Slashdot Mirror
MMOG Subscription Analysis Provides New Insights
Thanks to jer0 for pointing to SirBruce's updated MMOG Subscription Growth analysis page, which tries to "chart the trend in active subscriptions" for major MMO titles using public and private data. This "major revision" has the "chart separated into three tiers" dependent on subscription size, and shows Lineage as the worldwide MMO leader at "just under 2.7 million" (though this may be reliant on bulk 'PC Baang' subscriptions in countries such as South Korea, and the game has "only 7,000 [subscribers] in the United States.") Other notable entries include City Of Heroes ("surpassed 180,000 subscribers... proof that a well-executed MMOG can still garner substantial numbers even in the current competitive climate"), and the also recently launched, but less successful Horizons ("After peaking at around 35,000 subscribers, they have since fallen to somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 subscribers.")
graph #3 reports 100k Runescape "active subscribers" in Jul 04. Either I'm hugely underestimating how many people pay for Runescape, or they're counting _all_ accounts, of which the majority are neither 'subscribers' or 'active.'
But I'm kinda interested in the Matrix online game.
I'm wondering how they will incorporate bullettime into the online/realtime arena.
I'm afraid it will suck though, but if it's cool, that will be the first online game I will pay a subscription for.
For me the other online MMOPROPRFPRFRPGR's are too boring in the long run.
This is the sig that says NI (again)
By requiring a paid subscription, you virtually eliminate the industry-standard scapegoat of "piracy" when your game fails...
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
does anyone here play any of those Asian based MMORPG's? I'm just curious, do they have enough english-speaking players or english language servers so that playing doesn't become a chore of finding something you can understand??
I actually just registered for Second Life last night. It's kinda interesting. I don't think it qualifies as a conventional "roleplaying" game, although you do have an avatar in a massive multiplayer online world, and you can configure how you look and amass all sorts of objects in an inventory... as well as virtual money. But there's no "experience", per se.
;)
One aspect that may definitely disqualify it as a MMORPG for sure, is that it actually has women in it.
Second Life has a scripting language (C++-based) and basically allows anyone to create freeform objects with behaviors and properties. The economic model is interesting. You can do things like create an automated dispenser which charges people to create copies of objects you have created. You can also own virtual real estate.
Someone has created an adventure-within-a-world in it that tracks experience. I haven't checked it out yet, but it sounds interesting. You have to "buy" an Adventurer's Pack which gives you all the relevant objects.
So I don't know if it counts. What do you think?
My name in it is Roark Spinnaker, in the event you run into me while I'm flying around in it. I haven't decided yet if I will stay after the free week trial is over.
I've been toying around with writing me own games for a bit now, and I've been thinking about writing them much longer than that. And I've gotten into no small number of arguments on various IRC #gamedev channels about MMORPG's in particular lately.
Though I don't claim that it's foolproof or that it's guaranteed sucess, I don't think it's a guaranteed failure either. Here is my idea:
A smaller, more focused MMORPG, perhaps even the "massive" part needs to be removed. Target subscription is 500-1500 subscribers, with a set upper limit of probably 1500. Target subscription fee $50 a month (read on before you just dismiss everything outright). Before anyone explodes over that rate, consider that for every other product, there are people interested in paying a premium for just about anything. (Also consider that the hardcore gamer has a bigger game budget than that anyway... but will he devote so much of it to this?)
Not sure about the world itself, but I will admit that it probably has to be either a starwar'ish space thing, or medivieval fantasy (dragons, elves). If you wanted to play, you'd submit an application, and assuming it's not all booked up, you'd be given a choice of up to 2 dozen characters to play, complete with biography summaries of those (and if they were completely unsuitable... wait another day, while we find some other choices for you). I'd also try to weed out all the obnoxious players, too, for that matter. People who want to play in character are important, and if you chalked up more than a few infractions (talking about monday night football in game, using too much modern slang, etc) I'd probably end up canceling the subscription.
Player death would be permanent (choose another character). There would be skill levels, but this isn't pacman and they aren't power pellets (numbers hidden from the player). There would be a true storyline/plot going on, but it's up to the players what happens with it (will the evil lord dominate the known world, blah blah). Also (and I'm still conceptualizing what the tools would have to be to allow this) the DM's in the game would work hard to come up with alot of subplots for players, while encouraging players to not only maintain the plots, but invent/help out/ grow them.
For instance, let's take a very boring character that no one would choose to play. An owner of a small bookshop in the village that passes for a major city in the kingdom. One day walking to the market, a DM uses his "godlike" powers to put a old hag in his path, in a way that he can't help but walk into her, knock her down. She casts a curse, which the player might not even choose to believe (I tend to go for the flavor of story where magic is truly rare, though this world may or may not be that way). That DM flags that player, so that if another DM takes over, they can keep a fairly close watch on him. For the next week of play, whenever he logs in, bad (but not really evil) things happen to the character. Keeps stepping in horse turds, or if he walks past a candle, his head catches on fire (though not allowing it to do significant damage). Let the player decide how to handle it. Will the player seek someone out to reverse it? Will he seek out the old hag and apologize? I don't know.
And I could cook up a few dozen other subplots, for this *boring* character. Town guards extorting protection from him (which is actually an intersecting plot for another character I use an example). Some evil creepy stranger asks you to track down a rare book. Etc.
Among other things, each player would be flagged as to what subplots had been used with him, and maybe the software should even keep track (suggest?) of possible subplots. With at most 300 simultaneous players, it just might be possible, if everything were automated well for the DM. (They'd have to be good typists though, to keep up with everyone, talking through so many NPCs).
Anyone care to comment on how stupid all of this is?
I have to agree with parent's sentiment - ATITD2 (I just started playing the beta) is amazingly well done, but p0w3rg4m3rz will be bored within minutes...a plus as far as I'm concerned.
The game takes place in the Egypt of antiquity, and all players begin as peasants. The goal of the game is to build "the perfect society" according to the Seven Virtues. You learn how to build structures, and learn new skills at "state sponsored" schools dedicated to the Seven Virtues, eventually completing tests to move higher in the tech tree.
Three things I find of particular interest: cooperative learning (wherein citizens donate materials to Universities in order to unlock higher skills for *all* their region), the ability to teach skills to other players, and player-written laws.
If you don't like the way something works in the game, propose a law. If it has enough votes (and doesn't break game mechanics), the "law" is written into the game by the devs. And speaking of the devs, they seem *very* responsive to player ideas. You really get the sense that they care about the enjoyment factor.
I still play EQ and CoH, but ATITD2 looks like it will appeal to people who like a challenge, but want to go a different route.
- Jack
I would say it was the 35 year occupation(1910-1945) and colonial Japan's attmept to wipe out the Korean language and culture(people were given Japanese names, the Japanese language was the only language allowed in schools and official forums), Korean comfort women etc. Plus the fact that unlike Germany, Japan made very few renumerations to the victims. The youth of Korea seem a lot less angry at Japan than their parents/grandparents. Off topic but if you do get the chance, I recommend you talk to both Germans and Japanese about the war, you will get some very interesting opinions...
Yet the sims online was a total failure. I think the reason for this is both simple and important.
What was the difference between The Sims and The Sims online?
The sims is a non-competitive game. It is totally impossible to compare the "performance" of one player vs another. The Sims as played by those still playing it is perhaps even a coorperative game. Most of the content is not created by Maxis/EA but by the users and shared by the users. I even think that people don't by the expansions for the extra content but for the extra capability it gives the community to create their own content.
Compare this with the sims online where there is no user created content and that introduces competition with other players. Plus now you gotta work for every credit in game (Many The Sims player use the moneycheat to get the money they need for their family). The Sims is a game where you let your creative juices flow. The Sims online is a grind to compete.
The Sims is also a good example because the sales figures show that the people that play it are not afraid to spend money. Even content downloaded is often paid for as most of the "free" content is hosted from a central site that requires a subscription to offset hosting costs. Add the constant expansions and The Sims player have easily spend hundreds of dollars.
Most MMO games seem obsessed with adding competition even PvP. Sure online combat games are popular but is it popular with the right crowd? Is it possible that people who like Counter Strike will never pay for a MMO version of it? After all why should they, they got their MMO free.
Paid for MMO games perhaps should aim at a different audience. An audience that prefers to have something more then just a grind to compete on a ladder game. Competition gives winners and losers. People are not going to pay money each month to loose to some 12 yr old kid that can afford to spend 24/7 learning every exploit in the game.
Game industry take note. With every leet counter stike kiddie you attract to your game you loose 10 people that just want to have fun.
I am not saying the a massive CS game won't work or sell. Just that at their is a different market as well. Second Life is an example of this.
What I would like to see in a game. No PvP except maybe in arena's with very clear rules and no cheats. A low lvl/irregular player is not worthless, read this as not making it compulsery to first grind to lvl X before you can do anything fun/usefull. Police that constantly checks for assholes ruining it for everyone else. Ban people that can't behave. 1 asshole can easily turn of dozens of players.
Growth would be nice too, you start as a kid with no skills and weak stats, then grow up and eventually grow old and then die. Give the option to retire and make the next character related to the first. A child an apprentice or similar. This neatly would avoid insanely high characters but a child would inherit money and some basic skills avoiding you to start a new low lvl character once you reached the XP ceiling.
But most importantly the game should still be fun when you remove the multi player element.
To many games now are very basic Diablo clones. Nothing wrong with diablo but not everyone likes it and there is no market for dozens like it.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Horizons is hands down my favorite of all of those. I foresee myself playing this game for years to come.
The game has a much more mature player base than any other I have seen, a complete lack of d00ds/griefers (the lack of a PvP element probably is a part of this). The game certainly is less attractive to power-levelers who do become bored with it rapidly. The game is also the most "solo friendly" of anything I've played since AC1. I have always hated forced-grouping games, and Horizons gives you both the ability to participate in a community, as well as a chance to be self-reliant if you choose.
For me the attraction is the very immersive world. The world itself is a beautiful one, the player models from Dragon to Dryad are great, the crafting system is first-class, and the multi-schooling system is much more enjoyable and intriguing for me than rigid class systems like EQ/DAoC had. I love the *process* of playing Horizons, and just interacting with the world. If you are a goal-oriented person in a race to level 100, then yes this game may not be for you.
There ARE issues with the game at this time, and they ARE making some major improvements, which I expect to really transform the game over the next 6-12 months. For a game like Horizons, I am willing to give this game the time it needs to fully mature. I currently play mainly on the Blight test server and there are a LOT of changes coming in the very near future.
Visit Tazoon.com to see a greater amount of positive feedback from CURRENT players who really love this game, and learn WHY they like it. It has a loyal diehard fanbase that I have not experienced since my three years with AC1.
But most of all, try the 7-day free trial and make up your own mind about this game.