In this week's edition of "Dana Massey Asks Why Not?," Dana wonders pins down why he believes EVE has continued to grow, while many other MMOs have a much shorter shelf life. Is it content? Is it polish?

No. It's that CCP has engineered stronger social bonds than many of its competitors who have made socialization so easy, it's practically automated.

Modern mechanics have made pickup groups so easy that you people do not even need to talk to each other. That was fine for hermits, but when you can experience all the content, in groups, without ever saying a word, the pendulum has shifted too far in the other direction.

Think of it this way. If when you walked into a bar, there was a menu on your table of the people in there and what they had in mind for the rest of the evening and all you had to do was touch a button beside their name and voila, you were off… well, let’s just say the marriage rate in the United States would drop really freaking fast.

Check out the full article here.

What really amazes me too is how drastically the idea of socializing with other players in a MMO so quickly turns to a "I don't want to be forced to group" by so many players. I never once felt I was forced to group in Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, DAoC, etc. I knew full well, though, that there was some content (note, some) that it would be prudent to group up, though.

Most people, and I'd dare say you will see them try to do it in this thread, try to go absolutly extremist when someone mentions this topic in trying to defend their "right" to solo play and solo play in every aspect of the game. To me, that's what single player games are for. MMOs were created in part so that people could team up and face challenges together. Created those relationships, good or bad, with other players was, in my mind, another form of content!

I agree completely and will add that one of the things many newer game designers seem to have missed is the concept of "down time". There is a direct relation between the amount of chat and socialization going on in EVE and the fact that I (as a player) do not have to be constantly pounding hotkeys, using mouse controls etc the entire time I am playing to accomplish anything.

Because my skill gain isn't tied to anything but time, I can chill in a station and actually chat. There are lots of low-click game activities that I can be engaged in while chatting - salvaging, mining, exploration - even to some degree PvP ops such as scouting or lookout duty. (and many others of course)

Also, EVE encourages socialization because it can be hard and ruthless. Recovering from that one big mistake is a heck of a lot easier with a corp of friends to support you - not to mention being less likely to make that mistake in the first place with decent friends and advice.

Lastly, EVE encourages socialization because the PvP model favors numbers in many ways. (Just ask Goonswarm)

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

What really amazes me too is how drastically the idea of socializing with other players in a MMO so quickly turns to a "I don't want to be forced to group" by so many players. I never once felt I was forced to group in Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, DAoC, etc. I knew full well, though, that there was some content (note, some) that it would be prudent to group up, though.

Most people, and I'd dare say you will see them try to do it in this thread, try to go absolutly extremist when someone mentions this topic in trying to defend their "right" to solo play and solo play ...

The first paragraph was great but the second one almost seemed as if the true meaning of the first was lost.

The main thing above solo and group and everything is the ability to be an entity. In AC and UO, you joined a group of people heading out to hunt because of what you as a person brought to the table. There really wasn't a reason to ask you to come along other than the safety in numbers and the social aspect of it. In the past 5 years or so of MMOs, you'd be hard pressed to find many MMOs where people aren't just their class and nothing more. YOU aren't needed in today's MMOs, your class is. The games are designed that way at the core.

In AC, you can call for a group to do Gaerlan's and just add people as they show up. Now try to do that same thing for epic quests in games like WOW and WAR. Suddenly your focus shifts from recruiting people to watching for classes and asking how they are spec'd. The focus in most of today's MMOs is on the mechanics and not on the social aspect.

The person that brings up being able to solo through a game may very well be someone who would otherwise enjoy traveling with others if he was being added because he was a fellow player and not just some class whose participation (or not) in the quest was dictate solely by one button he pressed at character creation time.

The only Korean MMO I've ever been able to play for a decent amount of time was Nexon's Dark Ages, for exactly the reasons mentioned. Several features were included that fostered social networking, and even provided in-game rewards for making friends with others. The game still has many of the flaws of the standard hack-and-slash structure of a Korean game, and the isometric 2d was quite often difficult to use, but I was able to overlook those problems thanks to the unique opportunities the social features allowed.

For instance, when it is time for a fledgling player to chose their first class, that player must seek out a mentor of the same class to accompany them through a shrine to speak with the deity in charge. A 3 way dialogue ensues between the NPC god and both players, which cannot be completed unless both players participate. Once this is complete, the two can go their seperate ways if they choose, but the game has recorded their mentor-student status, and if they meet up again, from then on they are rewarded with exp and occasional items once a week. Yes, the game rewards people for keeping in touch with someone.

The game also had a political system, allowing the players to become citizens and run for office in several towns. Anyone who wanted to become a guard, sheriff, burgher,  judge or mayor could go out and campaign for it to gather votes. Admittedly, this encouraged harassment for some, but more often you would find some erstwhile politician standing in the town square delivering a stump speach. Rewards for the various positions varied, at lower levels players were granted some authority over dispute resolution and the ability to grant custom costume changes to other players. At higher levels, players voted on laws for the city, enforcable by the guards and sheriffs inside the city limits and any attached dungeons.

Dark Ages maintains a system for religions as well. Players are encouraged to seek out one of the 8 temples in the land, each dedicated to one of the world's pantheon of gods. Each church provides different rewards for it's supplicants, and joining one of the congregations increases the rewards and the frequency with which you can get them. Progressing in the ranks of the church will continue to increase the rewards gained, and can be done by participating in the churches activities, and by pleasing the priests of the attached deity. Priests, in particular, gain additional powers based on their deity, and how many followers they have helped induct into the church. And again, social gatherings are made relevant with simple rewards, as the higher priests gain a spell that can grant free exp to all present, and while they could just cast the spell and go, most won't grant the bonus to any player who doesn't actually attend a sermon.

There were other touches as well - quest chains that require two or more players to act in tandem, for instance - but the basic idea boils down to something pretty simple. In all RPGs, experience and loot is used to reward a player for doing what the game wants you to do. In most MMOs, those rewards are granted for killing and doing queests that require killing, so it's not difficult to deduce that killing is what the game wants the player to focus on. To create a social experience, all the game has to do is reward social actions, and the bonds that those actions create will follow naturally.

If you need proof - I haven't played Dark Ages in years, but I still remember this 2d level-grinder that would look at home on an SNES more fondly than many of the super-high tech slick 3d visual games of more recent years.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

What really amazes me too is how drastically the idea of socializing with other players in a MMO so quickly turns to a "I don't want to be forced to group" by so many players. I never once felt I was forced to group in Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, DAoC, etc. I knew full well, though, that there was some content (note, some) that it would be prudent to group up, though.

Most people, and I'd dare say you will see them try to do it in this thread, try to go absolutly extremist when someone mentions this topic in trying to defend their "right" to solo play and solo play ...

 

The first paragraph was great but the second one almost seemed as if the true meaning of the first was lost.

The main thing above solo and group and everything is the ability to be an entity. In AC and UO, you joined a group of people heading out to hunt because of what you as a person brought to the table. There really wasn't a reason to ask you to come along other than the safety in numbers and the social aspect of it. In the past 5 years or so of MMOs, you'd be hard pressed to find many MMOs where people aren't just their class and nothing more. YOU aren't needed in today's MMOs, your class is. The games are designed that way at the core.

In AC, you can call for a group to do Gaerlan's and just add people as they show up. Now try to do that same thing for epic quests in games like WOW and WAR. Suddenly your focus shifts from recruiting people to watching for classes and asking how they are spec'd. The focus in most of today's MMOs is on the mechanics and not on the social aspect.

The person that brings up being able to solo through a game may very well be someone who would otherwise enjoy traveling with others if he was being added because he was a fellow player and not just some class whose participation (or not) in the quest was dictate solely by one button he pressed at character creation time.

 

I was addressing the the extremist view in the second paragraph and not those who are as you detailed. It may have not come out right, it seems. I blame that on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. I was watching an E3 video of it as I was typing. I think I did well not to subconsciously type "oh my god, that's awesome" over and over, lol.

Building on what you said, but not trying to infer where you were going or put words in your mouth, at a base level having a "class system" seems to contribute in a major negative way to this. As demeaning as it may sound, I'd much rather be added to the group because I'm the next "warm body" than because I picked the "right class/spec" for this chance encounter. It would seem to me having only the warm body requirement would lead to more grouping opportunities. It would also seem that, through building a relation with those in the group by, I don't know, talking to them, would create further opportunities to group with them. So the worrying about getting a group becomes non-existent. And in part this goes back to having constructive down-time in certain areas and as well as building mechanics and systems that get people to chatting.

I'm still on a Modern Warfare 2 high so if the above didn't make sense, I apologize, lol!

You know, you might have something here. If this is true, that current MMOs have made the grouping/solo issues an afterthought, then would it also mean that current MMOs are too easy to play?

I look at this and say, "Yes. Sense current MMOs does not requirement a commitment to other players either by gathering groups or bonds between fellow players because of the ease of achievement, then the MMO game itself is easy."

Massey's article states that because interactions between players are no longer needed by the ease of grouping then the players feel no commitment to the game other than to reach a specific goal for him or herself. Once people do things for themselves, specially for a game, they really ignore others unless it benefits them in some way in reaching their goals.

It will be interesting to see the ramifications of the current MMO industry in 10 and 20 years down the road.

Originally posted by hooliganj

For instance, when it is time for a fledgling player to chose their first class, that player must seek out a mentor of the same class to accompany them through a shrine to speak with the deity in charge. A 3 way dialogue ensues between the NPC god and both players, which cannot be completed unless both players participate. Once this is complete, the two can go their seperate ways if they choose, but the game has recorded their mentor-student status, and if they meet up again, from then on they are rewarded with exp and occasional items once a week. Yes, the game rewards people for keeping in touch with someone.

That's a rather cool feature. :) 

Originally posted by LynxJSA

 

In AC, you can call for a group to do Gaerlan's and just add people as they show up. Now try to do that same thing for epic quests in games like WOW and WAR. Suddenly your focus shifts from recruiting people to watching for classes and asking how they are spec'd. The focus in most of today's MMOs is on the mechanics and not on the social aspect.

See, funny thing about game Devs. They watch what players like, and they expand on hose concepts while abandoning others.

The shift in focus came because of a shift in the concept of roles.

In EQ for instance, unless you were 1-2 certain classes back in the day, you had to group to level. But, you didn't NEED a certain group makeup. A tank was nice, but things didn't hit so hard that it was required. Healing sped things up, but you could get by with bandaged and moving a bit slower. A puller was needed, but half the classes in the game could do that to some extent. Damage is always needed, but specific types (melee, magic, ranged, whatever) were never an issue. Buffs were NEVER required, just helpful. And people like it that way. But they began to realize they could do better by having an optimal group with the 4 roles (puller, tank, dps, heals) there, and with certain buffs. So they began looking for those things specifically. So the next gen of MMOs comes out, the devs look at what happened in EQ and go "well, they like assigning roles and optimizing groups. So we'll pigeonhole everyone and tailor the fights to make those roles necessary" And now you have WoW's grouping structure. Mobs hit so hard, and non-tank health/def pools are so low, that all group encounters MUST have a tank. health recovery is so poor without one you MUST have a healer. 

Now players look at THAT, and work out which of the few classes for each role are optimal for which encounters. So now your groups are even MORE limited, and certain classes just sit by the wayside. It's a vicious cycle. 

---

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

at a base level having a "class system" seems to contribute in a major negative way to this. As demeaning as it may sound, I'd much rather be added to the group because I'm the next "warm body" than because I picked the "right class/spec" for this chance encounter. It would seem to me having only the warm body requirement would lead to more grouping opportunities. It would also seem that, through building a relation with those in the group by, I don't know, talking to them, would create further opportunities to group with them.

---

A "warm body" system can help ease grouping, but that alone isn't enough. It makes grouping far quicker and simpler (no more I need this class/spec), dropping the LFG times (which can be a large intrusion on play time) to almost nothing. I wonder though how much the game would become "easy mode" as a result. Sure you'd get some of the "I hate grouping" people to be more happy about grouping, but IMO you'd lose many of the "I don't mind grouping" players as the challenge of group content would be lessened (most likely).

IMO, games need to get off the gear treadmill. This alone would would 1) reduce the time to become "effective" at cap, 2) forces the players to work together in a more regular basis (instead of the we can always get another <insert class/role>) since gear wouldn't cover for bad play or a lack of teamwork. This also leads to less pressure to "keep up with the Joneses" on gear, leaving time to socialize without it being "wasting time".

Careful shipmate, the anti-gamers will be all over you for starting a cult and the next thing you know they will bring up the Doom Deal right next to “playing Stairway to Heaven” backwards to hear Satin. Lol.

Yes, I am a big believer in the power of a games community and the importance of clan relationships as they form into bonds. In Eve you just don’t go around announcing recruitment in general population and last long with soo many elements involved such as alliances, wars and/or security levels. There is a unity involved in Eve where the members have to rest assured against spies, traders, thief’s in order to assure solid membership unlike some other games. I think Eve’s ability to grow is based much on the online gaming relationships that form in the game at least that is what I experienced.

There is a common element in Eve as other games, for example, that feeling of numerous members preparing and riding off to battle intensifies the enjoyment of victory or defeat. There is something really neat that happens when I group with 20-50 other players that I have been investing travel and look around to see the support. This is where I believe Eve is unique, that is, I am not on a mount rather I am in a spaceship and my learned/earned abilities will be beneficial in the conflict. All of which concurs to your write-up regarding a better social bond.

Finally, that “bond” does not just develop with time, it must be earned by investment and trust which IMO maintains the loyalty of the corporations members. In short, I have not experienced a corporation that allows access to the entire juicy items one can get, you have to prove yourself in Eve. Perhaps it is those strong bonds that are so enticing to players and draw people in however; I believe that this is only one important element that results in Eve’s growth. Neat write-up.
 

Wow.. that's a fantastic write-up, Dana. I couldn't agree more with its entirety.

I think the socialisation you mentioned is what ultimately kept me playing SWG for 4 years (something I have still never managed to acheive in any one of a dozen MMOs I have played since it went down the crapper).

The socialisation in SWG enabled me to create something with other players. Roleplay, cities, the game aside, I built friendships, and we all built community. And that kept me coming back every single evening.

Socialisation in SWG was often forced, or at least mildly co-erced, and while some might have argued about not wanting to be forced into socialisation, I think, as Dana has stated/implied, socialising helps to build communities, and the glue that binds it all together, turning an evening's button-mashing into an enriching social experience. Having to visit entertainers and medics to heal mental and physical wounds; travelling the multitude of player cities (all crafted) for the right store for that particular item (again, all made by the players); etc, etc, etc... It was all circular, binding, and only served to heighten the experience and the immersion. Even the asshats.

Is socialising needed? No. You could be a hermit if you want, but why would you want to live half-naked in the woods, having to catch fish with your barehands every day, when you could become part of a community and enrich your existence? Hell, you can drive a car with your feet, but that don't make it a good idea! (Chris Rock)

I think Dana has really hit the nail on the head with this one. Modern MMOs just lack the social aspects; the reason to keep coming back, even when the content has dried up. Back in the old days of SWG there was very little to almost zero content. And it was a few years before they introduced anything really tangible. But it didn't matter, because people were building communities together, physical or otherwise, whether crafting, social or even for pvp. Players didn't just click a button and get insta-ported to a pre-set, unchanging battlefield. They made bases just so that they could fight over them (and for faction benefits). Player communities constructed cities and outposts in defensible positions.. I could go on...

AoC has these great-looking player towns, but what use are they socially? Absolutely zero. There aren't even chairs to sit on.

Anyways.. great post, Dana, thanks for the read.

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

I'm still on a Modern Warfare 2 high so if the above didn't make sense, I apologize, lol!

It made perfect sense. I'd avoid the word downtime though, lest any reading devs get the impression that people want to actually sit on thier ass for 5 minutes after each encounter. Removing the emphasis on leveling inherently creates downtime because people spend more time exploring the rest of the game's features instead of chasing a big bold number in the upper right or left of their screen. It seems players view level in level based games and skills in skill based games very differently, even though they are both essentially the same thing. This may be because of the extreme disparity we commonly see in level-based MMOs or it may be a psychological thing. Either way, there is an urgency to reach max level, but not an urgency to meet max skill. In skill based games, people focus on raising a few select skills and have a "neh" attitude towards the others. Gameplay seems to become more casual when advancing the secondary skills. Even with the primary skills, many will raise them just to a level they are comfortable with. With level-based MMOs, people can't do that. If you start slowing down at level 30 and the rest of your guild reaches 50 or 60, you have effectively removed yourself from being able to get together with your guild. That puts a certain amount of strain on the social interaction because, due to the game mechanics, you have now been removed from a certain level of the interaction.

If it sounds like I am saying levels and classes are often a detriment to socializing and community in MMOs.... well, it's not the popular view, but that's exactly what I am saying.

I'll put forth a more simple answer.  EVE retains more players because the slower play style (some would call boring) and downtimes give players more time to chat.

Older MMO's like DAOC had significant downtime between fights, which gave players a chance to talk to each other now.  Most modern games have us scurry like rabbits from task to task, and there's no time for real social interaction.

EVE has mining, ratting, and crafting, which on the surface appear to be boring, mindless activities. (well, they are of course). But they also provide a player plenty of time to chat to his corp mates, or even in local, and makes for greater social bonds.

I'm currently messing around a bit with ROM as a break, and I never speak to anyone, nor does anyone speak to me.  Sure, there's a bit of zone chatter, but nothing like used to happen in games like DAOC or Lineage.

By providing players with more to do, with less downtime, developers have actually worked to destroy the social fabric of MMORPG games.

Another nice article, Dana. I enjoy reading your thoughts. I just want to be brief with my comment this time. I completely agree that online games become less social and more automated. Most of latest Free to play games are so automated that you can level up your character without ever saying 'Hi' to anyone.

I think the time of Everquest when you had to wait for a ship for 20 minutes are over. Games are faster paced and it seems that developers actually promote this urge for players to run through the content and levels to do the end game as soon as possible and brag about highest level elite equipment on chat channels. Mid level content becomes less polished, less fun. It seems that a lot of developers these days pay a lot of attention to beginner content and an end-game since players rush through the content so fast.

I hope this will be different in SWToR for example. Its already different in LOTRO, but they have been leaning towards end-game loot focused system lately which I don't like. I hope there will still be couple games that will let us to enjoy the whole journey and put aside the urge to level up as fast as humanly possible by skipping all the fun.

Originally posted by Kyleran

I'll put forth a more simple answer.  EVE retains more players because the slower play style (some would call boring) and downtimes give players more time to chat.

Older MMO's like DAOC had significant downtime between fights, which gave players a chance to talk to each other now.  Most modern games have us scurry like rabbits from task to task, and there's no time for real social interaction.

EVE has mining, ratting, and crafting, which on the surface appear to be boring, mindless activities. (well, they are of course). But they also provide a player plenty of time to chat to his corp mates, or even in local, and makes for greater social bonds.

I'm currently messing around a bit with ROM as a break, and I never speak to anyone, nor does anyone speak to me.  Sure, there's a bit of zone chatter, but nothing like used to happen in games like DAOC or Lineage.

By providing players with more to do, with less downtime, developers have actually worked to destroy the social fabric of MMORPG games.

 

I think you're looking at it from the wrong side of things. You're looking for the inclusion of downtime in the leveling, when that's really just a bandaid. Reducing the focus on obsessively leveling to cap removes the need for such a band-aid. An EVE player doesn't have to go out and grind levels, so they don't have to stop 'working' to enjoy the game... it's all game. The same with UO.

Adding downtime just puts a patch on an intrinsically flawed system - leveling. It's been flawed since PnP RPGs and the problems are exacerbated when you introduce such massive level ranges and a persistent world where people are joining at different times.

Your guild starts one of the mainstream fantasy MMOs this week. Next week you get to join them in the game. Well, immediately you are already in 'catch up' mode where you are just playing to level and not to have fun. You pretty much have to do that in order to be able to adventure with them and be of any value to the group. If it's a PvP game, then since your guild and , more importantly, your opponents started before you, you definitely have to spend your time grinding away if you want to take part in the PvP.  In games like ATITD, EVE, UO, and Puzzle Pirates the level disparity is not there, the class restrictions aren't there and the immediacy to 'work' instead of have fun isn't there. The removal of levels greatly contributes to the chances of a player taking time out to socialize. Instead of putting a bandaid on a problem, fix the problem.

Levels are a very distinct and rewarding way to indicate progress, but in a persistent multiplayer virtual world they have a direct and negative impact on both socializing and community building.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

The person that brings up being able to solo through a game may very well be someone who would otherwise enjoy traveling with others if he was being added because he was a fellow player and not just some class whose participation (or not) in the quest was dictate solely by one button he pressed at character creation time.

 

Quite possibly the single best post I have seen in more than two years on any gaming forum.

The quoted portion describes exactly why I often solo, even in MMOs:  for my own part, I recognize that the tank, healer, village idiot - you name it - is a real, live, actual person sitting at a keyboard, just trying to have a little fun.  Besides the fact that, if you try talking to the person (not the class whose help you require to get through a quest before you drop group and go off to do something else), you might actually find yourself enjoying the company and making a friend... ;)

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

I'm still on a Modern Warfare 2 high so if the above didn't make sense, I apologize, lol!

 

It made perfect sense. I'd avoid the word downtime though, lest any reading devs get the impression that people want to actually sit on thier ass for 5 minutes after each encounter. Removing the emphasis on leveling inherently creates downtime because people spend more time exploring the rest of the game's features instead of chasing a big bold number in the upper right or left of their screen. It seems players view level in level based games and skills in skill based games very differently, even though they are both essentially the same thing. This may be because of the extreme disparity we commonly see in level-based MMOs or it may be a psychological thing. Either way, there is an urgency to reach max level, but not an urgency to meet max skill. In skill based games, people focus on raising a few select skills and have a "neh" attitude towards the others. Gameplay seems to become more casual when advancing the secondary skills. Even with the primary skills, many will raise them just to a level they are comfortable with. With level-based MMOs, people can't do that. If you start slowing down at level 30 and the rest of your guild reaches 50 or 60, you have effectively removed yourself from being able to get together with your guild. That puts a certain amount of strain on the social interaction because, due to the game mechanics, you have now been removed from a certain level of the interaction.

If it sounds like I am saying levels and classes are often a detriment to socializing and community in MMOs.... well, it's not the popular view, but that's exactly what I am saying.

Lynx, have you ever considered that maybe this "urgency" to reach max level and stay on the same level with your guild/friends comes from the fact that levels separate the users by content? It seems to me that almost every MMO with levels has segregated all of the users by their levels. What I mean by that is a Lvl 2 character cannot fight along side a Lvl 30 character because the Lvl 30 character gets no benefit from fighting challenging enemies for a Lvl 2 character and a Lvl 2 character provides nothing in a fight against a Lvl 30 enemy.

I find that, typically, in skill-based MMO's a newer character can still provide some assistance to a veteran. For example, in Eve, a lot of the encounters (even the harder ones) have frigates that a new character can help to fight against and, also, they have a low chance of getting hit by the huge battleships that roam the field.
 

My point is, people don't have to "catch up" in most of the skill-based MMO's I've experienced so theres no rush to do. In level based games, it is traditionally very different. I don't think it has anything to do with the nature of the system (Asheron's Call being an example of a game with levels and without the need to catch up). It's just something worth considering.

Good article, Dana.

When I was more passionate about MMORPGs (and devoted more time to playing them and thinking about them) I would've had something significant to contribute to the thoughts in your article.

I noticed, however, that your article is written with an emphasis more on the regular player than on the casual player. I believe your article applies to casual players, too.

Casual players do want immediate access to content by making it simple for them to group and to travel directly to combat or other content. However, so many games offer this that it becomes easy, even attractive, to change games regularly and experience what they all have to offer. And this instant gratification comes at the expense of long-term content and, for the player, long-term goals and long-term relationships. Casual players want this instant gratification but they also want something more.

Building relationships with other players with a view to long-term, complex and difficult goals is an emotional investment. The pay-off is immense and the pay-off is also long-term, even for casual players. I am a casual player who plays EVE. EVE isn't for everyone but this post, like your article, isn't about specific games but about what aspects of game-play best result in a growing subscriber base. I won't leave EVE soon because I am, to some extent, emotionally invested in it. If I leave, I sever relationships.

I've always said that a game's community makes or breaks a game, but your article has put this thought into perspective for me as a game must encourage, not just facilitate, player relationships. To pick up on other posts in this thread, I don't mean forced grouping. Grouping is a short-term commitment.

It doesn't seem as though any game has struck the correct balance. WoW has done supremely well but WoW clones haven't bested it. Why? EVE is still growing but cannot boast the subsciber base mainstream MMORPGs want. As the article hints, too, we cannot truly put a finger on why most MMORPGs fizzle whilst EVE grows. It's a fact that EVE grows and others don't and certain game-play aspects are causing this. What are those specific game-play aspects, what features should a new game include to attract a large base and grow as EVE grows? Don't know for sure but it seems to me that this article is speculating in the right direction.

Great article, Dana.

I just hope people aren't so stubborn that they keep believing features like WAR's Public Groups are actually the future of MMOs.