Zorn:  Is that not really a source of pain?

With WoW setting a standard for quality of game delivery, average competitors have to come up with either a comparable enticing world (LOTRo) or totally new features (CoX), or well good luck.

Sometimes I still wonder, how many times would I go back to WoW before I finally call it quits.  UO, SWG, DAoC, and even CoX are gone.  When I pulled the plug, its done (CoX I returned once).  WoW, I just keep coming back on and off.  Even LOTRo, when I left my lifetime membership account, I never go back.

Can't explain why.  I am trying EvE now, no idea if it would replace WoW.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

It really isn't fair to compare a game at release to a game that has been out for years.  A game has to release before it runs out of funding, in order to get more money with which to improve the game.  WoW has been getting millions of $15.00 a month subscriptions for years now, releasing tons of patches and two expansions, all after spending years in original development, obviously it is going to be more polished than a game that has been in development for a total of only 3 or 4 years. 

Anyone who goes into a new game with the attitude that it *must* have a comparable amount of content to current-state WoW and be just as polished is, frankly, an idiot.  The only reason LOTRO was able to be as polished as it was on release is because there really wasn't very much to it.  Much easier to polish one rock than a handful of them.  You can expect a lot of content, or you can expect polished content.  It just isn't realistic to expect both from a new game.  Hell, if you use modern WoW as your standard for quantity of content or polish, it isn't realistic to expect either.

I think you got me wrong.  Its not about fairness, it about competition.

Imagine a soccer team promoting from League B to League A or superleague, whatever.  Who will you compete in the next season?  THE BEST.  Period.

Imagine Aion now just launched.  If it has to draw massive subs, which game will it challenge?  WoW.  If Aion cannot compare to WoW in reasonable terms, it will fail to get as much sub as it wants (not meaning it will die).  Now is it fair, no, but in the business world, newcomers always have this as disadvantage, as customers will invariable judge the newcomer using the best existing standard.  I for one, will not switch to a new game that offers just as much or less than the old game, unless the old game fails.  Say for instance (really imaginary), WoW issued a localised version of WoW in my country (imagine I am indian).  If my english is so good that I do not care for indian text, do I feel the need to drop WoW and go to WoW india?

Now if Champion online comes, yes I expect it to have much less feature and maybe hiccups.  BUT, it has something WoW can never offer, the superheros.  That is something I would like to try.  Aion, its very similar to WoW, and since I do not pvp that much these days, I am not too eager to start the download.  If Champion online, startrek or whatever comes around, I would watch closely, and most likely I will try out Champion online.

The point with polish is that it does not necessarily come at a great development cost - you need the right people. Relic as an example is a small team with relatively small budgets and they deliver polish.

The more interesting question is why so many game developers in the MMO space miss this exact point? WAR launches new content instead of putting every development dollar they have behind getting the client and server coding 100% right. It is just weird. 

So I guess what I am saying is that the gap is not widening with 15 USD a month and user. WoW is aging and a developer that understands that content and features is great but polish is greater can develop a good product at a reasonable cost.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

It really isn't fair to compare a game at release to a game that has been out for years.  A game has to release before it runs out of funding, in order to get more money with which to improve the game.  WoW has been getting millions of $15.00 a month subscriptions for years now, releasing tons of patches and two expansions, all after spending years in original development, obviously it is going to be more polished than a game that has been in development for a total of only 3 or 4 years. 

Anyone who goes into a new game with the attitude that it *must* have a comparable amount of content to current-state WoW and be just as polished is, frankly, an idiot.  The only reason LOTRO was able to be as polished as it was on release is because there really wasn't very much to it.  Much easier to polish one rock than a handful of them.  You can expect a lot of content, or you can expect polished content.  It just isn't realistic to expect both from a new game.  Hell, if you use modern WoW as your standard for quantity of content or polish, it isn't realistic to expect either.

Not only is it fair, but it is reality to compare new released games to what is currently on the market.  Since no one can go back in time to play another mmo as it was released, new games are competing with how other mmos are currently.  It is the only comparison that is relevant.  Fair is not a word that should be used let alone calling people idiots for not accepting unfinished games at release.

This whole mentality that it should be expected and acceptable for mmos to release in the condition they have been just so they can get more money to to continue delveopment post release is a huge reason so many think they will succeed and travel this route.  It is not our job to fund games that could not deliver a competitive product to the market.  It is not my fault they could not meet their deadlines and budget restraints.

I don't think anyone is expecting massive amounts of content or perfection at release, but the standards have been raised since the days of pay to play beta testing releases for mmos.  If a company wants to attract players away from polished, content filled functional mmos, they have to offer a compelling reason for players to make that switch.  They better offer well designed mechanics at release, not promises of fixes 6 months later.  There only needs to be enough content to occupy players for a decent amount of time, not multiple years.  They game needs to not only be playable, but entertaining as well. 

Once a game releases it should not be spending the next 12 months solely fixing all of its problems, it should be working new content.  If developers are running out of money and time they need to revise their design process to be more realistic.  Maybe cut their advertising a little bit, because all the hype in the world is not going to overcome shitty gameplay at release.

If we lived in a world where money men were willing to keep paying until an MMO was finished before releasing it, it might be fair for customers to expect a high level of polish and a high level of content.  We don't live in that world.  I am not complaining that it is unfair from a "business" standpoint, I am just pointing out that customer expectations, understandable or not, are simply not realistic, and if they bothered to pause and think about it, they would know their expectations are unreasonable.

That being said, I fully agree that if a game basically tries to imitate WoW, it should fail, because why would anybody play an underdeveloped clone of a game that is already out when they have the option of going for the real deal?  That is the primary reason that WoW-envy is the biggest problem in the industry right now, all the development dollars that get spent on almost-certain-to-fail WoW clones could be getting spent on games that are new and different enough that players might be willing to forgive the standard release day level of flaws in order to stick around and see how the game's unique elements pan out.

Originally posted by Orthedos

 

When WoW was first launched, the major contendor was EQ2 (just launched) and EQ1.  UO is dying, every other game pales and fading.  WoW brings a lot of additional polish and ideas superior to EQ1 and EQ2, a superb UI, very polished feelings, lore comparable to EQ, and real fun to level.  I have fun levelling in WoW, much more so than levelling in EQ2.  Much much more so.  My first month of EQ2 was almost over when I got my hands on WoW, and I never returned to EQ2 till 2007. ...

You missed the whole point of my post. My point was that the people throwing hissy fits saying that mmo's like Warhammer have no content are the same people who didn't come to WoW until at least 2006 and had never played an mmorpg before. Of course games like Warhammer are not helped by a relentless hype machine. But simply put if you took a bunch of WoW fanbois and put them on a WoW server at release in late Nov 2004 they would hate it. Thats NOT to say WoW was bad at launch but that the WoW fanbois have unrealistic expectations of what an mmo can offer at launch. When 98% of WoW's current players were not there for WoW's launch, then how do they know what a launch is like?

When WoW launched it was very successful and most of the people who tried WoW out were EQ, SWG, AO, UO players . IE mostly people who have played an mmorpg before and had realistic expectations.

But by the time the masses arrived to WoW Blizzard had polished the game, made improvements and released a truckload of content. For example during 2005 and the 1st week of Jan 2006 Blizzard released the PvP system, 3 battlegrounds, Blackwing Lair, Zul'Gurrub, 6 world bosses, the AQ war effort event and AQ20 and AQ40. 5/9 classes also had talent reviews. So obviously by Jan 2006, 14 months after it was released WoW was a much improved game.

But the WoW fanbois write off games like Vanguard, AoC and Warhammer FOREVER because they weren't perfect at launch. Ok,

Ok, look at this. Blackwing Lair was the first 40 man raid instance introduced into WoW after release. It was introduced in patch 1.6 on the 12th July 2005. Now WoW went live about 23rd Nov 2004. So it took Blizzard 8 months to release new raid content.

Warhammer: Age of Reckoning was released on the Sept 18th 2008. It is now May 2009. 8 months after the initial release, same amount of time it took Blizzard to release new raid content for WoW. So obviously theres a double standard here.

But the WoW fans will only ever judge Warhammer by what it was like at release, not what it is today. it wouldnt how many improvements, polish, bug fixes and new content games like Vanguard, AoC and Warhammer release. The WoW fanbois will forever judge them based on what they were like at release.

Why can't I judge WoW forever based on what it was like at release? The diehard WoW fans get to do it with every other mmorpg.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

If we lived in a world where money men were willing to keep paying until an MMO was finished before releasing it, it might be fair for customers to expect a high level of polish and a high level of content.  We don't live in that world.  I am not complaining that it is unfair from a "business" standpoint, I am just pointing out that customer expectations, understandable or not, are simply not realistic, and if they bothered to pause and think about it, they would know their expectations are unreasonable.

That being said, I fully agree that if a game basically tries to imitate WoW, it should fail, because why would anybody play an underdeveloped clone of a game that is already out when they have the option of going for the real deal?  That is the primary reason that WoW-envy is the biggest problem in the industry right now, all the development dollars that get spent on almost-certain-to-fail WoW clones could be getting spent on games that are new and different enough that players might be willing to forgive the standard release day level of flaws in order to stick around and see how the game's unique elements pan out.

I can understand WoW fans not liking any of the mmo's at launch. But the whole community (except Blizzard) are the victim of the myopia and stubborness and ignorance of WoW fan judging other mmorpg's forever based on what they were like at launch.

Up until patch 3.0 in Oct 2008 I was a devoted WoW player. From 2005 to Oct 2008. Thats 3.5 years. So I tried Vanguard and EQ2. And they were pretty decent games. Only tried levelling and didnt try endgame content but I still enjoyed it and had no problems. 

Ok, maybe those games stunk like crap at launch. But at least I was open minded enough to try another game and support a different developer (unfortunately Sony in this case). I'm going to try LotRo, AoC and Warhammer soon and see which one I like the most and give it a good go. Whatever they were like at launch it will not influence my opinion of what they are like today.

Originally posted by frying_pan

Originally posted by Orthedos

 

When WoW was first launched, the major contendor was EQ2 (just launched) and EQ1.  UO is dying, every other game pales and fading.  WoW brings a lot of additional polish and ideas superior to EQ1 and EQ2, a superb UI, very polished feelings, lore comparable to EQ, and real fun to level.  I have fun levelling in WoW, much more so than levelling in EQ2.  Much much more so.  My first month of EQ2 was almost over when I got my hands on WoW, and I never returned to EQ2 till 2007. ...

You missed the whole point of my post. My point was that the people throwing hissy fits saying that mmo's like Warhammer have no content are the same people who didn't come to WoW until at least 2006 and had never played an mmorpg before. Of course games like Warhammer are not helped by a relentless hype machine. But simply put if you took a bunch of WoW fanbois and put them on a WoW server at release in late Nov 2004 they would hate it. Thats NOT to say WoW was bad at launch but that the WoW fanbois have unrealistic expectations of what an mmo can offer at launch. When 98% of WoW's current players were not there for WoW's launch, then how do they know what a launch is like?

When WoW launched it was very successful and most of the people who tried WoW out were EQ, SWG, AO, UO players . IE mostly people who have played an mmorpg before and had realistic expectations.

But by the time the masses arrived to WoW Blizzard had polished the game, made improvements and released a truckload of content. For example during 2005 and the 1st week of Jan 2006 Blizzard released the PvP system, 3 battlegrounds, Blackwing Lair, Zul'Gurrub, 6 world bosses, the AQ war effort event and AQ20 and AQ40. 5/9 classes also had talent reviews. So obviously by Jan 2006, 14 months after it was released WoW was a much improved game.

But the WoW fanbois write off games like Vanguard, AoC and Warhammer FOREVER because they weren't perfect at launch. Ok,

Ok, look at this. Blackwing Lair was the first 40 man raid instance introduced into WoW after release. It was introduced in patch 1.6 on the 12th July 2005. Now WoW went live about 23rd Nov 2004. So it took Blizzard 8 months to release new raid content.

Warhammer: Age of Reckoning was released on the Sept 18th 2008. It is now May 2009. 8 months after the initial release, same amount of time it took Blizzard to release new raid content for WoW. So obviously theres a double standard here.

But the WoW fans will only ever judge Warhammer by what it was like at release, not what it is today. it wouldnt how many improvements, polish, bug fixes and new content games like Vanguard, AoC and Warhammer release. The WoW fanbois will forever judge them based on what they were like at release.

Why can't I judge WoW forever based on what it was like at release? The diehard WoW fans get to do it with every other mmorpg.

Sorry but you are over-simplfying the situation. I was there at launch of WOW, AOC, Vanguard and WAR. The reason are many why people will not try a game again and rarely is it because they tried it once.

And by definition, your argument is a paradox.....A "WOW fanboi" by nature will prefer WOW to any other game so do not expect them to like other games". They will find any reason not to like a game simply because it isn't WOW.

No the reason, games like AOC, WAR, and others have failed is because a combination of the state of their launch and because of broken promises from the devs.

NO GAME since WOW has launched in as good of a state or was so quickly fixed (except maybe LOTRO). At launch, WOW had two major issues: the loot bug and queues. For me, both of these issues were rectified within the time frame that I found acceptable.

See, that is the big difference. At launch, to me, WOW was a good enough game at its core (its basic design) that I was willing to put up with the issues and problems for a while.

AOC and WAR were not. AOC was not the game promised by the devs and neither was WAR. I expected massive RVR, fighting for control of zones that mattered, keep sieges that took strategy. What I got was a PVP game based aroun scenarios, where the only strategy is the bum rush. I played both for longer than I should have (I got to level 50 in AOC and 30 in WAR) and simply gave up.

Will I be willing to go back? Sure, but the companies will have to promise and deliver on those promises that the game is fixed and better. As of yet, I have seen nothing from any game company that can rival WOW (in terms of performance and simply FUN). And no I do not base this off of how they were at launch, I base it off my experiences in game during the entire time I played.

I am still amazed at how many folks spend 40+ hours a week sitting on thier butts in front of a pc game & think they are better than the rest of us "casual" players for it.

Your body:  more than just a chair weight.

Originally posted by ferndip

I am still amazed at how many folks spend 40+ hours a week sitting on thier butts in front of a pc game & think they are better than the rest of us "casual" players for it.

 

Your body:  more than just a chair weight.

Priceless.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

If we lived in a world where money men were willing to keep paying until an MMO was finished before releasing it, it might be fair for customers to expect a high level of polish and a high level of content.  We don't live in that world.  I am not complaining that it is unfair from a "business" standpoint, I am just pointing out that customer expectations, understandable or not, are simply not realistic, and if they bothered to pause and think about it, they would know their expectations are unreasonable.

I want you to listen to what you are saying and really think about it.  Whos expectations are out of line, customers or companies?

Players spend money on a new game that is not finished, untested, missing major features, lacks polish and not enough content to keep players interested, etc.  Those players then leave the unfinished game to return to their previous game that offers a better experience.

---or----

Developers who constantly release games months and years before they "get good" when in direction competition with established games that are polished, refined, entertaining and have an established player base.  Those developers then expect to receive success rates far beyond what they actually achieve and wonder where everyone went while they spend the next 12-24 months sticking their fingers in the holes springing up in the dam.  They think they are delivering a "steak and glass of wine" experience, they are "Led Zepplin" in a comparison of mmos or are delivering the "next generation" mmo experience. 

Whos expectations are out of line?  Who in this scenario keeps repeating the same mistakes?  

I would love to say the problem rests with players and is something that could be adjusted to in time, but it isn't.  It is a horrible business practice to release unfinished products to a market and players shouldn't just accept that.  Several companies have done well enough to release games that are well done and polished as you claim isn't possible. 

For customer standards to be set so low as to expect games to need an extra year after release to become "good" one of two things needs to happen.  

1) players need to buy and subscribe to an unfinished game for that year to keep the company in business, which boils down to companies expecting customers to fund the last year of development.

2) players should avoid new games for at least one year.  If that is the case, then developers should just stay in closed development in the first place.

I just can't agree that it is somehow a good idea to release a game long before it is ready and somehow the effect of a premature release is somehow the fault of players in any fashion.

If a company wants a players money they need to offer a good reason for sa player to give it to them.  Expecting people to not only accept something substandard, but to also pay a reoccuring fee for it is so far beyond a rational expectation I cannot even put the proper words to it. 

Originally posted by frying_pan

Originally posted by Orthedos

 

When WoW was first launched, the major contendor was EQ2 (just launched) and EQ1.  UO is dying, every other game pales and fading.  WoW brings a lot of additional polish and ideas superior to EQ1 and EQ2, a superb UI, very polished feelings, lore comparable to EQ, and real fun to level.  I have fun levelling in WoW, much more so than levelling in EQ2.  Much much more so.  My first month of EQ2 was almost over when I got my hands on WoW, and I never returned to EQ2 till 2007. ...

You missed the whole point of my post. My point was that the people throwing hissy fits saying that mmo's like Warhammer have no content are the same people who didn't come to WoW until at least 2006 and had never played an mmorpg before. Of course games like Warhammer are not helped by a relentless hype machine. But simply put if you took a bunch of WoW fanbois and put them on a WoW server at release in late Nov 2004 they would hate it. Thats NOT to say WoW was bad at launch but that the WoW fanbois have unrealistic expectations of what an mmo can offer at launch. When 98% of WoW's current players were not there for WoW's launch, then how do they know what a launch is like?

When WoW launched it was very successful and most of the people who tried WoW out were EQ, SWG, AO, UO players . IE mostly people who have played an mmorpg before and had realistic expectations.

But by the time the masses arrived to WoW Blizzard had polished the game, made improvements and released a truckload of content. For example during 2005 and the 1st week of Jan 2006 Blizzard released the PvP system, 3 battlegrounds, Blackwing Lair, Zul'Gurrub, 6 world bosses, the AQ war effort event and AQ20 and AQ40. 5/9 classes also had talent reviews. So obviously by Jan 2006, 14 months after it was released WoW was a much improved game.

But the WoW fanbois write off games like Vanguard, AoC and Warhammer FOREVER because they weren't perfect at launch. Ok,

Ok, look at this. Blackwing Lair was the first 40 man raid instance introduced into WoW after release. It was introduced in patch 1.6 on the 12th July 2005. Now WoW went live about 23rd Nov 2004. So it took Blizzard 8 months to release new raid content.

Warhammer: Age of Reckoning was released on the Sept 18th 2008. It is now May 2009. 8 months after the initial release, same amount of time it took Blizzard to release new raid content for WoW. So obviously theres a double standard here.

But the WoW fans will only ever judge Warhammer by what it was like at release, not what it is today. it wouldnt how many improvements, polish, bug fixes and new content games like Vanguard, AoC and Warhammer release. The WoW fanbois will forever judge them based on what they were like at release.

Why can't I judge WoW forever based on what it was like at release? The diehard WoW fans get to do it with every other mmorpg.

I do not really understand what you are trying to work out, so lets try to reason step by step.
 

First when WoW was out it was a fraction of what it now is.  That actually proves one thing, Blizz took the monthly and expand on/polish the game.  Is that good? yes.  For those who decided to stay and enjoyed the new bits and pieces their $15 a month pays off.

Second, new WoW players (don't call them fanboys, I will talk about this more below) are different from the first batch of WoWers upon launch.  Is it good?  Yes, new people coming in to keep up the vigor, as we old man fade out.  Why not?  More sub money, more new faces, new demands, new reactions ... it keeps the world moving.

Ok you said WoW fanboys judge whatever.  That is a gross statement.  WoW community is diversed.  12million or whatever million does not think like one.  I got the feeling that more than half of them has some kind of games alongside WoW.  I have played EQ2, CoX, GW, AoC, WAR, LOTRo (lifetime x 3 in family), and so on after WoW launch, and is still playing EvE.  Friend got a different repetoire, and so on.  Each WoWer or fanboy has his/her own views about new and old games.  No sweeping statement applies.

I cannot talk for any other WoW fanboy, so I start talking with my personal feelings.

Hypothetically: If I am now going to play WoW at launch now with the current mindset, I cannot tell.  I would guess its still fun if I got brainwashed about the starter quests.  Of course, if you mean starting an alt now, knowing what WoW 2009 is all about and play WoW 2004 it will not be that exciting.  But then this scenario is stupid.

If I am now given a game which is exactly WoW 2004 in a different skin, no new whatever, just different names of quests, mobs and map, will I like it?  I doubt.  Once novelty wears out I believe you are right, this new game will fail.  So?  It just means a new developer should at least inject his own version of creativity in any new game.  Champions online is one just game with a promise for something new.  CoX and EvE has their own form of novelty.  They have far less scope than WoW, but they attracted me with their own uniqueness.

WAR VG and AoC failed not because they were lesser in scale than WoW.  Wrong.  CoX is even smaller in scale, but it keeps me going back.  It has its own kind of fun.  VG, I was in closed and then open beta.  The game is so unplayable that the guild I was in (over 100) vanished within 2 weeks of launch.  We worked hard reporting bugs after bugs.  Our hopes dashed when we found every bug slamming our face upon launch.  Compounded with almost unplayable lag and sudden freezes.  I understand you argument that after 14 months VG could be better, the point is, if I have a good game (say WoW or CoX or Eve) enjoying every bit of them for 14 months, should I sub to VG and wait for 14 months before going to play?  I can retry VG when they fix it 14 months later, but then it is their job to present a great game and attract me away from my current games.  If my current trio and my other social activities are so much fun, then sorry VG, you missed your chance.

AoC is quite the same story.  After lvl 20, the game falls flat.  WAR is a different story.  Its polished, bug free, but the game somehow failed to fire up.  I am more pve than pvp player, and after enough PQs, I feel I am ready to stop playing.  I still recommend WAR to ppl who likes intense pvp, just not for me.

Now does that means no new games forever?  NO.  LOTRo comes, I joined closed beta, open beta, and I still have 3x lifetime memberships.  So if a game cuts it, I pay and play.  I am not married to WoW, I can have other affairs with other games, and WoW won't kick me out of bed.

Stop blaming WoW community when other games fail.  WoW community is only 12million, there are billions more human beings to market to.  If no one wants the new game, its the 12million WoWers and the billions of others that collectively reject the game.  There are enough WoW "haters" for the new game to try to sell to.  Try Darkfall, its trying to sell to the WoW haters, but most of these WoW haters ended up hating DF.  So is WoW responsible for the death of DF?

Even if you intend to sell to the WoW community, a new game need to come up with something of its own, so that the WoW community find it worth the money to keep both WoW and the new game under sub.  I sub to 3 or 4 games concurrently, and multiple account for family.  I can afford the money easily.  But I need to feel like paying.  Give me a good game.  I will buy Champion online and Diablo 3 (stop telling me its not MMO, I don't care, I play what I like, not what ppl classifies).  That about says it all.  If your product is good, you will have your market share.  If it sucks, you will face the door.

Actually, new games have their best chance for success during launch.  With the element of novelty at work, new features of the game can hit our nerves best.  I like LOTRo the moment I walked into shire.  I know the tutorial is not the best, but as a new game I will go thru it to see.  Once I entered Shire, I know my wallet is going to lose some weight.  Almost a year after that, when LOTRo launches, all elements of novelty are lost, but my first moment at shire alone prompted me to buy 3 copies of collectors' edition and then life time sub.  Yes me and family agree LOTRo at launch is far smaller than WoW, but that does not stop us from shelling out almost 1 grand.

Well you have to call people diehard WoW fans?  Do you?  How many WoW players are married to WoW.  From what I noticed, not many.  Fact is half of our guild people are going in and out of WoW, play for a few months, unsub and go to another game, and almost invariable come back to WoW.  They have tried other games, they keep trying other games, but ... they keep coming back.  This means what?  The other games failed to retain the WoWers.

Blame the other games, not blame us.  The other games are in the business to attract us.  If they cannot attract us, they failed, not us.  We pay to enjoy and we stick with what we enjoyed most.  Is it a crime to chose to buy what we enjoy most?  If it takes a new game 14 months to get to the point of polishness and feature completeness, then expect no business until then.  Gamers can wait for 14 months, they can wait for 14 years for that matter, BUT NOT PAYING for 14 months while the developer polish it.

Originally posted by CazNeerg

If we lived in a world where money men were willing to keep paying until an MMO was finished before releasing it, it might be fair for customers to expect a high level of polish and a high level of content.  We don't live in that world.  I am not complaining that it is unfair from a "business" standpoint, I am just pointing out that customer expectations, understandable or not, are simply not realistic, and if they bothered to pause and think about it, they would know their expectations are unreasonable.

That being said, I fully agree that if a game basically tries to imitate WoW, it should fail, because why would anybody play an underdeveloped clone of a game that is already out when they have the option of going for the real deal?  That is the primary reason that WoW-envy is the biggest problem in the industry right now, all the development dollars that get spent on almost-certain-to-fail WoW clones could be getting spent on games that are new and different enough that players might be willing to forgive the standard release day level of flaws in order to stick around and see how the game's unique elements pan out.

Now that is unfair.  Try a corollary.

I am currently shopping for a house.  That is real.  Now I am going to check out your new house, you are a builder.  You showed me a house not the same as the cosy one I am about to depart.  But still the new house is done, paints dry, roof not leaking and the toilet flush works.  I see a kitchen I know I can cook, a living room with light and so on.  OK I will talk price with you, even though I noticed that one of the doors to a guest bedroom is not yet installed, and one of the window is stuck from inside.  So long as you promised to fix it, in a week, I will drop a deposit and move in.

Now I meet another builder, he has half of the house built, and show me a sketch of the other half.  Then he ask me to buy it and live there as he build the rest.  Should I?  Should I leave my current cosy house and move in?  Ok if its free, I can.  Why not?  A summer house.  If its a token fee, sure, just for the heck of fun.  But if its a full blown purchase price?  Come on.

Why is it unrealistic to expect new competitors to be at least as good as the current suppliers?  That is exactly what competition means.  Suppliers compete for sales, they have to show me why they are better than their rivals.  Either they are everything as good as the others, or they have their own uniqueness.  Failing both, why should I buy them?  Failing both, they might not even entice me to a free trial.  I won't even do free DF trial, or even if they pay me to play it.  If WoW, EvE and CoX makes me smile when I log in, why should I log in a game I do not feel like.

Yes, its a matter of taste, of judgement, and its the job of the developer and his PR team to show me some reasons to give them a trial, even if its a free trial.  Free trial still cost time, and time is precious for me, after long hours of work.  If their product or their PR fails to catch my attention, too bad.  I always insist I expect quality, and quality is in the eye of the beholder.  I will not pay for incomplete games without specific redeeming features THAT I FEEL LIKE TO ENJOY even if the rest of the game is partially done.  I will play Champions Online when it comes out, cos I like to try super heroes, even if I expect the entire game to be still buggy at start.  I will buy.  I did not sub to VG after buying a copy at launch, b/c its both incomplete, buggy, and it brings nothing new to me.  Whatever VG has I can find in the existing games, which are no longer buggy, no longer incomplete.

I would be an insane man to pay for a new game which is incomplete, or buggy, or what not, which will only be really ready in another 10 or 20 months.  I will be a crazy man to keep paying them till they finish it.  Why don't their boss pay for the development cost?  Why should I pay instead?  Why is it that our expectations are unreasonable?  Unreasonable to expect the developer to finish their game enough before asking me to try it out?  and to pay for it?

Yes you mention new and different games.  That alone does not cut it, it has to be different in an attractive way.  Tell me which game is different in an attractive way that makes sense?

-- VG: xp grind, xp loss, corpse running, pvp.  That is fun?

-- WAR: RvR totally detached from the PvE?  Now its not bad, but not as good as the integrated PvE/RvR of DAoC

-- AoC:  What new is there?  I cannot see.

-- DF:  Oh come on, forum trolls?

-- Aion: yes I am thinking of this one, not ruling it out at all.  Fact is, if I can get to download it, I will pay for a copy and try.

-- CoS: wait till I can buy it, I have no views at all.

-- you keep filling up the list, and start asking yourself, is this game different enough in a meaning manner to justify time and money?  On the other hand, I have my eyes on Champions Online and Diablo 3.  I will pay for them, b/c, finished or not, these 2 titles carries new elements I would like to try.  Case closed.

Originally posted by Orthedos

Now that is unfair.  Try a corollary.

I am currently shopping for a house.  That is real.  Now I am going to check out your new house, you are a builder.  You showed me a house not the same as the cosy one I am about to depart.  But still the new house is done, paints dry, roof not leaking and the toilet flush works.  I see a kitchen I know I can cook, a living room with light and so on.  OK I will talk price with you, even though I noticed that one of the doors to a guest bedroom is not yet installed, and one of the window is stuck from inside.  So long as you promised to fix it, in a week, I will drop a deposit and move in.

Now I meet another builder, he has half of the house built, and show me a sketch of the other half.  Then he ask me to buy it and live there as he build the rest.  Should I?  Should I leave my current cosy house and move in?  Ok if its free, I can.  Why not?  A summer house.  If its a token fee, sure, just for the heck of fun.  But if its a full blown purchase price?  Come on.

Why is it unrealistic to expect new competitors to be at least as good as the current suppliers?  That is exactly what competition means.  Suppliers compete for sales, they have to show me why they are better than their rivals.  Either they are everything as good as the others, or they have their own uniqueness.  Failing both, why should I buy them?  Failing both, they might not even entice me to a free trial.  I won't even do free DF trial, or even if they pay me to play it.  If WoW, EvE and CoX makes me smile when I log in, why should I log in a game I do not feel like.

Yes, its a matter of taste, of judgement, and its the job of the developer and his PR team to show me some reasons to give them a trial, even if its a free trial.  Free trial still cost time, and time is precious for me, after long hours of work.  If their product or their PR fails to catch my attention, too bad.  I always insist I expect quality, and quality is in the eye of the beholder.  I will not pay for incomplete games without specific redeeming features THAT I FEEL LIKE TO ENJOY even if the rest of the game is partially done.  I will play Champions Online when it comes out, cos I like to try super heroes, even if I expect the entire game to be still buggy at start.  I will buy.  I did not sub to VG after buying a copy at launch, b/c its both incomplete, buggy, and it brings nothing new to me.  Whatever VG has I can find in the existing games, which are no longer buggy, no longer incomplete.

I would be an insane man to pay for a new game which is incomplete, or buggy, or what not, which will only be really ready in another 10 or 20 months.  I will be a crazy man to keep paying them till they finish it.  Why don't their boss pay for the development cost?  Why should I pay instead?  Why is it that our expectations are unreasonable?  Unreasonable to expect the developer to finish their game enough before asking me to try it out?  and to pay for it?

Yes you mention new and different games.  That alone does not cut it, it has to be different in an attractive way.  Tell me which game is different in an attractive way that makes sense?

-- VG: xp grind, xp loss, corpse running, pvp.  That is fun?

-- WAR: RvR totally detached from the PvE?  Now its not bad, but not as good as the integrated PvE/RvR of DAoC

-- AoC:  What new is there?  I cannot see.

-- DF:  Oh come on, forum trolls?

-- Aion: yes I am thinking of this one, not ruling it out at all.  Fact is, if I can get to download it, I will pay for a copy and try.

-- CoS: wait till I can buy it, I have no views at all.

-- you keep filling up the list, and start asking yourself, is this game different enough in a meaning manner to justify time and money?  On the other hand, I have my eyes on Champions Online and Diablo 3.  I will pay for them, b/c, finished or not, these 2 titles carries new elements I would like to try.  Case closed.

I basicly agrees with you.

However a small point: AoC do have something new and brilliant: collison detection for weapons. Basicly ifyour weapon touch something you hit it. That is actually new and brilliant, no need to aim, just attack in the general direction.

AoC have other shortcommings but that feature is something I hope all MMOs will have in the future, it really adds realism. It is not enough reason to play the game just for it, and AoC needs a lot more content to be a good game but both that feature and the tutorial for new players (Tortage) are brilliant.

Devs need to stop releasing their games a year too early, that is one of the reasons that no other game is close to Wow (closest was Guildwars and it released in good time without buggs). Also if they release a buggy mess they need to fix it fast, 1-2 years will only lead to a failure for the game.

Personally, I found the Tortage portion of AoC to be a very fun experience, with a depth of story based on your archetype that I had not previously experience in an online game. Granted, that was only the first quarter of the game, level wise, but for me it was better than anything in the first quarter of WoW. AoC's major problem was that the leveling curve was so fast that the majority of the player base burned through the first half of the game so fast, they got to the point in the game where the content just wasn't there, because it hadn't been made yet.

It is overly reductionist to present the issue as one of players vs. companies. There are the players, the people actually designing the game, and the people in control of financing the game. It isn't the fault of the people designing the game if the people controlling the money refuse to cough up any more without a release.
 

The answer to the question of whether it is players or money men whose expectations are out of line is simple: both.  It isn't reasonable for customers to expect a game to have tons of polished content at launch, because no online game ever does.  It also isn't reasonable for the money men to expect a large number of customers to play an unfinished game when there are games that have been out long enough to have added content and polish. 

For those who are content with the current crop of games, there is no problem, but many of those who aren't content with the current games still want a large amount of highly polished content, but in a certain sense they want to have just as much content and polish as WoW, without paying as much for it as WoW's customers have.  Most of WoW's content and polish wasn't paid for by the game's original financiers, it was paid for by player subscriptions.  It just isn't reasonable to expect new games to spend as much on development before they have any revenue as WoW has spent on development with years worth of millions of subscriptions.

Edit: So to sum up the above, basically nobody is acting reasonably.

People do not expect the same amount of content from a new game at release as wow currently has.  Just like they didn't expect the same amount of content that everquest had to be in warcraft when it launched. 

All a game has to have is a decent amount of content, well designed concepts and potential.  When games fail to deliver a decent product at launch they spend far more efforts fixing things when they should already be in a mode of expanding and implementing new things to the game. 

Wow spent the first year adding tons of content and working on expanding the game as well as tweaking things that didn't turn out as expected.  What have most other games done the first 2 years that released before they were ready?  Think about that. 

You are unjustly laying blame at players feet for something that isn't correct. 

Originally posted by CazNeerg

Personally, I found the Tortage portion of AoC to be a very fun experience, with a depth of story based on your archetype that I had not previously experience in an online game. Granted, that was only the first quarter of the game, level wise, but for me it was better than anything in the first quarter of WoW. AoC's major problem was that the leveling curve was so fast that the majority of the player base burned through the first half of the game so fast, they got to the point in the game where the content just wasn't there, because it hadn't been made yet.

It is overly reductionist to present the issue as one of players vs. companies. There are the players, the people actually designing the game, and the people in control of financing the game. It isn't the fault of the people designing the game if the people controlling the money refuse to cough up any more without a release.
 

The answer to the question of whether it is players or money men whose expectations are out of line is simple: both.  It isn't reasonable for customers to expect a game to have tons of polished content at launch, because no online game ever does.  It also isn't reasonable for the money men to expect a large number of customers to play an unfinished game when there are games that have been out long enough to have added content and polish. 

For those who are content with the current crop of games, there is no problem, but many of those who aren't content with the current games still want a large amount of highly polished content, but in a certain sense they want to have just as much content and polish as WoW, without paying as much for it as WoW's customers have.  Most of WoW's content and polish wasn't paid for by the game's original financiers, it was paid for by player subscriptions.  It just isn't reasonable to expect new games to spend as much on development before they have any revenue as WoW has spent on development with years worth of millions of subscriptions.

Edit: So to sum up the above, basically nobody is acting reasonably.

Agree on AoC, it was not so bad till I hit 30s.  I was a bit too sweeping earlier.

As for paying too much for WoW, I disagree.  I pay a box then monthly for every game I play.  For the same $15, I got the most out of WoW, from patches to new content to graphics upgrade, to UI improvement, to class fiddling (some of those I agree with, even if my ret paly got nerfed to no end).  For the same $15, I got much less in terms of enhancement from most other games.  Frankly EQ charge me for almost every expansion, and EQ2, damn it they charge me for adding a lvl 30s zone after I hit 50!!!!  I forgot the name of the xpac, I was dumbfound.

The world of MMOs are evolving, they charge me $15 anyway.  The old generation is gone, and the changes are enjoyed by whoever would go one playing.  It is fair that the cost be shouldered by those who are still playing.  My views.

It does not depend on whether I am contented with the current crop of games.  I am contented with nothing, but that does not mean I need to change my behaviour.  I still settle on what I like most today, while watching for possible new games to try out.  I am NOT paying nor even wasting time on a new game, unless I see a reason, be it new game elements, or fun expected or whatever.  Why am I not acting reasonably?

Why do I need to care how the developer fun himself.  I do not care how the farmer grows his wheat, or how the company ships the bread to the store.  I do not care how the water supplies authority constructs the pipe or for that matter, how god summon the raincloud.  I am only myself and I look after my own interest.  I am not pretending I can care for them, nor do I pretend they will care for me as a person, apart from ripping open my wallet.

Let the developers worry about how to provide content or whatever ways to entice my attention.  That is their job, and they are very creative.  Worry about earning the money to buy whatever attracts the eye.

Yes it is very reasonable to expect the new developers to figure out how to finance their projects, how to learn from WoW and other successful titles AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, how to do a better job, as in new ideas, better implementation or gimmicks.  They have the story of blizz and NCSoft fully documented, they can avoid all the mistakes of the predecessors, and working models to copy and improve upon.  IF AFTER SEEING SOMEONE'S ELSE CODE AND RUNNING PROGRAMS, I CANNOT WRITE A BETTER ONE, DO YOU THINK MY BOSS WILL PAY MY SALARY NEXT MONTH?  I expected to be fired immediately.

Lol, this thread has gone so far off topic, it's kinda funny...

I have to say, though, that WoW did actually release with quite a bit of content.  I was subbed and playing within 2 weeks of its release, and played for 10 solid months (before a year break, followed by another 2 year sub).  The fact is, initially it had its problems.  Were they so glaring you couldn't play?  Nope.  The actual immersion level in WoW was quite awesome right off the bat (I absolutely loved the music for each zone as I leveled my first toon - a NE druid.  Ashenvale music was just awesome).  Also, it seems folks have completely written off Stratholme and Scholomance, as well as LBRS and UBRS as if they were never raid zones themselves.  Even blackrock depths was amazing.  Never have I seen such a well-designed and elaborate dungeon since (quick check on wowhead shows what, 20 bosses in there).  Sure, the first 40-mans were Ony and MC, but UBRS and scholo took solid 15-man groups in the beginning, and were quite fun and challenging.  Strat was also quite fun, and all of them gave the formerly coveted ".5 dungeon sets", which of course back then some of them didn't even have 8 piece bonuses.  I remember my warlock getting its 8th piece long, long ago and even replacing pieces but saving it to see what the 8 piece bonus would be if they ever fixed it.  However you look at it though, getting attuned and keyed for those places, and running them consistantly was crucial back then for gearing up a guild to raid 40-mans.  I'll never forget a guy (hunter) ninja'ing the dagger off Rend (felstriker) and being totally blacklisted on my server, and my God how many happy pallies and rogues did that guy make (dal'rend set, Doomsaw)?  Who can honestly say they didn't freak out the first time they saw "The Beast" and didn't get a kick out of being punted by him every time you'd run the joint (I'd always make my groups /roll to pull him and get the boot)?  How many old-school warlocks prayed for a Headmaster's Charge off Gandling, or (anyone) for a sawbones shirt?

The fact is, even the old stuff was fun, and back in its day, it wasn't so easy.  The rewards were memorable, as were the fights.  In all, the point is, WoW opened up with plenty of stuff to be done even without the 40-man raids right off the bat.  Southshore was always fun for PVP, as was the occassional crossroads battle.  Battlegrounds were a huge innovation, which were then improved upon by battlegroups, and later honor rewards.  BC's flight, factions, heroic modes and badges were all fun and rewarding to strive for, and felt fairly worth the 2-year wait given the content and fixes introduced in the meantime.  I tried other games in my playtime in WoW, and nothing else even felt close to something worth switching to.  I've since quit, and moved on, but even still nothing has matched WoW's early days (and it was -not- my first MMO) or its progression through updates, fixes, innovations, or expansions.  I'd love to say I'm not a WoW fanboi (I all but refuse to play it ever again) but to think back to it, I've no reason to hate the game at all.  They just did everything right (even if it didn't suit every player or wasn't perfect at the start).

I never heard anyone say that before.

We should just agree to disagree Zorn :)

Looking at games released in the last decade I see no straight correlation between budget and polish/quality (there is obviously some). ID software has delivered some of the most polished games out there with a crew you can count on your two hands. Why is Blizzard always late in releasing their games? Because the core development team of each product is tight and small until you do the real work load closer to release (most textures, music etc). Most things that we as players feel as polish are not quantities but qualities - and major work loads are mostly about what you can quantify (and hence push to a date relatively close to release/beta).