I agree Dana. When I look for an mmo I usually go for Graphics and system intensity first then Gameplay. Cause really there all point and click. Wow Felt too Childish too Me Right away when i seen the cartoony graphics Straight to the Easy follow the book Gameplay. The only thing I have been more and more looking at as of late is Endgame Material which almost Every mmo Lacks. I have only been using WoW as examples Do to the fact GoD prolly plays it.

I don't know if anyone brought this up yet as I don't have the energy to read 10 + pages of replies. My two cents on this issue is the just plain market saturation of mmo's I think there is only so large of a playerbase to go around and currently so many mmo's out there that you can't expect high numbers of players in more then a few games. This type of game only appeals to a certain segment of the "gaming" population and with the long hours needed to be spent to get anywhere in most of them you are not going to have people playing several at a time or jumping ship on a game they like just for the next shiny thing out there whether it be ftp or not.

 If you take the premise that the orginal poster is saying then games like oblivion and fallout 3 should have been massive failures just because of their system requirements. That and the mmo genre will never attract your grandma or any of the "casual" crowd. I have a lot of friends and people I work with etc. that are "gamers" and I only know 2 other people out of them that play mmo's besides myself .

 So I think the orginal post is a totally pointless arguement that seems to be a subtle plug for the ftp bandwagon that this site's authors so love pushing down everyone's throats at every opertunity.

Play whatever you want I don't feel either model it "better" although I personally prefer a flat subscription then being nickel and dimed to death.

I agree completely.

Oh, and choose one business model already.  SOE, anyone?  Mixing both is going to chase more people away than it'll attract.

/already tossed out my SOE boxes

Originally posted by wolffin

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Doh, you left a huge hole in your argument.  The two most popular f2p MMO's Atlantica Online and Runes of Magic both have relatively higher computer requirements than the subscription games.

There goes your theory down the drain, but I will agree high graphics requirements can hurt a game faster than anything.  EQ2 stumbled out of the gate because Wow's computer requirements were far lower than it.  Both AoC and War both have graphics issues and it was a big reason for the less than successful launch of Vanguard

Runes of Magic - Client
Description:

Download size: 3,4GB

Minimum system requirements
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2.0 GHz or equivalent
RAM: 512MB
Required Harddisk space: 3.8GB
Graphics card: DirectX 9.0c compatible with 128MB RAM
Broadband Internet connection
Keyboard and Mouse

Atlantica Online

Minimum system requirements
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 1.0 GHz or equivalent
RAM: 512MB
Required Harddisk space: 5GB
Graphics card: DirectX 9.0c compatible with 64MB RAM

I would hardly say that blows my theory out of the water if anything it proves it

Well posting nonsense does not prove your point either.  Minimum configuration means exactly zip in this genre.  Go play them.  I have played most of the subscription games, no fps problems at all, with both Atlantica and ROM I have serious FPS issues all the time no matter how I configure the setttings.  That is a fact which your post seems to entirely ignore!

So again, it is obvious this article is whallowing in facts that cannot support it.

Originally posted by Xiaoki

 

---

Originally posted by Ozmodan

---

Originally posted by Dana

---

Originally posted by RZetlin

 

Dana and gamers are missing the larger picture why F2P is on the raise.
The economy is in a recession.
The same people that played P2P a few years ago are out of a job now.
Unemployed gamers cannot spend $15/month anymore.
F2P MMORPGs are the most economic way to play games these days.
 

---

 
F2P has been doing better than subscription MMOs since 2005. The economy has only been in the toilet for a year.

---

Sorry Dana, but that is flat out nonsense, at best f2p have been doing better for the last couple years.  You have a short memory

---

Theres been like 5 pay to play MMOs that have launched since 2004 that were able to hold 200,000 subscribers.
Before you calling other people statements nonsense perhaps you should do a little research.

 

Also, I would like to say that I am not suprised that so many in this topic completely missed the message from the article wtiter. The article simply states that newer MMOs keep chasing after better and better graphics while the player base stays the same.
A good graphics engine and good art director will do so much more for you than cutting edge graphics.

I am however surprised that no one has mentioned Aion. It runs incredibly well on a wide variety of machines and looks great.

As usual poster can't support his argument for a hill of beans.  Please educate us with f2p MMO's that have held a large audience since 2004?  Prior to the past two years you can't name one.  Oh I am sure some were out there, but you can't name them because no one knew about them.

Wow, finally someone besides me noticed that the number of people who CAN use your product actually affects the number of people who WILL use your product lol. I've been telling the story of how Blizzard's devs wanted WoW to run on a 32 meg graphics card (this was back in the early Nvidia 4x Titanium days lol) for years as a response to all the mistaken people claiming it was their favorite feature that gave WoW 8 million subs over every other game.

Good job Mr. Woods! Time for devs to stop trying to "ooh" and "aahhh" their bosses with graphics to prove how much they deserve their jobs, and start trying to make better games instead.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Originally posted by Xiaoki

 

---

Originally posted by Ozmodan

---

Originally posted by Dana

---

Originally posted by RZetlin

 

Dana and gamers are missing the larger picture why F2P is on the raise.
The economy is in a recession.
The same people that played P2P a few years ago are out of a job now.
Unemployed gamers cannot spend $15/month anymore.
F2P MMORPGs are the most economic way to play games these days.
 

---

 

 
F2P has been doing better than subscription MMOs since 2005. The economy has only been in the toilet for a year.

---

Sorry Dana, but that is flat out nonsense, at best f2p have been doing better for the last couple years.  You have a short memory

---

Theres been like 5 pay to play MMOs that have launched since 2004 that were able to hold 200,000 subscribers.
Before you calling other people statements nonsense perhaps you should do a little research.

 

Also, I would like to say that I am not suprised that so many in this topic completely missed the message from the article wtiter. The article simply states that newer MMOs keep chasing after better and better graphics while the player base stays the same.
A good graphics engine and good art director will do so much more for you than cutting edge graphics.

I am however surprised that no one has mentioned Aion. It runs incredibly well on a wide variety of machines and looks great.

As usual poster can't support his argument for a hill of beans.  Please educate us with f2p MMO's that have held a large audience since 2004?  Prior to the past two years you can't name one.  Oh I am sure some were out there, but you can't name them because no one knew about them.

Not to get in the middle of your somewhat heated argument, but....Runescape?

I actually agree with... almost nothing in the article.

People will have different opinions on all sorts of things, but the image of the industry presented in the article is so completely out of whack with my own perceptions that I would have thought it was written by someone who doesn't even know what an MMORPG is. Definitely not what I would expect from Dana! (Not an attack dude, just not on the same page; or even the same book). :)

First, the graphics and "accessibility" issue. Sure, it's a good thing to exclude as small a percentage as possible of your potential player base when deciding on minimum specs. However, a bad game that can be played on any PC isn't going to be a hit because of it's low requirements. Also, people's expectations on the graphics front continue to increase and sometimes good games never have a chance, because the graphics are so dated.

There is a sweet spot in there somewhere for maximizing the potential market for an MMORPG. Too outdated is just as bad as too demanding. Yet, the game's success is not a function of it's hardware requirements, even if being too far to one extreme or the other may preclude some people who would otherwise love the game.

Second, the issue of money. F2P, subscription, cash shops; any combination of the three.

Players weigh the cost to play, vs. the enjoyment they get from playing. Not just during the opening months either. F2P games only require an investment of time and bandwidth to try out. As personal bandwidth increases, the barriers to trying out a F2P game decrease. The "cost" is low. Gamers can try a game they would not have been willing to pay a box price to sample. That's the first advantage for F2P games.

The second advantage to F2P is that as players go through the ebb and flow of enthusiasm for a title, there is no subscription fee hanging over their head. You can take a break or play only a few times a month with out money flying out the window.

It's little or no initial and continuing costs, plugged into the equation of fun vs. money.

Cash shops may increase a persons desire to continue playing, in order to justify previous purchases, but the lack of a subscription fee hanging over your head makes it easy to drift in and out of the game on a whim. Where cash shop games get into trouble is when enthusiastic players start to find their monthly investment topping the $15/month benchmark, or when any players feels that the money they "need" to pay to enjoy it outweighs the actual enjoyment they receive in return.

The business model of subscription games faces a huge hurdle. How do you continue to justify the monthly fee? The expectations for a subscription game are much higher. Even if a company does a good job at rolling out fresh content over time, they still face the fact that even players who love the game will see their enthusiasm and play time ebb and flow. Every month a customer asks "is it worth continuing to pay the subscription  fee"? When they do take a break, they then have to ask themselves "Is it worth re-subscribing? Will I even play enough after returning to warrant another $15"?

There are a few MMORPGs I paid to play in the past that I would love to return to from time to time, or maybe even try to "get back into", but the cost becomes a barrier. I know I'm not alone.

I think you had an inkling of the issue, but accessibility is a lot less about system requirements and a lot more about fiscal accessibility.

I personally think the $15/month subscription based MMORPG model is destined to be a thing of the past. With the glut of titles and fickle fanbase there are a lot of games that might be successful under lower fees or a different business model that are just going no where at $15/month.

I'm actually intrigued by the per hour  usage model that I believe is seen in some games in Asia. Where hardcore players investing 40 hours or more a week can pay the equivalent of $15 a month, but more casual players are paying only a few dollars a month. Since you only pay for the time you spend playing, you can come and go as you please with out wasting money on under utilized subscriptions.

The hybrid Cash Shop / small subscription fee for premium content model of Freerealms is interesting as well. However, the balance needs to be carefully maintained. Recent drastic cuts on the amount of in game currency you can earn (about a 80-90% cut) seem to be aimed at forcing players to invest money in station cash for things as basic as healing potions (the frequent use of which the game is balanced around). If casual players start to feel forced to invest money to play with out major frustrations, the game will be done for.

Also, even though the $5/month fee for "membership" is a lot lower burden to carry on a title you may find your enthusiasm waning for, people are already questioning what happens to their characters if they cancel membership.

An ideal business model would extract roughly $15/month from their hard core fans, while lessening or removing the barriers for those who are more casual players or who see their play time ebb and flow over the life time of the title.

Now, to bring it all full circle... if the article was an attempt to explain the success of WoW and apply some lesson to future titles, I think that's an elusive task to attempt. The low system requirements have maximized the reach of the game, but it doesn't explain the appeal.

I think the factors that caused WoW to snowball into a huge hit can not be attributed to any one thing, or even a small handful. It addressed the right needs at the right time. As to it's continued success, I think it's popularity has added another "cost" to the equation for some people. The cost of not playing what your friends and peers are playing. Too be "out of the loop" on what for some cohorts is a social and cultural phenomena. The same kind of pressures that drive usage of facebook, twitter, etc...

WoW was the right game, in the right place at the right time. As the snowball rolled downhill it grew mass based on it's unstoppable momentum. Eventually it will reach the bottom of the hill and slowly melt in the sun. Unfortunately for competing developers, finding the right snowball to roll down the right hill at the right time is no easy task. In fact, it may require a very different snowball and a very different hill to address a very different point in time...

I don´t post in a long time, so hello everyone !

I gotta agree with Dana here, developing a game is all about making it as playable and accessible as you can for the people that are supposed to play that game, as it is a design product, and therefore, it is made for a target audience. And MMOs are all about the community and the multiplayer, after all it´s not called Single Massively Online Game (or RPG if you prefer), so people that play these games what to get together and play together, not just run around a huge world all alone, and I think that is one of the biggest challenge MMO companies face. Also, unfortunately, most of the gamers don´t really know how to use/tune their computers as the Hardcore (ideal players), and they will keep away from those scary bars and sliders on that strange "graphic options" screen as much as possible.

But also I would like to add some off my humble opinion and little experience as a Game Design Student. It´s not about what "I" think, it´s about what "everyone" think. I saw many complaints about World of Warcraft because it was mentioned on the article, and how some off the people did´t like the art style and all.

I would like to say that when someone makes and article about the industry, it does not matter if you like it or not, it matters that 11 million people play and pay that game, and therefore, we must respect it, as no other MMO has reached that far. And if you look technically, they´re path on accessibility (on the art side) is based on solid, good done textures, that got only better with the upgrades, thus keeping the specs low, and everyone happy.

And for last, a bit off topic, but related, I really think that still, the gameplay aspect of ANY game can surpass the importance of any other. Accessibility is quite important yes, but if the game has some really solid and kick ass gameplay, it MIGHT have the power to make people invest, not to play, but maybe to see it and fell it better. It´s ok your 3 year-old PC runs HL2, but wouldn´t you like to have and upgrade to see how it looks on max settings ?

I say that because I think AoC and WAR didn´t have that, and that is what made them go down the toilet. I followed both on the development phases and betas. I had a big confidence on AoC, as it was done by FUNCOM, who did a great job on Anarchy Online (Wich btw is alive and well for 20 year already, horrible graphics but solid gameplay), Forget graphics, what is the point off making a Conan game where you are NOT Conan !? 

And WAR simply was not finished, all they did was try to make huge graphics and cut half of the audience, saying stuff like "WoW is like the beetles, no one can beat them. But we are like the Led Zeppelin, stronger, better and cooler" and "/dance if for girls, we don´t make games for girls". So they had great mechanics, like the upgrading cities and PvP Tiers with the capital controls, but nothing was finished nor polished, so the cut up half of the stuff that wasn´t working and shipped a unfortunate crap, and I say crap because no one like it, or worse, they thought of it as just another WoW clone.

You make a Textual Kick Ass MMO and you can turn it up, you spend 10 years making a WoW-like-Crysis MMO, and you´re going to get fired (Sorry Mark Jacobs, thats they way thing go...)

Abso-flogging-lutely.

I do not see why it is needed to have a Quad Core Processor on an Nividia SLI board with two 512mb cards sli'd together with 8 gigs of ram. I was playing a trial on Vanguard and someone had that type of building and could play max settings and yet they only got 40-60fps.

It does not make any sense why we have to make games demand so much of our computers some people do not have $500.00 just to spend on processor, board, and graphics cards. Not to mention RAM and putting it all together, it just seems excessive. Give me a game that is: Stable, Accessible, and Fun. I will and can comprimise on graphics I played UO for 7 years and loved it.

Sometimes I think these companies get a kick back from Nvidia for promoting their products and increasing sales.

Just what I think: Continue to kick butt and take names Dana I love your articles.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Originally posted by Xiaoki

 

---

Originally posted by Ozmodan

---

Originally posted by Dana

---

Originally posted by RZetlin

 

Dana and gamers are missing the larger picture why F2P is on the raise.
The economy is in a recession.
The same people that played P2P a few years ago are out of a job now.
Unemployed gamers cannot spend $15/month anymore.
F2P MMORPGs are the most economic way to play games these days.
 

---

 
F2P has been doing better than subscription MMOs since 2005. The economy has only been in the toilet for a year.

---

Sorry Dana, but that is flat out nonsense, at best f2p have been doing better for the last couple years.  You have a short memory

---

Theres been like 5 pay to play MMOs that have launched since 2004 that were able to hold 200,000 subscribers.
Before you calling other people statements nonsense perhaps you should do a little research.

 

Also, I would like to say that I am not suprised that so many in this topic completely missed the message from the article wtiter. The article simply states that newer MMOs keep chasing after better and better graphics while the player base stays the same.
A good graphics engine and good art director will do so much more for you than cutting edge graphics.

I am however surprised that no one has mentioned Aion. It runs incredibly well on a wide variety of machines and looks great.

As usual poster can't support his argument for a hill of beans.  Please educate us with f2p MMO's that have held a large audience since 2004?  Prior to the past two years you can't name one.  Oh I am sure some were out there, but you can't name them because no one knew about them.

lol you didnt search a lot
 

i can name at least 1  silkroad online it was full ,is full and will be full for years to come

dont believe me download it and try to login for fun and dont come with the generally believed but false idea

`oh but that game is full of bot `

thats like saying to wow their server arent full because they dont have bot lol

silkroad online add server still .when was the last time blizzard added server ?very long  time ago

silkroad would need an insane amount of server just to keep up with the player waiting to logon

a bunch of reason made this game bigger then even they ever thot

when they released  one expension ,they linked asia with europe in game like you can start from europe and go to china etc

that made a huge impact .plus all the other adds they put in ,not long ago there was another added

i never saw an mmo since 2004 that is popular as silkroad online

and thats a f2p game

its very popular for another reason also

the computer needed to play it is so ridiculous you can play this on a netbook lol

graphic quality is debatable

but i can give you at least 1 exemple

why is it that everquest 2 was a so big ressource hog

hell we ll go to newer game

rappelz i remember playing this game was looking nice but had big lag issue

what they do they lower setting on game that wasnt design as a low setting

result it look so ugly most game can beat the look

its a package you cannot lower graphic quality after the game is made it wasnt design for it

its like if guild wars had been designed on a i7 quad core processor then try to make it run on a an old 3 years old laptop

it just cant be done

guild wars team went another way

they used laptop to design and test guild wars result the smooth  and stable game we got

hell if i was boss of a game producing company

i would design and produce game on netbook

why ? lol did you see how many of those computer were sold

its insane

but trying to design a game on a quad core then proting it to a netbook

is a sure way to fail

it as to be designed and tried on the computer market you target lol not mod the game after you find you cant lower setting

the markiet right now is from netbook to the biggest laptop without sli

but often they try to support quad graphic card etc why try very few baught those lol

most just cant afford those ,go ask the exgm employe if hes gona buy a 1000 $ computer

hell hes like everybody in the world he cant afford it

its so bad most just cant afford just to repair the one they got imagine

 Vanguard:SoH does NOT support multiple cores, including SLI'd GPUs, so only ONE of that "Quad Core's" processor cores was actually in use, as well as only ONE of the video cards.  Furthermore, Vanguard is a 32bit program, and thus utilizes an extremely limited amoutn of RAM.  I don't remember the exact number, but I can tell you that it's <4gb.
Using a quad-core CPU for a single-core game is terribly inefficient.
So, in effect, the person wasted a great dela of money if all he/she used the comp *intensively* for was Vanguard:SoH.

You can run Vanguard flawlessly, at max settings, on a $600 build.  

EDIT: Meant to quote EBlackblade.

Ive been doing Tech work for friends and family even friends of family for a long time. Since i was kid.

And youd be surprised how wrong sterotypes are in my area.

Most the time the Wife will play on the computer more than the husband (husbands usualy play on there console).

Now these games arnt mmos just puzzle or mystery games.

Most people either buy a old computer off there friend or buy the cheepest one at walmart.

Ive never seen a Non tech person with a average job with a high end comp.

Every person that has me look at a game cause it doesnt work its usualy sys req.    And they never upgrade for the game. A few have asked about it but when I told them the price of a stick of ram.  They said no and gave the game away.

The article is a good article.   The only bad thing is  he shoulda pointed out how every Blizzard  game  has never pushed the graphics and has always done good.   And thats blizz speciality makeing there games available to the common consumer both hardware wise and complexity. 

Me personaly im tired of how much it cost to be a computer gamer.   Ive tried many times to go console but fps and mmos are my games so im stuck with pc.

Originally posted by RZetlin

F2P MMORPGs are the most economic way to play games these days.

And one of the things a lot of people find out is that the F2P MMOs hold their interest just as well as their old P2P game.

I know I'l be thinking twice about paying a monthly fee for a game again.

Unfortunately it's people like the OP who keep reminding us why company's can't put out a decent game since wow. They simply FAIL at developing innovative game mechanics that WORK..

You think people are playing WOW because it's the only thing their PC can run? When you can pickup a PC that runs AOC,WAR for less then $500? If that's what you think then all I can say is........ WOW.  Consumer's will ALWAYS buy better hardware if they reach a limit with their software/games... It's a proven FACT. The issue is your not convincing them they NEED a upgrade. What makes people buy a Xbox 360 over a Xbox? Can we say.... HALO? Another perfect example was failcom. Most people were on the fence about upgrading until they discovered they produced a turd in a box. Even then 700k players whole heartly bought the game and upgraded their machines for a huge dissapointment.

Originally posted by Dana

And I don’t want to hear “but our graphics scale!” That’s not a valid counter argument. No one has ever successfully made a game that scales visually.

FFXI made their game scale and cross-platform years and years ahead of it's time. So thanks once again for proving you really know nothing about the industry you write columns on. Also Log on to LOTRO instead of writting fail columns and you can see that game also scales DX9--->DX10 Flawlessly and with good performance unlike WAR, AOC.

Don't bother quoting or responding because you've pretty much lost any credibility at posting a valid argument. I understand everyone has their own opinion but this was so far off in left field I had to post.

This is simply put one great article. I don't care aboutr graphics (it's good to have good one) but gameplay is that why I buy games. And about box selling, aslo true.

Originally posted by Khaunshar

What matters is using an engine, using tech that is suited to the demands of a MMORPG. You dont have to have it run on a calculator to be successful, there are millions of players out there whose rigs are not hamster-wheel-powered with wooden dial-up and a broken bathroom mirror as screen. What you need is to do what Guild Wars did, what Aion did, create a game engine that isnt a rip-off of a singleplayer shooter, but that works for 60 people on screen.

I could be mistaken, but isn't Aion for instance powered by the crytek cryengine? I think most (if not all) use allready build game engines and then modify it instead of building their own game engine. I think I once heard Age of conan was build on the same engine they used for Anarchy Online which was fully developed by their own company I think, but I'm not sure if that's usual (and I'm not even sure if its true)

Originally posted by sairusco

Originally posted by Khaunshar

What matters is using an engine, using tech that is suited to the demands of a MMORPG. You dont have to have it run on a calculator to be successful, there are millions of players out there whose rigs are not hamster-wheel-powered with wooden dial-up and a broken bathroom mirror as screen. What you need is to do what Guild Wars did, what Aion did, create a game engine that isnt a rip-off of a singleplayer shooter, but that works for 60 people on screen.

 

I could be mistaken, but isn't Aion for instance powered by the crytek cryengine? I think most (if not all) use allready build game engines and then modify it instead of building their own game engine. I think I once heard Age of conan was build on the same engine they used for Anarchy Online which was fully developed by their own company I think, but I'm not sure if that's usual (and I'm not even sure if its true)

Yes, the "Dreamworld" engine is the original engine created for Anarchy Online and then updated for Age of Conan. And once upon a time, it was usual for mmo developers to write their own game engines. Now it's all about the rush to get the game out so they go with whatever the flavor of the year engine is.