Pokket says:

"So how does a game actually beat the Giant? By not trying to be it and not trying to beat it. Simple as that."


ANet Says:

"We were number two to World of Warcraft with Guild Wars, now we want to beat them. "

I Say:

"LuLWut?"

well put , the only way to 'beat the giant is by not trying to beat the giant.' - that said...

WoW has become the new AOL / second life. sadly its passed the mmo novelty.  and prob will be around for a while with its very low tech requirements.

Anet did keep a very low profile releasing GW2! -and brought back the sense of mmo gaming back! (grind or no grind).

newer mmo's will always keep coming out every year, that will never change. for there will always be room for improvements!

Originally posted by Gyrus

The problem (in this case) is not that no-one can bring down the giant.

The problem is that those on MMORPG.com simply refuse to recognise the game(s?) that have.

 

Facebook games such as Farmville exceeded WoW numbers years ago.  And, dear Pokket, they did so by "coming up with a new game for people to play".

 

Now, before I get howls from the gallery about how browser games 'don't count' I suggest you check the games list here.

MMORPG.com rules even allow games like Farmville to be added (See my thread from several years ago "Farmville vs MMORPG.com)

Travian was listed and it is a considerably worse game than Farmville.

Zynga might also be an "evil" dev... who here cannot name a few others?

 

Case closed.

 

Edit: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/247530/page/1 Correction - it was "Farm Town" at the time.

Pardon while I chuckle at your reference to farmville, it never came close to Wow numbers and it is now a shadow of itself.  A brief fling at the top does not get it.   Shallow games like farmville can only be viable for short periods, people get very tired of them fast.  

Good article OP, one of your best, keep up the good work.

Originally posted by Reas43
Low profile? no claims?
+************+***+*¥******
So, what was the point of the celebrated "Manifesto?"*****************

What happened to that "Reponsible developers put out content for free" quote a week ago? *************+++++++++
what about this interview with Forbes?******************

We were number two to World of Warcraft with Guild Wars, now we want to beat them. We’ll be satisfied when the Guild Wars 2 is the most successful MMO. I think we have something unique here and players are going to see it and understand why dynamic events are a way better content model than people have experienced before in online worlds. Word-of-mouth will get people to understand that we really are doing something new and different. The sky’s the limit once this game is out. Online worlds have a networking effect. People will bring friends to Guild Wars 2"

************************
Low profile? What are they putting in the cool aid these days?

Problem is, GW2 has no long term sustainable end game, no "carrort" if you will that WOW so aptly has.

It will fade quickly and not be any major challenge to WOW's dominate market place position.

There's only so many cosmetic armor sets one can collect after all.

I agree with Pokket, if there ever will be a true challenger to WOW it will have to do something pretty different, I'll bet even Blizzard realizes this and will respond in kind with their Titan project because after all, they have to try and outdo themselves, no easy feat for them either. 

To kill a giant, you need a David........or a bigger giant. Right now, we have neither.

I've never once thought to myself "Gee, I hope this game beats WoW". Maybe that is why I have been able to enjoy the games I have played and/or left them behind...based upon their own merits, not some fantasy of "beating another game"

I like having choices. I like having more than one game to play. Why would I want one game to "beat" another if I like both?

The whole mentality of this is pretty stupid.

Originally posted by Psychow

I've never once thought to myself "Gee, I hope this game beats WoW". Maybe that is why I have been able to enjoy the games I have played and/or left them behind...based upon their own merits, not some fantasy of "beating another game"

 

I like having choices. I like having more than one game to play. Why would I want one game to "beat" another if I like both?

 

The whole mentality of this is pretty stupid.

This. 

More than likely, I'll have GW2, Rift Storl Legion, and MoP on my hard drive before this year is over

I don't really care about The Giant.  Why even draw comparisons for or against?  Every game stands or falls on it's own merits, and the dirth of outside the box thinking by game designers and developers is only a phase.  Eventually, the genre will auto correct, but how long that takes is anyone's guess. 

Personally, I wonder if the current economic downturn has more to do with game development than most realize, because more risk in game design translates to more financial risk for lenders, and right now lenders are not encouraging a lot of risk.  Hence we get formulaic game design by major studios while small start ups are asking for 'kick-starts'.

But there are some games on the horizon, hopefully they will be good games that garner success.

I'm not sure why there is this need in the MMO community to take down a "Giant".

Every industry has multiple competitors/choices.  It makes for a more complex and complete consumer experience when you have more than 1 movie channel, more than 1 fast food place, more than 1 car maker...you get the idea.

Why do we need to take down WOW?

Here's a concept.  WOW continues on for years and years, offering the WOW experience to whoever wants to play and other games come (and go) offering their experience.  It's up to the game designers, the players and the community to determine their success, growth, evolution etc...just like all other industries.

Are all fast food providers as large as McDonalds?  No.  It doesn't mean lots of other choices don't survive and flourish.  Why worry if Taco Bell has more stores, or larger menus or ..whatever.  They exist as a choice and that is good enough.

So, here is a question. If at the height of it's success, WoW didn't cause any other game to fail as a result of it's marketshare capture, What game ever did or ever will? The only games that come close are SWG and SWTOR, but even then, the answer is not within the context of this column.

So, why this topic.......again?

Hillary, I think you've hit on a meme that alot of us have been suggesting over the past few years.

The most important point is that you actualy don't NEED to beat the Giant at all.

The key to success in any crowded market (gaming or otherwise) is to find a big enough market segment that is currently being underserved and find a way to deliver a product to serve them well with a budget that allows for a decent ROI.  Alot easier said then done, but that's pretty much business 101.

WoW's audience is pretty impressive....but it's really only a fraction of the overall market for online entertainment. There are lots of people NOT playing WoW (or any MMO)....reaching even a small fraction of them would be enough to support a successfull product.

Heck, even a portion of the people playing WoW probably wouldn't mind playing a 2nd game in addition....as long as it's sufficiently different from WoW.

I think you have it exactly...the way you suceed is by NOT competeing with WoW.....but by going after customer's it's not satisfying.

Just as the way you succeed as a supermarket is by not trying to go head to head with Walmart on price. That's a really, really tough battle to go into and win. You suceed by offering something they aren't.

Pretending that Tera is anything but Aion with the people that left and copied it...?

What the...

Originally posted by JerYnkFan

..

Gyrus - I see your point, but I don't think that when someone like Anet or Bioware starts making a MMO that they are thinking "Hey how can we get more subs that Farmville."  IMO they are shooting for the WOW crowd, but I do see the point you are trying to make.

This is the point of Pokket's article too.  That is why MMO Devs fail.

They set out to design an MMO and they start by looking at WoW as a "this is what an MMO is..." guide.

If they want to succeed - they need to come up with their own designs - start from scratch right ffrom the very beginning and say "What can an MMO be?  What do we want it to be?  How do we make that?"

There is a lot of room for improvement in this genre - home PCs and consoles now have many times the potential of those we were running in 2004... so why are we treading water?

Originally posted by Ozmodan

...

Pardon while I chuckle at your reference to farmville, it never came close to Wow numbers and it is now a shadow of itself.  A brief fling at the top does not get it.   Shallow games like farmville can only be viable for short periods, people get very tired of them fast.  

Good article OP, one of your best, keep up the good work.

So, in that regard it's no different to a host of other "AAA+" MMOs we have seen on this site?

Well, actually there is a difference.  Zynga games are a damn sight cheaper to produce (being a lot simplier technically) than many of those AAA+ titles we have seen try (and fail) in the last couple of years?

It has been noted on this site (among others) that many 'gamers' these days seem to have a shorter and shorter attention span - jumping on to 'the next big thing'.  If that's the case, maybe investing millions of dollars into a triple A MMO that will only remain in vogue for a couple of months is a mistake?

So maybe Zynga has it right?  Don't make MMOs to last.  Simply make MMOs cheap and only support them while they are popular?  Zynga knows that their player base all but abandons one game to move on to the next.... but so long as the next is still a Zynga tilte - they still win. 

What's Zynga's latest 'game'?  Chefville? 

Just from a cursory look - it seems like more of the same to me - essentually just a reskinning of what has been before with some development in 'crafting'... but who cares?  People are playing it. And in six months?  What then?  Florist-ville?  Fashon-ville?  No doubt.

And you could look at each Zynga game as an "expansion pack" when you consider it like that?

But when you can develop Farm Town + Farmville + Chefville + Next-ville cheaper than the cost of one AAA+ title AND have higher revenues to boot then who cares?

You might say this is a very cynical business model?  You know, using a base engine and simply "reskinning it" as quickly and cheaply as possible to produce mediocre games which only maintain short term popularity?

It's not like that hasn't been done by others.  Sorry if that's too Cryptic. ;-)