Dana Massey Asks Why Not?: Accessible Subscription MMOs
F2P MMOs are all the rage, while subscription games have fallen on tough times. Dana thinks he knows why and it has nothing to do with how people pay for them.
Some people claim that free-to-play MMOs are the way of the future. Others insist subscriptions offer the best entertainment and fairest playing field. To me, the whole argument is flawed. Neither F2P nor subscription games cost more than a trip to Subway each month. Real people just want to have fun and will pay for it if they get their money’s worth.
The strongest argument for the relative success of F2P games is that while most subscription games since WoW have been a disappointment, F2P titles seem to have grown in stature and importance. But there’s an interesting little trick there. The hugely successful games lately, while promoted as F2P, actually use just about every business model in the book, subscriptions included. Look at FreeRealms and Wizard 101, for example.
There is a single reason, larger than how people pay, to why the free-to-play games are finding some success while so many subscription games have met tough times.
;)
Can your dog do this? No?
Then stop asking your customers to!
It’s accessibility.
Fundamentally, F2P games are designed to get playing as quickly and with as few barriers as possible. That’s why they’re either playable in a browser or with a small download. That’s why you don’t need to fill out more forms than it takes to get a mortgage and that’s why they don’t require a liquid cooled Alienware to run them.
Ask yourself this: What do World of Warcraft and virtually every F2P game have in common? And what do Age of Conan, Warhammer Online and others have in common?
Many people say Funcom and Mythic copied WoW, but if they did, they forgot to rip off the single most important thing. Blizzard even published that top secret design document on bottom of the box.
;)
Sometimes required to play
an MMO these days, it seems.
It was the system requirements.
This is what F2P games and WoW share the most. Forget design, forget art style. They can all be run by a wad of chewing gum and a rubber band.
Face facts, MMO developers. By making a huge time sucker that only plays on the PC, you’ve already cut off a huge number of potential gamers. Throw in needing a Delorean to run it and now you’re all competing over the same twelve people.
And I don’t want to hear “but our graphics scale!” That’s not a valid counter argument. No one has ever successfully made a game that scales visually. There are too many moving parts, too much to consider and most gamers don’t actually want to have to deal with patches and pages of menus just to make your game work. Sure, super hardcore gamers love to be able to adjust their draw distance to the nearest inch, but they don’t pay the bills. They just post on the forums.
Make a game, make it beautiful and make it work on its max settings on every reasonable PC thrown off the back of a truck in the last five years.
;)
Too many knobs! Make it simple.
Seriously, the average person doesn’t care about the latest particle effects. I would much rather a game that ran smoothly and looked coherent. World of Warcraft doesn’t have technically amazing graphics. They don’t break any boundaries and they don’t push any envelopes, but the game runs and looks beautiful. Why? They put more time into coherent art direction than they did technical achievement.
Heck, Blizzard’s next two games are isometric. No one has released an isometric title in years, everything must be 3D, right? Yet, while everyone points out the genius of Blizzard, no one else will do what they’re doing. There is no imperative to push the graphical envelope. People want games that play well, and look nice. The rest of it is just Maya flexing.
Reign in the poly counts and suddenly your game is fighting over a much larger pile of people.
And I don’t care if the game is published by EA or Your Mother’s Basement, Inc. Put that MMO online with a free to download and play trial. If you really insist on making someone pay for the original copy, God bless you, but it damn well better be on Steam too. It’s absolutely insane that people have to go to a store to buy a game that by definition is played online with a decent Internet connection (having a box is fine, but it’s 2009, so there is no excuse for not having both).
Once subscription games make their games as easy to play, install and run as their F2P counterparts, then we’ll be able to gather some real data and find out which business model actually is better. Until then, it’s comparing walnuts and elephants.
More Dana Massey Asks Why Not? Features:
More Columns:
More Features:
Each Thursday, he asks the question "Why Not?" about some element of MMOs.
I agree whole heartedly man. People who can't run or play your game arn't going to buy it. People are not going to pay 500-1000 bucks everytime a new MMO comes out just to play it.
Couple that with the fact that every configuration is different and you see why consoles are doing better than the PC. It's not piracy it's barriers to entry.
Give me SW:TOR that will play (at over 15fps) and look nice on a $500 laptop and you have a winner. If it only runs at 15fps on with 4gb of ram and a quad core processor... well.. .you'll sell 5 copies.
This is why free trials are so important, and also why people want into betas so bad. Most want to try to see if the game's fun, sure, but if it's fun and it runs like shit they either don't spend the money or try and justify spending the cost of the game, monthly fees, AND the massive upgrade costs.
I don't care what game it is. If I have to spend $500 just to play it... i'm not going to. Now all you "hardcore" gamers are thinking "well quit playing on an intellivision" but you are the same people that whine and cry like premature babies when the servers are empty on the biggest baddest games... and then quit 2 months later.
You make some good points, but I've played both subscription and FTP and much prefer a good subscription game. It isn't just for the better graphics, but for the overall gameplay that is much better. I have played Runes of Magic and found that to be pretty decent gameplay. The subscription games are running into problems pulling in numbers of players, but it isn't all because of the higher system requirements. I've been in a few betas and when I chose not to buy the game at release, it was because I didn't enjoy the gameplay style.
I see one of the main problems is that the games are released in unfinished states. The developers don't have the time to do everything needed before release. They claim that after release certain things will be added later. One of the danger signs is when beta testers try to tell the developers what they don't find fun, but aren't listened to. I'm not referring to single poster gripes, but when several posters say the same thing. The beta testers are going to be the backbone of the game at release and most are veteran players who understand what makes a good game fun. I knew Tabula Rasa would be a flop when they made the dumb changes they did just before release. That game had good potential, as have others that didn't become as popular as the developers had hoped. Some games do still survive and become niche games with a small but solid core of players.
I wouldn't go so far as to blame the failures of AoC, WAR, etcetera on their demanding graphics, but you make some very good points. Kudos for an excellent article.
Every graphics artist in my department, and those I see at the conventions, and on industry forums talks about this issue nearly nonstop. How do we make great looking art, in games or otherwise, while making it accessible at the same time? The nearest thing I can think of is optimization. It takes not only incredible coders to make it happen, but the art department has to be top scale too. We are often the ones who know best how to shrink the files we use. Hell, some of us get paid just to optimize animations, rigs, models, and textures themselves! It can get that bad. I personally think they don't spend enough time teaching how to take that great cinematic model that you made for a school assignment, and shrink the file size to it's least possible size. What we DO get however, are meshes that have too many polys, textures that are too large for their purpose, rigs with vertices that will never be animated, or animations with waaaaaay too many keyframes. That is just from an artist's stand point. I'm sure the coders can sometimes do better jobs at cleaning up their code. I think I read somewhere else recently about messy code in mmo's, so I won't get into that too much.
Unfortunately those of us that have been in a studio for a little while, rarely have the time to teach the new recruits how to condense their work. When the bean counters give us enough time to "finish" our work without seperating our screens to create a hammock at night, then the leaders on the teams might have time to run "tutorials" for the newer guys. In my own experience, that makes a world of difference. IT departments will also love it. Especially since that means we may be breaking Autodesk products less...
I am sorry, but I think this one is making it too easy.
GTA: San Andreas had no low reqs. GTA 4 has pretty high specs.
Sims 3 is quite hardware hungry, Spore is despite its looks not that happy with a low-end machine either. CoD4 sold like hot buns, yet wants quite a machine. Oblivion, The Witcher, Fallout 3...... there is a huuuuge number of gamers and interested people who do have good machines.
There is accessability, and there is laziness. The latter one is the problem. Age of Conan and especially Warhammer ran like crap because their engines are not well-coded. They are not well-made, and are not suited to the demands of an MMORPG. Look at Aion: It runs BETTER than WoW once about 20 people are on screen, and looks infinitely better. Look at Guild Wars, a game that can handle basically anything without dying.
WoW isnt even particularly well-coded. As soon as you got more than about 20 to 30 characters on screen, anything even remotely near the minimum reqs just dies. I had guildmates who met the recommended reqs, and couldnt enter Dalaran during Primetime, and we had to move their characters on our machines to Naxxramas.
The relatively lower system specs may well have helped WoW at its launch, but today, anything but empty zones full of solo quests requires much more power than can be justified with the bad graphics and tech.
What matters is using an engine, using tech that is suited to the demands of a MMORPG. You dont have to have it run on a calculator to be successful, there are millions of players out there whose rigs are not hamster-wheel-powered with wooden dial-up and a broken bathroom mirror as screen. What you need is to do what Guild Wars did, what Aion did, create a game engine that isnt a rip-off of a singleplayer shooter, but that works for 60 people on screen.
And that means scrap the 20 shaders, real-time physics and 30-layer-textures, leave those to the powerhouses that can make them manageable like a good Shooter. Hire the best of the best texture artists, use a decent netcode, polish the hell out of your code, and your game will both look excellent, and run well. Maybe it could be prettier, yeah. But crappy graphics with the excuse of accessability is not the way to go.
Today is not 5 years ago.
Well, I did make it simple, I will add that the core logic was that the sheer time investment/fees make the MMO pool smaller. People will buy the Sims and shooters because you play them, and put em away. They have a much wider captive audience.
The MMO audience itself is a lot smaller. Thus, don't limit yourself to high end PCs.
I agree there is more to it than not packing in the polys, but that is a start.
Interesting points, and while I agree that requiring a super computer limits one demographics from the start. Lets not overlook the FUN FACTOR. Its what grabs and keeps people. Fun is different things to different people. But like it or not, Blizzard has demonstrated that they know how to apply it. For all of WoW's faults(which are legion...) its a fun game up to level cap.
Eye candy is all well and good, but it can and does work against a game, if it jacks the system requirements in to LEO. What is required are talented EXPERIENCED artists(such as some of those in the FPS side of gaming) who know how to optimize. The same applies to the technical staff in general. But both classes of people tend to cost MORE than throwing inexperienced people at a project. Bean counters can be the absolute BANE of a project, if they are allowed to make mission critical decisions.
Management needs to be familiar enough with the tech/art side to understand what is realistic in terms of time/talent and combine that with the input of the bean counters when making decisions. Over and above that is a *complete* understanding of what demographic the game is targeted at. If one attempts to be all things to all people, its a open invitation at failure.
Well, I did make it simple, I will add that the core logic was that the sheer time investment/fees make the MMO pool smaller. People will buy the Sims and shooters because you play them, and put em away. They have a much wider captive audience.
The MMO audience itself is a lot smaller. Thus, don't limit yourself to high end PCs.
I agree there is more to it than not packing in the polys, but that is a start.
Yeah, to even take it out of context for a second...cellphones. Let's assume all cellphones are unlocked for a second.
You start a new cell phone company, and you want to look cool and elite, like one of the big boys, so you design your service around the iPhone. However, more people have cellphones than just iPhones, so you automatically limit yourself to that market, and you can't hope to grab every single person in that market. Sure, Timmy might love your service inside and out and he really wants to buy it, but he'd have to spend $200 on an iPhone, and he's just not willing to do that. If you were to expand your service to all phones, you'd pick up much more people.
Same concept here. When you have someone who wants to play your game so badly, but they can't, it does nothing but hurt you, because hopes and dreams don't buy subscriptions, or a behemoth PC to play the beastly game.
yep you pressed on the big red magic button of succes in todays mmo world
your right if i got to spend 500 $ to play my next gaming fix might as well just get rid of my comp and just buy a wii and invite family over for big insanity party lol
i agres witth you when you say that often p2p game feel like they are unfinished
and a lot of f2p game have gotten so decent or will be when school start , gamer became very shy to spend on another game on walmart shelves
and to make it worst ,gw2 isnt very far from lunch,diablo3 same thing etc
the result is what you see all gaming comunity holding their breath till their next game fix
without changing their 4 year old computer
Interesting read. I have probably played as much, if not more, FPS than MMOs and the one thing that I've always loved about FPS multiplayer is that it's free. And oddly enough, the PvP is more balanced, and you can switch servers or teams instantly in many of the games. Strange how FPS multiplayer is leaps and bounds beyond MMOs as far as multiplayer accessability and variety as well, without any charges other than the initial purchase. You could argue that perhaps FPS are not as deep or immersive, but as I said before, I've played them pretty much equally, and the only common denominator for me is fun, so...
mm kind of oftopic
not a lot of player care with reasonable cost(exemple .wow)
but they do care about initial cost and having the feeling they got their moneys worth
if you buy a game kit for 100$ but then you find out you ll need new computer or hardware to run it
and it cost 500$ +to upgrade, i bet most people wont feel like they got their moneys worth even if the game is great
mm kind of oftopic
not a lot of player care with reasonable cost(exemple .wow)
but they do care about initial cost and having the feeling they got their moneys worth
if you buy a game kit for 100$ but then you find out you ll need new computer or hardware to run it
and it cost 500$ +to upgrade, i bet most people wont feel like they got their moneys worth even if the game is great
Who buys a 100$ game THEN realizing that they need to upgrade their computer? Isn't it the other way around for 99.9% of people? Looking at a game and finding if their computer can run it? I would say that most people are turned off at the point they realize that their machine can't handle it.
I'm likely in the minority here, but when a mmorpg that really is interesting to me is coming that will require a better PC than I currently use, I am starting to look for a better PC. F2P MMO, while some may very well be fun to play, are not for me.
To best explain how I fee about F2P mmos vs. Subscription based mmos . . . I love baseball. I live in NY and the LI Ducks play practically in my back yard, but I don't step foot inside that ballpark even though its only a few dollars for a ticket. I am going to Yankee Stadium.
mm kind of oftopic
not a lot of player care with reasonable cost(exemple .wow)
but they do care about initial cost and having the feeling they got their moneys worth
if you buy a game kit for 100$ but then you find out you ll need new computer or hardware to run it
and it cost 500$ +to upgrade, i bet most people wont feel like they got their moneys worth even if the game is great
Not completely off topic, considering multiplayer FPS is free and accessable. I was merely trying to point out that perhaps the MMO genre could learn a thing or two from the way FPS get players together and lets them have fun.
Also, it has occured to me that many players have come to expect a subscription fee from AAA MMO titles, while AAA FPS titles, which are arguabley superior in many aspects in this discussion (in my opinion), are all free to play because that is what players expect.
Good article!
*remembers firing up GTA 4 for the first and only time* It only loaded the moving objects...Fail on the graphics requirement.....
I want my Radeon x1300 to last forever....I'll be sad the day it becomes obsolete. MMOs definately don't need more requirements. Heck, no one likes buying a new video card every couple of years :(
In my opinon, a games success has little to do with the system requirements. Most of the games that you mention have glaring flaws and just do not appeal to most gamers and this is why they dont draw in a large audience. I consider my PC to be a mid to low range system. Most of my pc parts can be purchased for pretty low prices on newegg, yet I can play AOC and WAR on a 47 inch lcd at 1920x1080. Just to be clear, most of this junk in my PC can be replaced with much cheaper and better components...
phenom 9950 black edition 130$
MSI K9A2 platinum 70$
2x 3870 toxic 200$ 2 cheap video cards or get one 4890 for a bit more
ocz 4gb 1066 50$
antec 900 100$ can find a cheaper case, but I love this one
Xion super nova 800w 124$ modular power supply, you can cut costs here easily
500 gb HD 80$ i have 2
I mean seriously, this isnt that expensive. Also, its not like people dont have computers to scavenge parts off of already. Already have a case and hard drive, there is 180$ saved. The problem isnt the hardware. The problem is how shitty games are coded. WoW for example, No amount of hardware will fix the fact that a player on an epic mount riding straight at ya will be hugging your nuts before you see him. No amount of hardware will stop WoW or WAR from crashing when you get more than X number of people in a single zone.
These games are supposedly massive multiplayer, but when you cant have a 50 vs 50 fight with out the server fucking up (I dont consider 50v50 massive anyway), you wasted your time on a shit engine. Maybe it isnt the developers fault. Maybe server technology just isnt up to the task.
In the end, it all comes down to the developers making a game that the players want to play, instead of making a copy of WoW with small differences here and there. People just dont want to waste houirs upon hours when they already have a level 80 shamlockrogue, raid/arena gear, 3 twinks, and 666,000 gold, just to try and do it all over in a game that feels strangely familiar. Hmm, havnt i played this game before?
Not completely off topic, considering multiplayer FPS is free and accessable. I was merely trying to point out that perhaps the MMO genre could learn a thing or two from the way FPS get players together and lets them have fun.
Also, it has occured to me that many players have come to expect a subscription fee from AAA MMO titles, while AAA FPS titles, which are arguabley superior in many aspects in this discussion (in my opinion), are all free to play because that is what players expect.
mm f2p isnt as great as big aaa success game
but they are erasing the the line betwen p2p and f2p so much in fact that is probably the reason
lot of player are on one side being pulled by the arm by p2p and on the other side are being pulled by f2p
so player end up feeling torn apart between those mmo
mm yep when wow made dalaran avail i was likle cool
till i found out that theres was way more peopl;e playing horde then i ever thot ,and nomather
what kind of accrobatic feat blizzard do will permit me to play dalaran if i leave full eye candy on
lol even wintergrasp was a nighmare, i stoped playing wow on june 6 ,even with everything set to low
i just couldnt get more the 4 fps in wintergrasp event,and when both side went beseark of 5 second lag spike is the norm
plus add to that player who love to lock kill you (alt-tab trick)
it makes for an unfun experience
I can agree here for the most part. as I see it, though, going along with the "copied WoW" line of thinking, graphics is the "easiest" way that they latch onto to differentiate themselves from WoW. Sure, they could lower the polys (and make the game available to more folks) and substitute graphics as their keystone that they can harp on and PR blitz to death as to how they are different with other creative takes on other gameplay systems. But that creative path requires work...and thought. Again, much easier (and less time consuming) to put a nice sweet view on it and draw in the flies. After all, that gets you a box sale and maybe 1-2 months subscription before the flies figure out it's very sour/putrid under that thin layer of visual sweet.
I can agree here for the most part. as I see it, though, going along with the "copied WoW" line of thinking, graphics is the "easiest" way that they latch onto to differentiate themselves from WoW. Sure, they could lower the polys (and make the game available to more folks) and substitute graphics as their keystone that they can harp on and PR blitz to death as to how they are different with other creative takes on other gameplay systems. But that creative path requires work...and thought. Again, much easier (and less time consuming) to put a nice sweet view on it and draw in the flies. After all, that gets you a box sale and maybe 1-2 months subscription before the flies figure out it's very sour/putrid under that thin layer of visual sweet.
I can agree here for the most part. as I see it, though, going along with the "copied WoW" line of thinking, graphics is the "easiest" way that they latch onto to differentiate themselves from WoW. Sure, they could lower the polys (and make the game available to more folks) and substitute graphics as their keystone that they can harp on and PR blitz to death as to how they are different with other creative takes on other gameplay systems. But that creative path requires work...and thought. Again, much easier (and less time consuming) to put a nice sweet view on it and draw in the flies. After all, that gets you a box sale and maybe 1-2 months subscription before the flies figure out it's very sour/putrid under that thin layer of visual sweet.
I can mostly agree here...except for a couple things.
Sure, it might be easier to market pretty graphics, but it's also a much heavier load on the development team, both pre-launch and post-launch, because an advanced graphics engine is always something a developer has to wrestle with. More work goes into developing the graphics rather than developing content, because it isn't as simple as designing for something like WoW.
You simply can't have a strong art direction with advanced graphics in an MMO, because, as they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. This has been said and proven many times over, with World of Warcraft, The Old Republic, Guild Wars, etc. Too much is needed with an advanced engine, and you have to choose between art and content. The downside to that is, in reality you don't really have a choice, because content has to come first.
In any case, this is an interesting topic namely because of the swarm of MMOs coming, and most of them can be logically expected to have high system requirements. People have been playing MMOs for years on their old computers, and those very same people are being asked to upgrade by the developers of these new games. Let's see how many actually do, instead of just sticking with that they have.
I can mostly agree here...except for a couple things.
Sure, it might be easier to market pretty graphics, but it's also a much heavier load on the development team, both pre-launch and post-launch, because an advanced graphics engine is always something a developer has to wrestle with. More work goes into developing the graphics rather than developing content, because it isn't as simple as designing for something like WoW.
You simply can't have a strong art direction with advanced graphics in an MMO, because, as they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. This has been said and proven many times over, with World of Warcraft, The Old Republic, Guild Wars, etc. Too much is needed with an advanced engine, and you have to choose between art and content. The downside to that is, in reality you don't really have a choice, because content has to come first.
In any case, this is an interesting topic namely because of the swarm of MMOs coming, and most of them can be logically expected to have high system requirements. People have been playing MMOs for years on their old computers, and those very same people are being asked to upgrade by the developers of these new games. Let's see how many actually do, instead of just sticking with that they have.
mm i bet the majority of online gamer will stick to their old computer
with the gm issue and all the other bad news in america
most just wont buy a new computer just for an x title that might never gain a lot of player
expacially when blizzard already showed verious of thei content will be working on their old machine
its like sony whenthey made ps3 ,lol a lot of game sticked to ps2 sony had to make new game for ps2 even tho
it was supposed to have stop in favor of ps3
that had made so many ps2 it was a too big market to just let it die
its the same for computer ,if x company doesnt support 4 year old computer
A company will support it ,so gamer will get very good game anyway
I have often passed up trying certain computer games including MMOs because of system requirements.
On the other hand, I remember the experience many friends and I had many years ago, in the early years of that old behemoth, EQ. The game had many problems (although some of the "problems" I believe actually helped!) as have been fully recounted, but at the time, 1999-2000 or so, it was the compelling MMO in the US. So the message came that the next patch was going to be a total graphics overhaul, and we would need to go to a better video card, more system memory, and in many cases get a new rig. Well? From the people I could see in my friends/guild, everyone paid up. My own interpretation is that the gameplay was just good enough, and the game sufficiently unique, with a "game concept" that strongly catered to pulling people in groups and larger associations, that the communities of EQ blossomed, and that when the new computer requirements hit, nobody wanted to leave their community behind.
(I might mention that people recruiting for guilds in MMOs these days often specify "no drama". The guilds I knew in EQ all had drama, and necessarily so, because the community was so important. But that is getting off topic perhaps.)
The point is well taken that accessibility, both technical and otherwise is important. But again I remember, EQ had very poor accessibility in just about all categories. It did get better later, but it was very tough to get into initially. Loading, patching, and then getting used to the gameplay. A lot of people struggled through it anyway. Once they had the hang of it, they got their friends into it.
So I would offer my opinion that it is a magical combination of factors that makes a good MMO, and that nobody even today knows what those are going into a new game after 10 years of MMOs. We can list parts and act like we know something, but we only know what we like as a total product. Its like making a movie. Everyone wants to make a great one, but regardless of actors, director, cinematography, special effects, etc, nobody really knows how the next one will be. Look at the original three Star Wars movies and the last three. You can't tell me the people who made the first three didn't know how to make a good movie, and they had much better special effects available for the more recent films...but look what happened.
I confess I do enjoy reading and discussing aspects of MMOs; however, I ought to keep in mind not to take any conclusions too seriously. It is fun to think we can analyze MMOs into parts and then put the parts back together into the "perfect" game. Aint happening in RL, though.
The answer is simpler... subscriptions are falling because people are finally tired of paying for crap...
Well... how can i put this without flaming... Does whoever wrote this articale play games or use a pc/laptop?
The last thing any players bothers to check for is specs. This isnt into the year 2000, its almost 2010! Most people buy a top-end computer arround 1500-2000 and upgrade it yearly for about 100-200 like subscribing to an MMO: those that love playing games keep their system up to date. Or do you really believe that with $15/month on a game and another 200/year for virusscan/firewall and regulary new software trough games/applications that people will cut their budget by saving on hardware? Come on do a reality check. If highly intensive games like Crysis can become a hit, then hardware aspects definitly are a non-issue for online games since none of them can match crysis any time soon.
Besides.. everybody that can use google knows that the nr1 consumer on graphics is your monitor's resolution. Few things increases your FPS/performance more then going down in resolution... apart from upgrading hardware.
The reason AoC/WAR didnt work out is exactly BECAUSE they copied WoW. If i want to play WoW ill go play WoW, not WoW under different graphics.
But, even more importantly, the largest threat on sub games is the size. Take WoW: in order to be competitive in PvP or to get along in PvE its estimated you need to play 4-5h straight past 9pm for at least 4 nights a week because thats how long it takes to clear the average raid and gather whatever consumables you need for the raid.
By far the largest gaming group is <14 or >21: either their parents want them in bed by 9pm or they go to bed themselfs (tough a bit later, its nothing near the end time of a raid) because they need to work the next day. This means very few people can dedicate themselfs to the time required to enjoy the game.
Now, as a 'reporter' did you bother asking yourself if any person alive bothers to risk their job, boy/girl friend, social life and more just so they can play the game enough to get to the point where they can enjoy it? No, ofcourse nobody is that stupid.
Since all sub-based games think more = better, those games keep trying to become bigger/larger/harder... thus more time intensive. This forces all those other games into free games, because those can at least be played casually.
Please, on your next article, at least do some interviews/background checks instead of making very false and more importantly assumptions based on assumptions. Try using facts and figures. Then you'd know vanilla WoW lost most subscribers in the path to 60 because levelling and/or gathering gear took to long. Then you'd know that come TBC WoW actually lost so many subscribers they started shutting down servers (at least over here in the EU) again due to the time-investment rather then the game. Sure, they covered it up in a pretty impressive way, but most did notice. Now come TBC the time-investment has been toned down a bit, but there is still heavy losses constantly: this time due to poor balance (again time related to gather gear/level an alt).
My source? Over 15 million sold, but only just over 11 million subscribers remaining. In other words: the time-related issues lost nearly 30% of the players.
Its not hardware requirements that kills a game. Its the time-investment requirement before you finally got the level/gear to enjoy the game and the time-investment requirement before completing some sort of challenge.
MMOs really need ot be thought of differently then single player. IF you do it right your going to be going for years. Hell THE REALM is still going and its a 2d side scrollling (with z depth) MMO!
City of Heroes is 5 years old.
Graphics need to work on old machines and scale up but if you need a core i7 quad and a GTX 275 to play your not going to see widespread adoption for 2-3 years, and that can be like shooting your own foot.
true and in 2-3 year a lot happens
You know, my computer is based on a 5 years old Athlon XP with a Barton core; I can't go to Dalaran in the prime time too. But there is something you didn't consider: we can fly in Outland and Northrend. That means there isn't any trick with the landscape or the visuals; everything has to be in its place. Azeroth isn't fully developed, there are a lot of placeholder areas with no hills, valleys or textures, just a simple brown/red/green/white plain. Plus there are the players. If an area is hevily "infected" with players, there are much more things to do for the servers - and that's why Dalaran is unplayable, but you have no problem in the Underbelly.
Guild Wars is an other story. It's heavily instanced, and there isn't any zone with hundreds of players in it. Yes, it runs smoother - because the crowd are in separated instances.
yep we got to give credit to blizzard it took a lot of courage to make shatterath lol
both side had acces but it was bigger i believe
now the made dalaran witch is often packed with player lol
and if i lower setting it run good not a lot of game could do that
hell just waiting to enter wintergrasp often result in big lag spike
What is your feelings about technology like OnLive so players do not have to buy a brand new rig to play these AAA games?
The only drawback may be the additional cost of the Onlive service, but perhaps there could be deals made with the companies to help defray the costs of such services..
::shrug::
OnLive is at the dubious "mercy" of companies like comcast, and other such. In far too many markets they have seriously overloaded their networks, which results in massive packet loss and disconnections. I'd not wish to base my companies sucess or failure on that type of variable.
I agree.
I'm not so sure it's the same nowadays, but back in the days of EQII and even up to Vanguard, system requirements kept a lot of people from playing.
So many stories/posts of people trying to tweak their systems so the game would run at a decent level.
First, I never said this was the single and only reason anyone has ever not played an MMO. So don't assume because I discuss one factor there cannot be others. Although, I will point out I discussed the time factor as a major thing in the article (as far as limiting the audience). The problem is, what you're arguing about with such zeal and indignation is, bluntly, a whole other article and has nothing to do with what this one was about.
Second, if you think most people buy top end computers and upgrade it annually, you're wrong. Most hardcore gamers, maybe. Most people? Not even slightly.
Third, if you think most people know how to improve performance and adjust settings to get it right, again, you're wrong. Most people install the game and if it does not work, they move on or get very annoyed. Again, hardcore gamers are not "most people" and that includes those 11 million who play WoW. Again, if you read the article, I mentioned this as well.
Every MMO has churn and over time, most every MMO loses players. Someone who quits after years or months because they are spending too much time was not even remotely close to the point of what this article was about. I was talking about people who either A) don't buy the game at all, or B) quit after playing for a very short period of time because they cannot run it properly. Churn is a subject for another day.
interesting note:
my 3 year old laptop can run City of Heroes, Guild Wars, and LoTRO with max settings smooth as butter in the low population areas, and if i dile down to low i can raid. Really that's how most MMOS should be.
And you probably just named the three most successful AAA MMOs since WoW (well, if you count CoH as CoV, at least...)
yep you said the magic word
SHOULD BE
And you probably just named the three most successful AAA MMOs since WoW (well, if you count CoH as CoV, at least...)
Some time ago they merged CoV into CoH some one gave acess to both sides. Reguardless i already bought CoV before that so it's moot to me.
I very much agree with the writer of this article. Developers should target their games to run well on whatever PC makers are selling as their entry elevel system when they start develeping thir game. That way when the game is ready a lot of your potential customers will most likely have the min specs or better.
Wow, 1500-2000 for a PC? Then upgrade each year? Ummmmm, no. That kind of reasoning is exactly what the article speaks of. A very small group does what you're talking about and If Developers continue to use that model they will continue to have issues.
Also, using Crysis as a bar is not too different from using WoW et al for comparison. Since 2007 Crysis has sold 1.5 million copies worldwide and currently has about 300-500k active players. Half life 2 has more than 6.5 million copies sold and currently enjoys more than triple the active players. And the 6.5 million is only retail. there are no numbers on copies sold via steam but mid 2008 the steam sales surpassed retail sales.
Don't get me wrong, Crysis is a very pretty game but much like WoW to AOC its no HL2. Both WoW and HL2 are from 2004 and more people still play those two than any of the newer games with better graphics so either the games themselves are just that much better(possible) or the system requirements are too high for many whou would like to try it. (also possible) You can't just dismiss his article with a wall of text because you believe differently and want to get your Ideas out there, mmorpg.com is always looking for correspondants, toss your hat into the ring and step up.
Its easy to throw out your information as gospel, but its far from accurate as well, to say the largest gaming group is Under 14 or over 21. Don't really leave many people out there do you? How may of those under 14s are buying that 1500 rig and upgrading each year btw? Just for example, as a gamer, I built my system for far less than 1500 and planned for the future when it comes to specs. And who the heck PAYS for virus scan/subscription as a gamer in 'almost 2010' when those same google searches lead to better, free AV programs.
Another interesting note:
My laptop which cost me like 2k 3 years ago is rougly a $600 system in today's market so testing the low end isnt hard. Devs just need to hit Dell and grab a entry level laptop with a dedicated GPU. If they can run their game on medium on that they pretymuch can hit any market. Or buy a 2k laptop at the preproduction stage, by the time you go live in a couple years that top of the line system will be about equal to your entry level. And the bonus is you can design the game from the ground up based on the reference pc
Wow, 1500-2000 for a PC? Then upgrade each year? Ummmmm, no. That kind of reasoning is exactly what the article speaks of. A very small group does what you're talking about and If Developers continue to use that model they will continue to have issues.
Also, using Crysis as a bar is not too different from using WoW et al for comparison. Since 2007 Crysis has sold 1.5 million copies worldwide and currently has about 300-500k active players. Half life 2 has more than 6.5 million copies sold and currently enjoys more than triple the active players. And the 6.5 million is only retail. there are no numbers on copies sold via steam but mid 2008 the steam sales surpassed retail sales.
Don't get me wrong, Crysis is a very pretty game but much like WoW to AOC its no HL2. Both WoW and HL2 are from 2004 and more people still play those two than any of the newer games with better graphics so either the games themselves are just that much better(possible) or the system requirements are too high for many whou would like to try it. (also possible) You can't just dismiss his article with a wall of text because you believe differently and want to get your Ideas out there, mmorpg.com is always looking for correspondants, toss your hat into the ring and step up.
Its easy to throw out your information as gospel, but its far from accurate as well, to say the largest gaming group is Under 14 or over 21. Don't really leave many people out there do you? How may of those under 14s are buying that 1500 rig and upgrading each year btw? Just for example, as a gamer, I built my system for far less than 1500 and planned for the future when it comes to specs. And who the heck PAYS for virus scan/subscription as a gamer in 'almost 2010' when those same google searches lead to better, free AV programs.
yep
computer have quad core,they have sli or ati version
3 x 1tb drive
yep its true they exist
but i and the money cow wow milk isnt the high end system
its the regular joe who probably have spent money on computer 2 years before wow went live and never upgraded anything beside trade screen for another one for 35 $ at flee market
game maker always assume people will keep comp up to date
we dont need to
why update comp vista suck everybody knows this
hell people go trough hell to stick with xp pro lol
it run on almost anything
yep window 7 is coming out
big deal
gamers dont need it ,and if game maker force player to choose like a lot arebent on doing
only a bunch will win,gw or gw2 ,blizzard and most of the f2p game
theres plenty of proof its like that and have been for years
silkroad online is big
wow is big
all the low comp req game in p2p or f2p are big
the only game that dont go as high as maker thot are game not suporting system older then 3 years
and im sorry but thats where the huge money making start to be 3 years and older
yes you can support directx 10.1 etc
but you better have auto-detect to support very old comp because in the end whatever maker do player wins anyway they just go to another game playable on their old system
Hate to break it to you, but your overlooking two other MAJOR fundamentals in any industry.
1st and foremost, the first, or the first with good advertising. Generally speaking, the first product out to any new market wins or has a very good chance at winning. Yes, there were others before WoW, but they were built on stand alone ideas. WoW came along and already had a larger player base since its WC series. If you were to double back to before WoW and have LucasArts release a MMO similar to Eve and based on its X-Wing/Tie Fighter series, I bet you we would have another top dog atm.
2nd, the big attraction with F2P, especially in light of todays economic times, is the premise that it is FREE, unless you want the enhanced stuff. As with any business, any person in marketing can tell you, when you say free, people come. Give away a free hat at a political debate in Alaska over the growing of oranges in Greenland and people will show up until you run out of hats.
Aside from that, I recently tried the AoC trial for the hell of it and loaded it onto 3 systems to try it out. My main rig Quadcore 2.3 4gb ram, 2x NVidia 9600GT. My 4 year old rig, an AMDx2 3600 (I think) with 1 gb ram and an older 512MB ATI Saphire card. And a piece of garbage laptop ($500 laptop she paid twice that for) my wife got ripped off while buying at The Source (1.7ghz, 1gb ram, 256 shared video). AoC worked on all 3 machines, still didn't like the game, but it worked. It did take far to long to download and install, and waiting for it to check all the files everytime I load it up was annoying as hell.
The F2Ps leave much to be desired though, I like story and coherency, a lot of F2Ps lack this. So, I'll go back to my Lifetime subscription with LOTRO (played over 2 years now on 1 low (for the industry) payment). Free Trial, mid range system specs, good graphics, excellent storyline, few major issues, no WoW kiddies.
On another note, you also have to remember most people don't clear up their TSRs, startup programs, and whatever else comes pre-installed on a computer. McAfee and Norton are the first thing any gamer uninstalls (if they don't do a clean install), these useless virus scanners / security packages clog up your system resources, your network connections, hell, they even slow down your email. SCRAP EM, install AVG or Avast, must lower overhead, still good protection.
Then, go start->run->msconfig. Head over to the startup tab and uncheck practically everything except your antivirus, all these take up ram, especially on older machines. Now head over to add/remove programs and remove all the shit you don't need anymore, all those stupid little toolbars, Apple's Safari that forces itself upon you with every attempt to update itunes, and whatever other tripe that you don't recognize. Restart the computer, run a defrag overnight and try playing a real game now. You'll be amazed at how much of a difference that can make to the average computer with the average user.
Most of these F2P players don't actually know how to use a computer or how to get the most of their computer, they have come to believe that bloatware is normal. Those of us that remember how to change our config.sys and autoexec.bat when we only had so much ram to work with, are much better off with our knowledge of what kind of shit can end up in there.
The only problem is people will haveto get 7 (or 8, 9, w/e) eventually. This obsession with XP will not last. Microsoft already scaled back support for XP, by 2014 they will cut off suport completly. Seriously people are clinging to XP like it's Windows 3.1 and like 3.1 eventually its going to run out of support. Then what are you going to do? Release a mmo that runs on a OS that is no longer being patched for security holes?
Something else I just thought of. Plenty of players would go for gameplay>graphics, but doesn't anyone think that graphics are a major form of immersion? I mean, if everyone could afford the greatest computers to run the greatest graphics, they would. No reason to run lower graphics settings on a computer that can run the good stuff, right? Many players would prefer good graphics if there were no roadblocks because better graphics make for better immersion into whatever games you are playing.
Just the other side of the coin, I guess. If everyone could afford the best computers, then there probably wouldn't be as many people worrying about poly counts and shaders, perhaps.
The only problem is people will haveto get 7 (or 8, 9, w/e) eventually. This obsession with XP will not last. Microsoft already scaled back support for XP, by 2014 they will cut off suport completly. Seriously people are clinging to XP like it's Windows 3.1 and like 3.1 eventually its going to run out of support. Then what are you going to do? Release a mmo that runs on a OS that is no longer being patched for security holes?
2014 is in 5 years even aion will almost be dead in 2014 lol
Dana and gamers are missing the larger picture why F2P is on the raise.
The economy is in a recession.
The same people that played P2P a few years ago are out of a job now.
Unemployed gamers cannot spend $15/month anymore.
F2P MMORPGs are the most economic way to play games these days.
yep if i could buy an alienware computer i would since i cant like almost every gamer
i got to find what game i can use
2014 is in 5 years even aion will almost be dead in 2014 lol
so it's better to run a half dead OS now instead of getting a freshly cleaned one?
As i said XP support was already scaled back. But their going cold turkey in 2014
This is hardly a thunderbolt of clarity, people have been saying that lower system requirements for games is the path to success for a very long time in PC gaming and those people are now starting to enjoy the fruits of their apparently correct theory. (W101, Free realms...)
Not only have far to many MMO devs stuck with the traditional grind / level / raid formula but almost all of them went with the never ending escalating graphic requirements and it's one of the main reasons it killed so many MMO's in the last 4 or 5 years. They ran like SHIT at launch. Lump that with "been there, done that" gameplay and you have a long string of crashed, dead and empty MMO servers.
Nice to see an article on this topic. I have been pointing this out for years and have had dicussions on several forrums and this basic concept seems to escape so many.
That must be why WoW players smell like cabbage
Fortunately I upgrade my PC regularly, and keep my hardware current so I can play whatever game I want. It is like having your car serviced regularly, or keeping proper maintenance on your house to make sure they last as long as possible.
It is just a console mentality to buy a pc and expect it to be able to play current games in 5 years time.
F2P has been doing better than subscription MMOs since 2005. The economy has only been in the toilet for a year.
expecting a 2000 investment to play stuff 5 years down the line, yes.
Destroy it? No.
You don't buy a new car every year and replace the engin block (cpu/gpu), drive train (motherboard), or stereo (optical drive) every year, joe average doesn't do the same with his pc.
The average people won't change their computer, because they don't know anything about motherboards, processors or videocards. They buy something and want to use it until it's working.
Gamers are an other category. I want to upgrade for years - but I don't have any money for it, and my salary is way too small for saving up for a new one.
That is good for you that you keep your machine upgraded with all the bells and whistles. You are how ever in a minority when it comes to the general population. This is not the 90's anymore, majority of people gaming to day on a PC are doing so on a mediocre machine. It is the archaic metality of the late 90's to push your machine hard thats killing the industry.
Look at the three most successfull P2P MMO's right now. WoW, Eve, LoTRO what sets them appart is scalable graphics engine that will run on a walmart special pc(and still look good) and will look great with all the settings turned up on a hard core gamers machine. What else sets thease same three MMO's appart form the rest? While all the other competition is losing there player base thease guys just keep growing. They completely blow the "games get old and die" theory out of the water. Poorly managed games die after three to four years.
Doh, you left a huge hole in your argument. The two most popular f2p MMO's Atlantica Online and Runes of Magic both have relatively higher computer requirements than the subscription games.
There goes your theory down the drain, but I will agree high graphics requirements can hurt a game faster than anything. EQ2 stumbled out of the gate because Wow's computer requirements were far lower than it. Both AoC and War both have graphics issues and it was a big reason for the less than successful launch of Vanguard
F2P has been doing better than subscription MMOs since 2005. The economy has only been in the toilet for a year.
Sorry Dana, but that is flat out nonsense, at best f2p have been doing better for the last couple years. You have a short memory
F2p games are doing better for one simple reason...they are making better quality f2p games than most of the subscription based shit that is offered these days. Take a look at Perfect World..it is insanely fun, looks good on even a e-machine and has an awesome community that is very remincent of FFXI community. I buy a 10.00 card every couple of months and I am swiming in gear and loot....why should I spend 15 a month for broken ugly non fun crap. or even a fun game that openly harbors a cesspool community? Sorry no one but no one gets my money these days unles they work their asses off for it and PW does that.....and more and more gamers are starting to feel the way I do, that is why F2p games are on the rise.
Runes of Magic - Client
Description:
Download size: 3,4GB
Minimum system requirements
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2.0 GHz or equivalent
RAM: 512MB
Required Harddisk space: 3.8GB
Graphics card: DirectX 9.0c compatible with 128MB RAM
Broadband Internet connection
Keyboard and Mouse
Atlantica Online
Minimum system requirements
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 1.0 GHz or equivalent
RAM: 512MB
Required Harddisk space: 5GB
Graphics card: DirectX 9.0c compatible with 64MB RAM
I would hardly say that blows my theory out of the water if anything it proves it
i fully support this
when the f2p=p2p
f2p will win my heart every time
like you say mmo f2p improved greatly inthe last decade
so much that if you see a game at ebgame
often your wife will say i saw = quality at mmosite or mmorpg in f2p microtransaction
so you will have a very hard time convincing you better half to let you spend 100 $ on a p2p game espcially
when she opens the wardrobe and show you all the game you baugh last years that are sleeping in boxes
I think this article is spot on.
Let's be real, most of the people that even log onto forums or websites like this are not the majority of the players.
I play WoW on a PC I bought in 2001, and it was pretty low end then. My son played WoW on a PC only slightly better until I bought him a newer PC for Christmas. Most of the people I've played WoW with from teenagers to grandparents have old PCs. Sure I've ran into a few people in my guild that have decent PCs, but most of the people in the world have old clunkers.
If you want to be a success, it can't just be in Europe or the States. It should be global and accessible to the average person. I think the average age in my guild is about 35, with the youngest being 17 and the oldest being in his early 60s.
When I played DDO or LOTRO, the average age was much younger. Whether thats due to requirements or not, I am not sure.
Blizzard has joked that WoW can be played on a toaster.
EQ2 came on 10 CDs at launch. 10!
Conan requires NASA to operate.
Atlantica and Runes of Magic are not in their league. Also, note other post with actual requirements.
Sorry Dana, but that is flat out nonsense, at best f2p have been doing better for the last couple years. You have a short memory
Two years still longer than the economy has been in the toilet.
And again, the last subscription MMO to be truly "successful" was WoW. LotRO, while generally well regarded, didn't get the crazy numbers the IP indicated it would. Whereas quite a few importing companies continue to make sand castles out of money, especially if you take a global perspective.
So, no, not nonsense at all.
I can mostly agree here...except for a couple things.
Sure, it might be easier to market pretty graphics, but it's also a much heavier load on the development team, both pre-launch and post-launch, because an advanced graphics engine is always something a developer has to wrestle with. More work goes into developing the graphics rather than developing content, because it isn't as simple as designing for something like WoW.
You simply can't have a strong art direction with advanced graphics in an MMO, because, as they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. This has been said and proven many times over, with World of Warcraft, The Old Republic, Guild Wars, etc. Too much is needed with an advanced engine, and you have to choose between art and content. The downside to that is, in reality you don't really have a choice, because content has to come first.
In any case, this is an interesting topic namely because of the swarm of MMOs coming, and most of them can be logically expected to have high system requirements. People have been playing MMOs for years on their old computers, and those very same people are being asked to upgrade by the developers of these new games. Let's see how many actually do, instead of just sticking with that they have.
I agree that an advanced graphics engine isn't an "easy" thing to work with. I just think that it has a "manual" or guidebook from which to operate and is very much like the guided content being used in MMOs today. On the other side, coming up with well thought out new takes on other MMO game mechanics/systems and plausibly integrating them so that the crafter and adventurer, the soloer and the raider or the time abundant and the time restricted gamer all feel needed, rewarded...well, that just seems to be something devolpers don't care to think about, much less put into practice. Nah, just put a glossy shine on it, grab your quick cash and start work on the next eye candy making promises that it'll be "different".
Hmm..You are stating the rather obvious in your article, the most talked about subject in years now.. Everyone into MMO's knows about this so you have hardly found something revolotionary in your article. Good reading nevertheless :)
Personally I think it's a sad but true development in the MMORPG scene, how is MMORPG's going to evolve to the latest if developers use graphics that is 5 years old just to be successful.
/junker
oh my gawd.. every week yours articless are worse than one before.. and since one before was already terrible, you get my drift how bad and how much nonsense is in this one..
system requirements? CHRIST what exactly you been smoking , and in which century are you living ,
do you look at those 3 mln registered at xxx f2p game. and consider thats success? from 3mln, there is 300k active. .from 300k active there are 50k who buys items, from 50k there are 500 who buys items every week.. or even less
its not system requirements, that made what wow is now..
now eq2 didnt had chances not cuz of high spec needed, wow had high specs needed at a time too.. i bought top end ( best you could buy ) like 6-8 months before wow released,it would ran wow on 20-30 fps on med/high , with every patch it would go down, in tbc it was already 15-20 fps.. it would been probably 10 with wotlk
it was wow polish and content , and regular updates, you know few years ago i felt like checking eq2.. then i saw list of all expansions and adventure packs ( before they started selling them together ) there were so many. and all of them had full price..
i launched eq2 trial week ago, god how terrible it looks.. character models maybe have more details, but everything rest.. felt like playing doom back in 1995..
aoc didnt fail cuz of high requirements.. its still ? second best selling mmo ( atleast were in the start, and seems like its on the rise again now, according to some posts )
do you actually know what kinda pc you need to run wow at max, and 60+ fps while in raids.. yup.. high end CURRENT HIGH END
aoc with shader model 2 can be run on weaker pc that you need for wow..
wow didnt had its sucess cuz of low requiremnts.. it had due accessibility and polished game, there were so many betas, both closed and open, for wow.. everyone could try, after trying we all wanted to play it.. it was sold in every third world country that didnt knew there are such things as non pirated games..
and constant updates kept ppl playing
poor war performance, while been one of points why war failed, it wasnt main reason, to me main reason was that it had terrible low server caps, and world that felt nothing like world i want to play in... it felt like there are 3 islands..all of them divided into 3 zones.. terrible
why do we have casual propoganda posts in hc gaming forums? tell me how many casual gamers we have here.. ill tell you very few, tell me how many hc gamers hate casual games and gamers .. 90%
im not exactly sure why mmorpg.com felt like they needed all those new ppl write collums every week.. there havent been single good one.. whats next week,
PAINTING MMO WHY NOT ? oh that already was there in a way OK SINGING MMO , ROCKBAND ONLINE MMORPG go , i bet you would love it..
Theres been like 5 pay to play MMOs that have launched since 2004 that were able to hold 200,000 subscribers.
Before you calling other people statements nonsense perhaps you should do a little research.
Also, I would like to say that I am not suprised that so many in this topic completely missed the message from the article wtiter. The article simply states that newer MMOs keep chasing after better and better graphics while the player base stays the same.
A good graphics engine and good art director will do so much more for you than cutting edge graphics.
I am however surprised that no one has mentioned Aion. It runs incredibly well on a wide variety of machines and looks great.
I definately feel cloud computing is the way to go for MMORPGS, think about it, you could have crysis level of graphics with like 200v200 people on screen with 60 fps. And you could even play it on a shitty computer from the 90s.
The only thing holding it back is the shitty internet infrastructure in the US, bring it to us Swedes with our 100Mbit/s connection and we'll put it to good use :D
I agree with this article, and have a couple of comments:
People underestimate how much low system requirements counts. A lot of your potential audience is in that 13-23 bracket-- kids who depend on their parents to buy them hardware and young people in college or just getting started who don't have a lot of extra cash lying around. Then there are people (even older ones, like me) who don't feel like playing games is a good enough reason to buy new hardware when the old machine is still chugging along. I know at least one person who plays MapleStory because she's an insomniac and wanted something she could play on her netbook in bed when she wasn't sleeping.
WoW runs like a dream on the computer I bought in 2001 (and even more so since I made a few minor upgrades). That counts for something with me.
Also, it seems that a lot of p2p companies make it a pain in the butt to download their client. Some put it right out in front where it is easy to get to, but others seem to deliberately hide it. Some won't let you download until you pay. (For instance, if you want to d/l an SOE game with Station Launcher...) I'll buy your game. I'll pay your subscription fee. Just make it easy for me to get the client! Most f2p games have giant "DOWNLOAD NOW" buttons right on their home page.
Exactly, well said and direct. It all comes down to how well the game is developed. People like Massey killing this industry for sayign things like this post and not knowing shit.
Yes! there are players with bad computers.
Yes! there are players with awsome ones.
As time passes by people demand more! more graphics more items more FUN! It is not easy making a verry complex mmo and just cuz its complex does not mean it will be a hit. Its a work in progress i know more than as you say "12" people who have good computers and will laugh at you if you think they will go play somethign as cheap as 12 sky...Right....
KNOW YOUR PLACE MASSEY, SIT DOWN AND BE A GOOD CUAYET BOY!
lol if you did research a bit more you would find that the chance of meeting someone with a brand new computer are very slim and the older comp range get the more people you ll meet to i ll guess here about 5 or 6 years then after that it diminish fast
but from say aa 6 years old to 3 years old computer its a bigger market the 3 years old comp to 3 months old comps
lets forget all the bable
enter www.xfire.com
click on the stream feed then choose mmo from the top games are old its not just luck
lol people choose to play those
why dont they play lotr its cheapper then wow
only one reason possible system req
some people can barelly play wow on their computer
Well yeah, since F2P requires people to get the client easy. I have no issues about SoE "hiding" their client, or any other developer for that matter.
Regarding System specs - I do not personally believe it to be an issue. Recession or not. World of Warcraft has introduced alot of people to MMOGs, and some of them are running it off Toasters. But newer computers will have DX10 support (Unless it's the cheapest laptop around) out of the box so I would not consider it an issue to code with that in mind. I haven't upgraded my machine in years since there's no reason to!
Where I personally think "newly" released MMOG's fail has been content, or lack thereoff. Sadly I personally believe WoW has ruined the genre some, and people expect newly released MMOGs to have tons of content, something that is unrealistic given the products development phase and the heavy breathing from the board of directors as the product nears Gold status. Vanguard and Age of Conan springs to mind regarding this since they were both games that showed alot of potential, but failed to provide it in a timely manner.
Its really simple to upgrade your computer cheaply.
60$ buys you 4 gig of ram. You dont need more than 4 gig of ram...
59$ buys you an athlon x2 5400
99$ ASRock A780GXH/128M AM2+/AM2 AMD 780G HDMI ATX
RAM
I am sure most of you fall under the, I neeed more RAM category. YOU do not need more than 4 gig of ddr2 800. This is cheap shit. Out of the entire year,, buy one less game. That one game you didnt buy just got you 4 gig of ram.
VIDEO CARD
SAPPHIRE 100245L Radeon HD 4850 512MB will do wonders. This costs 99$. Im sure a lot of you will be able ti replace your RAM and video card and then play any game on the market at a decent resolution with decent frames per sec. Buying this will cost you two games.
So for the cost of not buying 3 games this year, you have a decent rig. OH noes three fucking games. I am sure some of you can simply add RAM and others simply a video card. I am sure some of you will have to buy RAM, a MOBO, a video card, and a CPU, which can be had for under the cost of a PS3. So dont buy that paper weight PS3 and upgrade your PC.
If you dont know how to upgrade your PC, purchase the board game Operation and practice for a few hours, then grab your little brothers fit the triangle in the fucking triangle slot game and the square in the fucking square slot, then practice for a few hours. Now you can successfully upgrade your own computer. Oh, and dont forget to unplug the fucking thing, I dont want to be the cause of any electro-shock therapy...
In 2005, gamers were still praising how great World of Warcraft which was released in 2004.
It's only recently F2P has gained ground.
There are a few factors that has lead to the raise of F2P:
Economy: I would argue this is the number one factor. With people losing their jobs nobody can afford to spend $15/month or over $1000 for a new computer and upgrades.
Disappointing Releases: Five years ago gamers were all hyped up on P2P games like Warhammer, Darkfall, Tabula Rasa. When these titles were released fans were disappointed they didn't get want was advertised.
Improved F2P: F2P has slowly gotten better with gameplay and graphics.
I understand that there are some hardcore gamers who lives with their benefices, but spending $218 is not cheap for the average person - especially when you have to spent it between food and bills.
I can mostly agree here...except for a couple things.
Sure, it might be easier to market pretty graphics, but it's also a much heavier load on the development team, both pre-launch and post-launch, because an advanced graphics engine is always something a developer has to wrestle with. More work goes into developing the graphics rather than developing content, because it isn't as simple as designing for something like WoW.
You simply can't have a strong art direction with advanced graphics in an MMO, because, as they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. This has been said and proven many times over, with World of Warcraft, The Old Republic, Guild Wars, etc. Too much is needed with an advanced engine, and you have to choose between art and content. The downside to that is, in reality you don't really have a choice, because content has to come first.
In any case, this is an interesting topic namely because of the swarm of MMOs coming, and most of them can be logically expected to have high system requirements. People have been playing MMOs for years on their old computers, and those very same people are being asked to upgrade by the developers of these new games. Let's see how many actually do, instead of just sticking with that they have.
I agree that an advanced graphics engine isn't an "easy" thing to work with. I just think that it has a "manual" or guidebook from which to operate and is very much like the guided content being used in MMOs today. On the other side, coming up with well thought out new takes on other MMO game mechanics/systems and plausibly integrating them so that the crafter and adventurer, the soloer and the raider or the time abundant and the time restricted gamer all feel needed, rewarded...well, that just seems to be something devolpers don't care to think about, much less put into practice. Nah, just put a glossy shine on it, grab your quick cash and start work on the next eye candy making promises that it'll be "different".
2 game spoiled us when it to come setting up your machine
wow wich ran on anything out of the box
and the even worst one
guild wars it came with a in gmae program from the factory to automaticly adjust all setting for best game play
and add to that point that ncsoft got rid of fraps issue(lineage 2 anybody)by adding, in the game again
their own fraps system wich even today havent been beaten in term of quality
so when player say oh tweak this ,tweak that etc
most average joe left when you said tweak
hell even ventrilo in wow used to be popular
we dont bother anymore
if a group say need vent we just skip to player who use the wow chat system
that should give you a pretty good picture of how spoiled gamer have become
me the first
I think you missed the point. One on this forum your preaching to the quire, i am sure 90% of the people who read this forum already know these things and a lot more. Two the whole point of the topic is about good biz practices and how it relates to the consumer in general population and there average type of machine. The ones that are showing success are the ones who are going for the large numbers and not a target niche group. There targeting people who don't fall in the category of wanting to spend the cost of three games. They just want to download it and play it with no hastle, socialize and have a little adventure or get there rocks off killing a few people in game. Games that cater to these people are going to win the ones who don't are obviosuly failing.
I think you missed the point. One on this forum your preaching to the quire, i am sure 90% of the people who read this forum already know these things and a lot more. Two the whole point of the topic is about good biz practices and how it relates to the consumer in general population and there average type of machine. The ones that are showing success are the ones who are going for the large numbers and not a target niche group. There targeting people who don't fall in the category of wanting to spend the cost of three games. They just want to download it and play it with no hastle, socialize and have a little adventure or get there rocks off killing a few people in game. Games that cater to these people are going to win the ones who don't are obviosuly failing.
yep your absolutly right
check free realm work on browser lol
automatic succes 3.5 million play this game
simple you can loose 15 min easy no drama because you missed the 6.30 raid that last 4 hour minimum
and its so various it please to a big crowd
yes its a bit famly oriented
The average adult could easly spend 200 USD. or save it up within three months. No one has that tight budgets in the real world.
The average adult could easly spend 200 USD. or save it up within three months. No one has that tight budgets in the real world.
men i wish i was you i bet you dont have kids right
This article discusses a good point, but there are many, many factors that make a succesful mmo. WoW was accessible in another way, the gameplay. And there are many other things that made WoW the most succesful MMO ever. But I think it succeeded for one reason and one reason only: it's a damn good game. The whole package was good. It performed well, gameplay was easy to get into but still had challenges, the world was very coherent, it was fairly polished (compared to most MMO launches), etc.
Companies need to work on making good games, not trying to focus on one little thing that they think will win over customers. The complete package must be made. Unfortunately, to get a game on the same level as WoW would require a lot of resources, something many development teams don't have.
Simplicity is also a good idea. Your average gamer has no idea what a pixel shader is, let alone what 2.0 vs. 3.0 vs. whatever else is out there now (stopped caring about this stuff awhile ago). They want simple settings that are easy to figure out.
Then again, you CAN also target the niche markets and do very well. Look at EVE, it continues to grow because it serves its niche very well. It's a good game though not quite as polished as WoW is, and thus, continues to be succesful and has only really started becoming very big recently because they've fixed a ton of things wrong with the game and made a big marketing push with Apocrypha.
yep and the only game that might be starting to scare blizzard right now is even for me a huge surprise
freerealm 3 million sub in 2 month not a lot of brand new game can brag about that even wow didnt have that many in 2 months so for soe its a huge succes
f2p was always hard to get american player to play
i think its probably the only f2p that can brag about having succes in america
Pretty sure none of those components will fit in my laptop.
No, laptop gaming is the wave of the future, step way from your desktop and set yourself free.
Hardcore gamer? Ahh the age old moronic reply of " you must live with your parents if you can afford 218$!!! ". If you can not afford to spend 218$ every 2 years to play PC games, then go buy a used super nintendo...
Hardcore gamer? Ahh the age old moronic reply of " you must live with your parents if you can afford 218$!!! ". If you can not afford to spend 218$ every 2 years to play PC games, then go buy a used super nintendo...
why would we do that wow is still nice,gw is nice too f2p is getting mature
so all of us with 2003 computer can still have fun in pc gaming
Pretty sure none of those components will fit in my laptop.
No, laptop gaming is the wave of the future, step way from your desktop and set yourself free.
In my opinion laptop gaming is a joke. Do what I do, sit on your couch and play on your 47 inch lcd at 1080p. I have a lap board that holds my keyboard and mouse and its so comfy sitting on the couch. Small fonts can be a problem tho. I easily do this on a 1000$ machine that I built almost a year ago.
Also, your a bit wrong about the lap top...
G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 200-Pin DDR2 SO-DIMM DDR2 800 47$ This laptop ram was cheaper than my RAM
Obviously, I dont know the specs of your laptop. I dont know what RAM you have in it nor what its compatible with, but I suggest you find out and if you have 2 gig of ram replace it with 4...
I don't really think you can say system requirements are the reason some mmo's are successful and others aren't. Aside from AoC and EQ2, no mmo has ever been considered graphically equivalent to single player PC or console titles of the same vintage.
System requirements are partially responsible for Blizzard's massive audience, but a huge marketing budget and timing/word of mouth play an equal if not greater part.
Frankly, PC games are still a technologist's hobby. People that are uncomfortable swapping out a video card or a stick of ram should really stick to Bejeweled or the Wii. The days of 'plug and play' PC gaming are a long way off, if they ever arrive. The only thing that might change this are these horrible cloud computing services currently in development.
There is not so mush to say about this topic, only:
"/agree"
The computer I play on was absolute top-of-the-line in late 2006, early 2007. Since it was assembled, I've replaced 2 hard drives, 2 video cards, and memory. I had a lot more disposable income when I assembled it. I credit the power supply and motherboard for its longevity. If the motherboard, processor, or memory dies, it's more cost effective for me to buy a whole new rig. But until then, and since I have things like rent to deal with now, I have ZERO intention of buying any upgrades unless a part fails.
The 20" monitor I'm using currently is failing. It was purchased for $400 initially. Yesterday I ordered a 23" LCD for $160. If the "mid range" $150-200 video card I bought last year fails, I imagine I'll be buying a $40-70 one. Why?
Real life. Having to spend money on stuff other than hardware upgrades. And because the $40 video card today will run every MMORPG on medium settings and every first person shooter available on low settings. For online first person shooters, those in the know keep their graphics settings low for a competitive advantage. For MMO's... well, how much do you really pay attention to graphics?
I had my wife initially playing World of Warcraft on a 1.5-2 year old laptop with integrated graphics (She also played Sims 2 on this laptop). Later on we purchased a 19" LCD and a $230 desktop that had 2GB of memory and a PCI express slot. I had a spare video card that I bought 3 years prior for $50 and installed in her desktop. She has played Sims 3 and WotLK on this computer since.
I have 2 stepchildren. One of them has a desktop with integrated graphics and plays Team Fortress 2 regularly and doesn't complain about it. The other used to have a P4-based Celeron laptop with integrated graphics and played Runescape and World of Warcraft with it.
All in all, there are 6 computers between us, 3 of which are laptops, and 4 of the 6 computers have integrated graphics. And if you think people don't use integrated graphics to play video games, you should probably do a little research.
I'd like to think my family is more typical of MMO gamers than some of the people posting in this forum (especially the ones who think spending $800-1500 on a desktop computer, and upgrading every 6 months to a year, is normal). I don't foresee any of us playing any MMO, F2P or P2P, if it doesn't run on our current hardware. And that's the bottom line.
First of all i would argue that F2P is NOT a succesful genre outside of Korea who i believe started it all.I am talking F2P with item amll not an actual f2p game.
Secondly i have mentioned this SEVERAL times,WOW has NOTHING to do with specs.If Blizzard was truly after a game that ran on everything,they would have went after the Playstation market,since at the time it was the biggest gaming platform on the planet and they chose not to.That right there is proof enough specs had NOTHING to do with their planning,oh unless they decided they did not need that extra cash or the largest market to draw from....ya right.
Truth of the matter is that Vivendi was hurting for cash,this is why to this day Blizzard is still using an ancient game engine,they are a cheap developer who is afraid of taking chances or advancing technology because of the cost involved.I am sure Blizzard has the cash flow now to move on or advance,but they will milk that ancient cost efficient tech for as long as the suckers are willing to pay for it.
Back to the F2P issue,it has NEVER been a factor or mentioned in the north american market until the recent spam of F2P junk hitting the market everywhere.Most of these games are VERY old tech that would have no chance to charge an up front cost,they are in fact older games that have failed once and are tryin a go at it again as a f2p model.The F2P model is being spammed on every site so much that it is being shoved down our throats.
I do not think for one minute that the people with cash and are willing to P2P want anything to do with F2P.The mere fact that ANYONE can make players over and over is a PERFECT setup for RMT and troublew makers,because they have NOTHING to fear frlm losing a player,F2P will ALWAYS be a bad idea for gaming.
That's nice. But I'm not living in the US; I'm in Hungary. I can't buy that motherboard/CPU/VGA for that price, it's closer to the reality with a 1,5-2 multiplier. Plus I don't have that money. (currently if something will die in my computer I can't replace it...)
dude, i loved every single thing u said, that's all i'll say
let me be blunt ,if guild wars could do all they did 4 years ago and have it all plug and play
i dont know why anybody couldnt do it 4 years later
are you saying game designer and computer maker are regressing (becoming retarded)
Haven't read the comments but have to say that even though I don't play WoW that I appreciated how easy it was to play on my computer. When I first started, I actually had a computer below specs but was still able to play reasonably. Graphics are actually not high on my list. I love WoW graphics. I just want a good game but too often in past year there has been cause for me to think (next computer is somewhere between a year and 6 months away) that I don't know if I will ever try the game if I find something else accessible and fun.
lol p2p for average game maker is a dying way of doing business in pcmmo
solo would probably sell but mmo is just too competitive
everyone of p2p dream of the money wow make now
but dont forget when wow went online it was a wreck
but lucky them wow saved them
but now another issue point and it the huge lost of money from activision
and blizzard can just hope for better days
nobody really knows what the futur mmo way of paying for it
but one thing is sure ,player arent buying p2p as they used to and tends to go f2p route
is it the futur? nobody know
Interesting read. While I personally don't think that hardware specifics make or break it ones MMO experience since most die hard gamers such as myself invest in the next gen technology or as close as they can get it. They always have and always will. One can buy a really decent gaming rig for around $900 US ( and shopping around for parts subsequently less)
Here is something I found while surfing the web taken from the web site of Steam. "Each month, Steam collects data about what kinds of computer hardware our customers are using. The survey is incredibly helpful for us as game developers in that it ensures that we're making good decisions about what kinds of technology investments to make. Making these survey results public also allows people to compare their own current hardware setup to that of the community as a whole". Link store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ Their survey is very insightful as to what gaming rigs their average user has which is above average in system specs.
The whole free to play vs pay to play really does boil down to the economy. While the average Joe on the street has felt crunch ( since it was officially acknowledged) for roughly a year it has in fact been in a downward spiral since 2002. A bad economy doesn't happen over night for everyone but rather years. While new MMO's come and go the reason really boils down to in my view is what their paying customer base will put up with for the buck.
Excellent article. As much as I despise wow, I will give it credit in many places, and graphics is one of them. I'm not a big fan of the childish style of the game, but the actual graphics engine is freaking PERFECT.
^this^
I do not think that the majority of MMO games are well optimized. NCsoft in particular has shown me that you can "have it all" as long as the game has good optimization.
Having said that, I would love a good, new, isometric MMO. That's actually the perspective I'm most comfortable with (I don't come from a FPS background), and I think the decision to go isometric has huge advantages:
1) Developers can create worlds that have both a large size and a lot of detail if you go isometric...seamless too.
2) Developers can concentrate more on the content development side of things.
3) The game affords certain tactical advantages, and allows the player more control over the character.
The problem with F2P (not really the right term because most force you to pay to compete) and the reason I don't like them is because they favour the rich. If you are poor and cannot afford to sped hundreds a month in it, you will not be able to compete with the top players.
I agree with the O.P, and I'd like to add a few thoughts. Most of the subscription games lately seemed to view WoW as a cash cow. They seemed to try to copy and ship it ASAP to try to get their slice of the pie.
The problem? In short, they suck. You can tell they were thrown together or revamped half-way through development, or revamped after going live--all on the hurry-up offence plan--in an attempt to cash in on Blizzard's action.
Why didn't this work? WoW doesn't suck. What I mean is, it actually works. It wasn't built in a hurry, revamped halfway through development or, god-forbid, after it went live--a real kick in the groin to gamers. Because it doesn't suck, it's actually worth paying a subscription fee for.
Gamers aren't as stupid as some producers seem to think. We really don't want to pay for stuff that doesn't work, even if it happens to be not working on a PC.
This brings us full circle to the success of f2p games. If they suck, so what? It's free. Why not give it a try? If it's fun, great. If it doesn't draw me into some nasty RMT marketting scheme along the way. even better. The risks of this, if they exist, are still generally hidden so to speak.
I can login to a subscription based game right away and tell whether or not the game is functional. If it's not, forget about it. Even if a f2p game has some crazy RMT model (e.g. you can be a pet trainer for free, but actual pets will cost you extra...), it's going to take me a while to figure out what's going on. This is especially true, sadly, if the game is marketted to minors; and many of these are.
Personally, I think people will inevitably realize that some f2p games have user friendly business models, whereas others do not. It's going to take some time though. Once people figure this out, I expect the games with manipulative cash schemes to fizzle out, leaving only those who remain hooked on the experience, or continue to be unaware of the dynamics.
Whatever the model, my preference would simply be that MMO producers are up-front about the cost of playing the game, and that they actually work. I think people generally don't like paying for broken games, and I think tolerance for hidden fees is at an all-time low; once people recognize they are actually there.
This is the first time I've felt compelled to disagree with one of MMORPG.com's articles.
I am sorry to the guy who wrote this, but I think you've missed some very huge marks.
First off, anyone who is a traditional MMO player is not going to want to play many of the F2P games out there today. I have tried just about every one of them. And frankly, to me, they sucked. I could not get into any of them. The closest I came was with Runes of Magic. But the sound was bad. Really bad. And in spots, it wasn't even there. So I had to let it go.
Secondly, I might be stepping out on a very small limb here, but I think that most MMO gamers (I mean real MMO gamers, not WoW gamers) don't mind spending a little extra money here and there to upgrade their computers.
And lastly, I honestly do not want to play with someone who can't afford to get a nice computer. That might sound elitist, but I really don't care. I think it's time that the more mature gaming crowd start stomping its feet and making some noise. We are a market and we deserve the great games that are (dare I say it) hard to play. If that is elitist, then I'm damn proud to be one. And eventually, the children of today will grow up and they can be elitists too.
The games you're speaking of are games that I would bet can run on a console. Let developers start making console MMO's and then the subscribers to things like XBox Live can download those. But do not ruin the in depth games that I have grown to love. And do not take my beautiful graphics away either. I love stepping into a beautiful world that is using the nicest technology available.
I get the idea that the MMO gaming industry is about making money. But I also feel that there is a sweet spot of developers who also like doing it for other reasons as well.
I don't post in the forums on this website. To do so is a fruitless endeavor that will only result in flaming and/or circular arguments, terrible grammar, and all manner of other Internet attrocities.
But this article is so insanely fallacious, that I felt a post was necessary, regardless of the results. I sincerely hope Dana reads it, and I apologize in advance for any insults. Your article has incensed me.
You completely ignored a few crucial facts:
-What is the universe in which WoW is set? Why, the WARCRAFT universe. You know, the one created by Blizzard as an RTS, which continued on with three iterations, and a single expansion on the third? Yes, that one. Blizzard is also the creator of Starcraft, it's expansion, Starcraft: Broodwar, and (soon) Starcraft II. To add to this impressive list, we hav Diablo, and Diablo II, as well as Diablo II's expansion, and the upcoming Diablo 3. Now, Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 are irrelevant to the topic at hand, but I thought I'd mention them because I'm a fanboi, and I wnated to maybe kindle some interest (like any of you haven't already heard about them, anyway, eh?)
Now, I'm by no means a genius, but I'd say that a company with such adored titles as Warcraft (I, II, and III), as well as Starcraft (original, and it's expansion), would be exceptionally high in regards to visibility and vererability. Now, Blizzard then decides that it wants to create an MMO out of one of it's most successful "universes," Warcraft. Did anyone with even a slight modicum of intelligence actually expect WoW to fail? There's your reason for the success of WoW. If it didn't have such a massive PRE-EXISTING player/fan-base, then it would have been like any other MMO. But it does, and so it's not. Warcraft was/is even popular in the East. What other so-called "Western" MMO's, which had a preexisting fan-base in both regions due to massively popular games produced under 'X' title, do you know of that are massively popular in both the West and the East? Or, to even give you more room, what other games do you know of which meet the previously stated quota?
As far as the success of FTP games...well, that's rather obvious. I dislike WoW, though I recognize that it is a quality game, it's just not to my tastes, but even I've dabbled in Runes of Magic. And let us be honest, RoM is very nearly WoW in a yellow suit. I'd simply rather not pay for something that I can otherwise get for free. That's the reason FTP games are so egregiously popular. People can simply download the client, patch up, and hop in. No comitment required from your wallet. I don't feel guilty about not playing RoM for over a week because I'm not "wasting" my money on unutilized time. I enjoy being able to take a short stroll through the world and then log off at my leisure.
I don't understand why any of that wasn't immediately obvious to you, or anyone else. There were entecedent factors in place which allowed WoW to gain such a gargantuan player-base. FTP MMO's are attractive because they're free...
It's not because WoW is easy, though that may play a part. It's not the system requirements, though, to be redundant and annoying, that may play a small part. It's because Blizzard is known for making quality games, and many of us are extremely fond of the Warcraft title.
I view MMOs as a type of interactive artform. Stop suggesting that all MMOs be made to be simpleton's games. Stop suggesting that all MMOs be made to resemble a fourth-grade student's rendition of 'X.' You may enjoy the heavily exagerated, "cartoony" graphics of WoW, but I don't. I don't like the simplistic gameplay, and it saddens me that most MMOs have taken to this...direction, without considering all of the reasons WoW is so cursedly successful. Diversity is the key. Make all the WoW-clones you wish, but to even suggest that all MMOs should be the same level of difficulty and the same quality of graphics is, without doubt, the most foolish idea I've ever seen a sane person espousing on the Internet in all manner of sincerity.*
As an addendum, I'd also like to say that one can easily build a quality gaming rig for $600. I run Bioshock on full settings, and have no delay or lag. I can run Vanguard:SoH at full settings (wish shadows set to medium) at 40-50 FPS in moderately populated areas, Veskal's Exchange, for example.
AMD Phenom II x550 Callisto BE
4 gigs Kingston 800 DDR2
WD 500gb 7,200 RPM
ATI Radeon 4850 (512mb)
ASUS M4A78 Plus (I regret not purchasing an ACC enabled mobo for the extra cores [chance], but this one works perfectly. OCs well)
Win 7 64bit RC (excellent OS, btw)
Antec 300
Antec Earthwatts 650w PSU
Just under $600, and it runs everything I've thrown at it without issues. Also runs cool, and I haven't purchased an after-market coolers, except for a small tube of AS5 (about $7) to replace to thermal grease on the CPU and GPU.
*And I've been to Myspace forums.
Get a copy editor, Run this by someone who reads mmorpg making sure its not just fluff or mental masturbation. This is for your entertainment. Do you really think your telling someone reading mmorpg something they dont already know? By the way, Steam Sucks, Why Steam? Ever comb your registry after youve installed steam? After the HF code episode steam is the worste. F2P and P2P? Compare the top rated F2P (include micro's) and top P2P (subsription based). The top 2 and not one copy of another. That might be something we dont already know.
ok... what was the point is that?
That we need more crappy games.
Man tell me how 2 get ur article to EVERY game developer!?
ur dead right!--i loved your comments!-i do alot of beta testing-and i have a fairly good comp.-recently got a beta test of a subscription turning over the game to a f2p aspect with micro-payments. was REALLY looking 4ward 2 play!-but the downloader is so complicated and the info on the forums so technical,i gave up!
then they suggested to go and buy the game from store to get into closed beta test?
RIGHT!
if we could only get the developers to follow ur advice!
GREAT ARTICLE! please keep voicing logic to an illogical market!
Competition has many aspects. You pay either in time(hours and hours per day) or in money. Not everyone can afford the time that raiding takes. Just as not everyone can afford the money that some games take. Its up to the players to determine which type of game they prefer. Talent will only take one so far. Then the force multiplier kicks in. That may be time and/or money depending on the game. Bottom line, if you want to be competitive, its going to cost you.
This article, while making a slim point about accessibity, is complete bunk when it comes down to the facts. Just look at the comparisons. WoW doing well and AoC/WAR not because of graphics? Horse shit. There are so many grossly more important factors that AoC/WAR had wrong, and so much crap WoW has done to itself to pander to as many people as possible, that graphics are the LEAST of concerns. F2P games are still hardly "all the rage" being that they're still universally seen as a fairly terrible model by anyone interested in actually PLAYING the game or at least playing fairly. I've yet to see a quality game on a F2P budget either. Yeah, it's all the rage if you're counting accounts, but who's going to pass up free?
Sorry, but it really is the truth. F2P is popular because it's free and kiddos want free stuff, and companies want to exploit their fanbase for as much money as they can, and premium games have been failing because they've been uninspired copies or down right broken executions with no imagination.
Edit: Please, PLEASE don't even start with that "It's my money I can spend it how I want" "You're either spending money or time" BS. It's a completely fallacious argument for so many reasons and still doesn't address the problem of fair and equal play, it just sidesteps it.
People upgrade their computers, or buy new consoles, to experience the latest technology has to offer. Graphics = Immersion.
People who play a game like vanguard are looking for an immersive experience beyond the simplicity of leveling and looting, which is all F2P caters to.
If all games started being like WoW then there would be a huge void left for the more hardcore and mature crowd, people who have the money to invest in gaming.
Same story as always. The rich are evil and the poor deserve a free ride.
Sorry, I ain't buying it.
I enjoy my subscription games. For a lot of reasons too. Foremost, they mostly keep the kiddies out. They can't get their parents to give them their credit card numbers. I also enjoy a more "epic" game. One that takes loads of development. Not just a dry and treadmill type gameplay model with cheap low grade graphics. I want the best and I'm willing to PAY for it.
Look, I really have never considered WoW anything more than an anomaly in the MMO field. It's not normal. I also have a lot of trouble considering it a true MMO. I know, it fits the criteria, but I just never got the same feeling in it as games like Vanguard, EQ2, or even EQ. It's just too easy. I want that challenge. I want to be tested. And I want the danged best designers behind my game with their wit, creativity, and experience. I also want them to send me into a wonderfully layed out world with lots of beauty and inspiration. And I don't want them feeling like they "failed" because they don't match sub numbers of the WoW game. I really don't care for WoW and I think a lot of people feel the same. I'm not going to consider a designer a failure for not matching their stellar numbers.
I think you're going to find that most people who agree with you are a younger crowd. They're mad because (like I said) their parents won't give them their credit card. That and you're going to find very young adults who are just getting started financially. There is a more mature MMO crowd out here. We don't mind paying and subsequently demand a lot more out of our games. Likewise, we're not afraid to plop down the money to build or buy a nice computer.
We're not evil, we just are really into our hobby.
yep your absolutly right
people say this
i want for my moneys worth gees
i dont want to pay 125 $ for a capuccino
This article is truth.
soon you ll be able to lock level
so you ll be able to kill level 20 foe at level 1 if its your thing
best use i can see is lock it till all your quest are red then start questing and always lock it if quest arent red
EVE is the anti-thesis of everything WoW is in terms of accessibility, yet it only grows and grows with it's complexity.
There is a market for people seeking deep and involving games, and these people are generally willing to invest money in their hobby in the form of upgraded graphics.
You also forgot about getting right into buisness.
No one dosn't want to pay for a game that "might" get better, at level 30.
Most MMOs at level 1 you're taken through all these basic tutorials about how to kill target... so on, and then you're handed all these quests that are kill x number of things.
Sure you can do bombing runs off giant bats when you reach level 70, sure you can particiapate in hardcore territory battles at level 50, don't forget that end-game content at level 90!
But all this means nothing for somone that has only been playing the game for 10 days and just reached level 14.
Demos, Free Trials, Betas.... all of these things are what would turn a gamer on or off the game.
Sure you can hear lots of people talking about all these cool features a game has, or watch gameplay videos and see other people playing them.... but what good is it if YOU can't play them?
First impression is everything in this world, it be Movies, Games, People. If somthing dosn't get "intresting" after the first 30 mintues... then you're going to have to say bye bye to you're customers.
P.S Not all F2P graphics are cartoony, anime, or pixels. The upcoming Korean games just look amazing!
your right people pay everyday for various thing involving their game
gw player buy pvp kit
f2p player buy various item
wow sell cards that give ingame mount or bonus
and verious collector item from t-shirt to dwarf beer buck
but people rarelly pay for worthless item
You're pretty right, people don't want games with such a high quality they won't be able to run, but they don't want pieces of crap either.
My examples are Guild Wars and Aion, NCSoft has shown they have a good tradition of offering excelent graphics while greatly optimized. Funny thing is that I can run Aion on max settings with 40+ FPS while in WoW that would turn into 10~30 FPS. Miracle? No, just polishment.
It does not explain the way F2P and P2P MMOs are taking though, this is more due to an idea of freedom. You can play whatever F2P you want without feeling yourself bound to play it eternally. That is not the case with monthly fee MMOs, when you pay a monthly fee you are expecting to play that same game for 30 days (or more). Until P2Ps in the West start offering subscriptions in hours which you can spend whenever you want, competition among the same sub model will keep harming themselves. People want fun and flexibility.
You're wrong on the costs though, a F2P will cost much more for the average gamer than a P2P, with $15 you can barely do anything, these F2P games usually have items in the costs of $5~$10, and they are cassino-like, you will want to buy more and more. And I don't want to get the feeling I pay for randomly generated items instead of content and service maintenance. Still, you have the sense of flexibility, your money is bound to your character, not to a 30-day timeframe.
men your ps is a very welcome news ty
any exemple of title coming up per chance
High Requirements wont make an MMO unsuccesful. Granted if you wanted a larger playerbase, then yes, it would have a fairly large factor in it. A huge playerbase doesnt necessarily facilitate a "successful" MMO, as some fill small niche areas (ie: EVE is a really good example).
The most things that are breaking MMO's now is lack of polished content and game breaking bugs that are released. Investors have found that MMO's are the next big money maker, so theyll naturally invest in a studio, but then when theyre not getting ANY money back in the 3 years of development (sometimes less) they start to demand there money back. So then the studio has no other choice but to publish a non-polished, early to late beta version of the game and hope for the best (ie: Most MMO's published after WoW, prime example is Vanguard and AoC). Other companies publish a stable MMO but fail to listen to what the community wants, and fail to try and make logical compromises( ie: SWG and WAR).
F2P MMO's are like Diablo II, nice to play on the offtime, but most are not a very credible "timesink" to most people. And alot lack story and lore which are typical of Eastern/Asian MMO's. Western MMO's tend to focus around a pre-made lore IP and develop around that, which then tends to draw a much larger population to it.
Another focus of concern is sometimes too much is well...too much. Some MMO studios try to incorporate so many things into the game theyre making and the end-user gets so overwhelmed that they find no interest in the learning curve of the game. Not to mention this slew of features not only hinders performance, but incorporates an ASS ton of bugs that need to be squashed. Start out simple, and if the game is polished and well maintined, you can add these features in later so if there is a major bug in that feature, its easily handled and able to be fixed relatively quick.
These are just a few of my observations.
First, if a game is a slide show on your current system, how likely are you to keep a subscription? Not very much at all. Second, how many people are going to run out and buy a new system(or have the experience/knowledge/money to upgrade their own system)? Again, the answer is not very many. That means that games that have high system requirements(out of the box) aren't going to be nearly as successful as those which do not.
Next, I'm always amused by those who make arguments about "fairness". "Fairness" is a subjective value judgement. Is it "fair" that some people have the hours and hours required to raid? Is it "fair" that some people have access to raiding guilds, that have enough people to raid? As I said, if you wish to be competitive you are going to spend time and/or money. Time/money are force multipliers that are applied in different situations to achieve ones goals. Spending money is no more "unfair" than spending time is. Its simply a matter of what one values more.
If you're getting a slideshow in a game that really intrigues you then you will upgrade if you can afford it.
Games push hardware sales, not the other way around.
This is just a bad last few years PC gaming because the cheapness of the xbox 360 has substituted for needing a high end PC in the eyes of most gamers, leaving a smaller market for high end PC exclusives; But this can't last forever, because other forces are at work screwing up the market dynamics. Which is that microsoft is taking a huge loss on the sale of their hardware in order to gain marketshare. Austensibly they want to make it back with game sales, but they never do. They haven't made a profit on the console business since they started, and they don't plan to until they dominate the market so thoroughly that they can start charging people a lot more for the price of admission.
The article dismisses the improvement in graphics which has driven every computer game genre since the genre started. We aren’t that bothered about better graphics apparently, but the whole history of gaming confounds his argument!
WoW raised expectations in the MMO industry, every big title could expect equal success. It didn’t turn out that way, so now they are trying to find out why, but no one really knows why. MMO pundits search for answers and come across F2P (RMT) games, which are not doing badly. These are then treated like a saviour of the genre, which they are not. They are a different genre, for a different type of player. Pundits ask yourself this, maybe WoW just came in at the right time and has been a hard act to better?
They might as well look at web based games now, and tell us they are the new saviour. We only need two dimensional graphics and instant gratification, utter nonsense. Come on pundits wake up, there simply was no room in the market for another big title and then another. Stop looking for reasons which are not there.
Your first is a good point, but is a special case. How many companies can risk the tens of millions required for todays large scale projects, on the chance that a sufficient number of people will be interested enough to upgrade their system to play?
Its much safer(money/time wise) to get a sense of the typical system(and add a bit for when the game is released, in say two years) than it is to expect people to upgrade. As for the Xbox 360, Mickysoft is more interested in Xboxlive and its potential profits, than making money on their hardware. Only time will tell if this is a wise investment.
Umm..
City of Heroes.
Very well said, Dana. Been saying this for years.
Solid gameplay
Easy access
Polish
Mechanics that your target audience enjoys
Those are the REAL 4 pillars of a successful MMO.
Love this message.
This i believe is the fundamental of gaming at the moment and almost no big company has picked up on it. If you can make a good game make it playable by everyone, not just a select few with the squillions needed to get that latest and greatest PC. Its not a matter of elitism. Even to the point where i now see some MMO's are starting to make the journey to console. not a bad idea. They just need to make it so that everyone anywhere can play.
100% agree with you Dana.
Another example of low requirement and high enjoyment game is classic Ultima Online. It doesn't matter how incredibily old for a game UO is, I still see hundreds of players logging in amateurial servers. It is all about that: good gameplay, immediate action, simple graphics, great fun!
FTP games are surging because current PTP games are so poorly designed, and because of todays' and tomorrows economic concerns.
The major problem I see with the F2P and P2P is the recession which is world wide and affecting millions of players who play MMO's.
With our technology increasing every year and with less and less money to spend, we are going to get to the point where those players who have money to spend will be abled to afford the high costs of getting new systems to play on MMO's requiring those systems.
Take Star Trek Online of example, it is slated for release sometime in 2012 and yet even though they claim that it would run on low end systems, lot of the postings on the STO forums from the Devs and Beta Testers gives the impression that STO will only run on high end systems that is fast, powerful and most likely costs several thousands of dollars. This is bad news in a recession, if we are still in a recession or even a depression in 2012 then majority will not be abled to play STO, only those who are rich or can afford to spend the thousands of dollars to upgrade will be abled to play the obviously graphical instensive MMO like STO.
Is Free to Play the wave of the future? In a recession, I think IMHO that majority of players would rather play a Free to Play MMO then a Pay to Play in order to save money. For those who live here in North America, do not realize that with the VAT in the UK/EU playing a internet game like a MMO is slightly more expensive then playing a Pay to Play MMO here in North America.
And there is the Development Community, which is a very small community and access to this community is shrinking at a alarming rate. They are not getting enough graduates from colleges due to the recession which is sad. A local college not far from where I live recently dropped some of thier computer programs including several in Game Design and Development due to lack of funding from the state and federal government due to budget cuts as the result of the current recession. So it is bad all around.
Big Game Development/Publisher companies like Electronic Arts, Sony Online Entertainment, Blizzard, and Lucas Arts Entertainment mostly will be abled to survive the recession. So one should not be suprised to see news of Mythic Entertainment and Bioware getting themselves merged with EA. They did it to survive the recession since money is tight. Unfortantly smaller companies like NetDevil may end up scrapping Jump Gate Evolution due to lack of funding due to the recession.
Pay to Play MMO's like Warcraft Online that has been here for more then 4 years and have millions of subscribers world wide will most likely be here when or if the recession ends provided the value of money does not drop or we have a depression our hands. Internet Access costs $$$. The one danger that every MMO free to play and pay to play company is fearful of is the that cost of Internet access could raise to the point that players will be forced to cancel thier accounts due to not being abled to afford internet access. This could happend, do not be shocked and suprised if this does happen.
Technology cost money
Game Development cost money
Computers cost money
Upgrading computer systems cost money
Accessing the internet cost money
Game Servers cost money and this includes upgrading servers and what not.
Employees and other support persons costs money. (Do you honestly think these game devs work for FREE?).
State, Federal, International Taxes including Internet Fees, Including VAT fees if your game is overseas or you have subscribers overseas (not many are aware but Blizzard for example has to pay the VAT fee due to having servers in the UK/EU).
Every business that does game development looks at all those factors and decides how much they can afford to invest and the investors they get to invest in thier MMO also takes into consideration if the money the invest will they be abled to get it back. They also look at the system requirements that thier game can be run on at the minium or what the average player users. Not everyone is the same, if they make thier game too high end they lose at least 80% of potential subscribers. If they make thier games in such as well to run on low end systems with crappy graphics they stand to lose higher percentage as well. So it is a lose + lose situation. They are between a rock and a hard place and this world wide recession makes it even harder and with lot of media attention and from government economic sources stating we may be into the recession into the 2020's things look very bleak for the Online Game Industry.
It all boils down to money...... There is not enough to go around.
Good article. Funny that it mirrors an academic paper I wrote on the subject of MMO success in which I found the top 3 points of success are:
In that order. Interestingly enough it seems that developers are still not catching onto this or at least not onto every aspect here. Prime examples of failing to meet these criteria can be seen in Age of Conan and Vanguard which completely failed in this regard upon launch and in a post World of Warcraft space its impossible to get away with such obvious mistakes. Excellent article and good to see I am not alone in making this assumptions.
i like this article, but at the same time i have to say i want great graphics, and great gameplay.
...Ive been floating around playing alot of the free mmos. Ruins of magic or what ever SUX!! Terrible Game play. Alot of mmo's just seem like re-skins with Different game play. like the company Aeria. Every game is a Re-skin. uh Titan online Is an oriental based WoW. Also wow is Technically free on a free server. :). I am still a HUGE everquest fan. I think that sony should delete the whole thing and remake it with the same lore and all the such much. the game just needs to in general be completely re-hashed. Now I have played ALOT of the free mmo's. Currently my two favs are. Fiesta for the cartoony anime style fun stuff. An PWI (Perfect World Int.). I mean the Game all together is like 2 gigs. Its not system intesive. The graphics and character creation stand up with vanguard. the game runs smoothly with out troubles on full graphics and my video card is still a PCI. gameplay is Amazing there is always something to do at all levels and its not always leveling. The race/Class options are a little limited. But it makes for Better RPing. I love this game. so do the many Ive converted from WoW to it already. I would highly suggest it for the free mmo's.
I play Heavens tear.
yorkshire 30 Barb.
Honostely if this game gameplay and graphics don't do it for you as a free game. Go play a MuD. Which I also play. :P
http://pwi.perfectworld.com/
While I agree with what you have stated I do have to say that you forgot one key element. Fun! A game must be fun to get subscribers and if a game fails at the fun even in the early levels it will not keep a steady subscriber base. While WOW is not the game for me I do admit that I did have fun while I trial tested it, WOW simply lacked the pvp content I was looking for.
Lineage 2 offered the PvP content and was very fun in that part, but over all it is not a fun game, it is entirely to grind oriented and who in the world takes pleasure in killing 3 billion mobs to gain .00001% exp.
Ace online however is a f2p game, that does have something of a grind to it but off sets the grind with a 100% exp happy hour each day that lasts 7 hours fallowed by a 1 hour 900% war point happy hour for the PvP oriented and then again by 7 hour a 100% item drop happy hour. These happy hours do not = easy street however but rather balance the servers to fit the NA market and provide fun in the game for all level ranges.
Fun is something that is greatly over looked by developers and I honestly have to believe that none of the developers who create these insanely grind and item oriented games have ever bothered to actually play them on the same level as the player.
F2P has been doing better than subscription MMOs since 2005. The economy has only been in the toilet for a year.
"better" how? I can't name one F2P company. The 3 or 4 P2P companys I can name probably make alot more money every year than the F2P ones.
I agree with some of what he said. But the system reqs is nonsense. Everquest has an insane system req list. But that dosent mean the game is any good. Acctually some of the still intact old zones are still 1998 Graphics.
WoW system req's
OS: Windows XP / Windows Vista (with latest Service Packs)
Processor:
Minimum: Intel Pentium 4 1.3 GHz or AMD Athlon XP 1500+
Recommended: Dual-core processor, such as the Intel Pentium D or AMD Athlon 64 X2
Memory:
Minimum: 512 MB RAM (1GB for Vista users)
Recommended: 1 GB RAM (2 GB for Vista users)
Video:
Minimum: 3D graphics processor with Hardware Transform and Lighting with 32 MB VRAM Such as an ATI Radeon 7200 or NVIDIA GeForce 2 class card or better
Recommended: 3D graphics processor with Vertex and Pixel Shader capability with 128 MB VRAM Such as an ATI Radeon X1600 or NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT class card or better
Sound: DirectX-compatible sound card or motherboard sound capability
WoW
PWI (Perfect World Int.) Free game Sys req.
System Minimum Requirement Suggested Requirement
Operating System Windows 98/Me Windows 98/Me
CPU 900MHZ CPU Pent. 4 equivalent or greater
RAM 256MB or more of RAM 512MB+
Hard Disk 6.3GB of free hard drive space during installation. 3.0GBs of free hard drive space after installation and extracted files are deleted 6.3G HD space
Graphic Display Graphics card or chipset must support Pixel and Vertex Shaders 1.4 or later (hardware acceleration recommended), have 32MB of RAM 64MB or higher recommended (Direct X 9.0c or later)
System Minimum Requirement Suggested Requirement
Operating System Windows 2000/XP Windows 2000/XP
CPU 1.5Ghz CPU Pent. 4 equivalent or greater
RAM 512MB or more of RAM 1GB+
Hard Disk 6.3GB of free hard drive space during installation. 3.0GBs of free hard drive space after installation and extracted files are deleted 6.3G HD space
Graphic Display For multi-core CPUs, you may need to adjust the Affinity to run the game on one CPU. Graphics card or chipset must support Pixel and Vertex Shaders 1.4 or later (hardware acceleration recommended), have 64MB of RAM 64MB or higher recommended (Direct X 9.0c or later)
System Minimum Requirement Suggested Requirement
Operating System Windows Vista Windows Vista
CPU 1.5Ghz CPU Pent. 4 equivalent or greater
RAM 1GB RAM 2GB or more recommended
Hard Disk 6.3GB of free hard drive space during installation. 3.0GBs of free hard drive space after installation and extracted files are deleted 6.3G HD space
Graphic Display Graphics card or chipset must support Pixel and Vertex Shaders 2.0 or later (hardware acceleration recommended), have 128MB of RAM 128MB or higher recommended (Direct X 9.0c or later)
PWI
First, if a game is a slide show on your current system, how likely are you to keep a subscription? Not very much at all. Second, how many people are going to run out and buy a new system(or have the experience/knowledge/money to upgrade their own system)? Again, the answer is not very many. That means that games that have high system requirements(out of the box) aren't going to be nearly as successful as those which do not.
Next, I'm always amused by those who make arguments about "fairness". "Fairness" is a subjective value judgement. Is it "fair" that some people have the hours and hours required to raid? Is it "fair" that some people have access to raiding guilds, that have enough people to raid? As I said, if you wish to be competitive you are going to spend time and/or money. Time/money are force multipliers that are applied in different situations to achieve ones goals. Spending money is no more "unfair" than spending time is. Its simply a matter of what one values more.
It doesn't have to be that way though. Look at the FPS market. No monthly subscriptions, no RMT transactions. The playing field is equal. Sure you might become a better player the more you play by learning the controls, how to aim, where on the map is a good place to snipe, but for all intents and purposes, it is fair. There is no reason why MMORPG PvP could not be fair. Time and money (should) have nothing to do with balanced PvP combat.
Hey Dana!
Keep up the good work bro! I really enjoy your articles!
A couple notes in reply.
First, I was never suggesting that system requirements is the single and only determining factor in anything. Of course not, WoW does well because its a good game and Conan was a mess at launch and thus didn't do so well. Sys reqs are only a part of the equation, I never said they were anything more than that.
Also, more polygons does not mean better art. That was my point. Forget WoW for second, it was just an example. The point was, like it or not (and honestly, personally, I don't really like that style, but I understand why it is loved) that they had a well defined, clearly thought out art direction. Many MMOs replace "art direction" with "technical achievement.'" If you view these as an interactive art form, great, then you should be right there with me. My point was not that games should look bad, it's that they should pay more attention to how they look and not just brute force in more special effects. Case and point: LotRO vs. Conan. Both are beautiful games, but only one runs on even a semi-decent selection of PCs. That's part the intensity of the art and part optimization. WoW and WAR are also comparable, both have a similar art style, but one is clearly using more bells and whistles and didn't optmize as well.
As to the gaming rig. No one said you couldn't build a nice, cheap gaming rig. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of the gaming population doesn't. If you want a truly mass market game, it needs to be accessible at a low end of the computer spectrum. That's just reality.
I agree Dana. When I look for an mmo I usually go for Graphics and system intensity first then Gameplay. Cause really there all point and click. Wow Felt too Childish too Me Right away when i seen the cartoony graphics Straight to the Easy follow the book Gameplay. The only thing I have been more and more looking at as of late is Endgame Material which almost Every mmo Lacks. I have only been using WoW as examples Do to the fact GoD prolly plays it.
I don't know if anyone brought this up yet as I don't have the energy to read 10 + pages of replies. My two cents on this issue is the just plain market saturation of mmo's I think there is only so large of a playerbase to go around and currently so many mmo's out there that you can't expect high numbers of players in more then a few games. This type of game only appeals to a certain segment of the "gaming" population and with the long hours needed to be spent to get anywhere in most of them you are not going to have people playing several at a time or jumping ship on a game they like just for the next shiny thing out there whether it be ftp or not.
If you take the premise that the orginal poster is saying then games like oblivion and fallout 3 should have been massive failures just because of their system requirements. That and the mmo genre will never attract your grandma or any of the "casual" crowd. I have a lot of friends and people I work with etc. that are "gamers" and I only know 2 other people out of them that play mmo's besides myself .
So I think the orginal post is a totally pointless arguement that seems to be a subtle plug for the ftp bandwagon that this site's authors so love pushing down everyone's throats at every opertunity.
Play whatever you want I don't feel either model it "better" although I personally prefer a flat subscription then being nickel and dimed to death.
I agree completely.
Oh, and choose one business model already. SOE, anyone? Mixing both is going to chase more people away than it'll attract.
/already tossed out my SOE boxes
Runes of Magic - Client
Description:
Download size: 3,4GB
Minimum system requirements
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2.0 GHz or equivalent
RAM: 512MB
Required Harddisk space: 3.8GB
Graphics card: DirectX 9.0c compatible with 128MB RAM
Broadband Internet connection
Keyboard and Mouse
Atlantica Online
Minimum system requirements
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 1.0 GHz or equivalent
RAM: 512MB
Required Harddisk space: 5GB
Graphics card: DirectX 9.0c compatible with 64MB RAM
I would hardly say that blows my theory out of the water if anything it proves it
Well posting nonsense does not prove your point either. Minimum configuration means exactly zip in this genre. Go play them. I have played most of the subscription games, no fps problems at all, with both Atlantica and ROM I have serious FPS issues all the time no matter how I configure the setttings. That is a fact which your post seems to entirely ignore!
So again, it is obvious this article is whallowing in facts that cannot support it.
As usual poster can't support his argument for a hill of beans. Please educate us with f2p MMO's that have held a large audience since 2004? Prior to the past two years you can't name one. Oh I am sure some were out there, but you can't name them because no one knew about them.
Wow, finally someone besides me noticed that the number of people who CAN use your product actually affects the number of people who WILL use your product lol. I've been telling the story of how Blizzard's devs wanted WoW to run on a 32 meg graphics card (this was back in the early Nvidia 4x Titanium days lol) for years as a response to all the mistaken people claiming it was their favorite feature that gave WoW 8 million subs over every other game.
Good job Mr. Woods! Time for devs to stop trying to "ooh" and "aahhh" their bosses with graphics to prove how much they deserve their jobs, and start trying to make better games instead.
As usual poster can't support his argument for a hill of beans. Please educate us with f2p MMO's that have held a large audience since 2004? Prior to the past two years you can't name one. Oh I am sure some were out there, but you can't name them because no one knew about them.
Not to get in the middle of your somewhat heated argument, but....Runescape?
I actually agree with... almost nothing in the article.
People will have different opinions on all sorts of things, but the image of the industry presented in the article is so completely out of whack with my own perceptions that I would have thought it was written by someone who doesn't even know what an MMORPG is. Definitely not what I would expect from Dana! (Not an attack dude, just not on the same page; or even the same book). :)
First, the graphics and "accessibility" issue. Sure, it's a good thing to exclude as small a percentage as possible of your potential player base when deciding on minimum specs. However, a bad game that can be played on any PC isn't going to be a hit because of it's low requirements. Also, people's expectations on the graphics front continue to increase and sometimes good games never have a chance, because the graphics are so dated.
There is a sweet spot in there somewhere for maximizing the potential market for an MMORPG. Too outdated is just as bad as too demanding. Yet, the game's success is not a function of it's hardware requirements, even if being too far to one extreme or the other may preclude some people who would otherwise love the game.
Second, the issue of money. F2P, subscription, cash shops; any combination of the three.
Players weigh the cost to play, vs. the enjoyment they get from playing. Not just during the opening months either. F2P games only require an investment of time and bandwidth to try out. As personal bandwidth increases, the barriers to trying out a F2P game decrease. The "cost" is low. Gamers can try a game they would not have been willing to pay a box price to sample. That's the first advantage for F2P games.
The second advantage to F2P is that as players go through the ebb and flow of enthusiasm for a title, there is no subscription fee hanging over their head. You can take a break or play only a few times a month with out money flying out the window.
It's little or no initial and continuing costs, plugged into the equation of fun vs. money.
Cash shops may increase a persons desire to continue playing, in order to justify previous purchases, but the lack of a subscription fee hanging over your head makes it easy to drift in and out of the game on a whim. Where cash shop games get into trouble is when enthusiastic players start to find their monthly investment topping the $15/month benchmark, or when any players feels that the money they "need" to pay to enjoy it outweighs the actual enjoyment they receive in return.
The business model of subscription games faces a huge hurdle. How do you continue to justify the monthly fee? The expectations for a subscription game are much higher. Even if a company does a good job at rolling out fresh content over time, they still face the fact that even players who love the game will see their enthusiasm and play time ebb and flow. Every month a customer asks "is it worth continuing to pay the subscription fee"? When they do take a break, they then have to ask themselves "Is it worth re-subscribing? Will I even play enough after returning to warrant another $15"?
There are a few MMORPGs I paid to play in the past that I would love to return to from time to time, or maybe even try to "get back into", but the cost becomes a barrier. I know I'm not alone.
I think you had an inkling of the issue, but accessibility is a lot less about system requirements and a lot more about fiscal accessibility.
I personally think the $15/month subscription based MMORPG model is destined to be a thing of the past. With the glut of titles and fickle fanbase there are a lot of games that might be successful under lower fees or a different business model that are just going no where at $15/month.
I'm actually intrigued by the per hour usage model that I believe is seen in some games in Asia. Where hardcore players investing 40 hours or more a week can pay the equivalent of $15 a month, but more casual players are paying only a few dollars a month. Since you only pay for the time you spend playing, you can come and go as you please with out wasting money on under utilized subscriptions.
The hybrid Cash Shop / small subscription fee for premium content model of Freerealms is interesting as well. However, the balance needs to be carefully maintained. Recent drastic cuts on the amount of in game currency you can earn (about a 80-90% cut) seem to be aimed at forcing players to invest money in station cash for things as basic as healing potions (the frequent use of which the game is balanced around). If casual players start to feel forced to invest money to play with out major frustrations, the game will be done for.
Also, even though the $5/month fee for "membership" is a lot lower burden to carry on a title you may find your enthusiasm waning for, people are already questioning what happens to their characters if they cancel membership.
An ideal business model would extract roughly $15/month from their hard core fans, while lessening or removing the barriers for those who are more casual players or who see their play time ebb and flow over the life time of the title.
Now, to bring it all full circle... if the article was an attempt to explain the success of WoW and apply some lesson to future titles, I think that's an elusive task to attempt. The low system requirements have maximized the reach of the game, but it doesn't explain the appeal.
I think the factors that caused WoW to snowball into a huge hit can not be attributed to any one thing, or even a small handful. It addressed the right needs at the right time. As to it's continued success, I think it's popularity has added another "cost" to the equation for some people. The cost of not playing what your friends and peers are playing. Too be "out of the loop" on what for some cohorts is a social and cultural phenomena. The same kind of pressures that drive usage of facebook, twitter, etc...
WoW was the right game, in the right place at the right time. As the snowball rolled downhill it grew mass based on it's unstoppable momentum. Eventually it will reach the bottom of the hill and slowly melt in the sun. Unfortunately for competing developers, finding the right snowball to roll down the right hill at the right time is no easy task. In fact, it may require a very different snowball and a very different hill to address a very different point in time...
I don´t post in a long time, so hello everyone !
I gotta agree with Dana here, developing a game is all about making it as playable and accessible as you can for the people that are supposed to play that game, as it is a design product, and therefore, it is made for a target audience. And MMOs are all about the community and the multiplayer, after all it´s not called Single Massively Online Game (or RPG if you prefer), so people that play these games what to get together and play together, not just run around a huge world all alone, and I think that is one of the biggest challenge MMO companies face. Also, unfortunately, most of the gamers don´t really know how to use/tune their computers as the Hardcore (ideal players), and they will keep away from those scary bars and sliders on that strange "graphic options" screen as much as possible.
But also I would like to add some off my humble opinion and little experience as a Game Design Student. It´s not about what "I" think, it´s about what "everyone" think. I saw many complaints about World of Warcraft because it was mentioned on the article, and how some off the people did´t like the art style and all.
I would like to say that when someone makes and article about the industry, it does not matter if you like it or not, it matters that 11 million people play and pay that game, and therefore, we must respect it, as no other MMO has reached that far. And if you look technically, they´re path on accessibility (on the art side) is based on solid, good done textures, that got only better with the upgrades, thus keeping the specs low, and everyone happy.
And for last, a bit off topic, but related, I really think that still, the gameplay aspect of ANY game can surpass the importance of any other. Accessibility is quite important yes, but if the game has some really solid and kick ass gameplay, it MIGHT have the power to make people invest, not to play, but maybe to see it and fell it better. It´s ok your 3 year-old PC runs HL2, but wouldn´t you like to have and upgrade to see how it looks on max settings ?
I say that because I think AoC and WAR didn´t have that, and that is what made them go down the toilet. I followed both on the development phases and betas. I had a big confidence on AoC, as it was done by FUNCOM, who did a great job on Anarchy Online (Wich btw is alive and well for 20 year already, horrible graphics but solid gameplay), Forget graphics, what is the point off making a Conan game where you are NOT Conan !?
And WAR simply was not finished, all they did was try to make huge graphics and cut half of the audience, saying stuff like "WoW is like the beetles, no one can beat them. But we are like the Led Zeppelin, stronger, better and cooler" and "/dance if for girls, we don´t make games for girls". So they had great mechanics, like the upgrading cities and PvP Tiers with the capital controls, but nothing was finished nor polished, so the cut up half of the stuff that wasn´t working and shipped a unfortunate crap, and I say crap because no one like it, or worse, they thought of it as just another WoW clone.
You make a Textual Kick Ass MMO and you can turn it up, you spend 10 years making a WoW-like-Crysis MMO, and you´re going to get fired (Sorry Mark Jacobs, thats they way thing go...)
Abso-flogging-lutely.
I do not see why it is needed to have a Quad Core Processor on an Nividia SLI board with two 512mb cards sli'd together with 8 gigs of ram. I was playing a trial on Vanguard and someone had that type of building and could play max settings and yet they only got 40-60fps.
It does not make any sense why we have to make games demand so much of our computers some people do not have $500.00 just to spend on processor, board, and graphics cards. Not to mention RAM and putting it all together, it just seems excessive. Give me a game that is: Stable, Accessible, and Fun. I will and can comprimise on graphics I played UO for 7 years and loved it.
Sometimes I think these companies get a kick back from Nvidia for promoting their products and increasing sales.
Just what I think: Continue to kick butt and take names Dana I love your articles.
As usual poster can't support his argument for a hill of beans. Please educate us with f2p MMO's that have held a large audience since 2004? Prior to the past two years you can't name one. Oh I am sure some were out there, but you can't name them because no one knew about them.
lol you didnt search a lot
i can name at least 1 silkroad online it was full ,is full and will be full for years to come
dont believe me download it and try to login for fun and dont come with the generally believed but false idea
`oh but that game is full of bot `
thats like saying to wow their server arent full because they dont have bot lol
silkroad online add server still .when was the last time blizzard added server ?very long time ago
silkroad would need an insane amount of server just to keep up with the player waiting to logon
a bunch of reason made this game bigger then even they ever thot
when they released one expension ,they linked asia with europe in game like you can start from europe and go to china etc
that made a huge impact .plus all the other adds they put in ,not long ago there was another added
i never saw an mmo since 2004 that is popular as silkroad online
and thats a f2p game
its very popular for another reason also
the computer needed to play it is so ridiculous you can play this on a netbook lol
graphic quality is debatable
but i can give you at least 1 exemple
why is it that everquest 2 was a so big ressource hog
hell we ll go to newer game
rappelz i remember playing this game was looking nice but had big lag issue
what they do they lower setting on game that wasnt design as a low setting
result it look so ugly most game can beat the look
its a package you cannot lower graphic quality after the game is made it wasnt design for it
its like if guild wars had been designed on a i7 quad core processor then try to make it run on a an old 3 years old laptop
it just cant be done
guild wars team went another way
they used laptop to design and test guild wars result the smooth and stable game we got
hell if i was boss of a game producing company
i would design and produce game on netbook
why ? lol did you see how many of those computer were sold
its insane
but trying to design a game on a quad core then proting it to a netbook
is a sure way to fail
it as to be designed and tried on the computer market you target lol not mod the game after you find you cant lower setting
the markiet right now is from netbook to the biggest laptop without sli
but often they try to support quad graphic card etc why try very few baught those lol
most just cant afford those ,go ask the exgm employe if hes gona buy a 1000 $ computer
hell hes like everybody in the world he cant afford it
its so bad most just cant afford just to repair the one they got imagine
Vanguard:SoH does NOT support multiple cores, including SLI'd GPUs, so only ONE of that "Quad Core's" processor cores was actually in use, as well as only ONE of the video cards. Furthermore, Vanguard is a 32bit program, and thus utilizes an extremely limited amoutn of RAM. I don't remember the exact number, but I can tell you that it's <4gb.
Using a quad-core CPU for a single-core game is terribly inefficient.
So, in effect, the person wasted a great dela of money if all he/she used the comp *intensively* for was Vanguard:SoH.
You can run Vanguard flawlessly, at max settings, on a $600 build.
EDIT: Meant to quote EBlackblade.
Ive been doing Tech work for friends and family even friends of family for a long time. Since i was kid.
And youd be surprised how wrong sterotypes are in my area.
Most the time the Wife will play on the computer more than the husband (husbands usualy play on there console).
Now these games arnt mmos just puzzle or mystery games.
Most people either buy a old computer off there friend or buy the cheepest one at walmart.
Ive never seen a Non tech person with a average job with a high end comp.
Every person that has me look at a game cause it doesnt work its usualy sys req. And they never upgrade for the game. A few have asked about it but when I told them the price of a stick of ram. They said no and gave the game away.
The article is a good article. The only bad thing is he shoulda pointed out how every Blizzard game has never pushed the graphics and has always done good. And thats blizz speciality makeing there games available to the common consumer both hardware wise and complexity.
Me personaly im tired of how much it cost to be a computer gamer. Ive tried many times to go console but fps and mmos are my games so im stuck with pc.
And one of the things a lot of people find out is that the F2P MMOs hold their interest just as well as their old P2P game.
I know I'l be thinking twice about paying a monthly fee for a game again.
Unfortunately it's people like the OP who keep reminding us why company's can't put out a decent game since wow. They simply FAIL at developing innovative game mechanics that WORK..
You think people are playing WOW because it's the only thing their PC can run? When you can pickup a PC that runs AOC,WAR for less then $500? If that's what you think then all I can say is........ WOW. Consumer's will ALWAYS buy better hardware if they reach a limit with their software/games... It's a proven FACT. The issue is your not convincing them they NEED a upgrade. What makes people buy a Xbox 360 over a Xbox? Can we say.... HALO? Another perfect example was failcom. Most people were on the fence about upgrading until they discovered they produced a turd in a box. Even then 700k players whole heartly bought the game and upgraded their machines for a huge dissapointment.
Originally posted by Dana
And I don’t want to hear “but our graphics scale!” That’s not a valid counter argument. No one has ever successfully made a game that scales visually.
FFXI made their game scale and cross-platform years and years ahead of it's time. So thanks once again for proving you really know nothing about the industry you write columns on. Also Log on to LOTRO instead of writting fail columns and you can see that game also scales DX9--->DX10 Flawlessly and with good performance unlike WAR, AOC.
Don't bother quoting or responding because you've pretty much lost any credibility at posting a valid argument. I understand everyone has their own opinion but this was so far off in left field I had to post.
This is simply put one great article. I don't care aboutr graphics (it's good to have good one) but gameplay is that why I buy games. And about box selling, aslo true.
I could be mistaken, but isn't Aion for instance powered by the crytek cryengine? I think most (if not all) use allready build game engines and then modify it instead of building their own game engine. I think I once heard Age of conan was build on the same engine they used for Anarchy Online which was fully developed by their own company I think, but I'm not sure if that's usual (and I'm not even sure if its true)
I love the article. Everything on it is true and the fallback for War & AoC. Requiring uber system specifications and hindering the main recipe for an MMO. Is population and drawing more people to play their game. The accessability is a huge factor on this, without the hassle to have hidden strings on F2P make it easy to come and go. Now as I can see it, the general gamers looking for their new home mmo are so burnbout of every pile of new MMO that comes out. Now I'm just enjoying casual games from Facebook, lol.
Atleast here I can play with not so hardcore gamers, like your friends and love ones who doesn't want to play with lots of buttons to do. Just plain and simple and having fun.
Still waiting for SWTOR and GWII. I hope the two games learned a lot from the mistakes of others and thus be wiser.
I could be mistaken, but isn't Aion for instance powered by the crytek cryengine? I think most (if not all) use allready build game engines and then modify it instead of building their own game engine. I think I once heard Age of conan was build on the same engine they used for Anarchy Online which was fully developed by their own company I think, but I'm not sure if that's usual (and I'm not even sure if its true)
Yes, the "Dreamworld" engine is the original engine created for Anarchy Online and then updated for Age of Conan. And once upon a time, it was usual for mmo developers to write their own game engines. Now it's all about the rush to get the game out so they go with whatever the flavor of the year engine is.
On the front you mentioned - Decent work sells. A game that lags on every machine at date, unless one disables everyone else's spell effects, and even then it lags on most machines if one happens to zoom in on his/her own spell effect, is not a decent piece of work. A game that's isometric has a grand total of 3 classes and a ... [drumbeat] ... pet system isn't a decent piece work either.
The difference is somewere else. I've seen a plenty of people who won't buy a game if they don't like screens. I've yet to see a person who has a weak PC and has nothing more to do than play an accesible junk. I've also yet to see a game that while having it's settings toned down for a 2-years-old-pc looks at least as good as 2-years old game, so yes stop making mamoths already (A slogan if you wish - Mamoth! eats all it can, and still looks ugly...). But like I said, that's not where the magic of f2p hails from. IMHO F2P are prospering on a different field. Successfull game can appear as a result of these things(one or both):
1. Hard and thoughtfull work
2. Brilliant idea.
1st is what sells games for blizzard aside from their logo on a box
2nd is what made atlantica so popular
there's also marketing, but a succesfull game and a game that sold are not the same things in my book, besides we're talking MMO here, one won't get a 3rd month of subcsription on hype.
Back to our biusness models:
Who makes P2P? - Big companies.
What's the worst nightmare of an avarage reach person? - To loose one's money.
What's the worst thing about a brave idea? - It can backfire.
See where this is going? - I'd bet that not quite yet.
At this point one might be thinking "Don't tell me big companies aren't trying new ideas". Well, I won't! What I will tell however, is that they barely ever succed with them. Why? Well, that's a trademark of all brilliand ideas! A success rate as low as that of korean encahnment stone! And the more of them that have been succesfully used...
Why are big companies called big? - They're bigger than most.
What does that mean? - Big companies and most companies are differen't things.
What's the boon of a begar? (religions aside) - He has nothing to lose.
Now see where this is going? - I think you do.
On p2p side we got a handfull of companies all afraid to experiment (and I don't blame them for it). On f2p side we have a mob of idea-driven people trying all kind of crazy ideas. Guess who has the second factor on their side? P2P or F2P games?
Add here the useage of 1st factor, that's starting to appear among the idea-driven crowd, and we can finally grasp the secret of f2p.
By the way anyone noticed an even bigger ammount of failed f2p games? I know I did. But once again, all that is only valid as long as we don't coun't just any game that returned it's investmen't among succesfull.
Here goes ...[drumbeat]... the ink blob!
Gee, those do like spoiling pictures... Those ton of f2p games I mentioned do return their investment, while being far worse than most of "epic fail" (TM) p2p games. ["epic fail" and all succesive trolling and whining are trademarks of mmo forums and as such are restriced from use inside a civilised society]
Why do they return invesment? Accesibilty I guess... In a differen't way though. My theory is this:
1. There are people who have time to waste.
2. There are people who have money to waste and don't like to actually play games.
3. There are people who want some money and can code an isometric engine.
These 3 groups are the backbone of f2p mmos.
3rd groups codes a game, 2nd groups pays their bills (and, by a greater scale, are wasting their time too), and 1st group spends every new week in a new f2p mmo and thus provides 2nd group with new people to hang-out with, so that they keep hanging-out and paying bills.
You call this a buisness model? I call this a herald of doom... Let's hope all his doom-preatching will not fool a potential game developer.
Nevertheless, 1st don't have to pay money, 2nd don't have to bother with gameplay and 3rd don't have to overheat their heads by thinking for more than 15 mintures strait. Accesibilty for everyone!
As a closing line - let's hope there are still people who care for the picture before the inkblob, and they aren't just all "posting on forums".
Its obvious you don't get the point. Lets examine some of your fallacies shall we? First, I see you are still bowing down to the shrine of the <Great God> INNOVATION...
^^ Ah, you did say "that work"... But do you have any conception of how many games have failed to get funded because they "break new ground in innovative game mechanics"? There are so many clones of successful games for a reason. You don't risk tens of millions of dollars of *other peoples money* on the *chance* that your Innovation will not only work, but will be considered *fun* by a LOT of other people. If you want to see a room full of investors go all starry eyed, and start throwing truck loads of money at you, intone the mystic phrase "Its just like World of Warcraft"... 
Next, consoles are *NOT* PC's in the minds of the general population. You are expecting WAY too much from such types. Yes, I know its quite simple to not only upgrade PC's, but to build the things, but thats from a totally different perspective than the typical game consumer. Anyone who has had to deal with tech support for even simple PC hardware "issues" can tell you horror stories about ignorance/idiocy that would cause you to go screaming to the east.
Buying a new game console is different from upgrading a PC. Which is one reason that so damn many people are still using PC relics to this very day. Yes, if a console game is good enough, many people WILL buy a new *console*. There are many fewer people who will buy a new PC, or even upgrade one.
Its interesting that you mention FFXI. Have you examined their subscription numbers? They are a niche game that appeals to a certain limited demographic *within the established gaming population*. LOTR(even with a massive number of people interested in Tolkien's works) has still demonstrated that they appeal to only to a certain limited demographic. WoW is the first Western game to demonstrate the ability to pull in millions and millions(coming up on 12) of gamers across the spectrum. Not only that, but they have pulled in people who are outside of the typical gaming population. Just ONE of the reasons is because WoW will run on the relics that the typical consumer has available. Its also a good game, all the way to level cap for another.
You seriously should have left your last paragraph out. Its an all too typical mentality these days. "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind has already been made up..." You did more to undermine your own credibility than anyone else could have managed with that.
Its obvious you don't get the point. Lets examine some of your fallacies shall we? First, I see you are still bowing down to the shrine of the <Great God> INNOVATION...
^^ Ah, you did say "that work"... But do you have any conception of how many games have failed to get funded because they "break new ground in innovative game mechanics"? There are so many clones of successful games for a reason. You don't risk tens of millions of dollars of *other peoples money* on the *chance* that your Innovation will not only work, but will be considered *fun* by a LOT of other people. If you want to see a room full of investors go all starry eyed, and start throwing truck loads of money at you, intone the mystic phrase "Its just like World of Warcraft"... 
Next, consoles are *NOT* PC's in the minds of the general population. You are expecting WAY too much from such types. Yes, I know its quite simple to not only upgrade PC's, but to build the things, but thats from a totally different perspective than the typical game consumer. Anyone who has had to deal with tech support for even simple PC hardware "issues" can tell you horror stories about ignorance/idiocy that would cause you to go screaming to the east.
Buying a new game console is different from upgrading a PC. Which is one reason that so damn many people are still using PC relics to this very day. Yes, if a console game is good enough, many people WILL buy a new *console*. There are many fewer people who will buy a new PC, or even upgrade one.
Its interesting that you mention FFXI. Have you examined their subscription numbers? They are a niche game that appeals to a certain limited demographic *within the established gaming population*. LOTR(even with a massive number of people interested in Tolkien's works) has still demonstrated that they appeal to only to a certain limited demographic. WoW is the first Western game to demonstrate the ability to pull in millions and millions(coming up on 12) of gamers across the spectrum. Not only that, but they have pulled in people who are outside of the typical gaming population. Just ONE of the reasons is because WoW will run on the relics that the typical consumer has available. Its also a good game, all the way to level cap for another.
You seriously should have left your last paragraph out. Its an all too typical mentality these days. "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind has already been made up..." You did more to undermine your own credibility than anyone else could have managed with that.
i ll pull the handbrake on wow total number of player
why?they got big issue in asian market ,for now they dont have acces to that market
and i would say 50% of their player come from there so if they dont find a solution soon
they ll loose those player for good
if that bad deal with china had not happened they would probably have broke the 13 million player barrier by end of the year but now they lost a huge number of player because they cant service those player till they find a way to make the game accesable to asian witch im sorry to say isnt gona be easy with china new porn war .it looks like blizzard wont be able to supply wow to asian for a very long time unless a blizzard rep fly to asia to resolve the issue
(lol like that will ever happens)
i ll pull the handbrake on wow total number of player
why?they got big issue in asian market ,for now they dont have acces to that market
and i would say 50% of their player come from there so if they dont find a solution soon
they ll loose those player for good
if that bad deal with china had not happened they would probably have broke the 13 million player barrier by end of the year but now they lost a huge number of player because they cant service those player till they find a way to make the game accesable to asian witch im sorry to say isnt gona be easy with china new porn war .it looks like blizzard wont be able to supply wow to asian for a very long time unless a blizzard rep fly to asia to resolve the issue
(lol like that will ever happens)
I'm familiar with their "issues" with The9. But China is just part of Asia. Japan, Korea and the other countries have to be considered. I seriously doubt that half of WoW's subscribers are from China. Hell, once one gets out of China's Eastern Coastal areas, the vast majority of its people live in conditions much like the middle ages. What Blizzard needs to do is hire a good "lobby" firm over there, that can "represent" them to the local power structure. Corruption being a way of life over there(much as it is in any large power structure) they need people familiar with how the local system works. Check out World of Fight if you want a good laugh.
You are right to a certain degree, but while WoW once had very, very easy to run graphics, but the things in Northrend are not so much. I knew several people that had to purchase new computers, and the ones they were using were good three or four years ago. Yes, you can run the game, but not on decent settings, and not in the major city.
That is something that Blizzard has done very mistakenly. In attempts to make things simpler and easier to access, they thrown everyone on a server into the same city, and you can easily have hundreds there at once. That will slow down anyone's computer. Blizzard's genius is failing these days.
On a slightly different note, I think more games should add a feature I have recently noted in Aion. There is a toggle that can hide all other players. I like this. I have noted a tendency in players of many MMOs to stand on top of vendors/quest givers/anyone important in an attempt to annoy people or otherwise cause problems. This would prevent that entirely.
The article has some good points, but i think it trivializes the importantance of making a game with enough enjoyable and varied content to keep people wanting to play. One thing wow did that the other titles haven't was release with a huge world w/various quests , and has kept consistantly dangling the carrot of content.
Sorry, but I am massively annoyed by the fact that you just compare all the games to WoW. It's really annoying, especially since the fact that most people these days say the WoW was the first MMO. Umm, hello? Anyone in that empty shell you call a head? Have you not heard of Everquest, nor Dark Age of Camelot? I've never played Everquest my own self, but DAoC was my very first MMO, and from what little time I have spent on my friends WoW character, I have to say, it really disappoints in comparison with DAoC. I know, I'm taking what you, Dana, said in comparing games with WoW, and just comparing WoW with DAoC, but really, what else is there I can do. DAoC and Mythic know how to keep their players entertained. DAoC may have some more realistic graphics, but you know what, they run really well on Windows 95, and if I'm not mistaken, that would be the kind of computer thrown off the back of a truck in the past 5 years. So please, in your next rant about games or whatever, don't compare everything to a half-good game like WoW. They didn't create the generation, they just popularized it with Blizzards many followers. Take a note from the old school. Give love to Everquest, DAoC, UO, and any other pre-WoW games.
I rarely ever post, but I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. I may sound like an elitist, but I am 100 percent willing to shell out 50 bucks + a subscription fee and $100-200 dollars a year (for hardware upgrades) for a high-quality game.
Basically, the point I am trying to make is that graphics / system requirements shouldn't be a limiting factor in what constitutes a good game. What, only MMO's that use Direct X 9.0 and pixel shader 2.0 can be considered to garner widespread appeal? I can find a similar analogy to what people eat. I consider myself a foodie and a gamer. I wouldn't say I have an expensive taste, but when I go out and get say, a 24 oz. Prime Rib at a steakhouse, I know well beforehand I'm going to be spending easily $50 or more for the meal. However, I KNOW this meal is going to be savory and delicious, which is the only reason I'm willing to pay that price for it. In a sense, the concept of "appreciating the finer things in life" can apply to MMO's: some people are always going to want to pay the absolute minimum and expect a mind-blowing experience of fun and entertainment. WAKE UP; it's not going to happen. Hardware companies and game companies all depend on consumers to generate revenue for advancement in technology and products. If we let the gaming industry stagnate into F2P MMO's and lackluster graphics, then by all means, keep supporting sub-par games and continue living in 2005.
I'm still in college and may have not tasted the real world as most people know it (studying CS at Brown), but myriad algorithms / optimizations in just the realm of computer graphics are constantly being discovered. AI, database optimizations, processing power of the GPU (real-time raytracing just as an example), and many other utilities are available to make a truly great game. There is no sense in wasting what is available to developers and settling for mediocrity. Yes, the bottlenecks of financing and target audience create sufficient obstacles for such a game, but the mentality of "Oh we should settle for less and do what is comfortable without going the extra mile" is definitely not the way to go. I'm pretty sure any company outside the context of the MMO-industry would scoff at such a rediculous statement. High-quality, some risk, and a lot of heart, period.
"Heck, Blizzard’s next two games are isometric. No one has released an isometric title in years, everything must be 3D, right?"
Sigh. Please do a little research before posting something like this. Starcraft 2 is fully rendered in 3D. It just happens to have an isometric view. Isometric doesn't mean the game isn't rendered in 3D.
Very intresting article - Good read.
Point about WOW tho - their graphic engine is now acutally limiting ppl and FPS are falling rapidly in Northrend. Their updated graphics also add extra load on the servers and that is leading to less ppl beeing able to enter instances. Yes .... there is actually a Q for getting into instances in WOW now... PPL are paying subs for standing in a Q....
Seeing the latest batch of free games beeing released - I have to agree that there is not much of a reason to be spending money on subs. Games like Atlantica online and Runes of Magic are awsome games - even if they were beeing subed. And there is one huge plus to these free to play games.
F2P games have no reason to PR ppl into "buying" them. You play them - you like them - or you hate them. Its up to you.
What did Age of Conan do ? It fooled litterally million PPL to buy a box BEFORE the game even released. All through PR and all that PR promising something that wasn't even in the game when it finally released. The exact same thing is happening with WAR. It was supposed to be all about RVR - but somehow the devs kinda forgot to mention it on the box - that the RVR part of the game is not only broken... it is also limited in numbers or the Server crashes. Yes.. thats what you pay your sub for.
For me - I do not care about Graphics in an MMO. To me mmoRPG games are a story - and it really does not matter if I have a hardcover or a paperback novel to read. As long I can read it (play it and have fun and enjoy the journey in gaming terms) I will enjoy it - as long as the actual story and content are worth reading in the first place.
Thats were the free to play have been improving lately - they are becoming better and better. While the latest subed and buy to play games are actually standing still or even promising something that they can't deliver. And some are even going backwards like AOC launching with a faulty Auctionhouse that was exploided until it was taken offline.
Extra money for better graphics is not worth it when the rest of the actual game is broken like happened with AOC. Extra money for "better game" is not valid either. I really enjoy playing Runes of magic atm - much more than I like WOW cause Blizzard would actually sell their own grandma if they could make some money out of it now (payed for faction changes the latest). Hows that any diffrent than those item shop free to play games ?
So ... now games like WOW are actually
Box sale
Subed game
Item shop (faction changes, look changes, Name changes, server transfers)
Im sorry but where is the gaming part ? Is that the part where a class is nerfed and buffed every other month so you buy the next sub instead of just admitting that those changes have nothing to do with balance ?
I surely hope that free to play games are the future of gaming. Would I pay extra for something better ? Yes I would - but is it going to be anything better ? No not with the way buisness works....
Once subscription games make their games as easy to play, install and run as their F2P counterparts, then we’ll be able to gather some real data and find out which business model actually is better.
The only people who want an easy, non-detailed graphic mmo that has no content are.........10 year olds
you made alot of good points but that last statement makes me think should stick to browser based mmos ROFL
I don't agree. 99% of the F2P mmos are trash
Its obvious you don't get the point. Lets examine some of your fallacies shall we? First, I see you are still bowing down to the shrine of the <Great God> INNOVATION...
^^ Ah, you did say "that work"... But do you have any conception of how many games have failed to get funded because they "break new ground in innovative game mechanics"? There are so many clones of successful games for a reason. You don't risk tens of millions of dollars of *other peoples money* on the *chance* that your Innovation will not only work, but will be considered *fun* by a LOT of other people. If you want to see a room full of investors go all starry eyed, and start throwing truck loads of money at you, intone the mystic phrase "Its just like World of Warcraft"... 
Next, consoles are *NOT* PC's in the minds of the general population. You are expecting WAY too much from such types. Yes, I know its quite simple to not only upgrade PC's, but to build the things, but thats from a totally different perspective than the typical game consumer. Anyone who has had to deal with tech support for even simple PC hardware "issues" can tell you horror stories about ignorance/idiocy that would cause you to go screaming to the east.
Buying a new game console is different from upgrading a PC. Which is one reason that so damn many people are still using PC relics to this very day. Yes, if a console game is good enough, many people WILL buy a new *console*. There are many fewer people who will buy a new PC, or even upgrade one.
Its interesting that you mention FFXI. Have you examined their subscription numbers? They are a niche game that appeals to a certain limited demographic *within the established gaming population*. LOTR(even with a massive number of people interested in Tolkien's works) has still demonstrated that they appeal to only to a certain limited demographic. WoW is the first Western game to demonstrate the ability to pull in millions and millions(coming up on 12) of gamers across the spectrum. Not only that, but they have pulled in people who are outside of the typical gaming population. Just ONE of the reasons is because WoW will run on the relics that the typical consumer has available. Its also a good game, all the way to level cap for another.
You seriously should have left your last paragraph out. Its an all too typical mentality these days. "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind has already been made up..." You did more to undermine your own credibility than anyone else could have managed with that.
wow is so easy a ten your old could get 80 in a month.......thats why it sells, i believe if your a true mmo player you hate wow with a passion for how it fucked up good mmo's cause now everything trys to be like wow. EQ ULTIMA AC FTW
i have to agree that all the points you raised are exactly what mythic DO NOT DO. Dark age of camelot a game which by its nature has some of the best pvp gaming (ok the pve sucks but cant have everything) however the download and install for the game is a monstrous process.They could get around everything by putting together a download that includes all the patches to date and all the expansions call it Dark Age of Camelot and then have it put together a simple trial account that a minute after you have downloaded your in an playing.
I recently returned to the game and thought i would try out the trial system instead of reopening my accounts, the process was an absolute nightmare. Instead of hosting the files themselves they have them spread over multiple providers some of which require registration or subscription payments themselves. After i got past all this garbage and started to download the game i realised that this was downloading only the equivalent of Trials of atlantis the third expansion it hadnt included anything past TOA which included Catacombs and Darkness Rising.
Anyways after it had all downloaded i went to create myself a trial account and i couldnt beleive it Mythic are still expecting people to input credit card details to guarentee payment in other words if you just wanted to find out what the game was like you had to hand over your credit card details. This i felt was a massive blow to the whole concept of trial process, i gave up there and then and instead reactivated my accounts.
I think the problem is certain companies are still living 5 years in the past, they want credit card and not prepared to embrace paypal or debit cards. they want credit cards and they may not realise but not everyone can get a credit card. I think the future is accessible subscription. Dont force people to jump through multiple hoops provide a clear and consise way to activate your game. Age of Conan was another game that the subscription process was a long and convoluted system which didnt actually make it clear if you were paying for anarchy online OR age of conan, and the canceling system was even more complex.
i will say lord of the rings was slightly better but the problem of EU and US versions of the game having different websites and different payment options mean i nearly subscribed to the US when i wanted the EU. (i canceled in the end because the game is boring) as for ncsoft at least they made things slightly easier.
As for F2P mmo's after the disapointment of Archlord im very reluctant to go to that model, i understand it is very succesful but that in itself is worrying. In archlord i could easily spend more than a months worth of subscription on pots and items which would only last 2 weeks 3 if i was conservative and a friend of mine told me how she could easily spend money on a f2p game.
Graphics is another issue i think your right in thinking that the gaming public generally has a rig thats 2 to 3 years old, they dont have the most up to date system and because wow litterally runs on anything nowadays thats the benefit it has over newer releases. Even warhammer i felt was low in the graphics department not much better than WOW but still required massive overheads that stressed even my machine.
Fast playable and easy to access that should be the mantra for companies.
1 thing about WAR and AoC is that they sold alot of copies, and also got alot of people online, at 1st. The problem was that they couldnt keep them, I doubt that is because of accessibilty or system requirements, because most were past that, they just did not enjoy the game or the bugs.
right i'll get striaght to the point shall i about your WOW ideas of a perfect game perfect game my @ss it bored the pants off me its not even beautiful to look at its crap the biggest load of bull ive seen,
im sick to death of people saying its the best thing since sliced bread ha ok if it is why do people try the game an bin it like i did i have 20+ friends that binned it within a month but i still have friends that play it an god knows why because it didnt intrest me in the slightest
you listen to me an you listen good !
As you all know PCGAMER are big fans of WoW and even they have seen the end coming
i hope STARWARS THE OLD REPUBLIC WIPES WOW OFF THE FACE OF THIS PLANET
sick of all you nerd that love it telling us all how every other game stole this from it stole that an wow is the ultimate game going
listen ever think other companys had bigger brains to come up with simular ways of doing things
the old republic straight from PCGAMER (UK) IS GAME WILL BE A WOW KILLER
so read it an weap but i guess the next thing is your going to rip apart that game coz your all hardcore fantasy players but in actual fact its fantasy/sci fi
guess what nerds ya cant always win !!!
(there's always someone or something going to better in the end )
And how much money did you spend before u realised they were trash ?
How much money did you spend before you realised AOC and WAR were trash ?
Get it ?
F2P - Like it or hate it. But you dont have to pay to find out.
A guy who plays mmorpgs and is ranting on an mmorpg forum is calling others nerds as if he wasn't one himself.
Interesting.
Oh the wonders of English as a second language...
WoW is FAR from perfect, but what seems to annoy a lot of people is the FACT that its passed the market test(for years now). In other words, millions upon MILLIONS of people keep spending their money on it. At this point, the only threat to WoW is Blizzard itself. For YEARS now I've heard that this game, or that game would be a "WoW killer". Its never happened. From the looks of it, its not going to. Blizzard will milk it for all its worth, and then we will likely see World of Warcraft 2. I can hear the screams of horror already. 
System requirements.. I dunno man.
While I am no programmer, it is my distinct impression that this has as much to do with code and quality assurance as system requirements. Games can look really good and be easy to run and vice versa and often, games are near impossible to run at first then after a year they're easy. Same game, same system, big difference.
While I haven't played lots of ftp's, the ones I have tried have run well. They don't look too good though and while there is no denying that first and foremost it's gotta work, fact of the matter is I want both, both is better and both is realistic.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that just because the latest subscript titles have messed up, that doesn't mean that you can create a technical law from it. I'm leaning towards other explanations such as eg greed and bad management.
Tip for next article: The Maslow's hierarchy pyramid for mmo's.
I like good graphics and artwork. I like a more challenging game than WoW.
F2p games are successful because people get curious and can try them for free.
In the end though, people will pay thousands of dollars for a game they have fun in, good graphics or not.
I say, all games should be free for a month to get people to try them and then have a monthly subscription.
i agree thats a very good point
I agree completely with the Dana. What’s the point of having requirements that only a few can run, unless you want to focus on that small market. That does not mean that your mmo has to be "simple" or unchallenging. System requirements do not make for good development and well thought out stories. I think the real problem is that developers throwing out garbage because enough sheep keep covering the developmental costs.
solve graphics problems. what if having a dynamic way of detecting hardware then setting up a range of graphic options within that along with not so lagy elements such as in WOW.
UT3: does what im talking about but lags so much anyway that the mim req will look worse then ps1 games.
Fury( No-More): had a high Graphic and Low Graphic EXE
Assassin Creed/ Crysis..etc: Has 2 exe's for DX9, And DX10. which have selective graphics option.
Is that why a recent EA study put Pc as the top gaming platform with a user base larger than the Wii, Xbox360 and PS3? Consoles are not doing better than Pc gaming. Pc gaming is thriving in the digital downloads sales charts.
The average Pc gamer can afford to keep their Rig updated every two years because the average age of a Pc gamer is in their mid 30's. You don't have to blow the bank to build a rig to handle Bioshock or Farcry 2 like you would have 5 years ago to play the latest and greatest, saying otherwise is an exaggeration. So do get your fact straight before making baseless claims based on misinformed hearsay that the Pc is doomed. That BS is started by the consoles companies with viral in the first place. I've included a link to relieve your ignorance.
www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/58497
Is that why a recent EA study put Pc as the top gaming platform with a user base larger than the Wii, Xbox360 and PS3? Consoles are not doing better than Pc gaming. Pc gaming is thriving in the digital downloads sales charts.
The average Pc gamer can afford to keep their Rig updated every two years because the average age of a Pc gamer is in their mid 30's. You don't have to blow the bank to build a rig to handle Bioshock or Farcry 2 like you would have 5 years ago to play the latest and greatest, saying otherwise is an exaggeration. So do get your fact straight before making baseless claims based on misinformed hearsay that the Pc is doomed. That BS is started by the consoles companies with viral in the first place. I've included a link to relieve your ignorance.
www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/58497
And EA would never, EVER use such tactics itself?
Of course the PC isn't doomed. Consoles and PC's tend to attract different classes of players. There is some overlap(of course), and current trend lines MAY mark some future convergence of the two device types, but for now they appeal to different types of gamers. But that still doesn't mean that attention doesn't have to be paid to the fact that WAY too many people are still using PC relics, rather than decent systems. Its getting better, but SLOWLY. Look at these stats from steams hardware survey(keeping in mind that they self select for on line players)
store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
I agree, a good game that will run on an average PC is a game that includes a lot more of the available market.
Pay to play model is extremely expensive if you want to rejoin a game you quit more than a year in the past. If there have have been 2 or more expansions since you left the game, you are up for the cost of 2 games just to get the game up and running again. The purchase cost of the missing expansions may or may not include the first 2 weeks or month of subscription. That is very expensive and risky proposition for a game you left because you were bored and all you really want to do is try it out to see if the added content makes it worth playing again. It is also a slap in the face considering that you have already purchased the original game and may even have purchased several of the older expansions. Pay through the nose is a better description than pay to play!
In contrast, I can usually start a new game, that is a completely new and novel experience, for the purchase cost of a single game, or less if it is free to play or has free trial.
I am not trivializing DAoC, far from it. Check the credits on the original game and you'll find my name (testing, but hey, I was 16 or so!) Also, Sanya proofed the thing for me and she was their Community person! Trust me, we remember DAoC.
I loved that game as well, but it's a bit old to make a valid comparison about how to do modern graphics on a low end machine.
That has to do with what exactly? It's still an isometric perspective, no one much cares what the techncial specs are. The point is, they dared to select the view that fits best with their style of gaming, whereas every other huge RPG franchise has shifted to 3rd person in recent years.
The reasoning for releasing such a high graphic game is Marketing reasons. Like when EQ2 came out. They KNEW people were going to play it. But they also KNEW people would need to upgrade there towers to play in a world that dident look like mashed potatos. Sony not only has there own computers but they used to be in league with falcon northwest.
I could not agree more with you.
This obsession for latest graphics basically is what pushed me out of EVE. Before EVE had 2 clients, the premium one, with all the bells and whistles and the classic one, which did not look as good but ran well on older machines. Then lo and behold they decided to drop the classic one.
As upgrading my machine, especially in this economy was not an option, I was faced with 2 options: quit or try to play the game which ran in some instances at 2 FPS. So I quit, started playing Perfect World (in which i have spent pretty much the same as I would have on an EVE subscription) and trying other F2P games as well.
Now I do understand sometime later I will have to upgrade my rig, and trust me, I do want to upgrade my rig so bad it hurts. But I also have other RL responsabilities, and right now dishing out $500 + for a new computer is not in the cards. I'm sure there are a lot who are also in my boat.
Also, as a webdesigner myself I have always subscribed to the idea that making a huge file look good is no big thing. The real masters of design, be it in webpages, Flash or Games are the ones that can pull off the most graphic impact with the smallest size possible.
And just to think if EVE had kept their classic client, I would have still been paying my monthly subscritption...
Graphics clearly play a role. Being someone who still plays AC to this day, when I try to convince others to play one of the first questions is usually "What are the graphics like?". Then when people see the graphics are older (the game was made 10 years ago) they often times back away from the game and say that Turbine should rerelease AC with modern graphics. Even long time veterans of AC who finally left always say they'd come back if the graphics were cutting edge.
Sadly too many people really do care about the graphics. The people you get who don't care about graphics now a days are either hardcore fans of that particular game, and have been since the graphics were modern. Or you get people who are completly casual gamers and don't care about much other then that the game is easy and always makes you feel like you won. Sadly I just don't want that type of casual game, and is why I play so few of the MMOs (WoW included). I want challenge and I want to have to figure things out.
The key for a company to make a lot of money is make the game play on a lot of systems, and make it simple. Simple in both playing, leveling and understanding. Sadly I can't stand games that are so easy, but it's where the big bucks are.
What we need are the companies who are happy with only 100,000 players and make a game to target specific audiences. No more wanting to make the next 10 million player bore-fest of a game. Give me a company that wants to create fun and some nice profits. Not a company who wants to make no fun but more profits then they need.
Eve went to one client for several reasons. One, its easier to code one and QA it than two. Second, while there is now only one client, it can be set to operate like the old classic(in the configuration settings). I have a level 36 fighter in Perfect World, and while its not a bad game, its not nearly as fun as some like Cabal to me(level 118 warrior currently). I agree that CCp's timing could have been better... But thats CCP for you.
Low graphics opens new worlds to those with note books er i mean laptops, Thinking that cellphone (mobilephone) providers are virtually giving away notebooks with crap specs and the ability to get on the net no wonder there are more people on WoW today, but i bet if you look for the guys that have had access to the internet for over 8-9 years they are either playing EvE or some other mmo nowadays.
That has to do with what exactly? It's still an isometric perspective, no one much cares what the techncial specs are. The point is, they dared to select the view that fits best with their style of gaming, whereas every other huge RPG franchise has shifted to 3rd person in recent years.
Dana, I can't help but log in and say I think your article is complete Rubbish. Now I'm not trying to insult you, but its nothing more than a glorified assumption. It reminded me of a Star Trek fan going on about why they think Captain Piccard was bald. It's just fan talk, nothing more.
The point I'm trying to make is that your article is based on nothing factual. It comes across as a nerd's ramblings. Which is fine, we all do it, but there are just too many inconsistencies, loop holes, in your hypothesis.
Furthermore, your comment on the isometric views... are you serious? Have you considered for one moment that Blizzard is merely staying consistent with their sequels, which all have their roots in 2d sprite based isometric games? You are picking out straw men here.
Diablo 3, Starcraft 2 are completely 3D, they can require some much updated computer hardware, but the sole reason they are isometric is because they are SEQUELS. You use the isometric perspective as a means to connote low system spec requirements.
Now I wont disagree with you that accessibility is important, but its not the reason for which you claim sub based mmorpgs are going. First you must look at the target audience. Most f2p titles that are doing well are what? childish cartoons. They take advantage of this kiddy cartoon market, children and teens who are infatuated with anime. Sure they can get a lot of players, but players are not equal to actual profit. This means recent sub based western mmo's can still make more profit but have much fewer active subs than a f2p title.
The real issue isnt the system specs, sure it plays a role depending on your target audience, mainly children, but rather it has to do with the recent disappointments in game play and quality. Hype has the opposite effect for a title if the title cannot live up to its marketing department. Games like Age of Conan were incomplete and broken in many ways. The system requirements didnt hurt the MATURE title, rather the quality of the game itself. WARHAMMER online's issue is similar, the gameplay was subpar, the end game was horribly designed, and over all the game was nothing more than a glorified battle ground. You mentioned you have tested DAoC, then you should know that fans had DAoC expectations for a title like WAR, which turned out to be fairly linear in nature, a shallow shadow of Mythics previous title.
Gaming is not a cheap hobby, it never has been. History has proven that if quality games exist, gamers will be more inclined to upgrade. Remember, an upgrade doesnt mean a new computer all the time, it could be more RAM or a new GPU. These have gone down in price of late, there is no excuse. There are far more expensive hobbies out there. A gamer has to stay up with the times or accept that their computer is only as good as the year it was made for.
Quality games with smart design is the answer, not accessibility.
I would agree with every single thing Dana Massey said.
I would add that I don't want an online game that requires full-time play to be fun. I hate the drop-envy that arises in these games and the ridiculous caste-systems which arise which seem so inversely proportional to the real life quality of persons, in that the unemployed or kids are the only ones who have time to ascend to the gaming nirvana of best loot. I have a real job which is hugely rewarding, and I also like games. So when I'm confronted with games which only reward those who put far too much time into them than I ever could manage, I lose interest in the game. Though some might argue that this is to be expected and possibly even in the best interest of the game's community, in the context of Massey's column, that argument is myopic, as the terrible result for the development company is that it loses a customer.
Which, in a nutshell, if you ask me, is precisely why so many games have generated disappointing sales.
I've been on the internet since before it was called that (the early 80s). I still play WOW. I also play City of Heroes, which has terrific limited graphics. Though I use state-of-the-moment gpus and love to tinker with my computer, I still ike the games that let me play.
Unlike those who lack employment, I don't want a game that is a job. And let's face it, the employed are the lifeblood of online gaming. So I'm guessing there are more people who are like me than who are not.
I didn't have time to read all the post's as i was in a rush but i read everything else and just wanted to say I have been waiting for years for someone to say this games are getting too need too much power to run and the fun of playing them is lacking i rather play a game with good game play that look ok than play a bad game that look great people put FFXI and WOW down for the cartoony look but there both still out there where will conan be in 7 years people who want to play an easy to get into game don't have 1,000's to spen on lates graphics cards and more gig's of ram than nasa use's just to find out the next one needs double.
lets go old school get back to what gaming means fun and enjoyment where we can pick up and play.
Mir 2 linage everquest FFXI WOW and many more games out there are still running and will be for many more years because we can play them with out having to morgae the house just to put a new graphics card in or buy a 68" hd widescreen monitor with supre dolby 24.1 sound.
I am just here to applaud the article. I think that is one of the best assesments of gaming I have read in a long time. Thank you.