Dana Massey Asks Why Not?: Let Games Grow

Honestly my trust in dev's has become such that I know most of them cannot be trusted in this manner while there are games that have done just what you said there are in my estimation many more that have done just the opposite they've treaded along just about the same as they were at launch, while I have experienced WOW and have seen many of the changes it experienced WOW is not the norm another game that comes to mind is LOTRO they have done an awesome job of expanding on the orignial game with and without expansions but again there seem to be many more games out like SWG,AOC that keep the carrot in front  of your face promising to make changes fixes and additions but delivering very little and as I've stated in other posts they just send a Craig or Smed out to lie and say things are not bad and we have no choice but to go with what they say no matter what.  So I''m getting closer and closer to the point where it is obvious who out here is capable of creating a decent game and building it up from there and if you don't fall into that category I'm not chasing your carrot.

I plan on being there wiith SV as Mortal Online grows.  This game has HUGE potential.

While I definitely agree that some companies should try to start with a "focused" MMO and grow on it for a smaller fee, I think the big problem is this: the reason most people leave a game is due to the core game itself.

While people might complain about game X not having feature Y that they promised to have, a player doesn't buy a game, install it, play it and then go "well, the game is great, but it doesn't have X, so I'm not going to play it anymore" (except perhaps in the case of AoC where it was supposed to have DX10 at launch and didn't...). They stop playing because the core game is flawed.

The thing that even a small MMO would need would be a "core," which is probably the hardest thing to develop when you have to keep in mind that the core must be able to expand. It's hard to program something and then just slap in additional code (at least, not without causing your programmers to jump off of a very tall bridge to escape the pain). Even something that seems as simple as an auction house has to take the codes of every single item in the game into consideration, and then organize it, allow that information to transfer safely AND display correctly on an AH, and then transfer it to the player who bought it. If the items and core aren't programmed to shift "real" items into a "non-real" version and then back into its original and "real" state elsewhere, then you have to completely rewrite the item system (and likely even the core).

That's why when a game has an expansion or patch, they travel into new areas. "Hey, we can mess around with the core and codes without messing around with the original stuff!" So while yes, a game could have expansions that bring in new features (as most already do), you still need a solid core, and that requires a lot of time and money.

Plus the question becomes: why pay for a core, when there are other MMOs out there with a core and X, Y and Z features? Most players would rather wait until a later time when the features finally show up.

Originally posted by jaxsundane

Honestly my trust in dev's has become such that I know most of them cannot be trusted in this manner while there are games that have done just what you said there are in my estimation many more that have done just the opposite they've treaded along just about the same as they were at launch, while I have experienced WOW and have seen many of the changes it experienced WOW is not the norm another game that comes to mind is LOTRO they have done an awesome job of expanding on the orignial game with and without expansions but again there seem to be many more games out like SWG,AOC that keep the carrot in front  of your face promising to make changes fixes and additions but delivering very little and as I've stated in other posts they just send a Craig or Smed out to lie and say things are not bad and we have no choice but to go with what they say no matter what.  So I''m getting closer and closer to the point where it is obvious who out here is capable of creating a decent game and building it up from there and if you don't fall into that category I'm not chasing your carrot.

Not necessarily a Wall of Text but definately more like a huge freakin stone of text all jumbled together into one continuous stream of thought that should have bnded somewherein the middle but I got a headache and could not make it through the whole thing thanks for trying to get your pointacross but I think it was lost in the translation from brain to keyboard.

OK, that aside.  I would tend to give my time, money, and effort to an indy game that is doing what was going through the growing pains in the OP.  FE is right on the cusp of just such a game.  The feeling you get from them in their interviews is basically just what you are stating.  They were indie so had to focus on some core gameplay.  Once that is done well they then switch gears to expansion and so forth.

However, I also have confidence in Cryptic Studios.  They have shown that they can build upon a decent game and improve some minor flaws that were exponentially blown up when the number of swubscriptions were increased.  You can also look at this as they tend to release the game a bit early to recoup some dev costs while they continue to polish.  Meh, cup half empty cup half full.

If a game came out that did a few things really really well I'd be all for supporting it.  Especially if the developer understood that their product wasn't comparable to the big studios and did not charge like it was.  Starting with a base subscription model of $4.99 US for instance and then increasing the price as new features are added would be sweet.

Having the option to opt out of features for a modified subscription cost would also be a nice option.  Say I like to PvE but they add a PvP option to the game.  Perhaps arena based so that it's a part of the game you have the option to play but will never notice is missing if you don't.  If I want to continue without the module being enabled then that's all fine.  If I want to PvP in arena then maybe I pay $7.99 a month instead.  The module is enabled and I then have access to PvP.  It's a pricing model that many coporate applications have for accounting systems and other business applications.  Everything is installed and options are enabled based on the subscription model.

I really don't think that most players would stomach the idea of increased fees as content increases.  While I personally think having a game that is solid but simple for a smaller fee is ok, sadly I think most players would simply feel that they are Entitled to get an ever improving, ever increasing gaming experience for the same low fee, and would balk at the idea of having to increase their payment as the game began to flesh out and become a great project.

Had WOW started at $5/month, I don't think people would be willing to pay $15/month simply because 3 expansions have come out, even with the growth and changes to the game.

Personally though, I like indy games, they tend to offer things that the mainstream has either forgotten about or is unwilling to risk attempting.

(as a side note, I hate EA for burying E&B.. dumb dumb dumb.)

Why are people not happy when release is missing items? Two very simple reasons. First because you just bought the game and are paying monthly. Where as if you waited until those features were in you'd probably get a free trial, free game and only have the monthly fee. So you are paying more for less. This works into reason two, there are already games out there that have all the features, have fewer bugs, and have better balance and they only require the monthly fee at this point. So why pay more (because of the box fee) for a game that has less?

It really is that simple, if you want to bust into a market then you had better provide more then what is already there, not less. It is not the player's fault that investors didn't grasp how long it was until the game was going to be released and thus force it out the door to see some returns before it is ready.

As for Global Agenda I doubt I will ever play it, I could get the same type of action in Halo or a number of other FPS games and not pay a subscription fee. Where as I would pay for Planetside 2 because it involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7, but even there they had better do it right other wise I wouldn't pay for it for very long because once again I could just go play any other shooter I have without a sub fee (I see that as the MMOFPS problem overall really).

I would however pay to play an Indie game from a small company that does not have as many features as one of the big boys. Because with a company like that you are helping bring new names in the industry, and since it is most likely their only game they will keep all their focus on improving and maintaining it. Darkfall is not an example of this though.

You hear a lot of people say, "Well <insert game> wasn't that good at launch, it took them years to get that good." The problem with that argument is that while that is true, new developers have had those same years to learn from that MMO's success and failures. The idea is to do just that, learn from their successes and failures, not make excuses that "that game didn't have this feature at launch, so we don't either."

As consumers, we buy products based off of value/$. If a AAA game with a laundry list of features is charging full box price and full subscription price, what makes a person think that we want to pay the same for a product that is inferior value/$. In this case, an inferior product is one that is less technically sound, has less features, and less support. So as the author said, the first step a company takes is by lowering the barrier to entry for their product. Don't charge full box price and then turn around and charge full subscription price, just because it's the market standard.

My next point is directed to what constitutes a finished product. While every MMO gamer knows a MMO's is constantly under development, this doesn't give developers the liscense to release unfinished games. Who would buy a single player game that releases with only half it's content, with a promise to patch the rest in a month from now? A game, MMO or not, needs to be complete at launch. That full and complete game is worth a subscription because we are paying for a continuation for that content or features that are considered post-release features, not for content that should have been there at launch.

It really is a catch-22.  We as players demand the polish and refinement that Blizzard achieved with WoW.  But at the same time, we demand innovation, creativity, and evolved gameplay mechanics of some sort.  I've come to believe you really can't have both.  I recently got in an argument with a player about Fallen Earth.  I commend the devs for sticking to their vision that just so happen to stray from the MMO norm in a variety of ways.   However, with these quirks came the price of polish and refinement.

And its funny.  Aion will get praised for its level of polish but blasted for its lack of innovation.  Fallen Earth will get criticised for the opposite.  It will be praised for being different and niche.  But it will also be blasted for the fact that it didn't have the AAA level of refinement that Blizzard and NCSoft can afford to adhere to.

CCP is a perfect example of a developer sticking to its guns and just building on top of what they released before.  Its one of the few MMOs out there that has maintained a steady growth since its release and it has benefited from it.  I don't think devs are doing a great job of understanding their general audience - outside of knowing that a large number of players are looking for the 'anti-wow' so to speak,  skewing  their projected subscriber number expectations.  I honestly believe EAMythic somewhere along the line expected at least a steady 500k subscribers and let development get out of hand and out of focus trying to make WAR a little bit of everything.

Originally posted by streea

While I definitely agree that some companies should try to start with a "focused" MMO and grow on it for a smaller fee, I think the big problem is this: the reason most people leave a game is due to the core game itself.

Oh, I agree. The hypothetical was a situation where someone does something you like. There's no accounting for just a bad game, big or small ;)

I think there's some incredibly linear thinking going on here.

The basic message here is "Why pay the same and get less, if there's a game out there that's already full-featured?"

The problem is that we're assuming that the list of features to be expected is written in stone. We're saying a game NEEDS to have a fantastic leveling experience, countless raids at the endgame, arena-based PvP, Auction House etc etc, and if it released without those things, then we're getting less than we pay for. But that's assuming we're talking about a WoW-clone here that's coming out with the same content as vanilla-WoW. In that case, yeah, why pay the full price for a vanilla-WoW-clone when you can get the real WoW for the same price?

But this whole thing seems incredibly backwards to me.

I'm willing to pay the full price, and get even less than vanilla-WoW offered in terms of scope, if I could get a rock-solid, small, kickass PvP game. I'm dying for a good PvP game. WoW isn't PvP. Warhammer, as it stands right now, doesn't provide that. I'd gladly pay the same amount of money, to get a small-scoped, but good, PvP game that will grow over the years and become even better. It doesn't have to have huge raids. Doesn't have to have a mind-blowing leveling experience, or even leveling at all. Doesn't have to have an AH at launch. But if it can pick one thing that you can't get anywhere else, and get that right, then it's worth my money.

I'm NOT willing to pay the full amount money for a Vanilla-WoW-Clone that may get good one day.

Dunno this article seems to be some sort of defense for Alganon or even Fallen Earth.

MMOs are lifestyles to many. If they start out with little, they have to expand rather quickly just to maintain interest. If you have enough content for a few months of casual play, the elite will be done in a few weeks time. I just don't see that as any way to gain momentum or even retain position.

Darkfall started off with a little content, some bugs, and a lot of controversy. It's expanded, fixed bugs, and the controversy is pretty dead. Dead because it is off peoples radar now.

Why not? I see a couple of big reasons, some of them related:

1. The market has proven it has no memory and insane tolerance for unfinished/buggy launches. If you can get away with releasing unfinished junk, recoup costs and pay off investors then the continuing revenue stream either goes to the next project or to papering over the cracks you left at launch, not "growth".

2. Hype - related to the above, promising the moon and beyond while delivering a small piece of cheese has become the normal business model. Most games spend a year+ (if not years!) just living up to what they already promised.

3. LCD, McMMO, dumbing down for the masses - growth would (pretty much automatically) require an actual direction and planned design other than the present trend of derivative/cloned gameplay and features.

4. BBD...bigger better deal...most players won't wait 3,6,9 months for features they want when by the time its added "newgameXX" will be out. I suspect "average" player retention times are going down across the board as people do more game-hopping than ever.

5. Lack of talent - not sure who to blame this one on, but let's face it: did all the good programmers get better jobs or something? The number of new games with significant issues that seem to be based in things like their network coding, server structure and the like - structural issues, not "polish" or content, is way too high.

Personally speaking I enjoy watching MMO's continue to grow, expand, even change the layout of the World (in this case include a "Cataclysm" to be able to do so).  To me that's what keeps an MMO a living dynamic thing, but that's just me and I really don't care about anyone else's take (mainly because most everyone probably disagrees...thus I just don't care)

I would absolutely support a well done indy game with a small core, as long as that core gameplay was what I was looking for.

Unfortunately, what I am looking for is somewhere in between EQ and EQ II.

The biggest flaw I've seen with most new MMO is they spend more time developing assets (graphics, animations) then the engine. If a game started with just the well polished engine and added assets after launch, I would play if it was type of game I like. This is Fallen Earth's plan but it's too PVP focused for my tastes. I also agree the monthly fee or patch fee would have to be implemented to offset development costs and that would be fine with me. Had Vanguard spent more time removing lag and stuck with 1 continent, it would of been a much better release.

I quite agree with you Dana. We've seen how many games of great potential get the axe because the suits/investors ran around in panic? Not to mention the hysteria all too many players react with, if a game doesn't have all of the features and polish that WoW has... Having been in WoW since late beta, let me tell you that WoW didn't have all of that at launch either.

But expecting a rational/thoughtful response from the typical player is doomed to failure.  Don't even get me started on the lack of patience, ignorance and uncivilized behavior that has for far too long been the typical response of forum denizens.  That is NOT to excuse the poorly thought out designs, and sloppy coding thats also all too typical of many of todays half baked projects.

After some of the abuses of trust and faith that many of us have experienced, its understandable that we have become less tolerant of mistakes. Thats simply human nature. That having been said, new companies can't be expected to do everything right the first(or even the second time).  BUT if they are open with their player base, AND take pride in their work, AND demonstrate that they aren't doing this *just* for the money(which of course IS a motivating factor)  then the players who share their vision, should support them while they go through the "learning experiences" one has to expect with these HIGHLY complex suites of software and the underlying hardware. 

Keeping in mind that the players patience/toleration is NOT infinite... One of the better responses I've seen was CCP's. On making a howling mistake on one of their patches, they posted something along the lines of "Those responsible have been given a personal tour of the airlock". A company that can keep a sense of humor, and remain open with their players is going to have more leeway in the inevitable mistakes that WILL happen.  As for the suits/investors that panic at the slightest hint of problems, a smart company will have highly trained/experienced personnel whose task it is to hand hold, and feed them shiny tech demos on a regular basis.

I agree with you, not all MMOs deserve a full monthly fee, and that maybe lowering it or even not having any, might have saved a few MMOs.

In this case I think of Tabula Rasa, it was a MMO that had potentials. I was in the closed beta you see and it was obvious the game was not up to the hype created by Garriott, the game lacked direction and assurely content, there was potentials true but it was a long way to get there. We were a few on the beta forums to tell the devs the game would tank if they were not doing something here and now, once players would realise during their fitst month of play they got conned. Who would keep paying the monthly fee after the first month? We said the game could get closed like Auto Assault if things kept going this way. We also added they should make the game like Guild Wars where you buy the box and pay no monthly fee. Like that people would keep buying the game, and playing the game, even if the game lacked stuff due to the lack of monthly fees, and the devs would get income through the box sales which is better than nothing, and use that income to improve the game. Guild Wars has sold millions of boxes after all, it's a thriving success, and I think it could have worked on Tabula Rasa too.

Of course the Lord British fanbois, and there were plenty of them I can assure you who were litteraly kissing his "divine" feet, told us time would prove us wrong and that TR would succeed with tons of subs and would be thriving. We all know how that ended, Tabula Rasa ended up having the same fate as Auto Assault like we predicted. And I find that sad because I can imagine how Tabula Rasa could have turned out in different circumstances but that never happened.

I love buying a car and being told that in 2 months or so I will get that drivers seat, but till then I can squat and still dive the car.  I can understand the end game content not being there at launch, but all the initial bells and whistles should.  If a current game has a feature (not content) then a game at release shoudl have it if it is intended for use at low level (banks, auction houses, etc.)  I would not buy a game for a console that was not finished why should my demands on a MMO be different.

It seems to me if a lot of the flim-flam game companies stop sucking up development money to make crap games and instead 3 or so game got all that cash to develop something nice we might get quality, innovative games.

I agree with Dana. If the game itself is concentrated on quality over quantity, I would consider it as a viable MMO and not dismiss it due to it's short comings.

However, there are two things that would reduce its chances of success. Which, we see all too often lately.

1. Are the common features that are missing something that the publisher promised would be included at launch or included in an official road map?
   
   I know that cuts always need to be made. However, if the publisher releases information after the features are added, then they reduce the risk of rioting fans demanding that a specific feature must be added before launch.
    
2. Is the game at release fun? If I plan on playing it 6-8 hours a week, will it keep me entertained for that length of time?
   
   Games with too few features may be a casual gamers utopia. However, if played for more than a few hours a week, smaller games tend to get boring rather quickly. Part of this problem with MMOs is caused by players searching for walk throughs online to quickly bypass quests. This may be okay in a game with thousands of quests such as WoW, but in smaller games will leave you with nothing to do in no time. I think that some of the best indie games produced in the future should try to overcome this hurdle by some form of random generated quests. To avoid burnout too quickly with minimal content - even if high on quality.

EDIT: I think that many people here are mis-understanding the article. This isn't a case of missing features that make the game unplayable. It's the equivalent of having 200-300 very well written, scripted and involved quests vs. 1000+ go fetch me x quests. Or, having an RvR-like system in a game, but having 8 takable keeps and 4 types of siege weapons in the game at release. If it's done well, they can add new keeps and new weapons afterwards. I don't think the article was referring to unfulfilled promises.

Originally posted by Horusra

I love buying a car and being told that in 2 months or so I will get that drivers seat, but till then I can squat and still dive the car.  I can understand the end game content not being there at launch, but all the initial bells and whistles should.  If a current game has a feature (not content) then a game at release shoudl have it if it is intended for use at low level (banks, auction houses, etc.)  I would not buy a game for a console that was not finished why should my demands on a MMO be different.

It seems to me if a lot of the flim-flam game companies stop sucking up development money to make crap games and instead 3 or so game got all that cash to develop something nice we might get quality, innovative games.

Considering that the car industry is almost a century old, and the MMO industry is around 15 years plus... There is just a wee bit of a difference. I seriously doubt you would have been quite so happy with some of the first cars at the dawn of the automobile age...

Not to mention that MMO's use some of the most complex software suites and hardware combinations in existence.  That of course doesn't excuse continued mistakes, or poorly thought out design and sloppy code.

Those who demand a current  WoW type game(at launch) are eternally doomed to disappointment.   You might be better served to either continue playing WoW, or switch to single player PC/console titles.   Or you could wait for what every Blizzard is working on for their next MMO. In any event, expecting new companies to have a hundred million to invest in their games is wildly unrealistic.

Sure I would. It still has to be fun, though. Being small is no excuse for making a crap product. I can easily do that myself.

I'm doing it now with Fallen Earth. As long as they continue to head in the direction they talk about, they will continue to get my (and my wife's, and my 3 good friend's and 2 of their wives) support.

The biggest impediment to the model you're describing is the subscription model. Let me take City of Heroes as an example. It is, by no means, in an exclusive club.

City of Heroes launched in 2004. Since then it has had 1 paid expansion (City of Villians) with another on the way as well as 16 updates. The most recent update comes with a free weekend w/double XP. Yay. As a former subscriber (several times over, in fact) I can look at it for a whole 2-3 days. But new customers can preview it for 2 weeks.

Now, I quit several years ago because of the state of the game was back then. I think that was around issue 4, well before CoV. So 12 content updates since then. The only way for me to get a decent shake of the game is to either repeat the lower levels, resub, or try to cram in as much playtime in 2-3 days as I can. The first choice doesn't let me see if the high-end problems I had have been addressed since I'm limited to brand-new, low level toons. The last choice doesn't let me see if the high-end problems I had have been addressed as I could easily spend 2 days just getting reacquainted with my characters and learning about the changes since the last time I played. That leaves resubbing. Resubbing to a game I quit because I didn't like it on the off chance changes have been made which will entice me to stay.

As I said, that isn't solely an issue with NCSoft and CoH. Almost every MMO I have ever played has the same policy. Until they give a sane policy for their former players to reevaluate the game as it is vs. how we remember when we quit what incentive do we have to give them the benefit of time to grow? If they want former customers to reevaluate their product every x months they should give the same amount of time to former customers as they do to new customers (IE, 2 week trial) every x months. 6 months, 12 months, whatever. Mkae it a use-it-or-lose-it trial; IE, it isn't cumulative time. But doing so would go a long way to letting former fans of the game really see that things have changed.

Yes, MMOs (especially niche MMOs) should start small and grow from there. They must have a good starting experience and a functional and fun end game right from the start, however. Skimp on mid game, and expand that and add new start and end game content. Four classes and two start areas is enough to launch a game. Add more later.

As for charging more as new content is added - hell no. Players won't stand for that.

Also, if you make some new content optional for extra charge, then the devs will concentrate on the cash content and neglect the core game.

Thing is MMO developers are often times way too greedy in my opinion.

When you get a polished non-MMO game (say a FPS or RPG) it's reasonable to expect standard multiplayer for free, which is limited but can be very fun (sounds familiar ?). You just pay the box price and multiplayer feature is there to sell more boxes.

I do not in fact consider the 10-15 euro/months you pay to be meant to cover bandwith costs. That would be just robbery and there are always third parties willing to host servers for much cheaper or even free.

The subscription is there to cover the complexities of a MMO server operation, the mass of extra content, the constant updates, the support and all that. If you don't provide that from day one why would people just hand you the money ?

If you can't compete with subscription games then release as free to play + microtransactions / premium accounts like so many other games or even just sell for the box price with no subscription. That's just the league your game is in at that time, maybe in the future you can make a p2p version when you can afford one and have the gameplay and content to justify it.

But you can't just ask your players to subsidise your development based on faith when you can't even convince your investors to do the same and wait for the polish. If you start blaming the customers you're doing something wrong.

MMO's need to grow, if not they become stagnent and folks leave.

The problem then becomes how they grow without turning the plyer base and making them leave.

Take for instance LOTRO's decision to change the pricing with the latest update, the lotro formus are full of hate.  So no player likes to be told the pricing is going to change, they don't like things like that.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Why are people not happy when release is missing items? Two very simple reasons. First because you just bought the game and are paying monthly. Where as if you waited until those features were in you'd probably get a free trial, free game and only have the monthly fee. So you are paying more for less. This works into reason two, there are already games out there that have all the features, have fewer bugs, and have better balance and they only require the monthly fee at this point. So why pay more (because of the box fee) for a game that has less?

 

It really is that simple, if you want to bust into a market then you had better provide more then what is already there, not less. It is not the player's fault that investors didn't grasp how long it was until the game was going to be released and thus force it out the door to see some returns before it is ready.

Some very good points which I totally agree with.

As for Global Agenda I doubt I will ever play it, I could get the same type of action in Halo or a number of other FPS games and not pay a subscription fee. Where as I would pay for Planetside 2 because it involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7, but even there they had better do it right other wise I wouldn't pay for it for very long because once again I could just go play any other shooter I have without a sub fee (I see that as the MMOFPS problem overall really).

Indeed because Halo is an online game which has a large persistent map comprised of lots of seperate zones, in which the players can have an impact on the overall war effort by fighting meaningful battles in each of those zones and gaining control of them, where the results of each battle has an impact on adjacent areas on the map. I can also level up and customise my character and choose which class it belongs to (which leads to different abilities) as well as equip it with various different gear. In Halo I can also have a lasting impact on the map by performing such actions as building a gun emplacement on a building and leaving it there, knowing that at some point in the future my enemies will have to deal with it if they pass by that area. Halo also has areas where lots of players can gather, socialise and trade.

Oh hang on a sec.......this doesnt sound anything like Halo or any normal FPS game at all does it. In fact the only thing it has in common is that you shoot stuff. Or were you referring to some other FPS shooter which offers everything that Global Agenda has? I would love to hear about this game.

It might be worth reading up about the game before dismissing it as you clearly know very little about Global Agenda. It appears that your eyes have seen the letters "FPS" and your brain has gone into autopilot with the result of "FPS = Shooting things = Halo". Thats extremely lazy and ignorant. Its ok though. Plenty of other people have reached the same narrow-minded viewpoint.

So you would play Planetside 2 because it involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7 but you wont play Global Agenda because it.....ermm.....involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7? Just because the game has instanced battles doesnt mean you cant have an effect on the game world. In fact this game offers more meaningful world-impacting gameplay than most other MMOs.

You see MMOFPS games as a problem becuse you could just go and play a normal FPS game? Oh really? Well yeah I guess that MMORPG's must have the same problem then because you could just go and play a normal RPG right? Your comment is a silly one good sir. A seperate mini-battle that has no impact on anything in an FPS game doesnt equate to an MMOFPS. They are very different things as the MMO element is completely absent. An MMO involves quite a lot more than simply having players being able to play online together on a few limited mini-maps.

MMOFPS games are also more likely to have gameworlds which the players can change because they will invariably involve player conflict over things such as resources or structures and they are not tied down by a rigid storyline. A static unchangeable gameworld is the job of themepark MMORPG's. Can you change the world in WoW? No? Ok how about EQ2, Vanguard, AoC or WAR? The best you can hope for in any of those games is perhaps the swapping of ownership of a meaningless keep. Themepark RPG + storyline = static gameworld.

......unless some games company introduces dynamic story content which changes along with the game world based on overall player choices of course. Hmmm I wont hold my breath on that one.

I would however pay to play an Indie game from a small company that does not have as many features as one of the big boys. Because with a company like that you are helping bring new names in the industry, and since it is most likely their only game they will keep all their focus on improving and maintaining it. Darkfall is not an example of this though.

I agree.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Yes, MMOs (especially niche MMOs) should start small and grow from there. They must have a good starting experience and a functional and fun end game right from the start, however. Skimp on mid game, and expand that and add new start and end game content. Four classes and two start areas is enough to launch a game. Add more later.

As for charging more as new content is added - hell no. Players won't stand for that.

Also, if you make some new content optional for extra charge, then the devs will concentrate on the cash content and neglect the core game.

Well, the value proposition I was making was a game that charged less than average to start and as it became a larger title, went up to standard rates.

But, I take it from your response, that wouldn't work for you? A fine opinion, just trying to see fully what you're saying.

Originally posted by Dana

Well, the value proposition I was making was a game that charged less than average to start and as it became a larger title, went up to standard rates.

But, I take it from your response, that wouldn't work for you? A fine opinion, just trying to see fully what you're saying.

It might work for me - I just don't think it would work for most players.

I think part of the reason it wouldn't work for players, in general, is that it is hard to swollow current MMO pricing without more transparency from the industry. Let's take two recent examples.

World of Warcraft & Aion.

I know, these are AAA titles and the discussion is about smaller titles but I just want to show the upper example.

World of Warcraft (according to MMORPGchart.com) had 10Mil subscribers in 2008 (yeah, a tad old, sue me). Now, not all 10Mil are going to have the $15/month subscription. Well, most won't being that they are in other countries or have the 3/6/12 month plans. So let's just chop 33% right off the top. Call it $10/sub. That means they are pulling in $100 million... a... month. Someone try to tell me that the infrastructure costs on their servers are anywhere near $100 million a month. If I recall my figures correctly that is 4-5 times the total development budget of most AAA MMOs. A... month.

Aion, another AAA title, hit 300,000 pre-orders. $50 for the cheaper of the two pre-orders. That's $15 million before launch. If even half those people stay on and no other people purchase the game after launch, and the same 1/3rd off their $15/month price, that's still a monthly take of $1.5 million. Closer to what might be reality for their server farms but even then I doubt the residuals are going to cost that much.

IE, the larger the MMO gets the more incredulous the users are going to get that their subscription is needed to cover, largely, maintenance costs. I don't think maintenance costs scale the same as subs do. So the more subs an MMO has the harder it is to increase costs because, at some level, the customers are aware that the economics of scale is kicking in.

I have to agree with Dana, right now since most Developers try to charge 14.99 right out the door we as players have come to expect something close to a "complete" game.

Back in the days of the early MMO's, they launched quite incomplete and buggy, yet we tolerated it having nothing to fall back on or compare to.

Now a new game comes out and players leap on it for any percieved missing feature or functionality, and they inevitable get compared to games like WOW or EVE, who've been under constant development for many years.

Tiered release schedules might be one solution. Launch the game for 4.99 and limited features, after the first major expansion (within 3-6 mo tops) up the monthly to 7.99, and repeat the cycle until the content is worth the 14.99 the big boys charge.

Originally posted by neonwire

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Why are people not happy when release is missing items? Two very simple reasons. First because you just bought the game and are paying monthly. Where as if you waited until those features were in you'd probably get a free trial, free game and only have the monthly fee. So you are paying more for less. This works into reason two, there are already games out there that have all the features, have fewer bugs, and have better balance and they only require the monthly fee at this point. So why pay more (because of the box fee) for a game that has less?

 

It really is that simple, if you want to bust into a market then you had better provide more then what is already there, not less. It is not the player's fault that investors didn't grasp how long it was until the game was going to be released and thus force it out the door to see some returns before it is ready.

Some very good points which I totally agree with.

As for Global Agenda I doubt I will ever play it, I could get the same type of action in Halo or a number of other FPS games and not pay a subscription fee. Where as I would pay for Planetside 2 because it involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7, but even there they had better do it right other wise I wouldn't pay for it for very long because once again I could just go play any other shooter I have without a sub fee (I see that as the MMOFPS problem overall really).

Indeed because Halo is an online game which has a large persistent map comprised of lots of seperate zones, in which the players can have an impact on the overall war effort by fighting meaningful battles in each of those zones and gaining control of them, where the results of each battle has an impact on adjacent areas on the map. I can also level up and customise my character and choose which class it belongs to (which leads to different abilities) as well as equip it with various different gear. In Halo I can also have a lasting impact on the map by performing such actions as building a gun emplacement on a building and leaving it there, knowing that at some point in the future my enemies will have to deal with it if they pass by that area. Halo also has areas where lots of players can gather, socialise and trade.

Oh hang on a sec.......this doesnt sound anything like Halo or any normal FPS game at all does it. In fact the only thing it has in common is that you shoot stuff. Or were you referring to some other FPS shooter which offers everything that Global Agenda has? I would love to hear about this game.

It might be worth reading up about the game before dismissing it as you clearly know very little about Global Agenda. It appears that your eyes have seen the letters "FPS" and your brain has gone into autopilot with the result of "FPS = Shooting things = Halo". Thats extremely lazy and ignorant. Its ok though. Plenty of other people have reached the same narrow-minded viewpoint.

So you would play Planetside 2 because it involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7 but you wont play Global Agenda because it.....ermm.....involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7? Just because the game has instanced battles doesnt mean you cant have an effect on the game world. In fact this game offers more meaningful world-impacting gameplay than most other MMOs.

You see MMOFPS games as a problem becuse you could just go and play a normal FPS game? Oh really? Well yeah I guess that MMORPG's must have the same problem then because you could just go and play a normal RPG right? Your comment is a silly one good sir. A seperate mini-battle that has no impact on anything in an FPS game doesnt equate to an MMOFPS. They are very different things as the MMO element is completely absent. An MMO involves quite a lot more than simply having players being able to play online together on a few limited mini-maps.

MMOFPS games are also more likely to have gameworlds which the players can change because they will invariably involve player conflict over things such as resources or structures and they are not tied down by a rigid storyline. A static unchangeable gameworld is the job of themepark MMORPG's. Can you change the world in WoW? No? Ok how about EQ2, Vanguard, AoC or WAR? The best you can hope for in any of those games is perhaps the swapping of ownership of a meaningless keep. Themepark RPG + storyline = static gameworld.

......unless some games company introduces dynamic story content which changes along with the game world based on overall player choices of course. Hmmm I wont hold my breath on that one.

I would however pay to play an Indie game from a small company that does not have as many features as one of the big boys. Because with a company like that you are helping bring new names in the industry, and since it is most likely their only game they will keep all their focus on improving and maintaining it. Darkfall is not an example of this though.

I agree.

I think you are bound to be disappointed by GA if you think that any of that stuff is going to prove to be meaningful. The "ever changing" aspects of GA will quickly fade into who cares, and it will be down to being an FPS pure and simple.

The reason I say I would be interested in playing Planetside 2 is they have experience from making the first one. In the first planetside there were skills you leveled up, and maps you took over, you could even take over whole continents. The battle raged on when you logged off.

But guess what it only took a few days before that stuff didn't matter at all. In order to make it fun for people you leveld up skills ridiculously fast, so everyone was maxed out in no time and you could switch them around whenever you wanted to try other roles. And those "long lasting effects, and battles actually change the game" quickly didn't matter. You logged on, you instant dropped to the action and you fought there. Ya you'd try to take the base you were fighting at, but for the same reason you would in UT on attack maps, just to win. Not because taking it meant anything at all to you. After it was taken you just went to the next spot that had action and repeated.

It is going to be extremely difficult for an MMOFPS to make any of that matter because there are two options. Make the results of what you own give real meaningful benefits to the side that is winning. However that will cause the effect of the losing sides all switching to the strong side to get the bonuses and the sides will be so unbalanced people will quit. To prevent that the other method is to make controlling areas of the map no all that meaningful, and now you're into an FPS with online multiplayer.

So you can be a big fanboy of the game and think it will revolutionize (I'm almost surprised you didn't use that word) the genre. Or you can be realistic and see what it will actually become. But that is fine to some people, as is shown by how many people continued to play Planetside over the years despite being the same exact situation. And that was without instanced gameplay, as soon as you add instanced gameplay that effects the outcome of the world it is really extra lame. To me it doesn't feel like because I queued up for a battle that now I should be effecting anything. It is what made that Xbox game Chromehounds lame, instanced battles controlled who was winning or losing, but also that game didn't have a monthly fee.
 

This is EXACTLY what I have been saying for the past 3 years.   Start small - and then expand. But then you can not expect ppl to pay for the box  - and thats where the money ppl cant agree with me and Massey. 

Games like AOC and WAR failed partly because they tried to do alot - but most of it was bugged or half finished. Thats NOT what ppl buy from a boxed version of a game.  Sorry.

We are starting to see games build with this growing concept tho.  Aion for example is starting with just few classes (easier to handle balance) and very nailed down aspects in the game that can be added to later on.  Thats why I see Aion as the next step in progression of MMOs.

There is a small problem with the growing online game concept.  Its that everyone might not like what the game is growing into.  Even WOW is now "growing" (or rather shrinking) into more of a casual game with very limited variations other than the items you wear and the skills you process.  Before the game had alot more and "complicated" gaming system of farming materials and even farming special gear for raids.  This has changed. And to me - its to the worse.

I truly hope that a gaming developer takes on this task of creating something really well - and then expanding it.  What is wrong with starting in a small area with limited amounts of lvls ?  As long as the gameplay is good and fun - the rest can wait.  For example - WAR would have been alot better off by starting with just tier 1 and 2 since they are the best part of the game (if you leave the PVE out).   Plenty of classes to play and great PVP areas to explore.  Considering that Im a PVE player - I still create trial acount ever few weeks for WAR just to have FUN playing diffrent characters to lvl 10 and then just leave after.  Cause long term comitment in WAR is simply not good enough.

---

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf
But guess what it only took a few days before that stuff didn't matter at all. In order to make it fun for people you leveld up skills ridiculously fast, so everyone was maxed out in no time and you could switch them around whenever you wanted to try other roles. And those "long lasting effects, and battles actually change the game" quickly didn't matter.

---

Well, the levels were not that fast to come by. It took quite a few weeks of dedicated play to get even middling BR, not to mention CR. Where PS failed was that CR was just another path of BR for most people, they'd grind to CR5 to be able to spam continent, have the toys, but actually leading!? Heaven forbid! Also the continents were too easy to take. Granted for people who come from a small-scale FPS background and went to PS they were rough. Several hour battles for a cont? Wow! But all it took was 15m to undo a cont lock, so the end result was meaningless.

For meaningful battles look to WWIIOL. Every time MMOFPSes come up I always retell the same tale. A week long battle for 1 city in WWIIOL. A week. No joke. While that sounds like the same problem with small-scale FPSes and PS it was another 3 weeks once that battle was decided before the map was reset and another week still before we got back to that city. Wins and losses in that game meant something because it could be weeks before one side was declared a winner and the map reset. Furthermore people who were "commanders" were expected to do just that, command. They were given real power to control the ebb and flow of their side of the conflict. If they didn't, they were removed from said toys.

People who want the next best MMOFPS where conflicts mean something should first look at what WWIIOL did; not what GA is attempting to do.

With all the great multiplayer shooter games and every other genre of single player games that are free to play once you buy the box, any subscription-based game has to be absolutely undoubtedly perfect for me to even give it a chance. The times have changed. Many players are not so willing to support a game or a company that is sub-par compared to every other game coming off the shelf as far as graphics, content, story, whatever. Personally, I am not willing to pay for server maintainance and data storage. I will pay for real entertainment if any MMORPG is willing or able to deliver that..

That is basically all a new MMO can do today, do a few things well with promises of adding more features later.  Those that try to be all things with huge feature lists, ie Darkfall, end up being mediocre at best. 

Originally posted by Palebane

The times have changed. Many players are not so willing to support a game or a company that is sub-par compared to every other game coming off the shelf as far as graphics, content, story, whatever.

Preorder numbers for recent MMOs seem to indicate otherwise, though. Players know that the first three or so months of most MMOs are rocky. They know that they often release with less than planned during development. They know that they will either face queues or face a collection of servers that are either dead or lagged to hell with people. Veteran have seen this countless times over the past decade. If we start with the WOW generation of gamers, we can reasonably say that millions of MMO gamers have seen this several times over the past four or five years.

There is no reason currently to believe that an MMO will release with all the planned features and without initial problems.

Preorder numbers are consistently through the roof compared to retained numbers.

  I think it will help the genre immensely if these narrow focused MMOG's did one UNIQUE  thing and did it well. With games like Alganon it seems that even the art style is the subdued look we've seen already in WoW and in Free Realms. It really is getting to the point where the tried and true business models of fantasy, fantasy, fantasy, won't be sustainable because there's nothing but that genre with only a select few art styles to go with it in the MMO marketplace. 

There's plenty of great creative minds out there and couple that with the fact that there's also tons of great game mechanic minded folks out there (just look at any MMO forum.) We should be able to conceptualize and produce an MMO experience that isn't out there on the market currently. Hopefully the "indie MMO" will take note of that instead of going for the "Hey we're just like all the other stuff out there, ONLY CHEAPER!" 

Small? As in how?

Small world would cause the usual power gamers to get bored or finished in  a day and then troll the game on the boards. (you know...the usual) It would also make the "I gotta explore everything and do everything" gamers to be done fast and want more fast. Both bad....very bad

Most of the best MMOs didn't start huge, but weren't small either. The games still around today kept at it and listened to nudging from the fans. They had that "something" that the players wanted. So people stuck around through the thick of it.

In the end.....we just want quality AND longevity. We are asked to pay for it. So we should be supplied with what we pay for and are told we are getting.

Originally posted by Dana

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Yes, MMOs (especially niche MMOs) should start small and grow from there. They must have a good starting experience and a functional and fun end game right from the start, however. Skimp on mid game, and expand that and add new start and end game content. Four classes and two start areas is enough to launch a game. Add more later.

As for charging more as new content is added - hell no. Players won't stand for that.

Also, if you make some new content optional for extra charge, then the devs will concentrate on the cash content and neglect the core game.

 

Well, the value proposition I was making was a game that charged less than average to start and as it became a larger title, went up to standard rates.

But, I take it from your response, that wouldn't work for you? A fine opinion, just trying to see fully what you're saying.

Given human nature, I suspect that any company that tried that would run in to problems. Far too many people would object to such a price increase.  Especially if the low price was in place for 3-6 months or so.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by Palebane

The times have changed. Many players are not so willing to support a game or a company that is sub-par compared to every other game coming off the shelf as far as graphics, content, story, whatever.

 

Preorder numbers for recent MMOs seem to indicate otherwise, though. Players know that the first three or so months of most MMOs are rocky. They know that they often release with less than planned during development. They know that they will either face queues or face a collection of servers that are either dead or lagged to hell with people. Veteran have seen this countless times over the past decade. If we start with the WOW generation of gamers, we can reasonably say that millions of MMO gamers have seen this several times over the past four or five years.

There is no reason currently to believe that an MMO will release with all the planned features and without initial problems.

 

 

Preorder numbers are consistently through the roof compared to retained numbers.

 

 

You make a good point, however in my opinion, pre-orders and beta access are mostly marketing gimmicks aimed at the ignorant and desperate, of which are an evergrowing segment of this genres playerbase, than any real commitment to support a company or a game. Preorders are mostly about hype in my opinion.

Originally posted by Greyed

I think part of the reason it wouldn't work for players, in general, is that it is hard to swollow current MMO pricing without more transparency from the industry. Let's take two recent examples.

World of Warcraft & Aion.

I know, these are AAA titles and the discussion is about smaller titles but I just want to show the upper example.

World of Warcraft (according to MMORPGchart.com) had 10Mil subscribers in 2008 (yeah, a tad old, sue me). Now, not all 10Mil are going to have the $15/month subscription. Well, most won't being that they are in other countries or have the 3/6/12 month plans. So let's just chop 33% right off the top. Call it $10/sub. That means they are pulling in $100 million... a... month. Someone try to tell me that the infrastructure costs on their servers are anywhere near $100 million a month. If I recall my figures correctly that is 4-5 times the total development budget of most AAA MMOs. A... month.

Aion, another AAA title, hit 300,000 pre-orders. $50 for the cheaper of the two pre-orders. That's $15 million before launch. If even half those people stay on and no other people purchase the game after launch, and the same 1/3rd off their $15/month price, that's still a monthly take of $1.5 million. Closer to what might be reality for their server farms but even then I doubt the residuals are going to cost that much.

IE, the larger the MMO gets the more incredulous the users are going to get that their subscription is needed to cover, largely, maintenance costs. I don't think maintenance costs scale the same as subs do. So the more subs an MMO has the harder it is to increase costs because, at some level, the customers are aware that the economics of scale is kicking in.

While I agree Wow probably is a money making machine, It isn't as simple as you make it sound. Monthly fees cover bandwith and server maintenance charges; yes. But they also cover support personnel and live development costs (not expansion devs). Paying people adds up quickly and I doubt the worldwide bandwith fees are as trivial as you think they are.

300,000 people paying $15 a month should get NCsoft into positive cash flow soon but the $15M box sales probably just about covers the translation costs.

 I totally allow MMO's to grow... out of other peoples pockets, not mine!

Here's some food for thought...

No one buys a book at full price, that's half written, and pays a quarter of the cost in a monthly fee for the author to fill in the blanks whenever they feel like it.

No one buys a car at full price, that's half built/functional, and pays a quarter of the cost in a monthly fee for the automakers to finish their work.

The people are now voting with their money, and voicing their opinions about how they're sick of paying full price for a "full version release" of beta quality games. ESPECIALLY with veteran companies! If the smaller companies wish to compete, then they need to prepare for the FUTURE by learning from the PAST. The ONLY MMO that I have played that had a wonderful transition from BETA to FINAL was Earth and Beyond.

Anarchy Online had lag so horrible that traveling in the city took 1/2 an hour at 1fps. I don't know how long that lasted, but I wasn't going to pay a monthly fee for a game that I couldn't play.

Shadowbane on launch had a lot of problems and the devs wouldn't even reply to the people or post the problems early on. If people who are supposed to be running a game aren't communicating with their customers about THEIR gamebreaking problems, then no I don't need to pay them for a service that they aren't, as far as I know, doing.

and for some not-so-recent horrible launches...

Hellgate: London. Awesome intro! That's about it. If the bugs were fixed in a timely manner, classes were ironed out a bit more, and had more content... aka, wasn't a Beta release in "Final" disguise, then Hellgate may have survived past the first year. The one thing was wonderful was that they allowed you to play a Single Player version of the game.

Tabula Rasa had Milla Jovovich's voice in it... awesome! That's about it. If the bugs were fixed in a timely manner, classes were ironed out a bit more, and had more content... aka, wasn't a Beta release in "Final" disguise, then Hellgate Tabula Rasa may have survived past the first year. The one thing was wonderful was that they allowed you to play a Single Player version of the game it had Richard Garriott fired by NCsoft despite him being a Lord/General/Egomaniac.

Last two huge MMO's I heard about are Champions Online, and Aion.

CO I hear they did a massive ninja nerf/balance in transition of beta/release... and I heard lots of people were upset, so upset they were offering refunds. I lol'd. Outside of what I hear I have no in game experience with this one, but I'll wait a year while people let the game "GROW" with their money, not mine.

Aion I hear there was a lot of "queue queue" going on. I saw a screenshot of some EU guy trying to get in and ALL of the servers were closed to him. I lol'd. Outside of what I hear, I have no in game experience with this one, but I'll wait a year while people let the game "GROW" with their money, not mine.

As long as people let "games GROW", they are sending the message "We don't care what state the game is in at release, fix it at your own pace and we'll still pay!"

After 10 years since the release of EQ, there should be enough data/common sense there for people to learn from... if not, then gtfo of my MMO.

I play a lot of text based MMORPGs, and unlike the Devs of fancier games, the Devs of Text-based games CAN be trusted to slowly expand a game. In fact my experience has been that the quality of plot and writing in text-based games is superior to that of flashy 3-d mmorpgs. So yes, if it was a proven dev company, I would support a slowly expanding game, 3-d or text based, but it would have to be a dev I trusted.

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Originally posted by neonwire

Originally posted by SnarlingWolf

Why are people not happy when release is missing items? Two very simple reasons. First because you just bought the game and are paying monthly. Where as if you waited until those features were in you'd probably get a free trial, free game and only have the monthly fee. So you are paying more for less. This works into reason two, there are already games out there that have all the features, have fewer bugs, and have better balance and they only require the monthly fee at this point. So why pay more (because of the box fee) for a game that has less?

 

It really is that simple, if you want to bust into a market then you had better provide more then what is already there, not less. It is not the player's fault that investors didn't grasp how long it was until the game was going to be released and thus force it out the door to see some returns before it is ready.

Some very good points which I totally agree with.

As for Global Agenda I doubt I will ever play it, I could get the same type of action in Halo or a number of other FPS games and not pay a subscription fee. Where as I would pay for Planetside 2 because it involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7, but even there they had better do it right other wise I wouldn't pay for it for very long because once again I could just go play any other shooter I have without a sub fee (I see that as the MMOFPS problem overall really).

Indeed because Halo is an online game which has a large persistent map comprised of lots of seperate zones, in which the players can have an impact on the overall war effort by fighting meaningful battles in each of those zones and gaining control of them, where the results of each battle has an impact on adjacent areas on the map. I can also level up and customise my character and choose which class it belongs to (which leads to different abilities) as well as equip it with various different gear. In Halo I can also have a lasting impact on the map by performing such actions as building a gun emplacement on a building and leaving it there, knowing that at some point in the future my enemies will have to deal with it if they pass by that area. Halo also has areas where lots of players can gather, socialise and trade.

Oh hang on a sec.......this doesnt sound anything like Halo or any normal FPS game at all does it. In fact the only thing it has in common is that you shoot stuff. Or were you referring to some other FPS shooter which offers everything that Global Agenda has? I would love to hear about this game.

It might be worth reading up about the game before dismissing it as you clearly know very little about Global Agenda. It appears that your eyes have seen the letters "FPS" and your brain has gone into autopilot with the result of "FPS = Shooting things = Halo". Thats extremely lazy and ignorant. Its ok though. Plenty of other people have reached the same narrow-minded viewpoint.

So you would play Planetside 2 because it involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7 but you wont play Global Agenda because it.....ermm.....involves stuff that changes in the world 24/7? Just because the game has instanced battles doesnt mean you cant have an effect on the game world. In fact this game offers more meaningful world-impacting gameplay than most other MMOs.

You see MMOFPS games as a problem becuse you could just go and play a normal FPS game? Oh really? Well yeah I guess that MMORPG's must have the same problem then because you could just go and play a normal RPG right? Your comment is a silly one good sir. A seperate mini-battle that has no impact on anything in an FPS game doesnt equate to an MMOFPS. They are very different things as the MMO element is completely absent. An MMO involves quite a lot more than simply having players being able to play online together on a few limited mini-maps.

MMOFPS games are also more likely to have gameworlds which the players can change because they will invariably involve player conflict over things such as resources or structures and they are not tied down by a rigid storyline. A static unchangeable gameworld is the job of themepark MMORPG's. Can you change the world in WoW? No? Ok how about EQ2, Vanguard, AoC or WAR? The best you can hope for in any of those games is perhaps the swapping of ownership of a meaningless keep. Themepark RPG + storyline = static gameworld.

......unless some games company introduces dynamic story content which changes along with the game world based on overall player choices of course. Hmmm I wont hold my breath on that one.

I would however pay to play an Indie game from a small company that does not have as many features as one of the big boys. Because with a company like that you are helping bring new names in the industry, and since it is most likely their only game they will keep all their focus on improving and maintaining it. Darkfall is not an example of this though.

I agree.

I think you are bound to be disappointed by GA if you think that any of that stuff is going to prove to be meaningful. The "ever changing" aspects of GA will quickly fade into who cares, and it will be down to being an FPS pure and simple.

So now your tune has changed from "this game is just the same as a normal FPS game" to "Oh this game might have lots of features that set it apart from a normal FPS game but no-one will care about them anyway". Not only can you predict the future but you know what everyone else likes as well. I'm impressed.

The game may well turn out to be a disappointment like so many MMO's before it.......or it might not. Only time will tell that one. However it obviously wont devolve into an ordinary FPS game will it. Whats gonna happen? Is the MMO aspect of the game and all of its features gonna magically vanish simply because some features arent enjoyable and "meaningful" enough to some people? You're not making any sense. 

The reason I say I would be interested in playing Planetside 2 is they have experience from making the first one. In the first planetside there were skills you leveled up, and maps you took over, you could even take over whole continents. The battle raged on when you logged off.

And Global Agenda is offering all of that too. Levelling up? Check. Maps to take over? Check. Control the overall map? Check. Battle rages on when you log off? Check.

Yes experience helps but it doesnt guarantee anything. WoW and WAR are prime examples of this. WoW was Blizzards first MMO and it turned out to be the most successful. Mythic already had experience at making a very good MMO with DAoC and yet WAR turned out to be a dreadful game.

Besides I'm not saying Planetside 2 will be a bad game or comparing it to anything. I would happily play such a game. It was simply that the reasons you gave for not wanting to go near Global Agenda simply dont make any sense. You said you can get exactly the same experience from a game like Halo and that obviously isnt true. Yet for some reason the misguided "MMOFPS games are the same as normal FPS games" thought doesnt seem to apply to Planetside 2 in your mind for some reason.

But guess what it only took a few days before that stuff didn't matter at all. In order to make it fun for people you leveld up skills ridiculously fast, so everyone was maxed out in no time and you could switch them around whenever you wanted to try other roles. And those "long lasting effects, and battles actually change the game" quickly didn't matter. You logged on, you instant dropped to the action and you fought there. Ya you'd try to take the base you were fighting at, but for the same reason you would in UT on attack maps, just to win. Not because taking it meant anything at all to you. After it was taken you just went to the next spot that had action and repeated.

Yes I see what you're getting at.......but then that can be applied to absolutely any game. "Meaningful" can only stretch so far in an online game. Enemies can always take back controlled land, structures, resources or whatever. The same happens in real life too ya know, so I guess you could argue that nothing matters in real life either then. However within the context of the game, the things you do in Global Agenda have a lasting effect on the overall map and ultimately the experience of the other players and that does make it more meaningful than what most games offer. If the actions of others (eg enemies invade and take over a zone) are effecting the choices you can make (eg that enemy controlled zone has a missile silo in it which is preventing air support from helping out in nearby zones. You can try and reclaim it or instead go for some other asset) then of course it will matter. So you can focus on levelling up quickly to be competitive? So what? Whats your point?

The fact remains that an MMOFPS is a very different experience to playing a seperate mini-map on a normal FPS game. There are goals that can be worked towards, objectives that can be achieved and outcomes and effects that can be witnessed as a result of your own and others actions that you just dont get in a standard FPS game. Also because of Global Agendas focus on a large hex map comprised of lots of individual zones each of which have an effect on adjacent zones, those effecst arent simply meaningless and irrelevant. If your team cant use a particular ability or structure in a zone because a nearby enemy zone is preventing it then you wont be able to ignore the results of others actions. If you read about the game you would know this.

It is going to be extremely difficult for an MMOFPS to make any of that matter because there are two options. Make the results of what you own give real meaningful benefits to the side that is winning. However that will cause the effect of the losing sides all switching to the strong side to get the bonuses and the sides will be so unbalanced people will quit. To prevent that the other method is to make controlling areas of the map no all that meaningful, and now you're into an FPS with online multiplayer.

I'm just going to have to repeat what I said before. Go and read about the game because you are clearly speculating without actually knowing anything about it. The games devs explained their approach to dealing with the exact situation you just described in one of their interviews with mmorpg.com. Part of it involves having each battle instanced with teams which are equally matched against each other. One side will never be able to outnumber the other so switching onto the other side wont really achieve much. They also did this to eliminate zerg tactics.

Go and read about the game.

So you can be a big fanboy of the game and think it will revolutionize (I'm almost surprised you didn't use that word) the genre. Or you can be realistic and see what it will actually become. But that is fine to some people, as is shown by how many people continued to play Planetside over the years despite being the same exact situation. And that was without instanced gameplay, as soon as you add instanced gameplay that effects the outcome of the world it is really extra lame. To me it doesn't feel like because I queued up for a battle that now I should be effecting anything. It is what made that Xbox game Chromehounds lame, instanced battles controlled who was winning or losing, but also that game didn't have a monthly fee.

Big fanboy? What are talking about you lunatic? I simply think what the game is offering looks rather good as does the OP and plenty of other people. Does liking the proposed features of a game and looking forward to its release make us all fanboys? No I didnt think so. Grow up. There's no need to get your knickers in a twist simply because I explained that what you said about the game is wrong. You made statements based on your own fabricated ideas and ignorant viewpoints (eg Global Agenda offers the same experience as Halo) without actually knowing anything about the game. I corrected you on that. Suck it up and deal with it.

Also stop making statements about how the game will turn out as you cant read the future. The success or failure of a completely seperate game in the past has got nothing to do with how Global Agenda or any other game will turn out.

Its also clear that you believe ALL instanced gameplay is bad......even if it works for the purposes of the game. Thats very narrow minded. So you're saying that fighting an instanced battle knowing that the outcome will have an impact on the rest of the gameworld will somehow not make you "feel" like you are effecting anything? How does that make any sense at all if you KNOW that you are effecting things and you can actually see and participate in the results afterwards (eg Defending a zone from enemy attack which you previously helped to take over, trying to take control of a building which has a weapons installation built guarding it by an enemy who was there previously, using a resource that was gained from a previous conquest to help sway the outcome of a battle etc).

This is a computer game. Its not real life and trying to simulate real life by having a big open zoneless gameworld isnt always the best way to do things. Thats how you get the very situations which you said cause people to quit in frustration (ie the zerg, ganking lower level players and people switching to the winning side and outnumbering the losing said). Open worlds might work well for some games and it might not work so well for others. For Global Agenda the devs have decided to opt for instanced gameplay as they want their game to be fair, balanced and enjoyable. Thats a pretty sensible move. If you think thats a bad thing then......well......thats your problem.

OP I just wrote out a massive post but for some reason I thought a short summary of my point would be better.

The size of the mmo market is not growing at the same rate that games are being released. The days that EVE had to develop are a thing of the past unless you find that unknown niche of course.  It's a business first. An online experience second.

But in all honesty I have no idea why companies pull out of games post launch? It's not like there is a shortage of people who would freely give their time to get experience in behind the scenes stuff. Why not start apprenticeship or internship type programs that could take the costs of keeping the game alive. Yes their are other costs involved but the deals some companies get on servers etc would make that negligible.

Killing an active mmo is a senseless crime, and strangling one so that it dies quicker is even worse.

Good question. For myself, I'd give a strong "maybe". A game would have to strongly appeal to me to be considered. I would be concerned about the company itself going under and the game vanishing. If I'm going to invest my time and money into a game, I want to enjoy it for years, not months. It would take a lot for me to be sure the game had a future. But if it did, I would sign up.

I was one of those Earth & Beyond players and the sudden demise of the game left me burnt. I didn't want to risk it happening with EVE (plus I'm not a PvPer) besides, City of Heroes was coming out and I liked that concept more. From what I understand though, EVE was the stronger game in how it was organized. I liked building things in ENB but no one class could go from raw materials to finished product. EVE allows you too just that if you wanted.

My day job is a computer programmer and I can tell you how hard it is to design a program where the rules are easy to change. It's one thing to add another zone or add new ships, but something radical as an auction house is a massive undertaking. The developers of a focused game with room to grow would have to allow for nearly everything to be edited and still flow easily. People like that would be in such high demand that the game would cost many times what a full game would. The only other alternative is to go back rewriting hundreds of lines of code which may mess something else up.

---

Originally posted by Lansid
 I totally allow MMO's to grow... out of other peoples pockets, not mine!
Here's some food for thought...

---

(snipped a lot of missing the point)

So. You've never bought a serialized story before? Never bought a comic from a current series. Never read a comic of a current series (web or print)? Never purchased from a series that was not complete? Never watched a TV show unless it was a standalone or canceled?

You seem to be missing the point of the main difference between content which is intended to stand alone and content which is intended to be added to into perpetuity. Traditional single-player games and console games are the former, MMOs are the latter. MMOs are like a book series; new chapters are added, new characters and locations and stories introduced as time goes by. I think most people would scoff at someone who honestly said, "Oh, I don't want to read a series by that author because he isn't done with it yet. Why should I pay for an incomplete work? Let him finish it with his money, not mine."

It's not so much as buying a comic from a current series. It would be more like buying a comic from a current series with some pages missing, with the "guarantee" that you'll get those pages for free in a while. It's basically making us pay full price for beta-quality product.

Now, the reason that happens is because they keep trying and give you the entire volume right off the bat. So in order to pull it off, they don't finish the pages in each book.

I guess the point in the article, and I think you and I would agree, is that they need to stop trying to offer you an entire volume right off the bat, and focus just on a real solid first issue. Then the problem people have with that is they say "Why pay full price to get just 1 issue, when you can get an entire volume of a different series for the exact same money". To which I reply, because this series is different, and may become better. You simply can't get this series anywhere else...

And I think I way over-stretched that comic-book/series analogy hehe

If you promise the world and deliver a can of worms you can hardly expect players not to complain. But why all this talk about developers, it is the corporate mentality that generates the hype. And it is the corporate balance sheet that decides how a game will expand. True it seems every person at a MMO is now a PR agent including the tea boy, but that’s a recent issue, you can still find honest devs out there.

---

Originally posted by BigJohnny
It's not so much as buying a comic from a current series. It would be more like buying a comic from a current series with some pages missing, with the "guarantee" that you'll get those pages for free in a while. It's basically making us pay full price for beta-quality product.

---

Not sure where you're getting that analogy. Most people are not talking about incomplete, beta games. You pulled that out of thin air to make your point.

The post that you quoted was saying that people are sick of paying full-price for beta-quality games.

Pardon? In this topic I have quoted exactly 2 people. One person was talking about the transient nature of Planetside and the other was you. Are you mistaking me for someone else?

The rest of my comments have been based on the premise that Dana put forth, that MMOs be allowed to grow in features. IE, do we really need player housing at launch? Does not having it mean the product is "beta quality". No, and no.

These, these things we're discussing, are apples.

You, you're discussing blown glass. Not even remotely the same thing.

Maybe one of us is confused...

In the previous page (page5) the very last post is by you. You quoted Lansid as saying:
"I totally allow MMO's to grow... out of other peoples pockets, not mine!
Here's some food for thought..."

To which you replied:
"So. You've never bought a serialized story before?..." etc etc

Lansid also said:
"No one buys a car at full price, that's half built/functional, and pays a quarter of the cost in a monthly fee for the automakers to finish their work.

The people are now voting with their money, and voicing their opinions about how they're sick of paying full price for a "full version release" of beta quality games."

Which I completely agree with. But you gave the analogy of a comic book series, which I also agree with.

All I'm trying to do is to clarify the analogy that you yourself made. I believe I'm perfectly on-topic

*facepalm* It is me, sorry.

I did this with WAR. I played for up to 6 months, getting to t4, hoping it would be more fun, and they would fix/implement things to the game. But after I REALLY got bored of it, I just had to move to something else. I couldn't sink any more money or time into something that wasn't panning out for me. I gave Mythic 80 for the CE, and then 15/mo for 6 months (Well, 5 if you include the launch month).

I still hope WAR will come to something I will love, but, until that day. I'm just bored of it. And am hoping for it to fix the little things here and there, and implement some features worth using.

Also, you could start off a sub at $5/mo, like you said. And as it got bigger they would increase their sub cost. Well, that sounds fine, except for the fact that people will rage the second they increase the cost. Just because people hate change, and hate spending more money when they have been used to the first set amount. Honestly, that idea makes sense to me... But I see others just completely raging over it.

Originally posted by Neiko

I did this with WAR. I played for up to 6 months, getting to t4, hoping it would be more fun, and they would fix/implement things to the game. But after I REALLY got bored of it, I just had to move to something else. I couldn't sink any more money or time into something that wasn't panning out for me. I gave Mythic 80 for the CE, and then 15/mo for 6 months (Well, 5 if you include the launch month).

I still hope WAR will come to something I will love, but, until that day. I'm just bored of it. And am hoping for it to fix the little things here and there, and implement some features worth using.

 

Also, you could start off a sub at $5/mo, like you said. And as it got bigger they would increase their sub cost. Well, that sounds fine, except for the fact that people will rage the second they increase the cost. Just because people hate change, and hate spending more money when they have been used to the first set amount. Honestly, that idea makes sense to me... But I see others just completely raging over it.

The problems with WAR are probably based on the orginal beta tests and the fact that highest tiers were not really fully tested.  But the biggest problem with WAR is ofc the fact that the basic game engine simply isn't good enough.  So no matter how much you build on it - it simply will not get any better.  Mythic already tried to speed up the gameplay and get the spells more responsive - but it lead to increase server problems and they had to revert to the same old setup. 

If MMOs are supposed to be built around the fun aspect and at the same time give players the rpg concept of building up a character - then the basics need to be 100%.   When it comes to WAR - the basics simply are not there.  The gameplay is not good enough to be considered fun (laggy - sluggish) and that will not change with greowing abilites of the characters.  If something it makes it more frustrating.

Im really sad to see WAR fail so miserably.  I like the concept j- but again - I think that the beta tests and the overall progress of testing out the game simply failded terribly.   Testing one tier at the time created a totally diffrent game with very broken up content.  And when it was all put together - it left 90% of the content barren or pointless with just few ppl in every area (for public quests for example).

Thats why a game like WAR should have started small and build on it.  At least the VERY first they should have done was to make sure the engine was good enough.  It just isn't.

Yea EVE!

Originally posted by Dana

Would you support an MMO that started small, but strongly and then grew over time? With a few attitude adjustments from fans, media and developers, maybe this could be possible.

  Sounds like Dana ate the wrong side of the frosted mini wheat's this morning. While the grown up intellectual side of me says sure, the kid in me that drew me to play this stupid MMO in the first place says NO NO NO!   

 An MMO's "Rush to Market" should be punished not coddled!

1st impressions are what decides the success of any mmo.  If you don't do me right in the 1st 30 days your not going to get the subscription.

THE END!

PS. That baby picture is a perfect likeness.. 

Originally posted by somoney

Originally posted by Dana

Would you support an MMO that started small, but strongly and then grew over time? With a few attitude adjustments from fans, media and developers, maybe this could be possible.

  Sounds like Dana ate the wrong side of the frosted mini wheat's this morning. While the grown up intellectual side of me says sure, the kid in me that drew me to play this stupid MMO in the first place says NO NO NO!   

 An MMO's "Rush to Market" should be punished not coddled!

1st impressions are what decides the success of any mmo.  If you don't do me right in the 1st 30 days your not going to get the subscription.

THE END!

PS. That baby picture is a perfect likeness.. 

 

These days that may well be true. But how then does one explain Eve? It started out small and has grown over the years. Then of course there is Anarchy Online. It had to have one of the WORST launches in MMO history, but it went on to recover from that. I suspect its a function of how the Dev's deal with the inevitable problems that come with MMO's.  Under capitalization is endemic across the MMO industry.

Outside of a few exceptions(Blizzard comes to mind) investors/shareholders panic at the slightest hint of problem/delay, and start threatening to pull out if the game doesn't launch, ready or not.  Of course, this type of short sightedness is what contributes to games either failing or never reaching the subscription numbers they would have, if the launch hadn't been rushed. But what else can one expect from people whose only focus is the quarterly report?

Everquest started at 9.95 and increased it's price. People complained but they didn't leave. I think an underpriced MMO would get the same reaction.

Originally posted by Silvermink

Everquest started at 9.95 and increased it's price. People complained but they didn't leave. I think an underpriced MMO would get the same reaction.

Back then, there wasn't that much else to play These days, I doubt most players would stay through a price increase.

"I would love to see a company launch a focused, albeit narrower product and charge a narrower amount for it. If they did, I would hope that the fans would react accordingly and give it the support it needs to take that next step."

I agree. Back in July of 2007 I wrote a blog piece pointing out that, with a few exceptions, there are basically two sales curves for MMORPGs: start-big-and-slowly-decline, and start-small-and-slowly-grow.

We've seen examples of the start-big curve. Those are the big-budget AAA titles, who have to make as much money as possible in their first few weeks after launch (to pay back their big development costs) because that's the most subscribers they're ever likely to have.

And EVE remains the best example of the start-small curve, who make the bulk of their income over time. The question is, why aren't more developers going that route?

Perhaps we're now seeing the first wave of indie MMORPGs that are trying that path. Here's hoping so; it'll be good for the industry.

--Flatfingers

I would fully support an MMO starting small, and progressively getting better with new features, zones, and content. The reason it is hard to...

1) Often times the devs are not good with communication. Lets us know an estimated timeframe of what some of the big plans are.

2) The "small" game is often only small due to lack of development time, making the game feel completely unfinished and unpolished...give us a solid playable product at launch with good features and content already available.

Originally posted by Silvermink

Everquest started at 9.95 and increased it's price. People complained but they didn't leave. I think an underpriced MMO would get the same reaction.

Right, but that was more to do with inflation than content.

Originally posted by Xiara

I would fully support an MMO starting small, and progressively getting better with new features, zones, and content. The reason it is hard to...

1) Often times the devs are not good with communication. Lets us know an estimated timeframe of what some of the big plans are.

2) The "small" game is often only small due to lack of development time, making the game feel completely unfinished and unpolished...give us a solid playable product at launch with good features and content already available.

Yes. The only excuse for small amount of content is VERY high polish. If it is small and unpolished, it might as well not release at all.

Originally posted by Flatfingers

"I would love to see a company launch a focused, albeit narrower product and charge a narrower amount for it. If they did, I would hope that the fans would react accordingly and give it the support it needs to take that next step."

I agree. Back in July of 2007 I wrote a blog piece pointing out that, with a few exceptions, there are basically two sales curves for MMORPGs: start-big-and-slowly-decline, and start-small-and-slowly-grow.

We've seen examples of the start-big curve. Those are the big-budget AAA titles, who have to make as much money as possible in their first few weeks after launch (to pay back their big development costs) because that's the most subscribers they're ever likely to have.

And EVE remains the best example of the start-small curve, who make the bulk of their income over time. The question is, why aren't more developers going that route?

Perhaps we're now seeing the first wave of indie MMORPGs that are trying that path. Here's hoping so; it'll be good for the industry.

--Flatfingers

As with much else WoW is the exception. It started big and got HUGE. It remains to be seen if they can duplicate that sucess with their next MMO.  I suspect one of the reasons for the AAA class titles taking the approach that they do, is that its easier to sell their investors on a grand vision. Then when nature takes its course, and reality hammers them, their investors start to panic and demand that they launch NOW, ready or not.  We've all seen the results, way too many times.  Smaller titles simply run out of money. Its launch or perish.  The bottom line is that all too many investors are focused on the short term returns, rather than long term returns.

I really have to disagree that WoW was an example of a game that started big. From my point of view, it's one of the better examples of a game that started small and grew from there.

When the game released, you only had the 1-60 leveling experience. Then at the end-game they had Onyxia and Molten core. And that's it. Even the leveling dungeons were incomplete. They had to patch Dire Maul in later, not to mention Maraudon.

Stuff like the honor system for pvp, battlegrounds, etc, were all patched in, and yet they're now considered part of the "core" experience. The extent of PvP in WoW back then was spontaneous fights in Hillsbrad. And the time it took them to patch in Blackwing Lair, which is only the second raid, was something like 6 months if I'm not mistaken. So they actually had a pretty rocky start I'd say.

But, they did have a really well-polished leveling experience. And likewise, the stuff they did give you was in-fact well done. So you had a pretty solid core to play with, and then they built from there.

Originally posted by BigJohnny

I really have to disagree that WoW was an example of a game that started big. From my point of view, it's one of the better examples of a game that started small and grew from there.

When the game released, you only had the 1-60 leveling experience. Then at the end-game they had Onyxia and Molten core. And that's it. Even the leveling dungeons were incomplete. They had to patch Dire Maul in later, not to mention Maraudon.

Stuff like the honor system for pvp, battlegrounds, etc, were all patched in, and yet they're now considered part of the "core" experience. The extent of PvP in WoW back then was spontaneous fights in Hillsbrad. And the time it took them to patch in Blackwing Lair, which is only the second raid, was something like 6 months if I'm not mistaken. So they actually had a pretty rocky start I'd say.

But, they did have a really well-polished leveling experience. And likewise, the stuff they did give you was in-fact well done. So you had a pretty solid core to play with, and then they built from there.

I've been in WoW since late beta, so I well remember the 1-60 cycle. I was more refering to their player numbers, than their content.  One of my most enjoyable memories of the game was soloing my 60 rogue through the MC attunement quest.  ^^ Scholo/UBRS and MC I've run way more times than I ever want to remember. But for the most part it was good times. Then came Outlands and Northrend , and they seem to have lost their way from the old style. But everything changes I guess(shrug). But its still a good game, until one hits level cap.

The players who complain about everything are sooting themselves in the foot. I really hope game makers have noticed this already, and have started to make changes based off of their own ideas for innovation rather then the direction players think they have the right to enforce on the devs. As a veteran player of some of the larger mmos I feel burned by the direction devs have taken to appease the communities. They either change the way they market the game, or the mechanics of the game. If any maker falls for this by changing the price people pay after people have already paid a certain amount is fail, and so is changing the mechanics after people spent time to level, or gain items. In the end the veteran subscribers would  have spent more, and reroll more often.

First off, I just want to commend the author of this article, she has written a wonderful piece here, and this is something that I have been trying to get across to may people i come across on the web, that said, I myself have been guilty of comparing a brand new mmo to WoW, though I did realize my own hippocracy and have since reserve judgement a year or 2 down the line I will probably come back and reassess the game based on its growth and where it has gone since launch,

Dana Massey is right. I played WOW when it first released, i was kept playing it for around 1+ year after, when i eventually quit.

When WOW first released it had major problems. For example the classes had useless talents. Talents had almost no point except for very few exceptions, especially the so called 41-point talent etc. Back then we got every month a new patch, and what they did was that every month they fixed a class'  talents. So it was the priest patch, the warrior patch etc etc. This lasted for around 1 year. So you had the weird phenomenon that some classes had very good talents and some others not. So they almost completely overpowered them. If this happens now everyone will quit the first month. But we kept playing and we waite around 1 year to have a complete talent overhaul.

Another problem was that when WOW released it didn't have many dungeons. Especially for max level (60), they added those dungeons after people reached level 60 and they had nothing to do. On top of that epic items from the epic dungeons didn't have good stats nor a unique look. They had only placeholder graphics, they waited only after people started doing those dungeons to fix them.

If i continue i can find out more and more problems.

Point here is, back then choices weren't many, so you just sticked with that game. Now there are many choices, so people just decide to quit for something else. What companies need to realize is that if we as players dont have to except their games to be so rich like for example WOW, then they also dont have to expect us to pay the same money we pay for WOW.

When you have 2 choices, a new game with not much content yet and possibly many bugs, and on the other hand you have WOW or whatever, a game that has much content, and many bugs are fixed, but when you check the price you see that both cost the same its obvious which one you will choose.

Companies should not think players as money machines, "lets convince them that our crappy product is good and make them pay the same so we get money", they have to respect them and realize that they have to charge LESS for their newly released product. They have to charge a price that will make players stick with the game despite the problems, and when they have polished the game and realize that the players like the game then they can decide if they will raise the price or not.

I'm being more wary of MMO's from big companies.   The games end of being very generic and then they move along to produce another big title with a shadow of a team remaining on the original product.

I would rather play a game from a small company whose got everything riding on success. 

What would you rather:  Play an MMO that's an afterthought or it's only thought?

I love Dana's articles, they are always pretty nice to read.

Now as for EVE versus E&B.

It's a different context, E&B was Westwood's baby and not EA. I remember spending my night chatting with Arturus and Cerdik (don't remember the spelling) and I remember how they were a bit uneasy when EA bought WW. It's not that EA didn't let E&B breath, it's simply the fact that game didn't generate any important revenu compared to their other titles.

CCP only has one title and that is EVE. It's a very different context and obviously, when you only have one single game to invest in then it's much easier to manage. It's also your only source of revenu so letting it die is just a suicide, not a calculated risk and lost.

What EVE has over the other games is marketting strategies, evolution, name and support. Just the name EVE is enough to attract the attention of anyone that speaks english. It's a beautifull word with various definitions. Now, I'm not sure about you but EVE flash banners are everywhere on the internet. Every gaming site has one, from vgcats, penny-arcade to mmorpg still known as EVE fanboys lol. Evolution is a lit easier when you only have 1 team to work on one title. Why does Blizzard, Epic Megagames, ID software, CCP always have quality products? In most situation it's because they focus on one product at a time. Not saying they can't have multiple projects in the background but it's usualy 1 title at a time per studio/office. Support is important here, EVE has EVE-Radio, EVE-TV, battleclinic, Killboards, in-game browsers that allows corps to advertise and display sites in-game. CCP actievely support fan projects such as Day of Darkness II, allowing the movie producer to visit their studio and use any tools he needs.

They have never lacked in any of these fields and today, they are cultivating the fruits. I agree that we should let a game grow but the term garbage in, garbage out is very true for MMOs.

A game like WOW is a different story and what kick started WOW was the amazing background of Blizzard.

- Rock N Roll Racing

- Starcraft

- Warcraft

- Diablo

- Lost Vikings

Can't go wrong with any of these titles, why would WOW suck lol.