Richard Aihoshi's Free Zone: Browser Based MMOs
Lots of MMOs have thrown the traditional client aside and work right in the web browser. This week, Richard looks at this trend.
In Dana's column last week, he focused on a key reason for the burgeoning popularity of free to play MMOGs. They're much more accessible in terms of their hardware requirements. Simply put, they run on more PCs, which means more people can play them. This is a topic area I've visited multiple times over the at least the past five or six years, and frankly, I wonder like he does - why some people, both gamers and developers, don't seem to "get it".
Graphics don't make a game. They can and do, however, significantly impact the size of its potential audience.
Let's be clear; I'm not talking about stick figures and monochrome. But consider this. There are millions upon millions of people whose usual online activities consist of little more than e-mail and surfing. What standard do you think they have when they look at their computer screens?
That's a major reason why browser-based MMOGs are a lot more popular than you might realize, and also an important factor in why I expect to see considerable growth in this segment over the next few years. The visuals may be low-tech and boring to graphics whores or even serious gamers in general. However, for huge numbers of other people, they're fine, even good.
And there are other forms of accessibility. One is that there's little or nothing to download or install. Another is that aside from an e-mail address, it's generally not necessary to provide any form of personal information before starting to play. No credit card number either.
Of course, browser games can utilize various revenue models. However, F2P obviously allows free trial, which addresses the potential barrier to entry of paying for something without knowing what it's like or how enjoyable it is.
It's difficult to gauge how large the browser MMOG segment is at this time, but I have no doubt it's substantial. In part, I suspect this is because, as with F2P in general, North America currently trails the global market. This means less information floating around for people like me to find. Another reason is that when companies anywhere do release numbers, they typically talk about registered users, a practice I truly dislike since the figures are far less meaningful than others such as concurrent or active users would be.
That said, I've heard from very credible sources that popular international titles generate revenues well in excess of a millions dollars per month. Such amounts pale in comparison to World of Warcraft, but they don't look bad at all beside moderately popular subscription offerings. This is especially true when we consider the cost of development, both pre-launch and ongoing, is undoubtedly far lower. Operating expenses might be too.
Frankly, I wonder how much longer it will be before the major game publishers start to catch on. Maybe some have already, although none spring to mind. But since I'm not privy to anything I can't disclose, I can speculate to my heart's content. So... I think it's really just a matter of time before we see the industry big guns getting into web MMOGs. There's simply too much potential audience and profit for them to continue ignoring the category.
Some people are sure to object since these hypothetical future releases won't be "real" MMOGs. If you feel this distinction is important enough to avoid even trying them, that's undeniably your prerogative. Personally, I'm looking forward to them since they'll mean more ways I can have fun.
One I'd really like to see is a Star Wars web MMOG. The broad appeal of this property is undeniable. Galaxies never had a realistic chance to capitalize on this. Why? Primarily because of limited accessibility - not just from the hardware requirements perspective, but even more so from a design point of view. Both originally and following the various fixes that were implemented, it's a game for gamers. That's fine in and of itself, but it never fit with the hype about attracting a truly mass market audience.
I have no doubt that The Old Republic will be better in terms of its potential reach. But do I believe it will appeal to a substantial proportion of those who aren't already gamers to at least a moderate degree (i.e. a good majority of the North American population)? Among the people I know, I expect quite a few more would be willing to check out an online Star Wars universe if they could do so quickly and easily through their browsers... especially on an F2P or extensive free to try basis.
And what about interesting properties that don't have the same magnitude of audience? Like me, I'm sure you can readily come up with some personal favorites - perhaps a fair number - that could provide highly enjoyable play experiences, but don't seem likely to warrant the time and monetary investments required to build conventional MMOGs no matter how much we wish for them. At least with web-based and other alternative approaches, I can have some hope.
More The Free Zone Features:
More Columns:
More Features:
He is the former Editor of RPG Vault and his column, focusing on free to play MMOs, appears on MMORPG.com every Monday.
I do not play browser games. Not my thing..but a Star Wars browser game would probably bring Lucas a shiteload more millions in cash on a monthly basis. It could even be set up like gaia online or maple story. Call it "Clone Wars Online"...since he already kidified that part of the IP. Seriously...people would be cash shopping their asses off to customize their characters, Uncle Owen-esque huts/moisture-farm,spaceships and droids. Come on now...how many people would pay for there little cartoony jedi to have a purple light saber. It'll make more money than SWG does...or did ever.
I think there is a ton of potential for this in the coming years. Having played a couple first person shooters that are based in the browser (Quake Live and Fallen Empires: Legions) I was quite impressed with how well it all works. Obviously an MMO is a much larger undertaking, but considering the engine itself is usually just a browser plug-in, the technology is already more or less here. I personally won't play a browser based MMO until the graphics and stuff are at least on par with some of the older MMO's such as Star Wars Galaxies, but I'm looking forward to it.
I've also found it odd that more MMO games haven't been extended onto the web. Even if you can't have the whole game in the browser, it would be nice to pull up your guild chat while having lunch at work, or even pulling up a crafting screen in the browser so you could grind out some goods while sitting on the sofa with your netbook or using someone else's computer that you can't install the full client on.
I don't play browser based MMOs simply because I have a gamer hardware, it might not be top-of-the-line, but it still allows me to play MMOs with decent graphical quality. The hardware cost for maximum quality gaming may be high, but if you accept lower quality (well, if your budget doesn't allow it you don't really have an option there other than going console gaming) the cost gets as low as generic computers, with the addition of a video card that is usually the only thing that doesn't allow someone purchasing a generic computer nowadays from experiencing decent graphical gaming.
One thing to mention is that if the OnLive platform truly works as they say (I remain highly skeptical), there'll be a revolution in the entry-fee for any kind of gamer, even the "poor" one to allow them to play games with far better graphical qualities, and since MMOs already suffer from the existence of latency, it's not much of a difference MMO gamers will feel. This will be initially restricted to USA players.
It's interesting you bring up in your article F2P MMOs as "extended trials" or "free to trial" games as you usually give an unrealistic biased image of the F2P MMOs.
Graphical quality can still be very high without requiring a powerful computer to render it, with Aion and Guild Wars as examples - their graphic quality is excelent for a MMO, yet it can be achieved by fairly lower-end computers. I remember playing Guild Wars on a 800 MHz Duron with a Geforce FX5700 card in their first public event ever - the E3 for Everyone event, around 3~4 years ago. It just requires investment in the graphical department, not only for good graphics but also for their optimization. These are usually both graphical qualities a F2P MMO budget does not focus on.
I can imagine PopCap making MMOs...
I completely agree that the companies should focus more on mass market, especially for those hurting for money to survive; but, I also hope that with greater revenue, that the gamers who enjoy the more complex, the more graphic intensive will have a very good MMO to play as well, which I'm not sure will always be the case (though there will likely be at least 1 or 2).
Years of the classical MMO, the non-player friendly, time-intensive game are dying off, and opening for the more social-focused, easy-to-play MMO. Its a good trend...but it seems to also be trashing on those who want to work with graphics and testing boundries. I hope for balance in the future and a 'schooling' of more casual gamers to have a cleaner fit within the community...
I like the idea of boosting the casual, having more F2P and browser based, but I have the feeling deep down the way those are going about it will destroy the harder, more complex, more intensive MMO in the process (on the short term). It just seems to me the industry by making MMOs more casual are focusing solely on making them younger-focused & childish in complexity, to open up the audience & alienating the elder generations in the process :/ (again, I hope more more balance in the future)*.
* Note this isnt a 100% across all MMOs going more casual; But, on average I think the assumption can be justified - or worst case I'm wrong, lol
i remenber years ago one MMO, don't know the name, was set up so you have the Big Game for your pc but there was a functional lite game for cell phones. It was sort of liek the PSP/PS3 bridge. That would be quite inovative to bring back.
Earth Eternal is probably going to be the first real MMO that is browser based, but the technology is definitely out there for a full 3D browser based MMO (and I mean thousands of players in one world).
I'm just going to wait now for the rabid SWG vets to come on and flame you for even hinting that SWG wasn't good :)
Any true SWG vet that realizes why they loved the game will tell you it was the freedom the game allowed, and the community that freedom created. The game itself was a train wreck and if it wasn't for the sandbox nature of it, and the interesting community all those different combat and non-combat classes created, the game wouldn't even have any old fans still talking about how much fun they had 5-6 years ago.
There is a reason pre-NGE has rabid fans even though it is considered a failure by most people. I have yet to see a single modern MMO recreate the deep, interdependent community SWG had. That's what we miss more than anything.
Mafia Wars in facebook has 4 million players daily. there are tons of browser RPG styled games on facebook. castle ages, vampire wars, dragon wars.....
some are text only, some have flash 3D missions.
Any true SWG vet that realizes why they loved the game will tell you it was the freedom the game allowed, and the community that freedom created. The game itself was a train wreck and if it wasn't for the sandbox nature of it, and the interesting community all those different combat and non-combat classes created, the game wouldn't even have any old fans still talking about how much fun they had 5-6 years ago.
There is a reason pre-NGE has rabid fans even though it is considered a failure by most people. I have yet to see a single modern MMO recreate the deep, interdependent community SWG had. That's what we miss more than anything.
The problem is the "rabid fans" were the only ones that remeber it fondly. The game only rose to about 300k subs then fell from there. If Pre-NGE was so grand and engrossing, why did it not take off like WOW? I fall in your group of Pre-NGE lovers of a game that totally engrossed me. However, there are just not that many of us. The dominate casual market found it too buggy, complex, unfriendly to thier lifestyle. Thats why it was changed to better match WOW and try to capture some of those players. It failed, and there was no going back once that genie was out of the bottle.
I play one called Pardus at www.pardus.at it quite a good little game, and I know people play it from all round the world. got a good F2P package, and a good subscription package. It a good little game to play, specially if all you are doing in some MMORPG for a while is camping some bloody point.
I agree with most of Richard's article except where he asks when are the major game developers going to catch on to the browser-cased market. I think they are starting to catch on. SOE's Free Realms is doing very well. Wizards 101 has won awards and is also doing well. Both of these games are browser based. Yes, they are targetted towards a younger audience, but I think both of these titles show how well a browser can run a game. This should only imporve as browser technology improves.
I think the big game developers are watching this market very closely.
Kingdom of Loathing boasts one of the best communities and some of the funniest writing I've found in 25+ years of gaming. Sure, it's stick figure art, but that's part of the joke. I've been playing for almost four years, and I'm not bored yet.
I agree that the popularity of these games is on the rise, and one reason is that the low design and investment requirements allow smart niche games like KoL to exist and thrive. Here's to more.
Free Realms is not browser based. It has a client that has to be installed and it downloads more as you progress. The only thing it uses the browser for is to login and to see your items/achievements/etc. without logging into the full game.
I don't know about the tech on browser based games, so a few questions.
It seems to me that you should be able to reach single player quality of art with browser based. Is that possible?
I'd also like to know if there's any restrictions with browser based production, such as world interactions like pulling levers and opening chests.
Another question is, wouldn't a browser based game remove some cheats based on reading downloads? I mean, if the browser isn't sending you info that a stealther is behind you, would anyone be able to build a prog to detect "hidden"?
Any true SWG vet that realizes why they loved the game will tell you it was the freedom the game allowed, and the community that freedom created. The game itself was a train wreck and if it wasn't for the sandbox nature of it, and the interesting community all those different combat and non-combat classes created, the game wouldn't even have any old fans still talking about how much fun they had 5-6 years ago.
There is a reason pre-NGE has rabid fans even though it is considered a failure by most people. I have yet to see a single modern MMO recreate the deep, interdependent community SWG had. That's what we miss more than anything.
My friends and I totally agree with you. SWG with all it's faults, was a true MMO and fun to play.
With all the FTP games being made to attract the masses, I can only hope developers continue to make PTP games for veteran gamers who prefer a more involved, immersive, good story MMO. Perhaps it won't bring in the number of players the publishers want, but the core players are still there. The PTP will still make money, although the development will be more expensive.
Once again, not really sure what the point is here. There are *lots* of free dungeon crawl type games and other MUD derivatives out there already. One good reason why I don't see any major studio sinking real money into a brower game is that there are already so many similar free options out there. No one is going to pay for commodore 64 level graphics over the existant text/pong level ones with the same gameplay.
In so far as there is money in this sort of game, it will be done on the F2P/microtransaction model that Richard loves to promote so much. I'm sure there already are or soon will be very low requirement browser persistant world games that you can play on Iphones and blackberries etc as well as ultra low end PCs. (Although it is worth remembering that ultra low end PCs probably can't handle the browser alone anyways lol!)
Personally, I couldn't care less. I'm willing to pay for and demand far better than browser games for my home PC entertainment.
I find some of the browser based MMOs have great communities. Currently playing Ikariam, and I'm finding there is a lot of direct player to player interaction to be had there. For example, so far in the past few days:
- got into an escalated pillaging war with two players of another alliance, resulting in a third member of their alliance bringing in backup to take ships and men at my main city.
- set up an embassy which allowed me to create an alliance and invite a friend into it. It also allowed me to send a few peace treaty requests to neighboring cities.
- found a nearby city was run by a fellow poster from the ACFriends forum so I shot him a message and began trading with them for some needed resources
- followed the heated war between two large alliances on the diplomacy board for our server - a battle waged both on the forums and ingame, and it looks like it's getting costly.
It's a simple game with enough options to keep it interesting. Micromanagement of the cities is kept to a fun level and doesn't get into ridiculous minutia.
Evony, Tribal Wars, Pardus, Omega Days (I think this one is down now though) are all great browser games that can run on even the cheapest of netbooks, costing nothing at all to play but having a few extra perks for coughing up a few coins here and there.
An interesting article, particularly the bit about an older title being a 'game for gamers.'
Perhaps it was just a turn of phrase, but for some reason it really depressed me, as it implies that newer games aren't made for gamers (or at least, the successful ones likely won't be).
I think that browser games CAN BE GOOD. The question is: will they? Will the game developers try to learn from their previous mistakes like making the gaming interesrting? Thats the problem with F2P MMORPGs, you start them, have a little fun, and then you get bored......
And what about the graphics? Maybe people will play it without alot of graphics like Richard said, but the graphics still CAN help.
One of the major problems too are the internet speed. Playing a laggy browser games doesn't sound fun at all....
i think there needs to be some progression and understanding in the F2P market. They need to understand that if they want people to buy things from their games, they need to make them fun and not boring. Maybe the browser games can give them a chance to invest more to the game and less to the graphics.
The biggest markets I see for browser based games (and it's a HUGE market)
Is little kids, housewives, and anyone with a computer at work, heh.
How many people sneak in a few flash games at work when the boss isn't looking. How do they get by with this? Easy, because the firewall doesn't block it and they don't have to download anything, thus being able to play it without having admin rights to the computer.
Web based/cloud computing is going to make tons of money as the field develops. Perhaps much more than most traditional subscription MMO's and even F2P mmo's.
cloud based stuff...nothing to install, play in a browser...you can play at home, on your cell phone, your laptop, your work computer, any random computer with internet access....
How could that NOT be huge??
Another great article, next time Richard will be telling us why we should all be playing MUD’s. They are cheap online games to make; any PC, even one that’s twenty years old can run them and it is all about the gameplay. <rolls eyes>
Why does Richard want everything to appeal to the lowest common denominator? The only winner here is the company who rakes the money in.
He thinks playing games which have inferior graphics, communities, depth of play style etc are some how as good as subscription based MMOs.
In life try to be the best, want the best and play the best. Don’t learn to accept second best or in this case play something that’s a generation behind in computing terms.
Have a look at Fusion Fall, it is a kids MMO, but it does a very good job of demonstrating what you can achieve with a browser based game.
In theory, the only limitations on what you can do with a browser lauched engine, is what you can stream to a user's computer and what that computer can hold in memory.
It is not different to how other MMOs work, it is merely holding the whole engine in the memory of your system rather than running it from your hard drive, therefore the limitations are largely visual or audio, mechanically it is has no limitations.
"Graphics don't make a game."
WRONG.
Is called VIDEO games for a reason.
------
Also, almost everything commented on teh article happend already.. in 2007.. Web Games are really old news.
Yes, it is. You could play ForumWARz, It play somewhat like a "hacker emulator", is very smooth and history based. But Is limited to a few "points" every hour or something, and the history is not finished (or whats not finished wen I played it), another problem is that is somewhat META.
Note: I pre-trolled U!.
I could imagine more browser type games because of accessibility. When I am visiting a relative who has *a* computer, I am happy if I can get it to surf okay. Or imagine iPhone/iTouch type of handhelds, even PSP or so if you just want to jump into something while not at home. Although the latter media will make it pretty restricted - how many will play on the iPhone for 200+ h a MMO? I have problems with blood circulation on my iTouch after any type of casual game after 20 mins or more...
To put it simple, most browser based games just plain suck as a whole. The only exception to the rule so far is Free Realms and Cartooon Network Universe: Fusion Fall. Those are just about the only good browser based MMOs. Back when it first came out so was Runescape, but not so much anymore. Runescape is showing its age too much.
I personally hate all the browser based games that are just pictures and text. If I wanted to play something crappy like that I'd play Dungeons & Dragons pen & paper, but I won't cause thats crappy as well. Back in the stone ages that might of been OK, but not today.
I started gaming on the Commodore 64 and Atari 2600. So I have seen graphics and gameplay change a lot in my 31 years on this planet, but I am a firm believe in pushing forward and never looking back. Yeah its fun to play some of the old school games once and awhile, but only for a short time. Before I'm wanting some thing modern and fresh.
Now-a-days I want something that is 3D, full screen, supports widescreen, uses WASD keys to move (Can't stand point-n-click to move.), and give you a choice of camera angles and views (I prefer third person, myself. Don't mind some first-person, but simply hate isometric).. Doesn't matter to me how its delivered to me either browser based or client. Plus the 3D graphics don't matter either as long as they are 3D. Its can be cartoony, realistic, stylistic, or even artistic. Just don't give me still drawn or photographic images with text.
Well that was simply my 2 cents, you can take it or leave it.
RuneScape is the 10th most edited article on Wikipedia lmao
No, it called video games because it is visual. doesnt mean the graphics have to be top-notch. and let face it, if we didnt keep insisting on every game coming out being graphically done to the max, we might get games that people would enjoy playing for the sake of it.
Pardus, yeah it aint no graphic feast. But I play it for fun, and for the community sense that it gives. When people start complaining about a game that doest live up to the graphical quality that it should have, I want to say, go and get a video game then. Get a PS3, or an X-box, or an normal off the shelf PC game. MMOs, where-ever it should be Pardus to World of Warcraft arent there because they look real good, they are there, cause, fun to play, you enjoy playing against other people, or interacting with them.
Games like pardus may not be a visual gloryfeast like WOW, but it a game that nearly anyone can play, from someone on a supercomputer with the biggest broadband connection, to some unfortunate soul stuck in a third world country, that has an 1999 IBM laptop with a dial up connection. Two people who might never have met, much less became friends, if it werent for something like browser based MMOs.
And really, that what MMOs are about. the community of players and how they interact with each other, and have fun. cos if we were only concerned with the graphics and things like that, then tell me......why do people still play diablo?
Let me rephrase it. Videogames is a VISUAL art. The video make or destroy the game. Wen you are creating a game, about 95% of it is doing something about the video of the game on the screen.
You want Opera, but withouth the fat people singing? then is not opera but something else.
postdata:
OBVIUSLY I am not talking about number of polygons, size of textures, or resolution. But number of polygones, size of textures and resolution is another thing that can help make graphics better.
I disagree, content and playability make a game, graphics are just icing on the cake. Easy to disprove your theory since Wow does not come close to having great graphics yet is by far the genre leader because of the two factors I mentioned.
I would readily play a decent browser game if one were to come out. The downloads times for some of the current games are outrageous. That is a big problem that will only get worse as these f2p games get more sophisticated. So bring on the browser games.
I disagree with you Dana. I believe that F2P MMO's is a trend that will pass fairly quickly. And 'Why' you ask. I think that as soon as they realize there is really no $$ to be made in the market... it will dry up. My strong suspicion with these type of games is that it is a very small group of games in this genre that have people willing to pay $$ for the 'added content' or the 'special gear' or whatever it is they make money off of. I know that personally, though I've tried a handful of these types of games, I have never paid for anything in the F2P games. I try them for a bit to see what they're like... and then move on. I believe that I am not even remotely alone in this type of activity. And the people that try them and like them, I believe, are mostly attracted to the 'Free' aspect of the game and, therefore, won't bother with the microtransactions. And, I mean, ultimately, even though they are called F2P, these games have to find some way to make $$ or they will not last... period. Let's face it, creating ANY game is NOT free. It takes resources that cost money, and if you're not making any, then you can't build them, support them or expand them.
Greed itself will consume the F2P model as this revenue model has an endless money sink potencial. Eventually people will notice they are actually spending way more than they would in a P2P counterpart, or if they aren't spending a single cent, they will notice that the game actually has no longterm play as long as you don't start spending money, or there is a holy-crap years-long grind to get the good stuff (masking the lack of content caused by the lower budget F2P games have as there is a risk). After all, its the developers job to generate revenue and when there is an item mall for that, the ways they can "force" you into spending money can be very strong. As MMOs take this route, you will see people not finding themselves able to play multiple MMOs at the same time, pretty much like how you don't find many people playing multiple P2P MMO subscriptions (relative to the total number of P2P MMO gamers).
When P2P games in the West decide to offer the pay-for-hour models like in Asia, casual players or those that want to play multiple MMOs will finally have an interesting choice to get into the P2P genre.
Greed itself will consume the F2P model as this revenue model has an endless money sink potencial. Eventually people will notice they are actually spending way more than they would in a P2P counterpart, or if they aren't spending a single cent, they will notice that the game actually has no longterm play as long as you don't start spending money, or there is a holy-crap years-long grind to get the good stuff (masking the lack of content caused by the lower budget F2P games have as there is a risk). After all, its the developers job to generate revenue and when there is an item mall for that, the ways they can "force" you into spending money can be very strong. As MMOs take this route, you will see people not finding themselves able to play multiple MMOs at the same time, pretty much like how you don't find many people playing multiple P2P MMO subscriptions (relative to the total number of P2P MMO gamers).
When P2P games in the West decide to offer the pay-for-hour models like in Asia, casual players or those that want to play multiple MMOs will finally have an interesting choice to get into the P2P genre.
My point exactly. When they realize that they are paying more, as inevitably they will, the player, or parent who paid for it, will cancel or move on to something else. Why? Because the game is selling itself on the premise that it is free to play... but it isn't. And it can't be. This whole model is flawed in and of itself because of that. These games are not free to play, yet they try to pass themselves off as being free. So either people play them without paying, or they pay for stuff and eventually realize that they could be paying the same or less to be playing games that they thought they couldn't afford. Either way, they lose 'paying' players. Sure there will be exceptions... but I believe this is where this genre will end up.
I hope F2P games are a passing fad in the west, but I have my doubts as I see more and more developers testing the waters.
I'm not poor. I don't play a game because of how much it costs (or doesn't cost). I play a game that looks fun, interesting, deep, and has familiar or good IP. NO F2P game I've played has ANY of those attributes. They are generic in every sense. And no matter how much you spend in their in game cash shops the gaming experience still sucks. I realize I come from a different generation when story mattered. It seems like new mmo players (or gamers in general) don't give a crap about story and just want to be l33t with uber gear as they grind on mobs. Meh.
Browser based mmo? Sure, as long as it has all the attributes above. But if it resembles a generic gaming experience....no thanks.
One thing that would have been nice is to see a list of decent Browser based MMO's in this story. I know of only a few. Even in the gaming section here we don't really have a section that shows just browser based MMOs.
check out Dragom Wars on facebook or myspace, it has some flash missions that allow you to attack. open chest and click to walk. Takes a little time to load the flash mission, but I am sure that will improve with time.
I been gaming on a pc for 27 years now, one of the games I had the most fun with was a little text dungeon game named Rogue, I admit, I loved the Crafting system in Pre Cu SWG, but I also loved the easy of play of the F2P game Fishing Champ.
This idea is ridiculous, sorry Richard. Why not make WoW a browser based game while we're at it? It kind of destroys the purpose of pay-to-play.
To avoid stretching the thread I will quote the end section of your point. I think you give people to much credit in what they will figure out. Not to mention you could have a model which is very hard to break down so and combines a subscription with a form of pay as you go. Not to mention what we understand as browser based could very well change with services like Gaikai (which demo'd EvE and WoW being streamed and played). The concept of server side (cloud) gaming is becoming a more tangible reality so the form in which we play our games is likely to change, but I disgress.
Look at big companies already testing the water with free to play (EA) together with developers on future titles watching the market before they make any decisions (Realtime Worlds APB for example). I think F2P and P2P are going to collide in SOME cases to create a hybrid system. We've seen huge success with games like FreeRealms, Dofus, etc.
Games like Runescape which are often overlooked has the Guisness Book of World Record as the most popular F2P MMO in the world. People hoping that this is a fad are mistaken. The real problem is destroying the barriers that prevent people from paying in a flexible way. Korea has everything from paying for things with SMS to pre-paid cards, while the west in most cases is limited to the credit card.
Even Acclaim (I know they aren't a super power in the MMO space) stated they earn on average $70 per player per month in their free to play games. F2P and browser gaming will not dissapear and is likely to continue to expand with expanded technology and lower barriers of entry. Ultimately I think the advent of cloud gaming will remove the hardware consideration for games (eventually) as server side gaming evolves.
i do work in the gaming industry and the trend goes to browsergames. personally i think clientbased mmo's will always have the upper hand. as a coder i always hit the limits of the browser. you always have to reduce some features for the compatibility factor. since a browser like the msie 6.0 is still running and popular you always have to find a way through technology upgrades and old school stuff. in a time with everyone having broadband lines we can send a lot more informations than browsergames in the past, and with ajax techniques you can "stream" or load new content without the user having the feeling that new content is loaded so the technology makes a browsergame feel more like a "real" game. i doubt that browsergames will overwhelm the clientbased games since there are still too many hurdles to master. as a coder i like to make my own limits not to work with given ones ;)
if you want to get a closer look at my last browsergame visit www.wikingerhelden.de
With the utter volume of garbage flowing from the mmorpg industry recently (AoC, DF, every Chinese grinder, etc.) I have turned into a hardcore browser based gamer. Maybe if some of these companies focused on gameplay over gfx they would last longer than 4 months. I am currently playing astroempires.com and I have been at it for about 8 months, the longest I have lasted in any game besides eq1 and dota. If anyone wants help starting drop me a pm.
I love browser games for the range of how casual or hardcore your preference of playing them.
I play a few at a time since it doesn't take much to do a few clicks.
As for Star Wars browser game, I believe this is quite popular ...
Star Wars Interactive RPG, Chat, Forums and more! Gal-Com: A Galactic Community
Not sure if this has been said, Runescape is a fairly large browser MMORPG. Not only this but the original creator of the game is now the second richest person in the world under 30 because of it. Just go's to show, browser games are really where the moneys at. Anyway thought I'd put in my 2 sence since i was a "only browser gamer" for a long time.
The big question is will it be playable without download from neerly every computer. The big reason why browser games are so succsesfull is because they can easily be played at school, work, or just about anywere else. A starwars one could be a huge hit, tho only time will tell.
Well sorry to say this but i don't really consider Earth Eternal a full 3d browser game. As this article is talking about games "that require you download nothing". Earth eternal requires you to download a client. So sorry to break your ideas of a browser game but it's nto there yet. They make you download something to play it. That's just like a client game. So its' not the first 3d browser game to have sucess and we won't have one for a good long time. Till something like flash or something similar comes into the picture it's not going to be true browser based. Also if you want to go that route. Then Runescape's the first browser based mmo. As it's an mmo, and also it doesn't require you to go on and download this client to play their game. It just uses java which most machines already have.
For me to consider a game "the first 3d browser mmo" it has to do everthing that an mmo can do w/o having you to download a thing. So right now we've yet to see one. Everyone requires you to download their client for it, which then in turn downloads all the models and such on your pc. Fusion Fall, Earth Eternal, etc. are great examples of this. Runescape's wildly popular still now even though it's graphics are really some of the worst things i've ever seen.
Give browsers a couple more years. And we'll get some serious 3d browser based games that are just that. Completely from teh browser and can be accessed anywhere at any time. Google'll probably be one of the major developers of this sort of ability as the more they can get people to use their browser and surf the web the more money they'll be making.