I believe that most smaller developers will try and follow the LOTRO type of launch model. Build a solid, as much as possible bug free game. Keep the content as limited as possible in the beginning and expand later. It seems that AoC chose the same recipe, just without the "solid" base gameplay (due to certain bugs). It also seems that WAR is following the exact same approach.

As for the bug-free approach, this is something modern. Most game of the old were and are bug ridden. The bugs are not game-stopping, but they were always there. And it was considered something normal. When the MMOs gone mainstream however, the tolerance to such issues became considerably smaller.

To Ngeldu5t :

I was talking about the closed beta. Hense the source is not correct. WAR is also in closed beta phase. Same deal exactly.

Two things mmo's need

content

and longevity.

aoc has a lack of content.

and a lack of longevity.

You piss thru the content so fast, and so easily due to its crazy difficulty of being way to easy, that you dont' stick around past your first maxed character.

The same quests, (few and far between, and all cookie cutter ones at that), for each of your "new" characters.

If the industry wants to do well, it has to go back to its roots.

Ultima Online\Everquest 1  are how mmo's should be done.

Not the easy bullshit and crap content we get today.

Originally posted by Deviate

@ Salv.....I'm sure devs are banking on the subscribtions, not initial box sales.

@ Die.....Ofc you can use small craptastic dev teams as an example. I meant companies like Mythic, not Farlan, Sigil etc..

  You'd be quite wrong.

  When you can potentially clear investment AND draw profit from just the box sales (which is almost what AoC did, I cannot recall exactly what their initial investment figures were now) it begins to matter ALOT.  All that really matters in business is profit.  Basically, if a venture can secure a profit...its worth doing.  Assuming a horrible retention rate, if your box sales are high enough to pass overhead...everything you earn is clear money.  All you have to do is make cuts to ensure you continue to draw said money versus continued investment.  Most players are not hardcore, and therefore do not burn through a game in a single month.  That guarantees quite a bit of monthly profit before having to worry too much.

  Again, though....this all assumes you can score high box sales.  For any investor trying to score an easy buck...all you REALLY need to worry over is how well the team can market its product.  Subscriptions matter most to the parent company, but in the end, even they profit GREATER from high box sales as it gets them past the red zone. 

  Unless you're Blizzard, that is.  Then you simply don't care at all...because you fart gold and sweat silver.  At this point, they could probably make profit without selling a single thing.

Originally posted by Malickiebloo

Originally posted by Cymdai

I disagree entirely with this post.

Age of Conan is just another game in a slew of recent failures that ignored their competition.

I think the problem with all these MMO developers is that:

1) They have absolutely no idea what gamers want/expect nowadays, and approach this from a business perspective, instead of from a gamer's perspective.

2) All project managers have 0% competence, and are skilled in budget mismanagement, lying to all their customers, and generally lacking in the creativity department.

3) None of the backers, nor the project managers, have ever researched the history of MMO's, pre-WoW, and it shows.

 

In my mind, the MMO genre is in shambles. When is the last time some new ideas came forward? Why are we always using the same classes, the same races, the same everything that were being used nearly a decade ago? Why isn't the genre evolving?

I think when you couple the problems listed above, accompanied with the fact the MMO players are  *finally*  getting tired of playing the same game with a few different features, designs, etc etc, and looking for more, that you've got a stonewall.

I believe the next, truly great MMO will require the following:

1) Abandon the Tolkien Lore/Fantasy theme. No more orcs, battle axes, and for God's sake, I never want to see an elf again, in any form, period.

2) A company that actively interacts with it's players. Dev-led monster raids vs. player cities and such would be something remarkable to me. Devs who actually post on their forums. GM's who give a damn about customer care. You know, not a corporation.

3) An emphasis on a setting not often explored. For example, I'd pay stupid amounts of money to play a Fallout MMO that worked well.

4) New ideas in the industry. It's obvious that those who ARE in this industry are just plain drained of new creative endeavors. McQuaid's Vanguard, Gaute's Conan, and let's not even get into Archlord. It's time to start a search for new creative genius.

Just my 2 cents... I should write an editorial column. "How to Build a 5 Star MMO"

There's one problem I see in your theory , Most games that are trying something different don't get funded, If they do they don't become hits.  Look at Fallen Earth (similar to the lore in Fallout) , They have a lot of good tech footage, art, ideas , but have yet to get invested in by a corporation . EVE has most of what you described , It actually offers a lot more(including CCP being very active within their community) . Yet has only a small portion of the MMO market under it's wing. 

Maybe the problem isn't with developers at all , It's those putting up the big money. And those who buy their fantasy rehashes up like milk and bread. Look at WOW, Blizzard controls 10 million subs , Yet never innovates , never takes a risk , They Just rehash what's been done over and over for years now.Yet if you look at any MMO community site like this one , You have so many people that defend this , just because their game happens to have a bit more spit and polish.

Therefor no one takes a risk , look what happens if they do . When trying something new you have few guidelines to follow in how to make this or that work . Therefor games that innovate are far more buggy , have general stability issues and more hedaches all around. In turn noone supports the game , Game dies . Company closes bye bye innovation. Sad truth of the state of MMO's

That's a valid point.

It's been argued in the past that one of the reason ambitious projects fail is because of investor interference. For example, the company has a vision of the game they would like to produce, how it will work, etc etc. But Jo Money, a major backer for the game, thinks he's got some pretty brilliant ideas of his own. Therefore, he says he'll put his money into the game, provided they compromise with him on a few areas. it's a theory that could carry some weight; he who writes the checks makes the games!

I also happen to agree with you on another point; new ideas are generally poorly executed. I think this IS a problem nowadays in relation to WoW. Before WoW, the community was smaller, willing to deal with more bugs, delays, etc. Now that over 10 million people have seen what 99% functionality is, what an excellent framerate is like, how class balance looks when it's done right... they're much less interested in waiting for a game to stabilize. But I think that's also just a consumer preference. Honestly, I think most people would prefer something that is done, functional, and "complete" over something that's a work in progress. For example, to poke fun at Gaute's comparison...

Would you prefer to walk into a restaurant where there is a steak fresh off the oven, on your plate, perfectly prepared for your consumption? Or, would you rather wait several hours, while the cow is killed, cured, treated, cut, cleaned, and prepared, on what could be an excellent filet (if done properly)? Probably not ^_~

That's Blizzard's gift. They take ideas, and they perfect them. I can't fault them for it; it's a hell of a talent. They enter the day with a "It IS broke, but we CAN and WILL fix it!". I admire that.

However, with what you pointed out, there's now a trail of failed "copycat" games on the trail. Perhaps the customers *are* finally tiring of the same old, same old.  Why pay for a new game that hasn't brought something to the table that a finely-tuned game like World of Warcraft has? I think the first developer to break the mold EFFICIENTLY (ala QA testing out the ass) will rake in the money. WoW's kind of got a monopoly on what's been done; their subs prove that. I think the next big competitor is going to have enter the game with a different approach.

With all that have been said in this thread,does anyone think that Curt Silling's 38 studio will do better.The guy is a true MMOer but he is also a business man?

Originally posted by Cymdai

That's a valid point.

It's been argued in the past that one of the reason ambitious projects fail is because of investor interference. For example, the company has a vision of the game they would like to produce, how it will work, etc etc. But Jo Money, a major backer for the game, thinks he's got some pretty brilliant ideas of his own. Therefore, he says he'll put his money into the game, provided they compromise with him on a few areas. it's a theory that could carry some weight; he who writes the checks makes the games!

I also happen to agree with you on another point; new ideas are generally poorly executed. I think this IS a problem nowadays in relation to WoW. Before WoW, the community was smaller, willing to deal with more bugs, delays, etc. Now that over 10 million people have seen what 99% functionality is, what an excellent framerate is like, how class balance looks when it's done right... they're much less interested in waiting for a game to stabilize. But I think that's also just a consumer preference. Honestly, I think most people would prefer something that is done, functional, and "complete" over something that's a work in progress. For example, to poke fun at Gaute's comparison...

Would you prefer to walk into a restaurant where there is a steak fresh off the oven, on your plate, perfectly prepared for your consumption? Or, would you rather wait several hours, while the cow is killed, cured, treated, cut, cleaned, and prepared, on what could be an excellent filet (if done properly)? Probably not ^_~

That's Blizzard's gift. They take ideas, and they perfect them. I can't fault them for it; it's a hell of a talent. They enter the day with a "It IS broke, but we CAN and WILL fix it!". I admire that.

However, with what you pointed out, there's now a trail of failed "copycat" games on the trail. Perhaps the customers *are* finally tiring of the same old, same old.  Why pay for a new game that hasn't brought something to the table that a finely-tuned game like World of Warcraft has? I think the first developer to break the mold EFFICIENTLY (ala QA testing out the ass) will rake in the money. WoW's kind of got a monopoly on what's been done; their subs prove that. I think the next big competitor is going to have enter the game with a different approach.

Excellent rebuttal  :)

I still believe Blizzard is the company best suited to bring something new and innovative to the market  , I will continue to fault them until they do .

I think it will take a balance between tolerance from customers and QA from developers, to get that out of just about any other company . SO it's not going to happen for a while , As you point out people seem unwilling to play unstable games ,After experiencing blizzards QA.

Ill point out AOC is a poor example of Innovation IMO because it really does little to innovate outside of it's combat interface . Which makes it's state even more unforgivable , It could improve IMO . However, I am unwilling to pay for it until it does.

Originally posted by Cymdai 

However, with what you pointed out, there's now a trail of failed "copycat" games on the trail. Perhaps the customers *are* finally tiring of the same old, same old.  Why pay for a new game that hasn't brought something to the table that a finely-tuned game like World of Warcraft has? I think the first developer to break the mold EFFICIENTLY (ala QA testing out the ass) will rake in the money. WoW's kind of got a monopoly on what's been done; their subs prove that. I think the next big competitor is going to have enter the game with a different approach.

I couldn't agree more, well said.  The only thing I think that might be different is if a company does make a game that breaks the mold and gets things half way decent people will be a little more forgiving of imperfections.  The problem as you so finely put it is that someone needs to bring that special new something to the table.

Personally I think someone needs to look back to gaming roots of a koster style world, modernize the concepts to fit with casual play and hardcore and blend in some concepts from modern games.  For examples: socialization is steamrolling so many aspects of the internet except MMOs where community building tools are slowly being removed and player interaction is being sidelined.

Originally posted by Deviate

I really think Funcom should be thanked for releasing AoC in the condition it's in.

I believe they have opened up other developers eyes, and made them realise they can't release unpolished garbage and get away with it.

I thought Tabula Rasa proved that

www.massively.com/2008/02/21/q4-2007-ncsoft-s-subscription-numbers-and-tabula-rasa-s-financial/

Lee Jae-ho mentioned six months ago he projected 50 million dollars in revenue to their investors. The end result was Tabula Rasa's total revenue was 5.4 million dollars

www.massively.com/2008/06/06/tabula-rasa-goes-awol-from-q1-ncsoft-financial-reports/

I doubt devs will learn from it,  the market will lurch on

Originally posted by Deviate

I really think Funcom should be thanked for releasing AoC in the condition it's in.

I believe they have opened up other developers eyes, and made them realise they can't release unpolished garbage and get away with it.

I don't look at paying 50 dollars for AoC as a rip off anymore. I look at it like an investment in the future of mmo's.

Warhammer cutting cities and classes is a prime example. They saw the backlash FC got from it's customers and realised they need to release the content when it is polished.

I'm pretty sure there was a post almost exactly like this, word for word, after the Vanguard debacle.  Makes me wonder....

"P.S. for the person who said WAR right now is more polished than Age of Conan your wrong because WAR has 1 big polishing issue at the moment and thats RvR balance, and isnt RvR the main aspect of the game?"

Its a closed beta test. I don't expect everything to be done and perfect yet. Things change over time to fix any of the problems that might exist, but I dont even see it as being that unbalanced as it is right now.  I've had more fun in RvR than Ive had in any game since Shadowbane, but of course part of that fun comes from having a guild there where we can form our own warbands. I can only go by my experiences playing both games and Warhammer in beta is more polished and has more content than AoC.

Originally posted by Galahad_KoA

"P.S. for the person who said WAR right now is more polished than Age of Conan your wrong because WAR has 1 big polishing issue at the moment and thats RvR balance, and isnt RvR the main aspect of the game?"

Its a closed beta test. I don't expect everything to be done and perfect yet. Things change over time to fix any of the problems that might exist, but I dont even see it as being tha