---

Originally posted by dave6660
Investors gave me money knowing I had no solid idea for a product and no business plan?  Can I also sell them a bridge I see from my window?

---

---

Originally posted by Quirhid

---

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

---

Originally posted by Quirhid
It is pure speculation to say that an old school MMO would still have longevity in today's market. These games do not exist in a vacuum.

---

Well, seeing as the new-age MMOs seem to appeal to players who game jump often, longevity is usually not what new-age MMOs appear to want. They don't build their games for longevity, unless a player enjoys endless, meaningless gear grinds, raids that don't change from one run to the next, PvP for what ever reason the game decides to dictate, and daily quests.

Old school MMOs, those bore-fests you hate so much, actually cultivated longevity. When TSW, GW2, Rift, Tera, AA, SW:TOR and the rest hit 10+ years of being around, I may change my tune. UO is still around - 15(?) years running. EQ is still kicking - 13(?) years running. I count 16 games listed on this site still up and running since before the new millennium. That is about 16 games running for over 12 years each.

Like I said, maybe time will tell a different story, but for now, I like my assumption :)

---

The grind was same in the old and new. Only in the new, the grind is at the end. And you haven't really given chance for the new games to prove their longevity.

Again. Speculation. You have no basis for your argument.

---

Now, I know many different things factor into your decisions, like lack of choices early on and the many choices of today.

Personally, Wizard101 was the only game in the past 5 years I have played for more than 2-3 months. Granted, I have not played every MMO released, but the few (out of the hundreds) I have tried have not lasted near as long I had hoped they would.

Yes, it's speculation about the longevity issue. But there is a basis in (generally speaking) how MMOs were made and how they are made today. Do you dispute even that? Not saying better/worse, but different.

---

Originally posted by nariusseldon
MMO seems to be a high risk so-so reward venture. I am not sure i would want to make one.

---

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

 

---

Originally posted by Quirhid

---

---

Just for pure speculation and anecdotal irrelevance here, of the games released in say, the past 5 years, how long have you played your choices? If you played some of the first MMOs, how long did you play them?

 

Now, I know many different things factor into your decisions, like lack of choices early on and the many choices of today.

Personally, Wizard101 was the only game in the past 5 years I have played for more than 2-3 months. Granted, I have not played every MMO released, but the few (out of the hundreds) I have tried have not lasted near as long I had hoped they would.

Yes, it's speculation about the longevity issue. But there is a basis in (generally speaking) how MMOs were made and how they are made today. Do you dispute even that? Not saying better/worse, but different.

I actually started enjoying MMOs when they began to be genuinely good games. Before that I didn't much care about them. At the time I much rather played P&P and SP RPGs.

Eve and GW1 are the only games I've played for more than 3 months! And I'm still wondering why I played Eve that long since its not very good! Maybe its the skill system I don't know...

They are made exactly the same, only now we have a lot higher production values. The reason why you are not spending much time in them is because you've seen it all before. They have nothing new in them! If you released an old-school game  now it would be as bad as the rest!

There is no novelty anymore. You don't want old - you want something completely new.

---

Originally posted by Quirhid
I actually started enjoying MMOs when they began to be genuinely good games. Before that I didn't much care about them. At the time I much rather played P&P and SP RPGs.

Eve and GW1 are the only games I've played for more than 3 months! And I'm still wondering why I played Eve that long since its not very good! Maybe its the skill system I don't know...

They are made exactly the same, only now we have a lot higher production values. The reason why you are not spending much time in them is because you've seen it all before. They have nothing new in them! If you released an old-school game  now it would be as bad as the rest!

There is no novelty anymore. You don't want old - you want something completely new.

---

It just seems from what I've read from your posts is that what *you* consider good games does not necessarily jive with what *I* consider good games. Nothing wrong with that! And that is the sticky wicket as they say :)

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

 

---

Originally posted by Quirhid

---

---

Just for pure speculation and anecdotal irrelevance here, of the games released in say, the past 5 years, how long have you played your choices? If you played some of the first MMOs, how long did you play them?

 

Now, I know many different things factor into your decisions, like lack of choices early on and the many choices of today.

Personally, Wizard101 was the only game in the past 5 years I have played for more than 2-3 months. Granted, I have not played every MMO released, but the few (out of the hundreds) I have tried have not lasted near as long I had hoped they would.

Yes, it's speculation about the longevity issue. But there is a basis in (generally speaking) how MMOs were made and how they are made today. Do you dispute even that? Not saying better/worse, but different.

I actually started enjoying MMOs when they began to be genuinely good games. Before that I didn't much care about them. At the time I much rather played P&P and SP RPGs.

Eve and GW1 are the only games I've played for more than 3 months! And I'm still wondering why I played Eve that long since its not very good! Maybe its the skill system I don't know...

They are made exactly the same, only now we have a lot higher production values. The reason why you are not spending much time in them is because you've seen it all before. They have nothing new in them! If you released an old-school game  now it would be as bad as the rest!

There is no novelty anymore. You don't want old - you want something completely new.

It's also been proven we dont actually want anything new or vastly different.  "We" actually want something very similar with a fresh coat of paint over it.

Formulaic music, TV shows, Movies, Games, MMO's.  If we actually wanted something different, do you think we would routinely see the same media just painted differently.  They would cease to be profitable.

We = consumers as a whole (consumer trends).

Originally posted by Maephisto

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

 

It's also been proven we dont actually want anything new or vastly different.  "We" actually want something very similar with a fresh coat of paint over it.

Formulaic music, TV shows, Movies, Games, MMO's.  If we actually wanted something different, do you think we would routinely see the same media just painted differently.  They would cease to be profitable.

We = consumers as a whole (consumer trends).

I don't know what you mean since I skip those products which only change their "paint job" as you would say. For example,  Assassin's Creed was good the first time, better the second time because they made it slightly better. After that it was just changing the milieu with little to no changes in gameplay. Boring.

Skyrim was the same as Oblivion. Both TSW and SWTOR relied on the tried and true tank 'n' spank combat even when their fiction allowed firearms. The weakest thing in Avatar was that its plot was essentially the same as Disney's Pocahontas or Dances with Wolves. More of the same? -No thank you.

Combination of Both.

I would recreate Asheron's Call with most of the systems in palce but many features that make Themeparks more fun, less grindy, more mainstream, and less time consuming.

Originally posted by vgamer
Let's be honest. If money is on the line, I would also follow the quick cash grab method as many companies did.

Pretty much this ^.

But to tell the truth, I wouldn't focus on 'new school vs. old school' at all. I think that's a trap many people fall into, and it doesn't lead to better games. You can encorperate aspects of both, and make a phenominal game. Hell, that's how companies like Blizzard & Trion built their popularity.

If I was to make my own MMO, it would be far more beneficial to figure out the genre (fantasy, sci-fi, etc.) I wanted to do, and the mechanics / content I wanted to populate it with.

I don't really think the old mmo = longevity argument really has any weight.  There is no question there have been around for a long time so that part is true.

However they have not maintained their population for the same length of time, so IMO it's false.  EQ did not sustain 450k subscribers, that was it's peak.  UO did not sustatin 3500400k subscribers (I think it was around there) that was the peak. 

People say new MMO's are short lived because some people race to the top and because the population is super high at start and crashes to IMO is a more realistic level.  These levels are just as high, if not higher than the average level of old MMO"s (not necessarily the peak but the peak of old MMO's is not higher than new ones - so thats a wash).

I would bet my last dollar that in 10 years swtor, GW2, TSA, STO... are still around with populations that match if not exceed the average timeline population of old MMO's with a couple hundred+ thousand subscribers.

Therefore IMO the longevity argument is false.

Edit -so my answer, make the MMO that draws the highest amount of customers and then settles to the same level of suscribers and longevity.

New ones definately

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

 

---

Originally posted by darkhalf357x
How do you view ArcheAge (based on what you know)?  I think this is a step in this (right) direction.

---

Truthfully, I have not been following AA. It seems that the number one talking point about it is the action combat, which I am not a huge fan of. Thanks for asking and I will look further into it now that they have a Publisher for outside of Asia :)

 

You should take a look at ArcheAge.  Here and the official/fan sites.  Its NOT action combat, but more old school tab target/hotkey.  Seems you can move as you fight but again I have not set my hands on it yet.

Yes Trion picked them up and are aggressively pushing for a debut by EOY 2013.  Will be amazing if they pull it off (with quality).

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

I don't really think the old mmo = longevity argument really has any weight. 

Agreed.

I am actually in favor of sandbox MMOs but the poll is biased from the start. 

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

I don't really think the old mmo = longevity argument really has any weight.  There is no question there have been around for a long time so that part is true.

However they have not maintained their population for the same length of time, so IMO it's false.  EQ did not sustain 450k subscribers, that was it's peak.  UO did not sustatin 3500400k subscribers (I think it was around there) that was the peak. 

People say new MMO's are short lived because some people race to the top and because the population is super high at start and crashes to IMO is a more realistic level.  These levels are just as high, if not higher than the average level of old MMO"s (not necessarily the peak but the peak of old MMO's is not higher than new ones - so thats a wash).

I would bet my last dollar that in 10 years swtor, GW2, TSA, STO... are still around with populations that match if not exceed the average timeline population of old MMO's with a couple hundred+ thousand subscribers.

Therefore IMO the longevity argument is false.

Edit -so my answer, make the MMO that draws the highest amount of customers and then settles to the same level of suscribers and longevity.

New ones definately

Your argument is based on evidence that you cannot produce, but I understand what you are trying to say.  The flip side to your argument is - tell (predict) which MMOs will close over the next 10 years?  The point is we dont know which will survive or will fail since a bunch of other factors outside of anyone's control come into play.

I dont think we can come to a right or wrong conclusion, but what I am seeing is a (re)definition of the MMORPG player.  What we "all" (the signifigantly smaller population back then) liked in the past isnt what the new gamers like.  Longevity is going to be more a question of what will gamers want to play versus what we may want to play.  For some of us they will coincide, for others it will be a stark opposite.

But within that context I still cant wrap my head around what would sustain subscribers long term if you can burn through the content in a finite amount of time.  With a sandpark type of game the content is essentially endless since its the gamers themselves that define what you can and cannot do.

A 'new' MMO that does that can definitely compete with an 'old' school MMO on longevity.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

I don't really think the old mmo = longevity argument really has any weight.  There is no question there have been around for a long time so that part is true.

However they have not maintained their population for the same length of time, so IMO it's false.  EQ did not sustain 450k subscribers, that was it's peak.  UO did not sustatin 3500400k subscribers (I think it was around there) that was the peak. 

People say new MMO's are short lived because some people race to the top and because the population is super high at start and crashes to IMO is a more realistic level.  These levels are just as high, if not higher than the average level of old MMO"s (not necessarily the peak but the peak of old MMO's is not higher than new ones - so thats a wash).

I would bet my last dollar that in 10 years swtor, GW2, TSA, STO... are still around with populations that match if not exceed the average timeline population of old MMO's with a couple hundred+ thousand subscribers.

Therefore IMO the longevity argument is false.

Edit -so my answer, make the MMO that draws the highest amount of customers and then settles to the same level of suscribers and longevity.

New ones definately

Well, its all debatable, several games had 1+ milion for years, and thus futile to argue from this angle, we would only end up trashing each other with statistics.

A more interesting question, if we want to talk and discuss longevity vs quick cash is if we really expect any new games to have a positive trend in subs / people playing or not outside new content releases.

I think that would be more fitting in defining longevity, i mean, if the game has it, one would expect the falling trend to turn around at some point after the hype, or atleast level out.

But does it?

Flame on!

:)

I just watched the Colin Johanson interview / video / thingy just now on the frontpage of MMORPG.com and he said GW2 certainly was the fastest MMO to reach 3 million concurrent users or something like that. And after the initial drop, which happens to every game by the way, thir userbase has actually grown steadily.

Then there's GW1 which was released all the way back in 2005 and it had healthy population up until the release of GW2, and I think it is still being played nevertheless. Then there's World of Warcraft.... this idea that themeparks don't have longevity seems like a lot of nonsense.

Originally posted by Goatgod76

Originally posted by Paradigm68

Originally posted by AlBQuirky

You want to make an MMO. You start a company with other people's money since you did not win the lottery.

Now you have 2 choices with varying risks.
1) Make an old time MMO. (Not as popular, but may have longevity)
2) Make a new-age MMO. (More popular, but may be short lived)

Which path do you go down?

(Let's not go down the buzzword paths of "innovative", "new", "revolutionary" and the like. Remember, you have investors to answer to.)

Whats my motivation, make a great game or make money?

Making a great game would make money if it were indeed great. /facepalm

Pull your palm off your face. It's not that simple. If I have investors and all I'm interested in is making money, I purchase the rights to an established IP, make a shallow themepark with a cash shop, hype the hell out of it. Make my investment back, plus profit on box sales, then rake in the rest until people lose interest.

If I go the 'great game' route, I have to be willing to be in it for the long haul, not be concerened if I don't make money right away, then look for work when my investors, who want big and quick ROI have me kicked off the project because their 'research' tells them I'm making all the wrong choices and taking way too much risk.

I don't think an old school MMO guarantees any more longevity than a new-age one guarantees solid initial sales.

Who knows? We may even be at a point (or close to a point) that "old school" will be the high concept in MMOs, and thus they'll have the bigger initial sales and big drop-off after a couple of months! :)