[SOE] Announces new free kids MMO in dev.

[Cuppycake]

Originally Posted by Jestor Rodo

Smed says he wants to move away from subs to velvet rope (pay for special areas)??? Smed already has done that 13 times for Everquest ( expansions).

I'm not sure what you're trying to do there, but I think you're trying to compare expansions/content releases with microtransactions.....

[orcmauler]

No I think he means more like the Navyfield model.

For those who don't know about it, Navyfield is Free to play but, if you actually want to compete, you have to pay for a premium or gold account (9.99/14.99 a month) buy premium sailors (variable) premium ships, and all sorts of little doo-dads.

So technically, remember, we have a free-to-play game, but the hardcore players are dropping $15 a month and up just to keep up with the joneses.

Now translated to a kiddie mmorpg--with completley hypothetical assumptions incoming.

My little pony mmo--free to play, but you only get a blue pony.

You want a pink pony? 2 bucks
Rainbow pony? 5 bucks

Your choice in pony hairstyles is limited to "Long flowing mane"

Want a braided mane? 2 bucks
Afro Puffs? 5 bucks

The posibilites are limitless and, for the company, cheap!

[Cuppycake]

Exactly. And look at this list of Top 10 MMOs published today. (by subscription)

1. WoW - 8.5 million subscribers
2. Habbo Hotel - 7.5 million active users (how many are paying?)
3. Runescape - 9 million accounts, 1 million paid accounts
4. Club Penguin - 4 million active users
5. Webkins - 3.8 million users
6. Gaia Online - 2 million active
7. Guild Wars - 2 million (no subscription)
8. Puzzle Pirates - 1.5 million
9. Lineage 1/2 - 1 million
10. Second Life- 500,000 active users.

Tell me if you were SOE that you wouldn't want a piece of that virtual world action? Only two of those games are traditional subscription based MMORPG's. No brainer.

[Tolanin]

I gotta wonder if thats not mostly because the 'myspace' mmos just dont bother having very accurate user numbers... I tend to think that the money made by even EQ2 is greater than the non sub games on that list. I am willing to bet that 90 percent of those user numbers on the non sub games are just fudged.

[Cuppycake]

Tolanin, its about active subscriptions/users.

EQ2 isn't even close.

[Maique]

Originally Posted by Cuppycake

Tolanin, its about active subscriptions/users.

EQ2 isn't even close.

No, it's about the money. if those runescape numbers are right, they have 1 million players that pay 5$ a month, EQ2 has what 300k? that pay 15$, while runescape has a lot more subscription/users in the end they make more or less the same money.

[Kazgrim]

closer to 200k but the number paying $29.95 (AAP) maybe makes up for it.

[Maxxius]

Originally Posted by Maique

No, it's about the money. if those runescape numbers are right, they have 1 million players that pay 5$ a month, EQ2 has what 300k? that pay 15$, while runescape has a lot more subscription/users in the end they make more or less the same money.

It's always about the money, but don't forget to factor in development costs and operating costs, tied in with a basically hit or miss end result. Playerbase can be very fickle too. Produce an inexpensive "free" game that can have wide appeal, start charging for in game doo-dads, even get advertisers to pay for "virtual" billboards in your little hub cities, and yeah you can make a pretty dam good buck with less economic exposure.

[Ravensign]

Originally Posted by Maique

No, it's about the money. if those runescape numbers are right, they have 1 million players that pay 5$ a month, EQ2 has what 300k? that pay 15$, while runescape has a lot more subscription/users in the end they make more or less the same money.

Whoa, hold there cowboy. They TAKE IN more or less the same money. You gotta talk about what goes OUT to make that call.

[cyanbane]

Originally Posted by Maxxius

Ok you just don't get it. NONE of these games are cyclical. NONE. That was the lesson Brad couldn't learn either. Cost MS over 30 million as well. IF people look back it is simply nostalgia and nothing more. And you simply don't understand this concept since you are literally talking in circles now. SOE presumeably is starting to wiseup tis why they are saying they will be moving away from subscription games. Re-read Cuppy's dam post and THINK about it before just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I predict this:

In sometime in the next 5-10 years, someone will create a generic fantasy MMO with up to date graphics (playing the WOW safe card by not being too overdone), UI, the whole shebang, BUT it will use (with a few small exceptions) the same level grind cookie cutter game mechanics that eq, eq2, wow and other games do today. It is just that in 10 years that WON'T be the norm. That game will be successful. Very successful because people will feel the nostalgia and are sick of the current niche norm. Then other companies will look at that and see there is money to be made and start create a clone (clone of a clone at this point) and they will ride that out for a few years, till the consumer market wants something different. How about niche MMOs? (like pony world, or whatever) then suddenly that will be where the money is and focus will be drawn back to that. It will continue to do this.

Much like every 10 years or so we see a hugely successful boyband, then for 10 years we don't, then guess what?

The above is in relation to game play. Profit vs play will be the same way. Everyone will migrate over the next few years (maybe by a push from the industry?) to microtranc and "slight of hand" RMT, then by 2013 some company is gonna market a game as "Why pay small tranactions, when we are just happy with a monthly fee all you can eat?" and everyone will feel it is revolutionary and utilize it for awhile, until another game comes along with an even "better" microtransaction deal. The two cycles (profit / game style) may not be on the same troughs and crests, but that doesn't matter, they will still be cyclical in their path.

How long have you played MMOs? One of the first MMOs around the time M59 came out was called Shadow of Yseribus on the Sierra Network. I can't imagine how much money I spent playing Yseribus. You pay'd by the hour to level your character (there may have been some big flat fee per month but I don't remember and it would have been exuberant). In essence you paid money in small increments to have the ability to have a more powerful character than other players. Then suddenly UO/EQ came out where as you could have an all you can eat buffet (barring you have a net conx) for a flat fee. Suddenly here we are 10 years later, and people are introducing microtranactional games where although you are not playing per hour you ARE paying a small fee incrementaly for the ability to have a more powerful character than other payers. It isn't under the guise of and hourly rate, but that is essence of it. This will probably be in fashion for the next 5 or 8 years or so and then some will come up with the innovative Ayn Randian' "if everyone is special no one is" solution that the playing field needs to be leveled, because the majority of people will never attain the status of people willing to spend money, so they will create a revolutionary solution of "everyone pay the same fee" and the better players (who in this case just have more time) will have the more powerful characters/ships/robots/ninjas whatever. This industry will always be the have vs have nots, just the haves will bounce back between 'those that have money' and 'those that have time'. Once the major populous gets sick of fighting those that have time, new games will come out that revert back to the other set of haves those that have money. They will continue to bounce back and forth (hence the cyclical). The winning companies will be those on the precip that end up being the catalyst for the change.

Note: I did want to hear some people outside of this forums opinion also, so I also posted this at my sites blog. Feel free to post there too if you want to also.

Edit: Spelling.

[Cuppycake]

Careful posting a link to your blog - I got nothing but shit for that the first time I did it.

[cyanbane]

Originally Posted by Cuppycake

Careful posting a link to your blog - I got nothing but shit for that the first time I did it.

I honestly am not doing it for self promotion, just to let Maxxius know I mentioned him on it and that there may be some discussion about his view and mine over there so he has the ability to chime in if he wants to.

[Maxxius]

Cyan I've been playing these games since the very first MMO ever was around (AOL's NWN). 10 years from now the market will be much different than today. That is how evolution works. I am sure your parents loved pogo sticks in their day and would be nostalgic just to see one today. But that doesn't mean current customers want it.

If there is a buck to be made, people will try but retreading off nostalgia in this business just does not work. That was what Brad was trying to do in essence; and even if he launched a bug free game no way was it even equalling what EQ did in its prime. The market just isn't there. I predict Curt Schilling is in for some hard news too down the road.

The smart guy is the one who innovates, just copying with no real history behind yourself rarely will work. LOTRO would probably be a total flop if it didn't have the name. Warhammer has a chance because it has a history to draw off of as did WOW.

You compare current games today with games back during the dawn (aol's nwn, DSO, M59) and it is literally apples to oranges. Will be the same 10 years from now as well. EQ even tried the nostalgia card with their progression server. Was fun for some for awhile then they just moved on. It isn't cyclical, it is progression that matters. Yeah when you are old and gray you will say "I remember when . . . .", and your grandkids will smile and roll their eyes while doing something completely different.

Now if you want to throw darts at my name on your website, that is fine by me.

[cyanbane]

Originally Posted by Maxxius

You compare current games today with games back during the dawn (aol's nwn, DSO, M59) and it is literally apples to oranges.

That is where we differ and the crux of the argument. I believe nothing has really changed except small game mechanics and environment (sound, graphics, etc). I think back during M59 and even old Door games and Muds it is the same as eq2 and wow just a different set of environments. In essence, we are all still just playing AD&D with a bunch of game specific subsystems, with an artificial DM and someone to roll the dice for us, the graphics on our screen just keep getting better.

Also, honestly not throwing darts at you, I like that you are passionate about your argument. I just don't think it is right.


The smart guy is the one who innovates, just copying with no real history behind yourself rarely will work.

Where do you think Wow came from?

[Maxxius]

Wow had a tremendous history to draw off of and innovated far over EQ. If you want to totally generalize then yeah there is no difference, a person sits at a computer and hits mouse and keys to move a character. Voila all games are hence the same. But no reasonable person would agree that M59 is basically the same as WOW.