What can be done to revive the MMO genre? Can it be revived? Is there any hope?

[rustys-name-is-kumar]

Mmos were better back then because the internet was young and people were better. You cannot have good mmos or online communities now because people are terrible. There is no fixing this without massive societal shifts. Every other guess or explanation is nonsense.

mmos only really worked for the novelty of how its multiplayer operated, the idea of sharing a gigantic world with other players and embarking on adventures seemed tight 25 years ago. hell, online gaming back then in general felt fresh and new to many people.

but quarter a century later where there's more multiplayer **** releasing every week the magic is gone and by extension the mmo novelty long wore off. what exists now are low effort **** games that try to bring back the olden days but never will. nobody is playing a full loot-on-player-death sandbox because people don't want to waste their time and nobody wants to have to play a game where they need to mandatory group to kill scrub trash mobs in a cave.

[WaterMage]

IMO if mmos stop being mindless gear farming cooldown managing and tries to learn from survival games, they coudl attract another audience.

[Xenich]

Mmos were better back then because the internet was young and people were better. You cannot have good mmos or online communities now because people are terrible. There is no fixing this without massive societal shifts. Every other guess or explanation is nonsense.

mmos only really worked for the novelty of how its multiplayer operated, the idea of sharing a gigantic world with other players and embarking on adventures seemed tight 25 years ago. hell, online gaming back then in general felt fresh and new to many people.

but quarter a century later where there's more multiplayer **** releasing every week the magic is gone and by extension the mmo novelty long wore off. what exists now are low effort **** games that try to bring back the olden days but never will. nobody is playing a full loot-on-player-death sandbox because people don't want to waste their time and nobody wants to have to play a game where they need to mandatory group to kill scrub trash mobs in a cave.

Novelty?

MUDs were around since the late 70's though. It wasn't some "new" thing. They evolved over the years adding graphics until MMOs in the late 90's made them fairly well known. EQ is literally a MUD with graphics placed over the top of it.

It may have been a novelty to those who were ignorant of online gaming and somehow thought EQ was some amazing new tech or game play discovered, but for those who had been playing them for the last couple of decades before they became well known, it was simply expanding that form of play to a graphical sense with a larger world and player interaction.

It is a certain style of play that some find enjoyable and modern MMOs have completely moved away from it I would say the progression to modern MMOs was a process of removing the original style of MUD play and replacing it with console/arcade play in multiplayer. Most of the original play concepts of MUDs are missing in modern MMOs in terms of mechanics and exploration.

In EQ for instance it took MUDs base concept and expanding upon various concepts of it.

Exploration, Risk vs Reward, Choice and Consequence, Long Term progression, etc... are all concepts of play that are mostly lacking in modern MMOs due to the claims that they are "tedious", yet many enjoy what they provide in play.

Modern games put in Maps/Mini-maps, easy recovery, eliminating regression play and focusing purely on active gain based progression (ie there is no loss, simply not gaining on failure) and packaged it in a fast paced and progressing system of play. Choices are meaningless and the games have become nothing more than cheap thrills akin to playing a slot machine with infinite coins.

I think game play is what is lacking, or rather this style of game play.

The important factor though is the audience. The bulk of mainstreamers want an action/arcade game and don't find these elements of play enjoyable. There is a conflict in the audiences and the reality is that modern MMOs have been only attending to them.

Point is, MMOs today aren't really the same games of the past. Different focus, goals, styles, and expectations. Much of what you can see in modern MMOs is easily available in many single/multiplayer games and they attend to an audience that expects that concept of play. So in that respect, I would say... sure.. let MMOs die as they serve no real purpose because of that.

MMOs of the past don't exist in any real format in the market though. As I said, they are essentially MUD style systems of play and contain many concepts of play that modern games do not have.

Don't get me wrong, there are "some" that have similar styles, but most try to chase modern designs that conflict with the overall original style of play.

I don't think MMOs will ever return to the state they were on release (EQ had I think 800k at its peak), but I do think there are enough people who desire that old school play style due to the nuances of its systems, providing a company can achieve that respect in play.

The issue I see is with games like Pantheon who initially had a "goal" of reviving those concepts, but seem to have missed the point in their attempt to cater to modern demands. At its base, it does pretty good, but I will say it is not what I would call a true representation of the concepts I mentioned above.

I think M&M will be a closer reflection of those principals in play, so we will see how well it does (which I think regardless, it will do quite well because of their development practice and budgeting) .

This type of MMO isn't a novelty though, it is a system of play that has been around long before most people knew about it and a style that certain types of people enjoy. The question is, can developers recognize this and develop for the correct audience to achieve success because mainstream can not sustain these types of games due to their expectations and demands being at complete odds with its form of play.

[NotAI]

obsolete genre

Over the years, I've also come to the conclusion, unfortunately, that this might be true.

► Show Spoiler

ESSAY. Though it doesn't mean anything final. Obsolete economically can mean that the costs exceed the benefits for a randomly selected firm, even if, given a large outside shock, a recovery is still quite possible.

It can be fixed, but it requires, like most failing sectors, both the correct philosophy of approach plus an influx of 5-10 billion in cost coverage.

In the past, what made it possible, was that, because it was new, and not failing, the influx wasn't needed, only meager resources, courage, peace and time, and the right philosophy of approach.

A lot of the reasons that it worked in the past were free in the past. In a failing sector to recover them would cost a massive influx of cash (a). Wisely spent (b). As it happens, there is no entity around that combines (a) and (b) and also seems wanting to take the risk (c).

MMOs today will require subsidizing the formation of communities. Whereas in the past, communities formed for free, because MMOs were the only social media to begin with. And the population capped servers created tight communities by accident. Making the same game design a lot more fun than it would be today, in massive servers where no two persons shall ever meet again unless they plan to meet again after they met once.

That can be solved by initial sunk cost, but it would have to rival the subsidies social media sites now pay out. Which can be better spent on three whole single player games.

Nobody who can fix it, wants to; nobody who wants to, can. As has been said about the economic decline of italy, belgium, spain, before the industrial revolution.

Basically somebody need to make an Everquest-like with modern graphics and quests a la Witcher 3 and reactivity a la Arx Fatalis, and iterate until it works out. Then pay streamers to play it. But this is unlikely because there are FAR better ways to use the same cash.

So economically obsolete, agree.

[Xenich]

obsolete genre

Over the years, I've also come to the conclusion, unfortunately, that this might be true.

Basically somebody need to make an Everquest-like with modern graphics and quests a la Witcher 3 and reactivity a la Arx Fatalis, and iterate until it works out. Then pay streamers to play it. But this is unlikely because there are FAR better ways to use the same cash.

The market is the problem. You can't compete for mainstream and retain them. It isn't possible due to their expectations.

A mainstream audience expects:

• Massive content on release (ie comparing to already existing MMOs)

• Game systems that contradict development practicality.
  
  • Fast leveling to cap
  • no consequence progression (ie death penalty/recovery)
  • exploration provided upfront (maps/gps)
  • Quest tour guide systems (ie bouncy balls, pointers, etc...)
  • Fast world travel anywhere
  • Fast immediate travel/run speeds
  • Short interval session play (ie be able to run a dungeon/objective in 10-20 mins)
  • Fast track to objectives (Dungeons with bosses and little trash)
  • Focus on solo content for progression
  • Excessive gear power demand with levels/expansions
  • Individual instance, no competition for item/quest dropping named targets
  • Fancy cutting edge action systems and graphics with visual novels
  • Doesn't want to sub, prefers FTP systems and stores

And the list goes on... all things that are impractical to provide for because they all speed up progression and play to the point where the players consume the content at excessive speed.

This is why you end up with modern MMOs inserting tons of gimmicks (dailies, simple mundane repetitious tasks, or token systems, etc...)

All of the things they want (that are in single player games which are designed around individual player "convivence") work against the development of MMO content and a balanced progression of play.

Games like release EQ took months to get to cap. The average player base was often still working on levels and content when the new expansions hit.

The little things like exploring and getting lost, figuring out where things were, corpse runs, waits for boat rides, travel being very slow, etc... all factored into slowing down the play which kept people subbing and allowed developers to get new content out. Granted, there were always the locusts, but because it took so long to get through the content, those were mostly diehard excessive time commitment players which were not the majority.

Even then, the place holder system of spawns + item drops being uncommon to rare kept even the diehards working to goals. Add to the fact that end game content was tuned to be extremely difficult (little margin for error) and they were busy trying to defeat or farm content until the next release so by the time new content came out, few were sitting around with nothing to do.

Thing is, the mainstream players don't want that, they want the list above and because of that there is no way for a new company to step in and compete on those terms without having a massive upfront development cost unless they cut some corners in the areas people often demand (ie graphics, combat systems and animations, questing systems, visual cut scenes, etc...) only to end up with a bunch of content made that people invalidate in a very short period of time? Yeah, it doesn't work.

The costs are prohibitive to go after that market in the first place and even more so when you try to sustain that pace of development for what they expect. It carries far too much risk.

Smaller niche markets for MMOs is where I think the future lies (outside of my previous mention about selling client/server packages).

Mainstream MMOs are dead in terms of anything outside of gimmick systems and even then, that is only so they can stay afloat. Any new company is going to tank if they are budgeting around trying to develop to attend to that market.

[rusty_shackleford]

I can think of maybe a handful of times total when playing MMOs where I actually cared that it was capable of supporting a "massive" amount of simultaneous players. It's not a feature anyone actually wants or cares about.

I mean in the sense of playing together, not in the sense of being persistently online.

The amount of effort put into creating & maintaining tech that nobody actually cares about is ridiculous when you think on it

[edit]
but I can think of a LOT of times where it just made my game worse. Easy example is basically any big streamer playing an MMO has hundreds of parasocial leeches following them around that will completely ruin your day if you come upon them.

[Xenich]

I can think of maybe a handful of times total when playing MMOs where I actually cared that it was capable of supporting a "massive" amount of simultaneous players. It's not a feature anyone actually wants or cares about.

I mean in the sense of playing together, not in the sense of being persistently online.

True.

I have played on several EQ emulator servers when the population varied from as little as 30 up to 1k and I never thought anything about it.

I think where this is a problem initially is when you step into a small pop server and maybe can't find people to play with, but even on small pop servers I was able to eventually find people to group with regularly and once you get a core to play with, it really doesn't matter if there are 100000 or just 6 people playing together.

I also think this is more of a problem for the mainstream player who treats an MMO like it is a quick mobile game to play on lunch. I see some of these types of complaints from time to time (more recently in pantheon) where they claim that they should be able to log on, find a group, do a dungeon all within the hour without knowing anyone (makes me hate the dungeon finder thing in how it has trained people to treat MMOs this way).

That is why I like the individual client/server package idea. I used to setup some of those Survival game servers from time to time and my friends and I would treat it just like an MMO logging in as we could, playing together as time permitted, etc... just like we did with an MMO. You don't need thousands of people, just enough people to play with.

The number of people on is irrelevant to me outside of having enough to do all the content.

[rusty_shackleford]

I have played on several EQ emulator servers when the population varied from as little as 30 up to 1k and I never thought anything about it.

Population still matters, which is not what I'm saying. Trading, finding people to interact with, etc.,
I have just never cared that I can interact with thousands of players at the same time. There's basically no way this doesn't just make my experience worse.

[Xenich]

I have played on several EQ emulator servers when the population varied from as little as 30 up to 1k and I never thought anything about it.

Population still matters, which is not what I'm saying. Trading, finding people to interact with, etc.,
I have just never cared that I can interact with thousands of players at the same time. There's basically no way this doesn't just make my experience worse.

Ah, I see what you mean.

Yeah, I never experienced the "streamer" thing you mentioned, I pretty much stopped playing MMOs once that whole fandom became a thing.

I guess that is why I stayed on Test server as long as I could on EQ and why I always try to pick the lowest population servers when I try an MMO. There is a certain requirement in population as you mentioned, but after that point... yeah... I think it makes it worse.

[NotAI]

obsolete genre

Over the years, I've also come to the conclusion, unfortunately, that this might be true.

Basically somebody need to make an Everquest-like with modern graphics and quests a la Witcher 3 and reactivity a la Arx Fatalis, and iterate until it works out. Then pay streamers to play it. But this is unlikely because there are FAR better ways to use the same cash.

The market is the problem. You can't compete for mainstream and retain them. It isn't possible due to their expectations.

A mainstream audience expects:

• Massive content on release (ie comparing to already existing MMOs)

• Game systems that contradict development practicality.
  
  • Fast leveling to cap
  • no consequence progression (ie death penalty/recovery)
  • exploration provided upfront (maps/gps)
  • Quest tour guide systems (ie bouncy balls, pointers, etc...)
  • Fast world travel anywhere
  • Fast immediate travel/run speeds
  • Short interval session play (ie be able to run a dungeon/objective in 10-20 mins)
  • Fast track to objectives (Dungeons with bosses and little trash)
  • Focus on solo content for progression
  • Excessive gear power demand with levels/expansions
  • Individual instance, no competition for item/quest dropping named targets
  • Fancy cutting edge action systems and graphics with visual novels
  • Doesn't want to sub, prefers FTP systems and stores

And the list goes on... all things that are impractical to provide for because they all speed up progression and play to the point where the players consume the content at excessive speed.

This is why you end up with modern MMOs inserting tons of gimmicks (dailies, simple mundane repetitious tasks, or token systems, etc...)

All of the things they want (that are in single player games which are designed around individual player "convivence") work against the development of MMO content and a balanced progression of play.

Games like release EQ took months to get to cap. The average player base was often still working on levels and content when the new expansions hit.

The little things like exploring and getting lost, figuring out where things were, corpse runs, waits for boat rides, travel being very slow, etc... all factored into slowing down the play which kept people subbing and allowed developers to get new content out. Granted, there were always the locusts, but because it took so long to get through the content, those were mostly diehard excessive time commitment players which were not the majority.

Even then, the place holder system of spawns + item drops being uncommon to rare kept even the diehards working to goals. Add to the fact that end game content was tuned to be extremely difficult (little margin for error) and they were busy trying to defeat or farm content until the next release so by the time new content came out, few were sitting around with nothing to do.

Thing is, the mainstream players don't want that, they want the list above and because of that there is no way for a new company to step in and compete on those terms without having a massive upfront development cost unless they cut some corners in the areas people often demand (ie graphics, combat systems and animations, questing systems, visual cut scenes, etc...) only to end up with a bunch of content made that people invalidate in a very short period of time? Yeah, it doesn't work.

The costs are prohibitive to go after that market in the first place and even more so when you try to sustain that pace of development for what they expect. It carries far too much risk.

Smaller niche markets for MMOs is where I think the future lies (outside of my previous mention about selling client/server packages).

Mainstream MMOs are dead in terms of anything outside of gimmick systems and even then, that is only so they can stay afloat. Any new company is going to tank if they are budgeting around trying to develop to attend to that market.

There are some good points here. Agree also with the last thesis. Will comment more in a bit.

One thing about the mainstream market though. It's not quite what it seems. It does not actually have a demand for specific features.

► Show Spoiler

ESSAY. What is mainstream.

The mainstream market is not quite what it seems.

Basically, what is really happening is that, coarsely, there are two types of audiences, one that might be called contrarian, one that that might be called mainstream.

Both actually prefer better to worse, rather than any features in particular. There is nothing specific that mainstream prefers, no "mainstream kind of game" in any genre, with a catch.

What makes the mainstream "mainstream" is that they really care about peer pressure, while contrarians do not.

They pick better over worse, only among options they think (their estimate might be wrong) are already sufficiently popular.

They only play things enough other people play or will probably play, specifically, that the probability of talking to their peer group, or better a stranger, about it, and getting a positive reply, is high enough.

This is how a turn-based CRPG like BG3 can become one of the top mainstreams games. It's basically what Larian always did, good stuff, but now with a big brand that was heavily marketed up to release, and had a lot of positive press about it.

Basically, you can make even the most obscure CRPG design mainstream, if it's also good, if you put a few billion in marketing, to the point it seems that everyone was going to play it.

What makes mainstream "mainstream" is that if all the options that are mainstream are bad, mainstream audience will not search for anything better. They will pick one of the mainstream options, no matter how bad, so long as they prefer something to nothing at all.

This leads to the usual characteristics. Mainstream players don't search, only pick from the top positions. Why? Because if they have to search, that means few people are playing it. Meaning they can't satisfy their social needs with that product. But they are lexicographic over their social preferences.

That means they have played waaay fewer games than contrarians and are less able to decide what is better or worse, even if they do prefer better to worse when it's on the table. So they can seem excited about total crap, from the perspective of contrarian audiences, which play based on only their own preferences and bother to search for the best fit to their preferences.

Obviously this means that mainstream audiences are the only way to get a massive amount of players playing a game at the same time. If that matters (it does for stocks and further marketing and funding opportunities), you have a problem for a nonmainstream game. The probability that contrarian audiences will play the same game at the same time is very low, because they search, and play different games at the same time. Many of them old. There are thousands of old games. Mainstream audiences meanwhile play one of a small number of options. The probability of several million players playing the same game at the same time is much higher for mainstream games, even though, over time, nonmainstream games might sell about the same. This however means mainstream games, in the attention economy, have much lower marketing costs going forward, even if they have higher marketing costs up front.

Player count for mainstream games has the possibility of a network effect, which is absent for other games, because their audiences per se don't care how many other players are playing those.

Two games.
A: Day 1 - Day 30: X total players | Day 90: A total players | Day 180: P total players
B: Day 1 - Day 30: Y total players | Day 90: B total players | Day 180: Q total players

X >> Y
X ~ A
Y < B
A << B
P >> Q

The giant surge early on put the game on the radar for a lot more people, the majority of whom care about talking about their hobby socially and probably getting approval if they do mention it.

"Hey, I like LOTR too" being absent is a dealbreaker for mainstream audiences.

A: Mainstream
B: Contrarian

If no large number of players exists for the game at any one time, even if the total player count is large over time, the majority of game players will categorically not play it.

That's really what makes the mainstream market very hard.

The specific features of mainstream games are basically an illusion and due mostly to historical accident.

Companies see a hit and copy the features. Chances are these are the same companies that have the largest marketing resources or have already made another mainstream hit. Their brand is known and easily to sell as mainstream. Contrarians make what they like or what they think best, and don't copy.

So there results an appearance in each interval to time, of apparently mainstream features that mainstream audiences ``really want''.

Yet these features as often lead to a hit as they lead to a flop, which is what reveals that it's an illusion and there is no such thing as mainstream demand for subpar, mediocre, average, flashy, or bad features. Mainstream still prefers better to worse, like everybody, but they heavily restrict their choices to the few top positions in the market so far as they imagine what they are.

The reason so many features in mainstream hits are average, mediocre, bad, is because there is a totally uncorrelated variable at play that dominates long run massive sales, independent of features entirely.

If there are two games, and one is much better, according to the preferences of both mainstream audiences and contrarian audiences, but it happens to have insufficient marketing, for any reason, mainstream players will ignore their preferences and not touch it, because they have one more preference that dominates, that being perceived probability of social approval of their other preferences. The features of the game, unfortunately, are just their ``other preferences''.

Even thought there are no hard and fast rules. About what features a mainstream product has. At some point it suddenly changes. BG3.

It's just like with films. Hence "nobody knows anything" about what will be a hit.

The reason being is that there is a dominant variable that is totally unrelated to the content of a product itself, for mainstream audiences.

[rustys-name-is-kumar]

Novelty?

MUDs were around since the late 70's though. It wasn't some "new" thing. They evolved over the years adding graphics until MMOs in the late 90's made them fairly well known. EQ is literally a MUD with graphics placed over the top of it.

except mmos like uo/eq came around the exact moment in time when the average household had access to not only a computer but the internet as well so yes for many people that was a "new thing." when wow came about a few years later it was very much a new thing for millions.

eventually a lot of those people moved on and the mmo genre today is in a constant freefall because on one hand you have the theme park soulless ****, on the other you have devs thinking the people will stick around and play mmos that try to emulate the older experiences. none of them are trying to make evolutionary strides or even fun gameplay at its core. it's as bad and as creatively void as diablo clones are. just a bunch of useless fuckers trying to cling to some sort of past memory they try desperately to relive but never will.

in some cases you can actually argue that the evolution of mud to mmo was more of a mutation with how it got rid of a lot of systems and open ended player-driven freedom in favor of linearity and structure meant to funnel the player into specific activities if they want to feel their character progress.

come to think of it, those survival crafting sim games you can start servers for a small community of people to join feel more aligned with mud principles while mmos have morphed into some misshapen pile of **** taken over by hack devs and gormless players that purely want to see their gear add up to a slightly higher number every 6 months.

[Xenich]

Novelty?

MUDs were around since the late 70's though. It wasn't some "new" thing. They evolved over the years adding graphics until MMOs in the late 90's made them fairly well known. EQ is literally a MUD with graphics placed over the top of it.

except mmos like uo/eq came around the exact moment in time when the average household had access to not only a computer but the internet as well so yes for many people that was a "new thing." when wow came about a few years later it was very much a new thing for millions.

eventually a lot of those people moved on and the mmo genre today is in a constant freefall because on one hand you have the theme park soulless ****, on the other you have devs thinking the people will stick around and play mmos that try to emulate the older experiences. none of them are trying to make evolutionary strides or even fun gameplay at its core. it's as bad and as creatively void as diablo clones are. just a bunch of useless fuckers trying to cling to some sort of past memory they try desperately to relive but never will.

in some cases you can actually argue that the evolution of mud to mmo was more of a mutation with how it got rid of a lot of systems and open ended player-driven freedom in favor of linearity and structure meant to funnel the player into specific activities if they want to feel their character progress.

come to think of it, those survival crafting sim games you can start servers for a small community of people to join feel more aligned with mud principles while mmos have morphed into some misshapen pile of **** taken over by hack devs and gormless players that purely want to see their gear add up to a slightly higher number every 6 months.

Average household didn't have the computer power to run EQ though. So that left those who were already gamers and hobbyists mainly, many who had done MUDing in the past. The rest that came with WoW were not gamers or they were console players.

Depends on the MUD though. EQ functioned very much like MUDs I played in the past. Some MUDs were interesting and tried various concepts of play, but what I am talking about is the overall basic mechanics in play and EQ was literally that, a MUD with a graphical overlay (Brad McQuaid even talked about this in the past that the entire game was designed around the basic structure of a MUD system).

The key crowd who played EQ at release (around 300k or so) are the same ones who supported Pantheon or have major interest in games like M&M. Pantheon had around 30-40k pledges with the bulk of them wanting an EQ experience (or similar classic MMO) again.

I don't buy into the nostalgia crap. It is an argument used to dismiss a legitimate taste in play. I like EQ and its mechanics. I like a camp based system, RNG round based combat, place holder mobs, rare drops, longer combat encounters, no maps, difficult and long travel, harsh death penalties (CR's, level loss) and so on. I like the mechanics and enjoy the style. There is nothing novelty or nostalgia based about it and a lot of the people I talk to and play with in Pantheon think this as well.

That said, there isn't a "massive" market for this style of game, but there is a market if the developers budget accordingly and develop with competence while seeking those specific players.

Pantheon is trying to dance a line, even pushing away from its core at times to attend to mainstream. It is a mistake in my opinion, though... IF they are able to provide a rule-set server to keep game play traditional, it may still work, but I will be honest... as it is now I see far too many "modern" ****** aspects of play in the game already (bind stones everywhere, bag only CRs, fast leveling speed, fast combat encounters that are a bit too action spamy, etc...). So we will see...

I would call Pantheon a bad test case though due to its pandering. The real test will be Monsters & Memories as the game is pretty much EQ reborn in most of its mechanics, appearance and content. The game will succeed, I have no doubt at that, simply because their budget is extremely small for what they are producing. They will likely make a profit right off the start just on box sales alone due to that, but the real test will be how many people they pull in and what type of retention rate they have.

This will be the game to settle the arguments I think concerning this whole "Its only nostalgia, people don't want this type of game". I could see it hitting 50-100k players consistently if it stays on track and keeps producing its content as it has and those numbers would make the game a massive success when you account for its budget. Heck, even 5k subs would easily sustain their development process and I am certain that won't be the case.

Point is, there is a market, just not the "mainstream" one. I am fine with that, I can't stand mainstream games anyway, they all suck.

[rustys-name-is-kumar]

That said, there isn't a "massive" market for this style of game, but there is a market if the developers budget accordingly and develop with competence while seeking those specific players.

issue here is no company wants to take a chance on dumping funds into a niche within a niche, this type of EQ-heavy mmo will only ever be tackled by modestly sized studios and will lack the overall appeal to draw in new players beyond curiosity. what you're left with is a small community in an mmo that stresses the importance of grouping up to get anything worthwhile done. it'll lack the first "M" in the "MMORPG." you may not give a **** about that but a ton of developers do and so will tourists. nobody wants to invest time into an mmo that feels dead.

outside of that specific, multiplayer games are ******* everywhere these days to the point single player games have been pushed aside. in 1998 a game like eq1 was a lot more intriguing because its relative rarity of being online-only, nowadays it's almost expected for every game to have online functionality. a game like m&m doesnt really have any hook or magic to it to entice people to turn their head beyond being a gigantic billboard of "hey 0ld sk00lerz remember EQ1?" i really dont see this m&m thing taking off in any capacity or proving anyone wrong. it's the gaming version of a cover band.

[Xenich]

That said, there isn't a "massive" market for this style of game, but there is a market if the developers budget accordingly and develop with competence while seeking those specific players.

issue here is no company wants to take a chance on dumping funds into a niche within a niche, this type of EQ-heavy mmo will only ever be tackled by modestly sized studios and will lack the overall appeal to draw in new players beyond curiosity. what you're left with is a small community in an mmo that stresses the importance of grouping up to get anything worthwhile done. it'll lack the first "M" in the "MMORPG." you may not give a **** about that but a ton of developers do and so will tourists. nobody wants to invest time into an mmo that feels dead.

Pantheon has around 50k+ or more, I heard they hit a 100k people, but haven't confirmed. Monsters & Memories has around 10K on its mailing list alone and they have only been doing limited testing events. Many of the people in Pantheon I speak with who like these types of games are weighting between the two. They like Pantheon, but like me... feel it is a bit too mainstream, yet are waiting to see how it turns out.

As for "Massive", this honestly is irrelevant. All that matters is that each server has a proper population to support its play. It doesn't matter if there are 15 healthy server populations or 3, all that matters is the number of people they have is sufficient to provide for the companies continued goals of development.

outside of that specific, multiplayer games are ******* everywhere these days to the point single player games have been pushed aside. in 1998 a game like eq1 was a lot more intriguing because its relative rarity of being online-only, nowadays it's almost expected for every game to have online functionality. a game like m&m doesnt really have any hook or magic to it to entice people to turn their head beyond being a gigantic billboard of "hey 0ld sk00lerz remember EQ1?" i really dont see this m&m thing taking off in any capacity or proving anyone wrong. it's the gaming version of a cover band.

This isn't about "multi-player", it is about game mechanics. This is the point you seem to be missing. EQ (and many of the classic MMOs) had a certain style of play I already discussed. This is what people seeking this type of game are after. As I pointed out there is a sufficient base to achieve a successful venture concerning this providing the company focuses to those needs and watches their budget. What will kill a venture like this is trying to attend to ******** mainstream players who do not like these types of mechanics and seek features that work against the health of the game play which will result in them dumping the game after a bit and the audience that was the initial target won't play it because they don't want another ******** mainstream MMO for the witless ADD types who love to have everything handed to them.

I have already proven there is an audience, but it is relatively small (compared to mainstream) and has very specific needs. The budget of M&M is extremely small compared to the interest in the game of the people who play. When you consider how many people pledged Pantheon, even a 1/4 of that population is enough to sustain a game like M&M.

The issue here is you keep looking at this like mainstream is relevant to the discussion. They aren't important, they aren't the target and they aren't a reliable base to cater to due to their nature and demands.

As I said, pull in your expectations, put them into a the relevant perspective as to what is sought. M&M could easily pull in 10k subs of the specified targeted players who want this exact type of play and that is more than enough to have consistent healthy server populations and fund continued development . As I said, they are about 2 years out from release and have only spent around 70k so far. They are planning a sub model. So if you consider Box sales + Sub + expansions it is more than enough.

Rough idea of Box: 10k x $40 (box) = 400k, Sub: 10K x $15 = 150k. Even if you take the steam cut out their initial development costs are covered on day 1 sales. Subs then fund continued development easily and expansions throw them way over the top. Considering that managing a server for a game like this is ridiculously cheap and easy and this is a perfectly viable venture, but as I said... it depends on how they budget and if they stay focused to their audience.

Pantheon is a bit of a different story though. They spent a lot more money (something akin to 5 million+), so they have a lot more to recover which is why they are likely desperately trying to cater to the mainstream WoW crowd. Even so, their server design could possible benefit them here to market off mainstream locusts (ie they sell a bunch of copies to ******** mainstream, greatly boosts sales to pay for previous development, then lose most of mainstream and then just focus on content development to retain their original audience at a lower sub base with special "classic" rule-set servers).

The argument here isn't that M&M will be successful on WoW's level, or even EQ's release level, it doesn't need to be. It only needs to be successful enough to retain enough subscribers to pay for development and as I pointed out, they are way ahead on that front, they will be more than successful on that front and so the much smaller base will easily sustain them.

My point is that there is room in this market for a specific audience and reasonable goals/budgets. Mainstream is unimportant, they were never the "target" in this type of venture and since they aren't a concern, any of them that is picked up is just "extra" income that wasn't calculated in.

I don't see how they can fail providing they stay focused to their core audience, keep a reasonable head on budget and continue to produce content at a rate that keeps people subbed. Server pops are a non-issue as you only need enough for each server to have a functional and healthy population. Massive is irrelevant and just a silly term that really has no meaning and honestly never did.

[rustys-name-is-kumar]

My point is that there is room in this market for a specific audience and reasonable goals/budgets. Mainstream is unimportant, they were never the "target" in this type of venture and since they aren't a concern, any of them that is picked up is just "extra" income that wasn't calculated in.

lol okay so you admit it wont revive this dying genre and is just another pointless howl from the past

if its release schedule is actually on track and it comes out in 2026 the gambling addict in me says it's dead/shutdown by 2028-2029 to be charitable. the mmo genre needs less of these entries based on fundamentally **** games like EQ that ultimately got us to where we are now and something new and fresh to bring it back from the grave. the appeal of putting up with what is a bland and wonky game because you can talk to someone across the coast from you lost its luster a long *** time ago. if i was a mud enthusiast i'd never want what i like to be associated with this pigslop genre as it currently stands.

[Ranselknulf]

Yeah, just assemble a development team that consists entirely of 20 year old white guys who all played Dungeons & Dragons in the 80s and read books for fun and take all of their MMO inspiration from games that were made before they were born

With AI, anything is possible.

[Xenich]

My point is that there is room in this market for a specific audience and reasonable goals/budgets. Mainstream is unimportant, they were never the "target" in this type of venture and since they aren't a concern, any of them that is picked up is just "extra" income that wasn't calculated in.

lol okay so you admit it wont revive this dying genre and is just another pointless howl from the past

if its release schedule is actually on track and it comes out in 2026 the gambling addict in me says it's dead/shutdown by 2028-2029 to be charitable. the mmo genre needs less of these entries based on fundamentally **** games like EQ that ultimately got us to where we are now and something new and fresh to bring it back from the grave. the appeal of putting up with what is a bland and wonky game because you can talk to someone across the coast from you lost its luster a long *** time ago. if i was a mud enthusiast i'd never want what i like to be associated with this pigslop genre as it currently stands.

Well, you are a ******** mainstreamer, so... it isn't a surprise you think that way.

[Wretch]

My point is that there is room in this market for a specific audience and reasonable goals/budgets. Mainstream is unimportant, they were never the "target" in this type of venture and since they aren't a concern, any of them that is picked up is just "extra" income that wasn't calculated in.

lol okay so you admit it wont revive this dying genre and is just another pointless howl from the past

if its release schedule is actually on track and it comes out in 2026 the gambling addict in me says it's dead/shutdown by 2028-2029 to be charitable. the mmo genre needs less of these entries based on fundamentally **** games like EQ that ultimately got us to where we are now and something new and fresh to bring it back from the grave. the appeal of putting up with what is a bland and wonky game because you can talk to someone across the coast from you lost its luster a long *** time ago. if i was a mud enthusiast i'd never want what i like to be associated with this pigslop genre as it currently stands.

Well, you are a ******** mainstreamer, so... it isn't a surprise you think that way.

I don’t read your posts but your horrible pilpul essays make me laugh at how bad and out of touch they are. Thanks.

[rustys-name-is-kumar]

Well, you are a ******** mainstreamer, so... it isn't a surprise you think that way.

no i'm a ****** that would rather hyperfocus on a game that is actually fun to play and not pay a persistent subscription for so i can type essays nobody reads on rpghq about how 0ld sk00l i am :3

[Xenich]

Well, you are a ******** mainstreamer, so... it isn't a surprise you think that way.

no i'm a ****** that would rather hyperfocus on a game that is actually fun to play and not pay a persistent subscription for so i can type essays nobody reads on rpghq about how 0ld sk00l i am :3

Fun is subjective, which is entirely the point I have been making. I have been clear there is a "specific" audience for this game and while small (compared to mainstream), it is sufficient to sustain a project that budgets accordingly and this is how MMOs today can survive, by narrowing their focus and their market.

I could give two fucks about appearing "0ld sk00l" , rather I like a certain style of play as do many others of this taste in play. I prefer a sub because it drives development in a way to focus on content production and not stupid gimmicks.

You can either understand this, or prattle on about how superior your mainstream position is, and yes... mainstreamers argue your very point.

So we have at least made some headway in your therapy, you have come to terms with being a ******. Don't worry though, we will eventually get to your acceptance of being a mainstreamer as well.

[rustys-name-is-kumar]

Fun is subjective

yeah and most people dont find EQ to be fun hence why that style of mmo done today wont achieve anything and wont revive mmorpgs. all your gay loquacious posts do is wax poetry about an extinct game that masturbates to its own tedium while failing to draw an audience beyond mentally deranged losers who cant let go. the problem is your goofy *** smugness about 'da mainstream' like you've unlocked some sort of higher intellect when it comes to playing a **** mmo game that was mid even by 1998 standards. theres hundreds of classic games out there to glaze and you choose this fuckin thing to type 6000 words about. i dont respect you as a gamer and likely not as a man either.

[Lancaster]

The implementation of real life currency into MMO's is what diminished their quality. It's equivalent to the government printing more money. A wealthy person in LotRO back in the day had 4 in-game gold, now 999 in-game gold is pretty common.

[Xenich]

Fun is subjective

yeah and most people dont find EQ to be fun hence why that style of mmo done today wont achieve anything and wont revive mmorpgs. all your gay loquacious posts do is wax poetry about an extinct game that masturbates to its own tedium while failing to draw an audience beyond mentally deranged losers who cant let go. the problem is your goofy *** smugness about 'da mainstream' like you've unlocked some sort of higher intellect when it comes to playing a **** mmo game that was mid even by 1998 standards. theres hundreds of classic games out there to glaze and you choose this fuckin thing to type 6000 words about. i dont respect you as a gamer and likely not as a man either.

Most (as in mainstream) which are irrelevant to my point.

Again, you are a mainstream ****** which is evident with your incessant whining about having to read anything past a couple sentences. You have the attention span of 3 year old and this is why you can't stand any game that has long term progressions or doesn't have bouncing balls with flashing lights to keep you constantly entertained.

You likely had to pop your medication just to make it through this post.

Run along kid, your momma is done being ganged by a bunch of ******* and needs you to come clean up.

[rustys-name-is-kumar]

You have the attention span of 3 year old and this is why you can't stand any game that has long term progressions or doesn't have bouncing balls with flashing lights to keep you constantly entertained.

wow cool game dude, hope you didnt take a hammer swing to the piggy bank and count the nickels to support this pile of ****

look at that fire at the beginning lmao, i've seen more animation in those handheld football games from the late 1970s that just beep at you roflmao

tell you what, i will confirm every insult you send my way but you have to admit that this game looks like something a cranial baby would vomit up and anyone who buys or wastes their time playing it deserves no human or animal rights

beyond that, my mom is a lovely woman and you'd probably like her cooking too so now you gotta apologize for that outburst or else

[Xenich]

You have the attention span of 3 year old and this is why you can't stand any game that has long term progressions or doesn't have bouncing balls with flashing lights to keep you constantly entertained.

wow cool game dude, hope you didnt take a hammer swing to the piggy bank and count the nickels to support this pile of ****

look at that fire at the beginning lmao, i've seen more animation in those handheld football games from the late 1970s that just beep at you roflmao

tell you what, i will confirm every insult you send my way but you have to admit that this game looks like something a cranial baby would vomit up and anyone who buys or wastes their time playing it deserves no human or animal rights

beyond that, my mom is a lovely woman and you'd probably like her cooking too so now you gotta apologize for that outburst or else

Not supported by anyone, they funded it themselves (70k development spent so far, they are very transparent on their development, and the game is slated to be in release by 2026).

Game is essentially EQ with some various features and adjustments to play implemented. Entirely new world, though themed closely as EQ was.

Again, mainstream ****** showing.

"Muh graphics!", sorry ****** but I am interested in the game play, the style and mechanics, I could care less about graphics. If I wanted graphics, there are tons of shiny MMO turds, but they are all garbage gimmick games for ******** mainstreamers like yourself.

Again, on the graphics... I don't care, never did. Outside that, if I had to choose, it isn't a style I care for, but if I have to choose graphics or game play, it is always game play and I like EQ's game play style. Game could be stick men for all I care to be honest.

[rustys-name-is-kumar]

sorry ****** but I am interested in the game play, the style and mechanics

calling this gameplay is being very generous

this is the most boring **** meant to appeal to ppl that are on a baby formula diet or something. goes back to what i said before in that you have 0 taste and i would personally appreciate it if you never spoke on video games until you go through a soul searching pilgrimage to cleanse yourself of mmo rot

you also strike me as someone who has an ugly beard so you should shave that off too ya lil *******

[Xenich]

sorry ****** but I am interested in the game play, the style and mechanics

calling this gameplay is being very generous

this is the most boring **** meant to appeal to ppl that are on a baby formula diet or something. goes back to what i said before in that you have 0 taste and i would personally appreciate it if you never spoke on video games until you go through a soul searching pilgrimage to cleanse yourself of mmo rot

you also strike me as someone who has an ugly beard so you should shave that off too ya lil *******

"I like cake, people who like pie are stupid... cake is the best!"

[Lich]

sorry ****** but I am interested in the game play, the style and mechanics

calling this gameplay is being very generous

this is the most boring **** meant to appeal to ppl that are on a baby formula diet or something. goes back to what i said before in that you have 0 taste and i would personally appreciate it if you never spoke on video games until you go through a soul searching pilgrimage to cleanse yourself of mmo rot

you also strike me as someone who has an ugly beard so you should shave that off too ya lil *******

"I like cake, people who like pie are stupid... cake is the best!"

That is the basic assumption of gaming discussion forums

[Xenich]

calling this gameplay is being very generous

this is the most boring **** meant to appeal to ppl that are on a baby formula diet or something. goes back to what i said before in that you have 0 taste and i would personally appreciate it if you never spoke on video games until you go through a soul searching pilgrimage to cleanse yourself of mmo rot

you also strike me as someone who has an ugly beard so you should shave that off too ya lil *******

"I like cake, people who like pie are stupid... cake is the best!"

That is the basic assumption of gaming discussion forums

It is also irrelevant to the points being discussed.

If you note, my points concerning how a game like this would do is based on the fact that there IS an audience who prefers this style of play, it isn't large (not mainstream), but it does exist and the numbers are sufficient to make it successful if it delivers on those game play features (which is what those people who will play it actually seek) and stays within a reasonable budget (they have). This has already been proven previously.

His position is that this type of game won't succeed, but because he is ******** and refuses to evaluate this according to the actual argument, all he is doing is proclaiming "Cake is better! Cake is better!" which I am not arguing and have no interest in because he is ******** and his argument has no merit concerning the points being made.

[Wretch]

What i like is based and what you like is cringe.