MMO's Do Not Die.

[jarjarloves]

 

Warhammer Online has been in maintainace mode (MMO-undeath) for several years now and it was only realeased in Sept 2008. In fact it never really got any new content at all (a couple of classes that were supposed to be in at release and a new zone that was 90% developed before it went Live).

 

Believe me maintanace mode is pretty much death for an MMORPG, or at least undeath, zombieMMOs aren't much fun.

 

I wouldn't say maintenance mode for several years probably only a year or so remember they added the DLC skaven content and stuff.

 

But the point being WAR failed HARD it lost 70% of its subs by month 4 or so. But its still running. WAR never had even close to the number of paying subs that SWTOR has.

 

The idea is still MMOs don't die fast like some of the haters and trolls say. In fact those that go F2P don't go so until at least 1 and half years after launch if not longer. The shortest is DCUO which was 9 months but that only went F2P because of the sony hack and they shut the game down for 2 months straight. The game would probalby still be P2P if they didn't have the sony hack. Course it's thriving now as a F2P game.

[BuddyRufus]

? How does that fit here. It's exactly what he was talking about. That thing was supported for years after it was practically dead.

 

There are quite a few people out there who are still keeping SWG on life support even after its termination.

[WickedDjinn]

I was wrong. TOR will be dead inside a year.

 

Just look at what happened to Motor City Online!

[Goretzu]

I wouldn't say maintenance mode for several years probably only a year or so remember they added the DLC skaven content and stuff.

 

Which consisted of A map that existed before Live and some Skaven character models (4 to be precise).

 

Other than that it was simply rejigging what already existed and charging a lot for it - it's no wonder that one of WARs biggest % population drops was right after 1.4 went Live (full of promise, very short on actual delievery ).

 

 

But the point being WAR failed HARD it lost 70% of its subs by month 4 or so. But its still running. WAR never had even close to the number of paying subs that SWTOR has.

 

It's still running, and may be turning a very small profit.

 

Equally it might still be running because of the contract with GW.

 

Either way the game is zombiefied.

[PainOfDemise]

lol, this.

 

Do you (OP) think that just because the game is backed by EA/BioWare that it will never "die"? SWG was around for 8 years. They were backed by Sony and LucasArts yet they still pulled the plug. If the game is not bringing it money then it is not viable to keep it active.

 

Um, no? Did you read any of the other comments on here? The only reason why SWG was pulled was because they made this game. If SWTOR wasn't around, SWG would still be going. Plus, the thing he was getting across, even if the game itself is dead, it still lasts for years and years. Just like SWG did before it got pulled.

Edited July 25, 2012 by PainOfDemise

[Aaroneus]

I agree OP. SWTOR has established it's core group of players that will continue to support and play the game for a long time, myself included.

 

In these forums, especially in the PvP ones, we read a lot about "FOTM" classes and "FOTM" re-rollers. well that applies to these games as well, and those FOTM gamers will play a game for a little while, realize that it isn't catered to all of their personal needs, complain about it on the forums/claim that the game is worthless and that it's going to die in 6 months, then move on to the next. lather, rinse, repeat. Some gamers simply just get tired of the game and want to move on to something else, and quietly do so without making the rest of us feel like crap and claiming doom like they are one of the head honcho's in the gaming industry. And that is totally cool with me.

 

So sure, subs decrease, but the core will remain and I don't think that the game Dev's should have to worry about all the B.S. that we read here. Frankly I don't blame them for not making appearances in the forums.

[PainOfDemise]

There are quite a few people out there who are still keeping SWG on life support even after its termination.

 

I've noticed that, SWGEmu lol.

[ThiborF]

I suppose I should have titled the thread MMOs rarely Die.

 

Sounds less impressive though, and should be besides the point. Have MMOs vanished? A few.

 

But Ultima Online, Everquest and Asherons Call, the first MMOs, are still alive. Dozens of MMOs in worse shape than TOR, with smaller player bases and less support continue to exist years later. Almost every MMO ever made persists. To the point that an MMO actually dying is incredibly rare.

 

Point is, we have nothing to worry about. TOR isn't dying and isn't going anywhere.

 

And that may be part of TOR's problem. Release with numbers rivaling some of the big boys BUT, may end up having numbers where their true peers are ones that have been out for ages.

 

Keep in mind that added content for TOR with the voice acting is likely to run a higher bill than typical MMOs of the past. Which likely means their threshold population of what's maintainable to keep things running is higher than others unless it gets condemned to just being in "maintenance mode".

 

And nobody here knows what that minimum is ... 50k subs? 100k subs? More? Less? How many justify the overhead and ongoing development?

 

Oh and add Asheron's Call 2 to the list of past games saying "Hi" from beyond the MMO-grave.

[DarthTHC]

EA will not lose money on this game for long. If they can't figure out a way to make it profitable, they will kill it.

 

You can express all the hope you want to. Just remember that reality, in this case, will be measured in dollars.

[kevlarto]

It's pretty simple really as long as the compamy can shift it around and make a profit, it is not going anywhere, look at AOC, Ashron's Call, Dark Fall, niche market mmo's are far more common than Anomalies like wow.

There have been some that went dark and most likely the company was out of money and could not continue day to day operations, plus those games may have not had enough of a niche to make any profit. I would think Tor has enough fans to hold a niche, maybe

Edited July 25, 2012 by kevlarto

[Urael]

I've noticed that, SWGEmu lol.

 

FYI ... We are not supposed specifically mention this. I suspect your post and my response to your post to be removed soon ™.

[Coriolan_Martius]

Of course it's not going to die. It's going of to the big "server farm" up in the sky.

"Cloud" city ...

[Gradivus]

What most people mean by "This game is dead/is dying" is "I don't like it". An MMO is perfectly enjoyable as long as it has ONE server with a healthy population. The presence/lack of 100 other servers which you can't play on at the same time doesn't impact the enjoyment of the game. People simply like to play the biggest game on the market. If their favourite game doesn't become the biggest, they say it's dead.

[Gradivus]

FYI ... We are not supposed specifically mention this. I suspect your post and my response to your post to be removed soon ™.

 

SWGemu is perfectly legal. You need to buy the original SWG to be able to play it.

[Urael]

SWGemu is perfectly legal. You need to buy the original SWG to be able to play it.

 

Trust me. BW deletes all mention of it and sends warnings.

[Fornix]

EA will not lose money on this game for long. If they can't figure out a way to make it profitable, they will kill it.

 

You can express all the hope you want to. Just remember that reality, in this case, will be measured in dollars.

 

There's still plenty of steps though before shutting things down. Such as stop of customer support, stopping development, stopping bug fixes, etc. And after all of that, it's usually more profitable to keep a game running for those who can't care about all of that with just 1 or 2 servers, rather than shutting it down directly.

 

So yeh, it'll probably be years before it'd shut down even in a worst case scenario. More likely though is steady ongoing development, and if the current p2p model doesn't attract the desired player count a switch to a model similar as what games such as lotro have adopted as history has shown an increased popularity for such microtransaction business models.

[Sungas]

I still pay monthly for Istaria (released as Horizons).

 

I like the game and find it difficult to abandon my developed "property".

 

That game was officially declared dead, bought by another company, brought back to life, and even introduces new content on occasion.

[Emeda]

SWG says hi.

 

SWG was murdered so that it couldnt compete with a certain game.

 

It could have lasted forever with its what 50,000 players at the end.

 

The question is what happens to a game that not enough people want to pay a sub for and there is not enough fluff to have enough people that F2P will work. Guess we will find out.

[Arasys]

But Ultima Online, Everquest and Asherons Call, the first MMOs, are still alive.

 

Point is, we have nothing to worry about. TOR isn't dying and isn't going anywhere.

 

 

Are you kidding or being sarcastic ?

 

UO is still one of the top games with (imo) widest range of sandbox options, those who love sandbox elements & RP are still playing it ( including me). Besides, even after EA purchased UO, since game has solid systems, of course it will not easily die because no matter how "good" you get in that game, there's always something to do.

 

Asheron's Call is by far my favorite MMO, and by comparing SWTOR with it I realized how SWTOR feels super static. Think of AC's map, dynamism, sandbox elements and furthermore; even after all those years that game still has live events every month, with new updates. Did they change the graphics ? no . Are they really working hard to please their loyal customers ? Absolutely. This is also one of the major differences, here Devs knew they were going to get lots of negative feedback and it probably scared them, but closing your eyes and running away from such loyal player base is not acceptable.

 

Continuing with the same example, why do you think AC 2 failed ? I think It was more like SWTOR compared to AC 1. In other words, the game was not really dynamic and had no depth.

 

If you really enjoy the game, I am happy for you but if you look around you'll see the game is almost in coma now. I have been playing MMOs since 1999, and must say I have never seen such lack of management in any mmos.

[Synxos]

Shadowbane was a beloved mmo by its players, and it still died.

 

Plus you're dealing with EA. they ONLY care about money. And their recent comments already show they don't care about this game, and they themselves already consider it a failure.

They're going to milk it for all it's worth til they stop making money.

[Master-Nala]

Everquest Online Adventures a Playstation 2 (TWO) game just shut down this year after 9 years of a sub-10,000 playerbase. The people who think TOR will shut down completely are kidding themselves. If EA is smart they make it buy to play, start selling color crystals and other cosmetic stuff in a cash shop and watch this game last for a decade profitably.

[Nearbo]

The really crappy ones die, SWTOR will be around for a long time.

[Nearbo]

Are you kidding or being sarcastic ?

 

UO is still one of the top games with (imo) widest range of sandbox options, those who love sandbox elements & RP are still playing it ( including me). Besides, even after EA purchased UO, since game has solid systems, of course it will not easily die because no matter how "good" you get in that game, there's always something to do.

 

Asheron's Call is by far my favorite MMO, and by comparing SWTOR with it I realized how SWTOR feels super static. Think of AC's map, dynamism, sandbox elements and furthermore; even after all those years that game still has live events every month, with new updates. Did they change the graphics ? no . Are they really working hard to please their loyal customers ? Absolutely. This is also one of the major differences, here Devs knew they were going to get lots of negative feedback and it probably scared them, but closing your eyes and running away from such loyal player base is not acceptable.

 

Continuing with the same example, why do you think AC 2 failed ? I think It was more like SWTOR compared to AC 1. In other words, the game was not really dynamic and had no depth.

 

If you really enjoy the game, I am happy for you but if you look around you'll see the game is almost in coma now. I have been playing MMOs since 1999, and must say I have never seen such lack of management in any mmos.

 

In a coma? How do you figure? Their is still a decent amount of subs, its not doing as great as EA wanted it to, but its not in a coma.

[Andryah]

EA will not lose money on this game for long.

 

Correct. In fact, there is no evidence that they have lost money on this game yet. [Development costs are not factored against operations revenue by companies so don't try to lame walk us into that rat hole of fiction. Developement costs are a capital depreciation expense separate from product P&L.]

 

If they can't figure out a way to make it profitable, they will kill it.

 

Clearly they ARE able to figure out how to size an MMO operation plan to fit the fickleness of the player base, as evidenced by DAOC and WAR still operatiing, still taking subs, and still running servers (albeit at smaller scales, based on player subsrciption demand). SWTOR is still a much larger sub base then these old MMOs, yet people like to call it "done", "cooked", etc etc.

 

Do some MMOs close down early in their life cycle? Yes. However, most do not. So the preponderance of evidence in the MMO marketplace supports the fact that companies can and will run MMOs even at much smaller scale then when they launch. Business 101, scale your business operations plan to match customer demand, up or down depending on what customers buy.

 

I get that you want the game to fail and shut down because it disappoints you. But it's not going to happen in the forseeable future, especially considering the likely licensing commitments they are bound to LA for.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Andryah

[Andryah]

Continuing with the same example, why do you think AC 2 failed ? I think It was more like SWTOR compared to AC 1. In other words, the game was not really dynamic and had no depth.

.

 

AC2 promised (either directly, or through player delusion, or both) to be a popular sequal to AC1. It was not. Just becasue they called it AC2 did not make it an actual MMO successor to AC1. It was a very different game, when in fact what players wanted was a logical extension to AC1, an AC1+ if you will. AC2 died because of a failed business plan (faked extension of AC1 IP) and failed expectations on the part of a relatively small player base.

 

There is no comparison to SWTOR, other then in your reminicient AC1 mind.