", "Mobile" and "Console", among others. More money is spent on MMOs than on Social Networks and Casual Websites. More money is spent on MMOs than on Mobile games.

The only downside is that games like LoL, CoD, etc. are included as MMOs. So it's not all roses there, but still...big enough to be represented as a gaming platform, and more money is being pumped in than in Mobile gaming. Not too bad MMO Genre, not too bad.

for the MMO slice ..

50M players

$2.9B

10% of gaming time ..

Not too shabby.

Ok, let me ask something here.

Since MMO's (including their examples like WoW) are played on various platforms, which they also listed as separate sources of gamers....then how is it that the totals add up to 100%? With cross references like that, the individual "platforms" they use should add up to more than the total use.

It's bull****. And I'm damned tired of this industry's propaganda campaigns and lies.

This industry is really in sad shape when it's resorting to this level.

Longevity of older mmo's would last years upon years. Today you are lucky to get 1 in one hundred to last more than six months.

I call that an issue and a bad sign. Sorry for all those that like their free to play, fast, easy, change games more than your underwear type gamers, but this is all a bad sign.

But hopefuly things will look up in the near future since some game companies are finaly taking a stand against these types of games and going against the console/wow clones.

Problem is there isnt enough variety of mmo's. Almost everyone is slapping mmo infront of their favorite 3 letters and think its going to be a hit. The games released today are just a shadow of what mmo's use to be, and the sad thing is many of you caused this and want this.

MMO's are evolving, not dying. 

It's like music - there hasn't been good music since the 80's but that's because I admit that I'm old.  That doesn't mean that music is dying, although people who are getting old and crusty may say it is.  It's simply changed in a  way that I can't stand.  It doesn't mean music is dying. 

Same is true with MMO's.  Many players cut their MMO teeth on games and features that are no longer in fashion.  It's easier to blame the developers and games because admitting that we're getting older and out of touch with where games are going is more than many gamers can bear.

Originally posted by Roxtarr

MMO's are evolving, not dying. 

It's like music - there hasn't been good music since the 80's but that's because I admit that I'm old.  That doesn't mean that music is dying, although people who are getting old and crusty may say it is.  It's simply changed in a  way that I can't stand.  It doesn't mean music is dying. 

Same is true with MMO's.  Many players cut their MMO teeth on games and features that are no longer in fashion.  It's easier to blame the developers and games because admitting that we're getting older and out of touch with where games are going is more than many gamers can bear.

No, it is the developers fault. See they rush a game and put the "features" on the back burner. Promise to release them in later patches, but something always comes up and its either half-a$$ed or just not put in. As time goes on more and more "features" start to lose out due to rushing, pvp, and the "i want" crowd that rush to max level in 3 days and pound the developers for more content. And thus the "features" are always put last because they spend more time making content than features.

As newer gamers come in and are introduced to the newer mmo's they actualy have no clue of some of the older features that made mmo's what they were. Now you are stuck with console style rpg's that multiple people can play. But they are not better nor offer the features to make a mmo have longevity, and die off after 3-6 months.

Over time, this has become the norm. But thats about to change.

Lot of newer gamers (young or just starting to explore mmo's) just have no clue to compare the "features" since the majority of mmo's are rushed and time isnt put into them like they use to.

I can think of a few dozen newer mmo;s that have promised features, and have yet been added due to time, money, content more important, or something else. If you read many of these posts, majority oare screaming for open world, player made content, good story/game, crafting, housing, longevity, social hubs, interaction, etc.... The devs just arent putting it in.

Thank god for this huge cluster of sandboxes coming up in the next year or two. Finaly some variety instead of the degraded style of mmo's today have become.

Well, one must wonder about what a "mmo platform" really is, so out of context it does seem like some sham for investors.

Anyways, the mmorpg business is not dying, we dont see blizz bankrupt or things like that, the problem is more in the area of MTV dying, you know, once MUSIC television, now there is more rality shows there than music...

Flame on!

:)

Originally posted by Onomas

Longevity of older mmo's would last years upon years. Today you are lucky to get 1 in one hundred to last more than six months.

I call that an issue and a bad sign. Sorry for all those that like their free to play, fast, easy, change games more than your underwear type gamers, but this is all a bad sign.

 

But hopefuly things will look up in the near future since some game companies are finaly taking a stand against these types of games and going against the console/wow clones.

Problem is there isnt enough variety of mmo's. Almost everyone is slapping mmo infront of their favorite 3 letters and think its going to be a hit. The games released today are just a shadow of what mmo's use to be, and the sad thing is many of you caused this and want this.

'Bad sign' for who?

As someone who plays games and frequently hop from one MMO to another, I am loving the playing / experience lots of different games.

Oh, you don't like how I play video games? Tough.

Originally posted by jpnz

Originally posted by Onomas

Longevity of older mmo's would last years upon years. Today you are lucky to get 1 in one hundred to last more than six months.

I call that an issue and a bad sign. Sorry for all those that like their free to play, fast, easy, change games more than your underwear type gamers, but this is all a bad sign.

 

But hopefuly things will look up in the near future since some game companies are finaly taking a stand against these types of games and going against the console/wow clones.

Problem is there isnt enough variety of mmo's. Almost everyone is slapping mmo infront of their favorite 3 letters and think its going to be a hit. The games released today are just a shadow of what mmo's use to be, and the sad thing is many of you caused this and want this.

'Bad sign' for who?

As someone who plays games and frequently hop from one MMO to another, I am loving the playing / experience lots of different games.

Oh, you don't like how I play video games? Tough.

LOL .. i am going to say exactly the same.

Gaming is getting better. MMOs are much better games than in the UO days, from my viewpoint of course.

In fact, it is pretty obvious that no one is going to change minds on forums, so people have to accept what the market preferences are.

---

Originally posted by Amaranthar
Ok, let me ask something here.

Since MMO's (including their examples like WoW) are played on various platforms, which they also listed as separate sources of gamers....then how is it that the totals add up to 100%? With cross references like that, the individual "platforms" they use should add up to more than the total use.

It's bull****. And I'm damned tired of this industry's propaganda campaigns and lies.

This industry is really in sad shape when it's resorting to this level.

---

---

Originally posted by Onomas
Longevity of older mmo's would last years upon years. Today you are lucky to get 1 in one hundred to last more than six months.

I call that an issue and a bad sign. Sorry for all those that like their free to play, fast, easy, change games more than your underwear type gamers, but this is all a bad sign.

 

But hopefuly things will look up in the near future since some game companies are finaly taking a stand against these types of games and going against the console/wow clones.

Problem is there isnt enough variety of mmo's. Almost everyone is slapping mmo infront of their favorite 3 letters and think its going to be a hit. The games released today are just a shadow of what mmo's use to be, and the sad thing is many of you caused this and want this.

---

---

Originally posted by Banaghran
Well, one must wonder about what a "mmo platform" really is, so out of context it does seem like some sham for investors.

Anyways, the mmorpg business is not dying, we dont see blizz bankrupt or things like that, the problem is more in the area of MTV dying, you know, once MUSIC television, now there is more rality shows there than music...

Flame on!

:)

---

It depends how you view the genre, and to what context. Personally, I wouldn't say that MMO's are dying, or have died, so much as they are mutating, however positive or negative that may be. My issue with MMO being used as a definition of a platform is that we already have one that does exactly the same thing: they're called online games. To use MMO strictly and literally, we're talking about a multiplayer game, played online, with a massive amount of players, and that may as well be fucking anything. By that standard, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is an MMO, just as much as Diablo 3 or Team Fortress 2. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with these games on an individual, mechanical basis, but they don't bare any of the specific features that come to mind when thinking of MMORPG's, which is where the term originated, such as persistant worlds.

Originally posted by XAPGames
MMOs aren't dying.  What about MMORPGs?

 Well that one is pretty debatable.  Most old games did not offer any features that encouraged role playing (again UO and SWG were the exception).  Thus role playing has always been you make up your own backstory and act a certain way, and thats it.

That hasn't changed today, most games still don't offer any features that encourage role playing so you are still limited to making up your own backstory and acting a certain way.  So from that perspective it is not dying but is status quo.

However possibly there was a greater percentage of the MMO population that enjoyed role playing in days gone by than in today.  While the absolutely number of roleplayers may be much bigger, the percentage may be much smaller. 

---

Originally posted by Lawlmonster
It depends how you view the genre, and to what context. Personally, I wouldn't say that MMO's are dying, or have died, so much as they are mutating, however positive or negative that may be. My issue with MMO being used as a definition of a platform is that we already have one that does exactly the same thing: they're called online games. To use MMO strictly and literally, we're talking about a multiplayer game, played online, with a massive amount of players, and that may as well be fucking anything. By that standard, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is an MMO, just as much as Diablo 3 or Team Fortress 2. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with these games on an individual, mechanical basis, but they don't bare any of the specific features that come to mind when thinking of MMORPG's, which is where the term originated, such as persistant worlds.

---

The fact that LoL and CoD are included makes all the data entirely meaningless.

And even if we ignore that, the fact that a ton of money is being spent in the genre doesn't change the fact that the quality is rock bottom.

Good thing, "the fact that the quality is rock bottom" is not factual.

I think the quality is better than ever.

That is such a lopsided number that represents really NOTHING.You could have 5 million people register for a facebook game ,but only 1k active users,the rest saw how crap the game is and quit altogether.Then some marketing firm or media outlet adds all those millions of registered users and counts them as gamers.If i try 150 different games,are you going to take all those 150 registrations as being 150 gamers?

The actual monetary values are  just guessing,no different than TV ratings,just a bunch of guessing.

For example ,marketing and developers tried to push browser or app game because Farmville struck it rich.That game is a super cheap pile of crap and what they DON'T tell you is that the majority of devs getting int othe same markets are losing money,they are not striking it rich.

Of course the MMO market will never die,it carries the same economics as real life.If an industry becoems saturated,eventually the market is so competitive,too many lose theri shiort and fold up shop.This eventually brings the market back to where there is only a viable amount of developers competing for those dollars.The whole cycle will repeat itself over and over.