Quake was followed by a string of so-called "quake killers", which were always evolutionary clones trying to duplicate the original's success by duplicating it's foundations.

Quake's success was never duplicated by something that came along which was not simply a better version of quake, but also very new and different compared with what the original offered. 

WoW will ultimately be killed only when some MMO publishers have the courage to not only push the genre into new territory, but is willing to put enough resources behind it to get it done in a polished way.

Yes but you can kill counter strike source with combat arms.

Lotro will eventually kill WoW as time passes by.. well.. not kill.. but take a majority of subs

I agree with the OP. I have been saying the same thing for a while now.

WoW is bound to run out of steam eventually and another game will take over as top dog. Right now though, it looks like WoW will not be killed by innovation but will rather die of old age. After which the shiniest WoW-clone will take over.

You can't kill the WoW killer threads by cloning them either. :)

You cannot kill that that does not bleed.

Originally posted by Trenchgun

Quake was followed by a string of so-called "quake killers", which were always evolutionary clones trying to duplicate the original's success by duplicating it's foundations.

Quake's success was never duplicated by something that came along which was not simply a better version of quake, but also very new and different compared with what the original offered. 

WoW will ultimately be killed only when some MMO publishers have the courage to not only push the genre into new territory, but is willing to put enough resources behind it to get it done in a polished way.

This thread is funny. Coffee is the only person so far who has actually typed anything even vaguely original and sensible. Everyone else in this copy-cat thread is simply retyping old borrowed thoughts which they have seen everyone else typing for years in the billion other rehashed versions of this tired old attempt at a debate. Its a prime example of how most of the so-called discussions on these forums are in fact the result of nothing more than mindless zombies basicly copy & pasting the words of other posters. Heartless cant even tie his borrowed thoughts together as he blatantly contradicts himself by first agreeing with the OP by stating that he has been saying the same thing for years and then saying as his last sentence that a WoW clone will eventually take over. If you're going to pretend to have an original thought at least make it look like you have thought about it. This thread is the perfect example of a bunch of bored human/sheep hybrids emulating each other.

 World Of Warcraft is not the first game out there.

I am in my 30 and have played many games.

In that case i say Wow is a Lineage 2 Clone.

All mmo has the same basic,

Collect , grind, kill , group, well you get where im going.

Eaven Lineage 2 is not the first one, i played my first MMO 1998 with Ultima Online.

There was a life before you i i have to say.

 Also quake was not the first one.

ID Software created the first wich was 

Wolfenstein 3D followed by Doom, Doom 2 , Heretic 1 and 2 

Man se if you can se those titels in the forum the last couple of days =)

IDDQD , IDCLIP, IDKFA

This is my favorite :

(Xn,...Sn) = Wow. Where X are the number of MMO's playing and S the same mechanics and strategy used....

---->

It comes directly from the famous Nash equilibrium. And is mathematically proven even with a Nobel price on top (that's heavy for a game theory isn't it ) :))

A Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only his or her own strategy unilaterally. If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing his or her strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium.

Stated simply, Amy and Bill are in Nash equilibrium if Amy is making the best decision she can, taking into account Bill's decision, and Bill is making the best decision he can, taking into account Amy's decision. Likewise, many players are in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that he or she can, taking into account the decisions of the others. However, Nash equilibrium does not necessarily mean the best cumulative payoff for all the players involved; in many cases all the players might improve their payoffs if they could somehow agree on strategies different from the Nash equilibrium (e.g. competing businessmen forming a cartel in order to increase their profits).
 

As to the playfield for mmorpg's today, we are in a rather "new" cycle of computer graphics that don't change much. A few hairs more and a few rimples on a face don't "age" the graphics mechanics as it used to be.

So with the aging aspect of computer graphics going even trivial (compared to gameplay), the ONLY way to break the dominance of WOW is to break away from the used strategy within mmorpg's. Or else .... you just support the current game situation.

To put it bluntly: each new mmorpg reinforces the position of WOW if playing within the same game situation.

The man got a Nobel price for it (see: a beautiful mind).

 Now is that thought for food or food for thought ... :))) ? Neonwire :)))

Originally posted by luckypotato

Yes but you can kill counter strike source with combat arms.

Lotro will eventually kill WoW as time passes by.. well.. not kill.. but take a majority of subs

Lotro taking maj of wow's subs.  I'd like to have what you're smoking. :) 

Actually the combination of strong marketing with solid gameplay reinforces the position. At the moment there are plenty of games with good gameplay but very little exposure to media and new players. Bottom line, your formula is flawed in our case, because the players are not equal.

Regardless, us players need a strong P2P quality game on top with massive appeal, else the market will deteriorate into the low quality F2P games offered today. Whether this game is WoW or some other title is of little importance, as long as quality is promoted and reinforced.

Originally posted by Xasapis

Actually the combination of strong marketing with solid gameplay reinforces the position. At the moment there are plenty of games with good gameplay but very little exposure to media and new players. Bottom line, your formula is flawed in our case, because the players are not equal.

Regardless, us players need a strong P2P quality game on top with massive appeal, else the market will deteriorate into the low quality F2P games offered today. Whether this game is WoW or some other title is of little importance, as long as quality is promoted and reinforced.

The Nash equilibrium is not my theory btw. It is used mainly in economics (as the price was in the field of economics).

By "game situation" it is of course the general field situation in which the game is being played. Be it IN game mechanics and strategies and OUT game mechanics and strategies (in this case subs based, marketing, etc).

It shows Blizzard made a rather complete all in package which just results in a status quo of the current mmorpg situation, UNLESS someone wants to play in another bracket IN and OUT of the pure "game" situation.

Of course you can also rely on dictatorships to change game (read economic) situations and just forbid a game to be played.

 The theory looks at global economic situations, so it far surpasses the individual experience of being "bored with a game". AoC and War proved very well that that 'individual element" doesn't interfere with market situations of a  "global playing field".

A potential of 6 Billion people take care of that.

Does the above mean we are in this situation "for ever".

Of course not.

It is enough that the mechanics and strategies change IN and OUT of the playing field of (Xn,,,, Sn)= WOW.

But a few trees and a changing river supported with a subscription based game is simply not good enough.

Complete different game mechanices and new out of game marketing (global subs?, MT's?) would break the equilibrium.

I think it is about time EA hires me :))) before they commit themselves to a new Wow killer in the same playing field. :)))

Being bored with the game is a pretty powerful element for MMOs and something not to be readily dismissed. After all, P2P is all about retention of players over long periods of time.

AoC and WAR had their chance to cut a very big slice out of WoW when they launched. Were those games complete at launch and with all the gameplay elements in tact, the MMO chart would be radically different right now. The downside of these early failures has unfortunately an negative aftershock on all future games produced later on (see the mistrust towards Aion, SW:TOR and Champions online. Also look at how differently these games are advertised, compared to AoC and WAR, ie varying from very little info to complete silence.)

WoW nearly perfected the quest/raid based mmo's franchise

Other games can try, but they will never overcome their master.

Originally posted by luckypotato

Yes but you can kill counter strike source with combat arms.

Lotro will eventually kill WoW as time passes by.. well.. not kill.. but take a majority of subs

I play LOTRO and though a fantastic  MMO it will never meet or surpass that Blizzard has achieved with WOW. However silly the PVP is in WOW or games like Warhammer at least they have PVP far superior to the monster PVP in LOTRO. The hardcore MMO genre of players like myself who have seen and done all in most games are moving on to greater pastures meaning we don't play like we used to. We've gone from marathon play to a few hours a day or every once in awhile now.

WoW was nothing special in my book. It took the missing parts of alot of other MMO and put them in theres. WoW in effect was an easy mode clone of every game that came before it.

Originally posted by coffee

 

You cannot kill that that does not bleed.

yes your right, we must drive a stake made of pure sandbox through its server heart before the next full moon

Originally posted by Xasapis

Being bored with the game is a pretty powerful element for MMOs and something not to be readily dismissed. After all, P2P is all about retention of players over long periods of time.

AoC and WAR had their chance to cut a very big slice out of WoW when they launched. Were those games complete at launch and with all the gameplay elements in tact, the MMO chart would be radically different right now. The downside of these early failures has unfortunately an negative aftershock on all future games produced later on (see the mistrust towards Aion, SW:TOR and Champions online. Also look at how differently these games are advertised, compared to AoC and WAR, ie varying from very little info to complete silence.)

Boredom with a specific game situation is VERY limtited and individually based. The economics have little to do with it.

You may have loved french fries until your liver exploded and now can't stand them, but that doesn't mean french fries are not being loved by those other people. A potential market of millions. Good God I just made a food statement on MMo's. Shame on me !

Always look at the global situation not at your daily personal mood swings.

AoC and War didn't make the cut as Wow killers. The reason was very simple: they played within the same bracket with exactly the same strategies. It is a myth they failed because of lack of polish. They just reinforced the existent equilibrium. They reinforced the position of Wow as the market leader. Lotro was 10 times more polished, it helped to built up the market situation.

And the others you mention will face the same faith IF they play within the same playing field (as were LOTRO, TR, Spellborn, AD&D, etc...).

Isn't it  curious that the ONLY other mmorpg with 300 K western subs these days is ... EVE.

Other methods of marketing, other methods of play.

Just how far you have to go to breach the equilibrium is interesting. But if the competitors are not going to hurry up even "levels" and "gear" independant games will not be able to breach the equilibrium.

Of course you can always rely on political intervention to remedy stale situations (Microsoft and its multi billion fies in EU and WOW in China), but I think we need to think BIG changes here.

At least as big as a complete new genre in MMO play.

Originally posted by coffee

 

You cannot kill that that does not bleed.

so you can't kill a robot?

Well, the three games I mentioned have different gameplay elements than WoW, just not radically different. Of course, the gameplay execution is yet to be witnessed.

• Aion, a natural progression from Lineage 2 and Everquest 2, tackles world PvP and meaningful castle sieging. The overall package seem complete and fresh, for now.
•  Champions online offers a one shard world of superheroes. I'll know more when I get into the beta.
• Star Wars: The old republic, very little is know beyond the strong storytelling element and the choreographic battles. This is the game we know the least about, but also the farthest from release.

I mentioned these games, not because they have the potential to be WoW killers (or x-game killers), but because they have the potential to fill a gap similar to what EVE is doing, something different and something fresh. And in the end, something enjoyable for a while.

Originally posted by Xasapis

Well, the three games I mentioned have different gameplay elements than WoW, just not radically different. Of course, the gameplay execution is yet to be witnessed.

• Aion, a natural progression from Lineage 2 and Everquest 2, tackles world PvP and meaningful castle sieging. The overall package seem complete and fresh, for now.
•  Champions online offers a one shard world of superheroes. I'll know more when I get into the beta.
• Star Wars: The old republic, very little is know beyond the strong storytelling element and the choreographic battles. This is the game we know the least about, but also the farthest from release.

I mentioned these games, not because they have the potential to be WoW killers (or x-game killers), but because they have the potential to fill a gap similar to what EVE is doing, something different and something fresh. And in the end, something enjoyable for a while.

You can't be serious about the first 2 do you?

The last one is interesting if they stay away with the "kill 6 pigs in space (boars) with your light sabre (holy mace) on that red planet (Outland), young paladin."

Perhaps a shared on line individual adventure experience could make the grade. No longer being based on levels and typical healer/dps/tank classes and dungeons. Perhaps.

But the first two will simply not break the equilibrium. It is enough that Blizzard says "Booh" and "people" will find the final Lich King fights at Xmas more exiting to go to with the friends. It is called a "market" theory after all. And yes "people" means people, you know the ones that maintain the present day equilibrium. Not the individual mood setting an individual has because he didn't slept with the wife last night.

In all these threads on all the various fora I visit, where the subject of "WoW killing" is brought up, every one of them fails to mention a core reason for the sucess of WoW. The setting has existed for going on 15 years now. The World of Warcraft (that is, the Warcraftverse, not the game) is familiar to many PC gamers who got their start in the early to mid 90's. It dominated RTSes until Starcraft, another Blizzard IP, came along. Even though the lore behind the Warcraftverse was added to, retconned, and molded around new interpretations of old in-game events, by the time WoW opened for business, there was already an established fanbase of millions waiting to get in on the action. Millions of players who were already familiar with the world of Azeroth; who already knew who the major players were; who experienced a form of active gameplay within the setting; and who now eagerly awaited the chance to get into the world as opposed to looking down on it from the bird's eye view of a real time strategy game.

That was a head start that no other MMO could possibly replicate, unless a company takes the time to start their IP small, nurture it, develop a fanbase, and then hand that world over to the fanbase to become a part of. LOTRO enjoys a similar success, but the main difference is that for every Tolkien fan that actively plays computer games, there's probably 1000 more who are literature buffs that have zero interest in gaming. Warcraft got its start in gaming, so there's no disparity in the fanbase.

The only other game I can think of that has this going for it would be SW:TOR. It's got the two KOTORs before it, and the fans that were created by those games. You can bet that at least 50% of the people who enjoyed and have multiple playthroughs of the KOTORs under their belt will be guaranteed sales and subscriptions within the first few months. And then there will be the disgruntled SWG players looking to grab ahold of another SW based MMO. Needless to say, TOR's release will be interesting to observe. Whether or not it enjoys the runaway success of WoW remains to be seen.

I can say, however, that it's going to take something REALLY special to be developed as an MMO with no prior gaming establishment to reach the kinds of numbers as WoW.

Well, Aion brings world wide PvP with no/little framerate loss and modern graphics. Last game to do that was DAoC or L2, take your pick.

Champions online bring a one shard world, similar to what EVE has. I don't recall any other non-space game that has this feature. Remains to be seen if the world is seamless as well.

In comparison to the two games above, we know very little regarding gameplay as far as SW:TOR is concerned. We do know that the storytelling element will be strong, but that's it. Most of the optimism stems from Bioware as a company, not the game features themselves.

Originally posted by Zorndorf

This is my favorite :

(Xn,...Sn) = Wow. Where X are the number of MMO's playing and S the same mechanics and strategy used....

---->

It comes directly from the famous Nash equilibrium. And is mathematically proven even with a Nobel price on top (that's heavy for a game theory isn't it ) :))

A Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only his or her own strategy unilaterally. If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing his or her strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium.

Stated simply, Amy and Bill are in Nash equilibrium if Amy is making the best decision she can, taking into account Bill's decision, and Bill is making the best decision he can, taking into account Amy's decision. Likewise, many players are in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision that he or she can, taking into account the decisions of the others. However, Nash equilibrium does not necessarily mean the best cumulative payoff for all the players involved; in many cases all the players might improve their payoffs if they could somehow agree on strategies different from the Nash equilibrium (e.g. competing businessmen forming a cartel in order to increase their profits).
 

As to the playfield for mmorpg's today, we are in a rather "new" cycle of computer graphics that don't change much. A few hairs more and a few rimples on a face don't "age" the graphics mechanics as it used to be.

So with the aging aspect of computer graphics going even trivial (compared to gameplay), the ONLY way to break the dominance of WOW is to break away from the used strategy within mmorpg's. Or else .... you just support the current game situation.

To put it bluntly: each new mmorpg reinforces the position of WOW if playing within the same game situation.

The man got a Nobel price for it (see: a beautiful mind).

 Now is that thought for food or food for thought ... :))) ? Neonwire :)))

 

That's a good way of putting it: Each new game like WOW only reinforces it's position at the top. Nobody can out-WoW WoW. They've got the resources to keep up and have had more time.
 

The only way to break the cycle is to change the paradigm, to introduce a new set of circumstances by doing something completely different.

Jon it is a theory of how we came to this present day situation. and interesting. Although a lot of people who didn't came in with the WC2 or WC3 door. (Myself included).

But you could be right.

However the discussion was now, how to breach the equilibrium.

A simple fantasy Lore change doesn't break it. Together KOTOR will need to change core game mechanics of traditonal fantasy mmorpg's.

An example? Fleet fights, space combat. conquering planets, assault on Death stars, building up your space ship AND avatar skills. Planets that change overtime. Populations growth. Politics included within each planet. Of course the Lore helps, like Bobba Fet and his wild space ship, but the core mechanics do need a change to.

You could be a hero in one planet system and a newbie "non event" in another planet.

Just breaking out of the "kill 6 pigs with the light sabre" mentality here.

The 5 million (subs) question here: who wants to take the risk ???????