Which MMO will last until the end?

[pedingor]

There are so many mmorpgs out there, not many of them can last like WoW.
A lot of them already or nearly out of business, some of mmos are still fight at the edge and may get the chance to stay until the end.

First game come up in my mind that i think may out of mmorpg soon is Warhammer Online(http://www.warhammeronline.com) Although，WAR PvE and RvR elements are well done IMO and theres is a strong story behind the quests that draws from Warhammers mass of lore and history and really immerses you in the Warhammer universe. However, looks a lot like World of WarCraft, it is like WoW clone. it's hard not to notice some of the similarities. Soon I think soon it may join the WoW and become part of it :D.

The game I think will last until the end will be Age of Conan(http://www.ageofconan.com (http://cli.gs/gn8G35)) – Age of Conan is a good range of classes that offer a variety of engaging play styles, particularly when you consider the game's take on melee combat. It's got a different, enjoyable gameplay style, offers a free-for-all PVP experience. Also it is getting better after several updates, specially the big one in last month, introducing new land area, a new dungeon, new quests and hours of more adventure. Also, as far as crashes are concered, the last few patches addressed most, if not all, of the causes. The game runs better and better.

Which game do you think will be the first out of mmorpg gaming industry?
And which game will last until the end(maybe not forever, but at least 10 years like WoW)?

[Neo]

Meh, WAR isn't anything like a WoW clone, but it seems to be keeping a stable membership which is good.

Age of Conan is likely to be one of the first to fall, as from what i've heard its nice to play for a while but no point sticking around so they're losing subscribers fairly quickly.

Can only hope that WoW falls at some point as at its current popularity its pretty much smothering the appearance of any new original games.

[Zeb The Troll]

Ten years is a really long time for an MMO. WoW isn't even half way there yet. Ultima Online, the longest running MMO that is still live, if I'm not mistaken, is only 11 years old.

WAR is nothing like a WoW clone. Open parties, warbands, keep takes, battlefield objectives, tiered RvR, public quests, Tome of Knowledge, just to list a few things off the top of my head that WoW does not provide.

I'm not saying that WAR will make it ten years either, but please don't lump my Destruction in with your Saturday Morning Cartoon. :smallcool:

[The Evil Thing]

EVE Online. Don't look at me like that. :smalltongue:

Theoretically at least, CCP's development style means that EVE will never be obsolete and there will never be a need for a genuine sequel. Furthermore, their subscriber numbers have been steadily (albeit slowly) increasing, which is really at odds with the numbers for other MMOGs, which seem to fluctuate with the release of new expansion packs and the like.

[Lord of the Helms]

EVE Online. Don't look at me like that. :smalltongue:

Theoretically at least, CCP's development style means that EVE will never be obsolete and there will never be a need for a genuine sequel. Furthermore, their subscriber numbers have been steadily (albeit slowly) increasing, which is really at odds with the numbers for other MMOGs, which seem to fluctuate with the release of new expansion packs and the like.

Gotta agree there. Look how long EVE has been going. It's a decidedly long-term-focused game, the developer constantly updates it with free new content through whatever expansion is next, and frankly the players that EVE attracts are the kind of players that will stick to the game for a while, if only because it is very discouraging to casual gamers.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Hmm.. I remember playing "The Realm" (now named The Realm Online) back in 96, which makes it even longer-lasting than Ultima Online...

I think it always will depend on the upkeep required by the owners of the game itself. Eve online is quite incredible in the way that unbalances are created, and have to be corrected, by players. Developpers just throw more weapons and feature into the crowd, while people are at each other's throat.

[Monsterknuffel]

Ragnarok Online maybe. It lasts for 5 years now and they are testing a game mechanics renewal to keep it mor balanced. i think it will last at least 2 more years, maybe longer. Although it cant compete with Ultima in the case of long life. at I can only speak for the European server. Japanese may last longer and also exists longer. I don't know the exact numbers. I just love 2d sprited chars. And it still has a very interesting PvP Mode, the Siege,where you have to attack and defend castles, what makes it very interesting.

[GolemsVoice]

I actually think it will be WoW that will lastthe longest as a mainstream MMORPG. Despite what people say about it, and despite all the hate it get's, it also get's the only thing that really matters in this scenario, and that is subscribers, and lot's of them, which means money, which in turn means (in an ideal world, I realize that) an ever improving game. And while WoW might not be a marvel of innovation, it is well done, solid and appealing to the masses. It doesn't cater to a specific group, such as cyperpunks, or fans of hardcore PvP, but it has a very broad and placative fantasy world, with which most people who like fantasy, even casually, can identify with. Elves, swords, orcs, wizards! It's colorful and doesn't scare people away.

That's not to say that there won't be other MMORPGS that will last long, or even longer, but WoW is so far the only one I have been played, and, even if you think it does not deserve it, so far the biggest and most succesful of MMORPGS, even to the point of being maybe the only MMORPG to be recognized by people who don't concern themselves with computer gaming.

[Tengu_temp]

WAR lost 66% of subscriptions after the first month - that doesn't look like lasting material to me. AoC has huge balance problems and it very bad at giving the player the feeling of accomplishment - I see it surviving for even less time.

Apart from WoW, the MMO I see lasting longest will be EVE Online - it has a very large and fanatical devoted fanbase, even though it's already quite old - just like WoW, in other words.

[Khanderas]

WAR lost 66% of subscriptions after the first month - that doesn't look like lasting material to me. AoC has huge balance problems and it very bad at giving the player the feeling of accomplishment - I see it surviving for even less time.
Yes, dont get me started on the imbalances on AoC.
I saw lot of potential in the game (even when ignoring the overehtusiasm of the makers) but it didnt take long to find out that unless you were a ranger, you were free kills to those who were. When somone half your level kills you easily, you think.. hey perhaps good gear, and the fact he attacked first is why I lost. So you look him up and attack first with everything you got.
He slowly turns around and you die. still level 14 vs my level 30-something.

[The Neoclassic]

I actually think it will be WoW that will lastthe longest as a mainstream MMORPG. Despite what people say about it, and despite all the hate it get's, it also get's the only thing that really matters in this scenario, and that is subscribers, and lot's of them, which means money, which in turn means (in an ideal world, I realize that) an ever improving game. And while WoW might not be a marvel of innovation, it is well done, solid and appealing to the masses. It doesn't cater to a specific group, such as cyperpunks, or fans of hardcore PvP, but it has a very broad and placative fantasy world, with which most people who like fantasy, even casually, can identify with. Elves, swords, orcs, wizards! It's colorful and doesn't scare people away.

Yeah, I entirely agree. Also, more money means more money they can pump into their advertising budget to keep attracting new people... While at the same time, as GolemsVoice mentions, keep coming up with new content for regular players. In this sort of an industry, customers who subscribe month-after-month for years at a time are absolutely vital, and WoW seems to do a pretty good job at hooking people.

[HolderofSecrets]

Yet us see what is actually going on with MMO's compared to WoW.

WoW release date is November 23, 2004 so 4yrs old.
EvE Online release date is May 6, 2003 so 5.5 yrs old.
Runescape release date is January 4, 2001 so going on 8 years now.

So shouldn't the question be "Who can last like Runescape?"

[Closet_Skeleton]

Yet us see what is actually going on with MMO's compared to WoW.

WoW release date is November 23, 2004 so 4yrs old.
EvE Online release date is May 6, 2003 so 5.5 yrs old.
Runescape release date is January 4, 2001 so going on 9 years now.

So shouldn't the question be "Who can last like Runescape?"

Who wants to be anything like Runescape?

[Erloas]

WAR lost 66% of subscriptions after the first month - that doesn't look like lasting material to me. AoC has huge balance problems and it very bad at giving the player the feeling of accomplishment - I see it surviving for even less time.

Apart from WoW, the MMO I see lasting longest will be EVE Online - it has a very large and fanatical devoted fanbase, even though it's already quite old - just like WoW, in other words.

Where did you come up with those numbers for WAR? Sounds like you just made them up to me, since they haven't released any sub numbers. Besides the total population isn't nearly as important to a games longevity as how the players that stay with the feel about it. If we went by total population at its peak then EVE would already be dead, but it isn't because it has very loyal fans and has very slowly grown over the years and is likely to continue to do so.

I feel that went WoW starts to loose people it will probably do so very quickly, which might not be until Blizzard releases its next MMO (which they've said they are working on but nothing about it).

All of the people playing EVE play it because they love it. WAR, AOC, EQ2, and all of the smaller MMOs are mostly full of players that are playing it because it is what they want to play. Where as with WoW I would say a very big portion of their players are simply playing to play with their friends or they don't have anything better to do, and not because of any real devotion to the game. Most games have those people, of course they are the ones that inflate launch numbers then drop out of games (as was seen in WAR), and when people start to leave they leave pretty quickly, as was seen in previous generations of games like UO, EQ, DAOC and some others.
Of course with WoW they also have their dedicated players, so chances are so long as they keep some servers up and running they will continue to have players for a long time, the same as the previous generations of big games. Its also hard to say with WoW because about 70-80% of their population is from Asia and they have a completely different mentality then Western gamers (see their types of local MMOs, their devotion to Starcraft, and what is big there, and the internet cafe based access to the net). (yes Starcraft was big here and still has active players, but it never got quite the almost religious following that it did in Asia and is almost a sporting event by itself)


Oh, and what sort of "end" are we talking about that is supposed to be happening in 10 years? Most of these games will have some players until it gets to the point where its no longer worth it for the companies to keep the servers open.

[HolderofSecrets]

Who wants to be anything like Runescape?

Apparently a lot people play still play. I used to, I now play EvE. Moved because I wanted to try something new and the grind was Killing me. WoW wouldnt of been any different then Runescape so I don't think I will be giving it a try any time soon. Oh by the way Right now is Runescapes slow period to my knowledge and it still has 86k players while Eve tops off around 30k average but has had of to 55k tops active at the same time.

[Leon]

All of the people playing EVE play it because they love it. WAR, AOC, EQ2, and all of the smaller MMOs are mostly full of players that are playing it because it is what they want to play. Where as with WoW I would say a very big portion of their players are simply playing to play with their friends or they don't have anything better to do, and not because of any real devotion to the game.

Really, have you talked to all the people playing EVE?
I'd say a lot of people playing WoW play it because they like it too, being able to play it with friends is a great boon.
If they are someone who has nothing better to do then why are they paying to play a game when they could be be doing nothing better for free or at a lesser cost?

Wow's going to stick around for a long while i believe due to its accessibility - you don't need the latest and great PC to play it and its easy to get into and do things, while being in a group can certainly help any class can play from 1 - 80 solo

I take breaks from it from time to time abd the major thing that draws me back is the people ive met but after that its still got many things left to do and explore (the lil things that Blizz slip in and that you only find when in a out of the way place looking about - there is a Excavation site on the peak of the mountain at Grim Batol, i found it while using farsight to explore the Wetlands)

[valadil]

The only thing that will kill WoW is another MMO made by Blizzard. I'm pretty sure that Blizzard knows this, but I haven't a clue how they intend to act on it.

[Tengu_temp]

Where did you come up with those numbers for WAR? Sounds like you just made them up to me, since they haven't released any sub numbers. Besides the total population isn't nearly as important to a games longevity as how the players that stay with the feel about it. If we went by total population at its peak then EVE would already be dead, but it isn't because it has very loyal fans and has very slowly grown over the years and is likely to continue to do so.


I've heard that information from my brother who was interested in WAR. If you don't believe me, I can ask him for details/sources.
And while total population is not that important, the massive drop of WAR players has shown one thing - that once the "woo, it's a Warhammer MMO! And it has pvp!" hype has worn down, people started to notice that this game is rather disappointing for them, and quit.

[Artanis]

Meh, WAR isn't anything like a WoW clone.
Warhammer fans constantly claim that the Zerg are a Tyranid clone, despite the drastic differences. Thus, I figure that Blizzard fans are even more accurate when they call WAR a WoW clone.


As for figures, it's too bad SirBruce hasn't updated his charts in a long time. That'd validate a lot of the numbers.

[Tengu_temp]

Warhammer fans constantly claim that the Zerg are a Tyranid clone, despite the drastic differences.

Don't forget that Terran marines are clones of Space Marines, even though the former are ex-prisoner cannon fodder and the latter are genetically engineered, fanatical religious ubersoldiers.

[Fin]

Ten years is a really long time for an MMO. WoW isn't even half way there yet. Ultima Online, the longest running MMO that is still live, if I'm not mistaken, is only 11 years old.

WAR is nothing like a WoW clone. Open parties, warbands, keep takes, battlefield objectives, tiered RvR, public quests, Tome of Knowledge, just to list a few things off the top of my head that WoW does not provide.

I'm not saying that WAR will make it ten years either, but please don't lump my Destruction in with your Saturday Morning Cartoon. :smallcool:

It was released in 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft), so it is exactly halfway there :smallbiggrin:. But seriously I know a lot of people don't like the guy but the Ctrl-Alt-Delete webcomic guy gives a pretty good analysis of thi subject matter here (http://www.cad-comic.com/news.php?i=1799#1799). Just ignore the video and first two lines of text, which are about batman!

[Illiterate Scribe]

Don't forget that Terran marines are clones of Space Marines, even though the former are ex-prisoner cannon fodder and the latter are genetically engineered, fanatical religious ubersoldiers.

Not this thread, please. The skubcraft vs skubhammer war doesn't need to happen in every thread that mentions Blizzard and GW. :smallfrown:

[Quincunx]

Better question--which MMOs have inspired spin-offs and kept the original game going? Lineage, EQ, ???

[The Evil Thing]

Knowing the Japanese, I bet you a tenner there's a Final Fantasy XI manga floating about somewhere.

[Quincunx]

No bet--nowadays any self-respecting MMO (and several which have sold their self-respect at $15 per 1000g) has its own official spin-off items, including comic. To phrase it more precisely, which ones have been around long enough to generate MMO sequels? Also, are the official UO servers still the walking dead?

[Fri]

Better question--which MMOs have inspired spin-offs and kept the original game going? Lineage, EQ, ???


No bet--nowadays any self-respecting MMO (and several which have sold their self-respect at $15 per 1000g) has its own official spin-off items, including comic. To phrase it more precisely, which ones have been around long enough to generate MMO sequels? Also, are the official UO servers still the walking dead?

Ragnarok Online. Sure it looks ridiculous now in the age of 3d mmorpg and everything, but it's one of the oldest MMORPG and still actively updated and going on. It got a 3d sequel, an anime adaptation, handheld game spin offs, audio cds, and countless, countless porn drawing. But the original game itself is still active, I think.

[Neo]

Well the irony is that Starcraft came from what would have been a Warhammer 40k strategy game, one of the biggest misses made by Games Workshop in terms of their games, which have been mostly misses anyway.

So the similarities aren't entirely made up.

Warhammer Online did have something like 650,000+ subs during the first month, but as with any new release its just the original game sale to see what its like, atm its stable around 300,000 or so, about the same subs as EVE.

[Erloas]

Well the irony is that Starcraft came from what would have been a Warhammer 40k strategy game, one of the biggest misses made by Games Workshop in terms of their games, which have been mostly misses anyway.

So the similarities aren't entirely made up.

Warhammer Online did have something like 650,000+ subs during the first month, but as with any new release its just the original game sale to see what its like, atm its stable around 300,000 or so, about the same subs as EVE.

Well what I had always heard is that the original Warcraft was supposed to be Warhammer but GW ended up pulling the license, not Starcraft. Of course even in the days of Starcraft GW had not seen the advantage of tie in games made by other people so we saw very few of them. I don't know if either version of the story is true.

[more GW-Blizzard discussion]

The thing about copying though is that its obvious that no one will copy things exactly, so yes the SC marines and zerg and protos are obviously not direct clones of 40k marines, tyrnids and eldar, but they have a lot in common. They obviously changed enough points that they are not the same even if the idea came from someplace else. Of course its not really a secret that many of the 40k races and ideas were borrowed from older works of fiction and then adapted and changed to be unique for 40k and it wouldn't be a surprise if 40k and SC had common origins even if SC wasn't copied off of 40k.

Its not like Blizzard would have been blind to the fact that 40k had a big following (and at that point Blizzard was still building its reputation and couldn't sell things with their name alone as much as they can now) and they may have borrowed some ideas to play off of 40k's success.



As for WAR, it isn't any more of a clone of WoW then WoW was of DAOC, EQ, UO, AC, and the many other games that came before WoW. Yes it has similarities (some of which didn't come until after WAR was in late beta and WoW came out with a few patches...) but it has a lot of differences too. Most of the similarities are superfical, some visual aspects, and UI elements that have been around from well before WoW even started development. The differences however started from the very first designs of the game. You aren't going to see the main differences in screenshots because they are based on game design.

As for WAR's numbers, yes they have dropped a decent amount from launch, but that mostly has to do with people thinking that WAR was a game that it was never ment to be. Before launch you had people that wanted WAR to be a WoW clone, and you had those people that wanted WAR to be absolutely nothing at all like WoW, and you had those that wanted somewhere inbetween. They all started with the game and those that wanted a WoW clone found that wasn't what WAR was and left and those that wanted something 100% different from WoW found that wasn't what WAR was and left. So you were left with the people that knew what WAR was and that was what they wanted.
As a PvP based game it pretty much automatically makes WAR a niche game, because at this point PvP will never be as widely accepted as PvE (years from now, who knows).




Really, have you talked to all the people playing EVE?
I'd say a lot of people playing WoW play it because they like it too, being able to play it with friends is a great boon.
If they are someone who has nothing better to do then why are they paying to play a game when they could be be doing nothing better for free or at a lesser cost?

Wow's going to stick around for a long while i believe due to its accessibility - you don't need the latest and great PC to play it and its easy to get into and do things, while being in a group can certainly help any class can play from 1 - 80 solo

Obviously I haven't talked to everyone playing EVE, but I did play it for a while. And clearly people are playing it for different reasons, but the majority of the playerbase really likes EVEs designs and mechanics and it fills a gaming niche that no other game has even challenged since then. So those people wanting that sort of niche game, it is a very good game for them.

Being accessable doesn't make a game good, but it is one of the things that makes WoW popular. People don't love WoW because its accessable, but they will still play it because it is accessable. Being the best game that will run on your system isn't the same thing as being the game that the player would like the best. There are people that love the end concepts of WoW, and it has its own niche that it is filling. I do know some people that love WoW's design, I know a lot more people that play WoW because they haven't tried anything else, because they have friends there, because they've invested enough time it doesn't seem reasonable to leave that invested time behind. And of course there are always thoses that like something because liking that thing is just what you are supposed to do, and right now that thing is WoW. Its not like its a new thing, its been happening forever with games of all sorts, movies, TV shows, music, and everything else. And they will continue to like it until someone comes along and tells them its time to like something else instead.

[konfeta]

Any very casual or cult MMO. Games like Runescape, WoW simply appeal to enough people for their ease of entry. Games like EvE or Warhhamer will have hardcore enough audience to support them indefinitely.



Well what I had always heard is that the original Warcraft was supposed to be Warhammer but GW ended up pulling the license, not Starcraft. Of course even in the days of Starcraft GW had not seen the advantage of tie in games made by other people so we saw very few of them. I don't know if either version of the story is true.

An unsubstantiated rumor. I have been asking for evidence of this for the last 5 years, evidence that not a single perpetrator of this claim has managed to provide a single shred of. I can see why people have an almost divine mandate to declare that Blizzard "ripped off poor ol' GW" at every mention of either franchise, but stuff like this is just tiring. As Lenin said, a lie told often enough becomes the truth.

[Inhuman Bot]

WAR lost 66% of subscriptions after the first month - that doesn't look like lasting material to me. AoC has huge balance problems and it very bad at giving the player the feeling of accomplishment - I see it surviving for even less time.

66%? Really?

I've heard that WAR lost a decent amount of players, but THAT many?

[SlyGuyMcFly]

I agree that EVE will probably last a very long time, being as it it is completely unique.
Another MMO that has being going for a good while now is City of Heroes. The 5-year anniversary will be next month and it still sees a fairly good population. Of course, what with DC Online and Champions Online on the horizon who knows.

[Knaight]

Guild wars will probably last for a while too. It has a tendency to keep players well, since it has no monthly fee. That said, the very tiny games that nobody knows about tend to last for a while too. Lunia for example, a free MMO, but with real money items, is continually growing. Its a pretty fun game too.

Honestly, I think that runescape, maple story, and WoW will probably be the longest lasting MMOs.

[Tensu]

I think that most MMOs out now will die very quickly as soon as the next major breakthrough in computer technology is made. when that happens, who knows what level of interactivity the next gen will bring? because of their old engines, it's doubtful any major MMO would be able to adapt. the only things that would survive would be the small, completely free mmos that don't need much food, the animals that live deep in the ocean, who would be much less affected by the changes on the surface, and of course the cockroaches.

[Trizap]

I think that most MMOs out now will die very quickly as soon as the next major breakthrough in computer technology is made. when that happens, who knows what level of interactivity the next gen will bring? because of their old engines, it's doubtful any major MMO would be able to adapt. the only things that would survive would be the small, completely free mmos that don't need much food, the animals that live deep in the ocean, who would be much less affected by the changes on the surface, and of course the cockroaches.

yea, like the big meteor, wiping out all the dino's, but leaving all those rats and mammals untouched.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

I think that most MMOs out now will die very quickly as soon as the next major breakthrough in computer technology is made. when that happens, who knows what level of interactivity the next gen will bring? because of their old engines, it's doubtful any major MMO would be able to adapt. the only things that would survive would be the small, completely free mmos that don't need much food, the animals that live deep in the ocean, who would be much less affected by the changes on the surface, and of course the cockroaches.

I´m not that sure. Obviously, as I don´t know what the next-gen breakthrough will be, I can´t predict how it will affect MMOs, but I don´t believe that MMOs are all that dependent on actual tech.

Unlike, say, FPSs, where the graphics are a major selling point, or side-scrolling beat-em ups who were dependent on 2-d grafics to work, MMOs work pretty well independently of technical requirements. Except connection speeds, but I can only assume averge bandwidths will continue to grow. And that does benefit the MMO scene.

Edited for spelling and paragraphiness.

[Thanatos 51-50]

I can forsee City of Heroes having some staying power.

As soon as GW releases a Warhammer 40k MMO, I'm all over that like a crude metaphor.

As much as it bores me, WoW will prbably last for a while, too.

[Alarra]

I think that WoW will last for a long time, as will Eve and CoH. WoW is the biggest, and that alone gives it staying power. EvE and CoH have really unique concepts that keep them from really being competitive with the more numerous sword and sorcery style MMOs.

I don't think that at this point we can predict whether or not WAR has the staying power of the others. It's still a new game, still growing and stabilizing its user-base. Yes...a lot of people left. I think this is because so many of them came from WoW which has had almost 5 years to increase content and work the kinks out of their game. Even WoW had a period of adjustment after it started. It doesn't surprise me that people left WAR though, the truth is that there really isn't much to do other than keep takes over and over once you hit level cap. However, I love WAR and I'm glad that they seem to know this and are increasing their content on a monthly basis....and adding them in for free, rather than making subscribers buy new expansions. I think that if WAR can hold onto a solid, interested base group of subscribers through the rocky period and get to the point where they have a greater amount of content, they could be a long lasting game that rivals a lot of the others mentioned.

[Samuel Sturm]

Darkfall. It isn't even out yet, I know....
But I think it'll make it.

[Tensu]

I´m not that sure. Obviously, as I don´t know what the next-gen breakthrough will be, I can´t predict how it will affect MMOs, but I don´t believe that MMOs are all that dependent on actual tech.

Unlike, say, FPSs, where the graphics are a major selling point, or side-scrolling beat-em ups who were dependent on 2-d grafics to work, MMOs work pretty well independently of technical requirements. Except connection speeds, but I can only assume averge bandwidths will continue to grow. And that does benefit the MMO scene.

Edited for spelling and paragraphiness.

When (if) you play WoW, do you ever think "I'll attack the ceiling and cause a cave-in, damaging the monsters" or "I'll pick that rock up off the ground and throw it at him" or even just "I'll jump on the dragon's back". no, because that's not the way the game works. now imagine when there comes a game where that type of thinking will work. people will drop WoW like a hot potato... that spreads STDs. the amount of programming and system upgrades it would take to make WoW work that way would be huge: they'd basically need to remake the game from scratch. by the time it's done, all their players will have left for this new game which will now be well established and have left WoW in the dust.

If I ever designed an MMO I'd make it modular and able to adapt to what I predicted the next big change in gaming would be. to use my natural selection metaphor again, it's not the most specialized species that survive mass extinctions; it's the generalists.

[The Evil Thing]

If I ever designed an MMO I'd make it modular and able to adapt to what I predicted the next big change in gaming would be. to use my natural selection metaphor again, it's not the most specialized species that survive mass extinctions; it's the generalists.
While not exactly as you say, EVE comes pretty damn close here. The latest expansion brings us Tech 3, with customisable ships. Customisable ship chassis, that is, rather than just bolt-on modules.
The developers are also planning to fly in the face of all the fluff they've developed by creating Walking In Stations, supposedly to be released some time this year.

[Erloas]

I think that most MMOs out now will die very quickly as soon as the next major breakthrough in computer technology is made. when that happens, who knows what level of interactivity the next gen will bring? because of their old engines, it's doubtful any major MMO would be able to adapt. the only things that would survive would be the small, completely free mmos that don't need much food, the animals that live deep in the ocean, who would be much less affected by the changes on the surface, and of course the cockroaches.

You mean the same way graphical based MMO killed off text based MUDs? Except that didn't happen, and while the MUD haydays are over there are still a number of them running and there were still quite a few well into the development of graphics based games.

The only big change forseen in the not to distant future is raytracing, which is a decent change, but it can only do so much. Any other major ideas aren't even in a prototype stage that I've heard of, which means they are still a long ways out of hitting consumers and then add at least 2-3 years to that time before it becomes mainstream. And the basic 3D like we are seeing from Nvidia in demos recently is one that can be applied to almost any game, most games needing little or not change to make it work.

The meteor extinction idea doesn't work with gaming because its not something forced on consumers (like a meteor) it is something that has to be accepted by them and purchased. And if history is any guide to go by, then any revolutionary technology isn't going to come cheap.

As for modularity, I don't see how you can make software modular in such a way that it can have some aspects changed in major ways and not be forced to redo huge portions of the rest of the game.



EVE has been talking about the avatar based stations for years now. They were talking about that when I played EVE and that was 4-5 years ago at this point. They do actually have some videos of the engine in demo though, and it is supposed to be the same engine they are using on the World of Darkness MMO they are developing with White Wolf that was announced a while ago. I think the biggest problem they are really going to have with doing it is simply the fact that because of the way the game is designed I really have no idea what they are going to put in the stations to give people a compelling reason to walk around them.

[Philistine]

It was released in 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft), so it is exactly halfway there :smallbiggrin:.
A correction to your correction: WoW went live in late November of 2004. It is now mid-March of 2009. So WoW is still more than half a year short of the five-year mark; HolderOfSercret's approximation was the more accurate of the two.

If I ever designed an MMO I'd make it modular and able to adapt to what I predicted the next big change in gaming would be.
The difficulty, of course, is accurately predicting what the next big change in gaming will be. People are all the time trying to guess what "the next big thing" is going to be, and have been doing so for decades - and not just in the world of gaming, either. Most of them are wrong most of the time, which poses certain obvious difficulties to anyone who might try to follow that plan.

And frankly, any change that's actually revolutionary enough to qualify as a "next big thing" is almost certainly going to need more than "modular design" to accomodate it. To take a page out of history: at one point, FPSes were the big thing. RTSes followed afterward. But how do you make an FPS "modular and able to adapt" to becoming an RTS? And the answer is, you don't. Probably not at all, but certainly not within a realistic schedule (and budget).

[Tengu_temp]

Darkfall. It isn't even out yet, I know....
But I think it'll make it.

When I first heard about Darkfall, I gave it 40% chance to be awesome and 60% chance to be a spectacular crash. The more I read about it, the further the difference deepens - currently it's around 15%/85%.

[Poison_Fish]

If we are saying anything WAR is a clone of, it's DoAC with a semi-WoW like interface(sort of). But really, it bears more similarity to DoAC, considering that both were made by Mythic.

[Tensu]

You mean the same way graphical based MMO killed off text based MUDs? Except that didn't happen, and while the MUD haydays are over there are still a number of them running and there were still quite a few well into the development of graphics based games.

except that that's not what I'm talking about in the slightest. MUDs and graphical MMOs are very different beasts and appeal to people fo different reasons. you're comparing apples to oranges.


The only big change forseen in the not to distant future is raytracing, which is a decent change, but it can only do so much. Any other major ideas aren't even in a prototype stage that I've heard of, which means they are still a long ways out of hitting consumers and then add at least 2-3 years to that time before it becomes mainstream. And the basic 3D like we are seeing from Nvidia in demos recently is one that can be applied to almost any game, most games needing little or not change to make it work.

I'm not talking about graphics and I never was. I'm talking about the amount of data games are able to handle.


The meteor extinction idea doesn't work with gaming because its not something forced on consumers (like a meteor) it is something that has to be accepted by them and purchased. And if history is any guide to go by, then any revolutionary technology isn't going to come cheap.

new technology doesn't tend to work it's way into most home appliences until it's affordable but it just wouldn't be profitable. Games generally don't take advantage of said technology until it's cheap enough that they can produce a game that is profitable, meaning the technology is already affordable. cost is a non-issue and the number of people who won't want to switch will be small if what I've seen in the past is any indicator.


As for modularity, I don't see how you can make software modular in such a way that it can have some aspects changed in major ways and not be forced to redo huge portions of the rest of the game.

and I don't either, but then I'm not a developer. I'd try to find a way to do it. that way might exist and it might not.

@ Philistine: well, games take a long time to make. by the time the game is almost done some new technology will probably be in the works and give you a chance to prepare to hop on that bandwagon as soon as it pulls into the station, or you could program an engine where codes can be replaced easily and cross your fingers hoping it works, you could also make guesses, or do all three.

FPS > RTS isn't the kind of "next big thing" I'm talking about. those are different genres. I'm talking about changes that will affect your game's genre.

[Erloas]

except that that's not what I'm talking about in the slightest. MUDs and graphical MMOs are very different beasts and appeal to people fo different reasons. you're comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not talking about graphics and I never was. I'm talking about the amount of data games are able to handle.

Graphic MMOs are a direct descendant to MUDs. The first graphic MMOs were built on the designs of MUDs just with graphics instead of text. At this point MUDs tend to fall into a very niche very heavy roleplaying crowd, but they aren't really that far apart. They definately aren't farther apart in difference then what we have now and what we might have when "the next big thing" happens. MUDs are all but ignored by any place that covers gaming though.


As for the amount of data a game can handle, well that all comes back to graphics too because you are using a graphical medium and the only way to get that increased amount of data to the users is to increase the complexity of the graphics.
Its not all about making something look more photorealistic, its more like physics and how that changes a game world. Physics in gaming did lead to better graphics, but it also lead to much more complex environments. But that complexity in environments came from both an increase in data handling and an increase in graphical demand to show that data to the user. What good is it to calculate a new hole in a wall or rubble blocking an opening, or fog to obscure a view if you don't have the graphics to then show that to the user?

Which is one "big thing" I've heard people bring up before but can't yet be done. Having environments in an MMO changed drastically by small scale actions. Sure there are games where you can build cities where there weren't ones before, but you are putting down static objects in an area and the only changes those objects will see are likely to be maybe 2-3 stages of pre-programmed damaged views. The complexity simply isn't there right now to make a fortress (sci-fi or fantasy) that could have holes blasted in the walls at any point (via cannons or lasers, etc) making new entrances. They have some that are doing that to some extent (even DAOC had that) but there are only a few pre-programmed areas that can be damaged and that all happens in a set way.

The problem with doing that on a very wide scale is that it either means making very complex pre-programmed options, which greatly increase the development time of every asset that needs it, or to have it done "on the fly" like we see in FPSs with physics now. The problem with doing it "on the fly" though is that it greatly increases the amount of data that needs to be moved between computers, and latency and connection speeds become a huge issue, as well as a greatly increased demand on CPU and graphics on the users end. Both of which are being increased as we go, but that is very much going to be a slow evolving change where it happens in a few important places at first and slowly grows to where it is used everywhere. The problem is that the two designs aren't really interchangable at a low level, you could probably have both done on the same engine at the same time, but the way the art assests are built to work with the engines are going to be completely different.

In the end though it mostly comes down to money again. Making a game with that highly of an interactive world is possible at this point, but the demands on systems involved means only a very small portion of the potential audience could run the game. But the time and resources required to build a game like that (or any MMO, but that sort of design would be even worse) means the game is going to have to be big to make back the investment to make it, but the system requirements to play the game are going to be such that the game can't possibly be big. (Crysis is a good example of this)

[Querzis]

Tensu, I got a Wii, I play WoW and even then I still go play Ragnarok Online or my old genesis and N64. A better tecnology doesnt mean you'll have more fun playing it and thats the whole points of Video Games: having fun! Ragnarok online is still alive after all this time, do you really think any new tecnology would be able to bring down WoW?

I'm one of the people who play WoW for fun and, unlike what some people seems to think here, I'm definitly not the only one. I love the design and, honestly, I barely have anyone on my friend list, I'm not in any guild, I never did a dungeon raid because they are way too much time-consuming and I'm level 80. And I still love it (though honestly, Outland was really disapointing but Azeroth and Kalimdor are still as enjoyable as ever and Northrend is freaking awesome.) Even if tomorrow everyone else would drop WoW I would still play it...hell I woudnt even care.

And I'm absolutely sure City of heroes (its weird how everyone seems to forget City of Heroes), EVE and Ragnarok online will survive for a long time too because they also have lots of devoted fans. I'm sure WoW, city of heores and EVE will get to 10 years and I woudnt be surprised if Ragnarok get to 15. As for the others MMORPG like WaR I'm not sure but I'm sure age of conan will die pretty fast. By the way:


Where did you come up with those numbers for WAR? Sounds like you just made them up to me, since they haven't released any sub numbers.

Its also hard to say with WoW because about 70-80% of their population is from Asia

Whos making up numbers? WoW already had 8 millions players BEFORE it was even released in China. Come on.

[Erloas]

Whos making up numbers? WoW already had 8 millions players BEFORE it was even released in China. Come on.

Well I checked and my numbers are bit off (I had known the US numbers, I had thought that was US and EU combined and the rest was Asia, but they broke out US and EU seperately). As of last year with 10 million WoW had 2 million US, 2.5 million EU, and 5.5 million in Asia. So assuming those percentages stayed much the same for the last 1.5 million they added that puts Asia at about 55% of WoW's playerbase. Of course those numbers are based on where people are playing rather then actually where they are from, so places like South America, Australia, Africa, etc would be listed on whichever servers they were playing on rather then were the person was living. It would also include gold farming accounts, but how big of a percentage that actually is there is no way to know.

As for where I got the numbers from... well from Blizzards own press release at 10million subs. (http://eu.blizzard.com/en/press/080122.html)

They didn't give any number breakdowns in the recent press releases. So while my numbers were off, they were closer then what you had.

[Innis Cabal]

The Everquest series has lasted for a rather long time, and I don't forsee it ending anytime soon really.

[DemonicAngel]

2 word: Guild Wars
no subscription fee, lasting appeal, achievements... all the things you need in a good game. and has quiet the fan base.

[Hunter Noventa]

Guild Wars/Guild Wars 2 might last a long time, if they can keep up the costs for the servers while keeping the games free. The only problem is that for both of them, PvE, despite being HUGE, is regarded as an afterthought by most of the players who play it for the PvP.

WoW will likely last until it stops making money. I like CoH, but I'm hoping that Champions Online outdoes it. As for outlasts, who knows.

[Maxymiuk]

Guild Wars/Guild Wars 2 might last a long time, if they can keep up the costs for the servers while keeping the games free. The only problem is that for both of them, PvE, despite being HUGE, is regarded as an afterthought by most of the players who play it for the PvP.


Why is that a problem? :smallconfused: One would think that PvP that you can jump right into, without the bothersome grind for levels, weapons and armor (there's still grind for unlocks, but most of it happens through PvP) would be a good thing.


To contribute, since the OP asked about MMO's (as opposed to MMORPG's), I'm going to say that Second Life beats most of the games listed so far. It's been around for almost 6 years and, as of September last year, had 15 milion registered users. Its main draws are accessibility, no monthly fees, and oodles of user-generated content. And, due to the game design's modularity and ease of modification, I'd say it even has a good chance of leaping the "next big thing" hurdle some people have mentioned.

[Tensu]

@ Erloas: A) MUD still appeal to a significantly different crowed. while the idea is the same as a Graphical MMO the MUD behaves like a very different beast. what's more, most of the MUDs I've seen don't charge a monthly fee, yet another very important factor as to why graphics didn't kill them.

B) Well I did want to read all of that to be honest, but judging by how much I could pay attention for that's what I meant by the next big thing. once those kinds of games come out most of the MMOs now will be screwed.

@ Querzis: I'm trying very hard not to be angry that you missed my point by as far as you did. You don't need to explain to me that old games can be fun. I know. I like SNES games a whole lot. you know why? because they offer me things modern games can't, and there's the difference. the new MMO's will be everything you liked before and more. assuming their internal save battery hasn't run out by know, do you know anyone who still plays blue version? yes, a lot of people rant that the old ones were best but that's the funny thing about nostalgia: it can blind you to necessary improvements. with no battle tower, what are you going to do once you get the team you want? with no non-special water attacks, Gyarados's high attack is kind of pointless. and powers add a new level of strategy. don't get me wrong: Nostalgia is a beautiful thing. but it has a dark side too.

the other difference is that old games where one or two players. MMOs have communities and require other people either to work with, to beat up, or both depending on game/style of play. when people abandon an old MMO when something new comes, anyone who chooses to remain is going to be very lonely.

[Jimorian]

The MMO that will eventually usurp WoW is one that successfully combines a fun game with some social networking tools.

WoW kinda accidentally does this already simply by its critical mass. Quite a few "non-gamers" join so they can hang out with friends who they know spend a lot of online time in game.

Game play will not need to be particularly revolutionary or challenging, though there might be layers to it so that casual players can co-exist beside those who want to go for elite achievements. A big aspect of it will be that a person's "home" whether it's a web page or an in-game location will be all about the bling. Showing off quest trophies or other rare items, who has the best designed house, etc.

Real life and game life will cross over more often too. An "invite to a party" might be for a quest, or it might be for the local pub crawl.

As long as WoW is around, any MMO approach that's strictly game oriented is simply trying to chip off some of the market that WoW already dominates.

[Tensu]

The MMO that will eventually usurp WoW is one that successfully combines a fun game with some social networking tools.

WoW kinda accidentally does this already simply by its critical mass. Quite a few "non-gamers" join so they can hang out with friends who they know spend a lot of online time in game.

Game play will not need to be particularly revolutionary or challenging, though there might be layers to it so that casual players can co-exist beside those who want to go for elite achievements. A big aspect of it will be that a person's "home" whether it's a web page or an in-game location will be all about the bling. Showing off quest trophies or other rare items, who has the best designed house, etc.

Real life and game life will cross over more often too. An "invite to a party" might be for a quest, or it might be for the local pub crawl.

As long as WoW is around, any MMO approach that's strictly game oriented is simply trying to chip off some of the market that WoW already dominates.

I think that's giving WoW too much credit. what did wow do that another MMO hadn't already? nothing really. it just did it in a newer, bigger, way. WoW will die quickly and easily when something comes out the truly revolutionizes the genre. and I don't think that appealing more to the social aspect of the game will necessarily be involved in any way. In fact, I hope it isn't. but then the only reason I like MMOs is because it's hard to find a good RPG that adds any kind of real character customization options these days.

don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't like interacting with people, but I am by no means a team player. I can't group.

[Talic]

It should be noted that WoW does many content additions without cost. They call them "patches". They tweak a couple rules here and there, some abilities, and add some things... Items... Talents... Sometimes even instances.

For example. Back when WoW was still WoW, and had no BC or WotLK following it... It's last such patch added in a new raid instance known as "Naxxramas". A shame that with how soon it came before Burning Crusade, that many didn't experience it. So, they revamp it later, and re-release it, powered up, for the current play level.

In Wrath of the Lich King, the new patch is going to make some items easier to acquire... Introduce some new items... Shift up some class abilities (Death knights get lowered Howling Blast damage, for example)... and they are, again, adding a new raid instance (Ulduar)... For free.


On the topic of Tyranids vs Zerg? Both were ripped off of Aliens. Both did a decent job of it, and flavored it differently. But you're comparing brothers, and doing so like you would father and son. No, the Aliens franchise started both of them.

[SmartAlec]

An unsubstantiated rumor. I have been asking for evidence of this for the last 5 years, evidence that not a single perpetrator of this claim has managed to provide a single shred of. I can see why people have an almost divine mandate to declare that Blizzard "ripped off poor ol' GW" at every mention of either franchise, but stuff like this is just tiring. As Lenin said, a lie told often enough becomes the truth.

Have you played through Warcraft: Orcs and Humans? Games Workshop and Warhammer are mentioned in the game end credits.

[Erloas]

@ Erloas: A) MUD still appeal to a significantly different crowed. while the idea is the same as a Graphical MMO the MUD behaves like a very different beast. what's more, most of the MUDs I've seen don't charge a monthly fee, yet another very important factor as to why graphics didn't kill them.

I agree they have a different crowd then the main MMOs out now, but that doesn't change the fact that the modern MMO is a direct descendant of the MUD, and that the next "revolutionary" MMO will be a direct descendant of the current market. You can't exclude them just because they don't have the same player base. Otherwise you may as well exclude UO, and EQ because the people playing them right now are a completely different crowd as the people playing WoW. And you would have to remove EVE from the list and Darkness Falls and many other games as well because they are marketed toward a very niche part of the MMO crowd, the same way current MUDs are.


It should be noted that WoW does many content additions without cost. They call them "patches". They tweak a couple rules here and there, some abilities, and add some things... Items... Talents... Sometimes even instances. Of course as Tensu said, WoW isn't any different then every other game that came out before it in that regard either. Every single game has had patches that add items, areas, and balance classes (by adding new abilities, tweaking things, etc.).
The first graphic MMO I played, Asheron's Call, also added new areas via free patches. They had a whole story driven event that was updated about once a month that included new content. EVE has released at least 4-5 major patches for EVE that have been at least equivalent to BC or WotLK for free, along with countless ships (about the equivalent of classes), and abilities. DAOC did about half of their major expansions as free.

As it is, I can't think of a single thing that WoW did on its own. Everything that I can think of was done by other companies first, Blizzard just took from a lot of different places, mixed it together and had a very solid release with it. About the only "innovation" from Blizzard I can think of in terms of WoW was the fact that they had the money to polish their content really well before releasing (which was a first in the MMO scene). They still had almost no end-game at release and had to fill that in later just like everything else, but their early and middle game was very well done at release.


WoW got where it was, not by doing something new, but by doing what was already done very well. So its hard to say if the game that does finally pass WoW is going to do it with innovation or if its simply going to out "WoW" WoW and just recycle everything everyone has already seen and just do a very good job at it.

[Tensu]

But WoW did deal huge damage to other online communities. some still struggle along, but they'll eventually pitter out. I mean, you're asking which MMO is going to last until the end of time, or at least until the end of MMOs. I don't think any MMO out yet has that level of adaptability.

or did I misunderstand the question?

that said, I'd like to remind everyone that those patches aren't free. those patches are what your monthly fees are paying for.

[GoC]

The next game to incoporate something truly innovative (like an actual interactive invironment or a sensible system for AI minion management AND actual NPC characters with decent AI that players will actually feel satisfied killing) will last a long time.

[Jahkaivah]

Warhammer fans constantly claim that the Zerg are a Tyranid clone, despite the drastic differences. Thus, I figure that Blizzard fans are even more accurate when they call WAR a WoW clone.

The Warhammer board games and Dark Age of Camelot both existed before WoW, and Blizzard took heavy ammounts of insipiration from both sources before Mythic and Games Workshop teamed up to make WAR.

Tyranids and Zerg do have alot of major differances but Blizzard never made a game using the starcraft IP or a zerg-like race beforehand with which Games Workshop or Mythic could copy from.

[Tensu]

The next game to incoporate something truly innovative (like an actual interactive invironment or a sensible system for AI minion management AND actual NPC characters with decent AI that players will actually feel satisfied killing) will last a long time.

my feelings exactly. since none of the current games offer truly interactive environments or NPCs, they won't last once games come out that do. those games will put the RPG back n MMORPG.

[Erloas]

my feelings exactly. since none of the current games offer truly interactive environments or NPCs, they won't last once games come out that do. those games will put the RPG back n MMORPG.

Well it entirely depends on what being an interactive environment even means and how it is put to use in the context of the game. I could see a lot of interactive environment situations which would do very little to enhance my gaming. It really all just comes down to how the interactive environment works with the other mechanics of the game.

As for interactive NPCs, really I couldn't care less. I don't play MMOs to read long NPC dialogs, even if they had me take part in it. In terms of combat and more realistic NPCs, well it could be interesting, but its going to be a very long time before that is even close to what a human could do. But as it is I've got all the interactive enemies I could ever need in the form of other players. NPCs are never going to take the place of other players. There is almost nothing an NPC could do in terms of interaction, even in the future, that couldn't be done easier and better by other players.

So while that sort of thing might change the mainstream MMOs, I don't see it being so universally great that everyone gives up every other game to play that one.

[Tensu]

anything an interactive environment could do that wouldn't effect combat would have social applications.

and imagine a guild that had both player and NPC members. when players couldn't make it, you could have your NPC buds fill in the gap. or if you kill one NPC, that NPC's brother comes looking for revenge. stuff like that would be really cool. and it would make the world more real. again, putting the RPG back into MMORPG.