What would it take to tople WoW from its throne?

[direkiller]

I am not missrepsenting you in anyway. I am saying your defntion of a MMO is too broad

Hold on a second, its a subjective definition then, well then my hardrive is actually a rhino, and my house is made of zebras. What? Definitions are apparently subjective according to you.

You failed to grasp me past anything here, since you failed at the start gate, with saying my definition is to broad.

Heres the defintion of MMORPG, of course you can guess what MMO stands for by now.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+MMORPG&qpvt=mmorpg+definition&FORM=DTPDIA

Once again, quit while your ahead, your attaching terms to a word then saying that your attached terms HAVE to be there for that word to be correct, which is false. I could say that all fish have to taste delicious to be fish, and I would be incorrect because if a fish that is technically a fish, and fits the regular definition, yet isn't tasty then I am incorrect when I say "Thats not a fish, thats a thing."

(2 can play this game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game
"A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and usually feature at least one persistent world"

"Most MMOGs also share other characteristics that make them different from other multiplayer online games. MMOGs host a large number of players in a single game world, and all of those players can interact with each other at any given time. Popular MMOGs might have thousands of players online at any given time, usually on a company owned server. Non-MMOGs, such as Battlefield 1942 or Half-Life usually have fewer than 50 players online (per server) and are usually played on private servers."

 

[Aprilgold]

I am not missrepsenting you in anyway. I am saying your defntion of a MMO is too broad

Hold on a second, its a subjective definition then, well then my hardrive is actually a rhino, and my house is made of zebras. What? Definitions are apparently subjective according to you.

You failed to grasp me past anything here, since you failed at the start gate, with saying my definition is to broad.

Heres the defintion of MMORPG, of course you can guess what MMO stands for by now.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+MMORPG&qpvt=mmorpg+definition&FORM=DTPDIA

Once again, quit while your ahead, your attaching terms to a word then saying that your attached terms HAVE to be there for that word to be correct, which is false. I could say that all fish have to taste delicious to be fish, and I would be incorrect because if a fish that is technically a fish, and fits the regular definition, yet isn't tasty then I am incorrect when I say "Thats not a fish, thats a thing."

(2 can play this game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game
"A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and usually feature at least one persistent world"

God damn, what are you trying to prove here? That your definition is correct?

Anyways, it didn't say how big it had to be, so it could be as small as a boxing ring or a battlefield. Here's a definition of persistent:
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+persistent&qpvt=persistent+definition&FORM=DTPDIA

Using one of these, I could argue that the persistence of the the enemy makes the world persistent, despite the size. It also doesn't say if it has to be in the same world, so Call of Duty is still a MMO because it can host thousands of servers full of at least 16 people per server.

 

[direkiller]

I am not missrepsenting you in anyway. I am saying your defntion of a MMO is too broad

Hold on a second, its a subjective definition then, well then my hardrive is actually a rhino, and my house is made of zebras. What? Definitions are apparently subjective according to you.

You failed to grasp me past anything here, since you failed at the start gate, with saying my definition is to broad.

Heres the defintion of MMORPG, of course you can guess what MMO stands for by now.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+MMORPG&qpvt=mmorpg+definition&FORM=DTPDIA

Once again, quit while your ahead, your attaching terms to a word then saying that your attached terms HAVE to be there for that word to be correct, which is false. I could say that all fish have to taste delicious to be fish, and I would be incorrect because if a fish that is technically a fish, and fits the regular definition, yet isn't tasty then I am incorrect when I say "Thats not a fish, thats a thing."

(2 can play this game)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game
"A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMO and MMOG) is a multiplayer video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and usually feature at least one persistent world"

God damn, what are you trying to prove here? That your definition is correct?

Anyways, it didn't say how big it had to be, so it could be as small as a boxing ring or a battlefield. Here's a definition of persistent:
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+persistent&qpvt=persistent+definition&FORM=DTPDIA

Using one of these, I could argue that the persistence of the the enemy makes the world persistent, despite the size. It also doesn't say if it has to be in the same world, so Call of Duty is still a MMO because it can host thousands of servers full of at least 16 people per server.

Well i was proving i was not adding on to a deflation and using it in the correct context(which at this point you clearly are not and are doing thing you said I was doing) but my overall goal was to prove that LoL is not a MMO under the usage of the term MMO.


"It also doen't say if it has to be in the same world"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_world
yes, yes it dose. If it resets after each mach it is not a persistent world.

"all the things relateing to size"
Your forgetting the word Massive

 

[Aprilgold]

snip

*legasp* your taking my points out of order to make yourself look more valid, and not reading my whole thing. I'm done after this, your seriously just sitting there debating with me over this when I have provided proof to my side and the ones to yours haven't been the best.

Lets look at the definition of persistent one more time.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+persistent&qpvt=persistent+definition&FORM=DTPDIA
The very first one is: continuing despite problems This makes the world persistent since X group is advancing on Y group despite having to face a problem.

Now lets look at the definition of world.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+world&go=&form=QB
There are plenty there to choose from. I'm going to say that the maps in CoD are a world since they are all connected, not in a physical sense but they are all within their own little confines, their own little worlds. So they are all their own little playgrounds that players fight each other on.

Combine both and you have persistent world. Since players are fighting eachother, which presents a problem to both sides, they are both persistent despite the problems they are facing. And each map or what have you is actually its only little floating world within the confines of a game.

And if you want to go with the "it resets" defense then realize that if a persistent world doesn't change in any way because of player's action then it isn't a true persistent world. Also, servers have to be reset, therefore I am still correct, since nothing can stay persistent forever without reset in almost all MMO's.

On the second sentence you took it out of context, and I didn't say that in my post, so your lying outright to make yourself seem more correct.

I'm done after this post, your wasting both of our times with this. Once a person resorts to lying to make their side seem more reasonable, then it stops being a fair playing field and I'm not going to be here to fight dirty.

 

[LittleBlondeGoth]

What can kill it? Not really certain it can be killed, not in the way of something bigger and better coming out. Maybe it can die if Blizzard delete and turn off all their servers, but beyond that...

I have to admit, I was never a WoW fan. Instead, I played EverQuest II for a good five years, and really enjoyed it. The slightly more adult feel to it appealed to me more than the Fisher-Price-ness of WoW. And it was harder - I liked having to work at being awesome rather than smashing my face into the keyboard and still winning. So personally, whenever I look at WoW, I just think "...Meh".

The thing is, it's been around for so long now, if you've put the effort into your toons, you're not going to want to throw all that away. It's not just the time, either, there's an emotional attachment too. Not only to your character, but to the friends you've made in your guild etc. A whole slew of MMOs came out while I was still EQing, and I didn't consider jumping ship to any of them. Once you've found one you like, you'll probably stick with it.

WoW also had a headstart with already having a large fanpool to pitch their game to. You'll generally find more people familiar with the world of Azeroth than you will those who can tell you about Norrath.

Lots of people have tried to topple WoW. Anyone remember Vanguard? That was set up to be the hardcore MMOers MMO. Couldn't tell you if it was still going. Age of Conan launched with a fanfare - where is it now?

WoW didn't invent a lot of the mechanics of MMORPGs - a lot of it is taken from trailblazers like the original EQ. What it did do was make the genre a lot more appealing and accessible to people who might never have considered it before. Took it out of it's niche.

 

[veloper]

I reckon it takes Blizzard to topple WOW.

Blizzard could make another MMO, but one that ties into WOW with in-game perks(mostly WOW) for people who play both games.

That will encourage the massive WOW fanbase to play the next MMO and gradually migrate, or possibly get hooked on both MMOs at the same time.

 

[Kraj]

My lame 2 cents, "though they're both shiny pennies" is at the very least:1) a starting budget equivalent to wows.
2) a community of fan boys as large as wows
3) blizzard. oh wait that's not exactly fair. However they know their marketing so well you'd presume they've been doing terrible things to each other in the closet since they were high-school sweethearts.

 

[FaerWen]

Time will be the key factor, and though much time has already passed, eventually someone will find a way to compete with the Juggernaut that is World of Warcraft

 

[Andothul]

There are two options for a WoW killer, an MMO that is exactly like WoW only enhanced in every area, especially graphics or an MMO that is Nothing like WoW that brings something completely new to the table.

The only game that has come close to truly killing WoW and taking the premier title away from it was Vanguard but its launch was a horrible catastrophe.

If Vanguard had been released a year later bug free, classes balanced, with all content in game we wouldn't even be talking about Warcraft anymore.

Vanguard was basically WoW but with 10x the world space, player created content, triple the classes, better crafting system and an added diplomacy component. Although like all failed MMO's the execution of it's premise was far far off.

 

[Mr Companion]

Endless clones of WOW aren't gonna do it, as much as they try. I hate these blind companies who say "Hey if we make a game just like WOW then we will get the same customers!" which is stupid because WOW players are busy playing WOW. What you would need to topple it is something which feels fresh, and avoids falling into the cliches and mistakes of the genre. Ya know, something where the characters have hitboxes so the combat can be more active. Perhaps a fresh art style, some new gameplay ideas that really take advantage of the massively multiplayer element of the game by encouraging teamwork without consequences such as having to scramble for loot. Most importantly for it to stand any chance of surviving head on with WOW it would need to have no subscription fee, because people only have enough money to sustain one MMO at a time so they need to feel they can try out the game without financially crippling themselves. If only there was something like tha- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35BPhT-KI1E

 

[Paragon Fury]

Nothing is going to topple WoW, except another WoW.

You're certainly not going to topple it with a single-player game you aborted into an MMO (SW:TOR).

It has ten, ten, years of refinement, balancing, story, updates, world and design behind it. It was made by one of the most talented teams in the business. It has literally millions of fans.

The only MMO that is going to come close is Guild Wars 2, but that is because they're not even trying to compete with WoW on the same terms.

 

[Frost27]

...just what would it take to knock WoW off the throne of the MMO?

Nothing will "topple" WoW. Frankly, I don't see why it needs to be toppled. That sort of question is exactly the line of thinking that creates the great MMO that almost was graveyard with the few pay-to-play zombies shambling around.

When an MMo finds the formula for "what works" as well as WoW, it pretty much has to die out slowly of old age like other MMOs. The progression into the end times usually involves the company that runs the MMO noticing a drop in subscribers so they get desperate with attention grabbing expansions that usually border on the silly or stupid, then it is a pretty observable downward slope from there. A "jump the shark" moment if you will.

For Everquest it was cats on the moon, WoW is coming out with a panda expansion, just be patient.

So many companies released products touted as "WoW killers" and the problem they encounter is they are all trying to beat WoW by doing what WoW already does and expect to steal players who are firmly entrenched in a virtual comfort zone where they are.

Until a new IP comes out that does things entirely different from the masses (as WoW did when it came out) then nothing will come close to the heights of WoW's success. Even then, WoW is going to end up dying a natural death over quite a few more years. There is no magic sling bullet that can topple a Goliath with that many million worldwide users and companies need to stop trying and start thinking in different, un(or under)explored directions.

 

[Ascarus]

... just what would it take to knock WoW off the throne of the MMO?

time. it wins all competitions. and as far as i know, WoW is slowly but surely losing subscriptions as time wears on. i don't really understand how people have continued playing as long as they have!

 

[PinkiePyro]

I say the only thing that could topple WoW is if nintendo decided to throw its hat in the MMO ring ...

 

[Torrasque]

Back before WoW, the only thing people thought could topple EQ was EQ2.
So, as far as I can see, the only thing likely to topple WoW will be WoW2.

Though, I highly doubt we'll see whatever actually topples WoW coming.

Agreed. We can speculate, but I doubt we will look at a game and say "this will be the WoW's fatality"

As many have said, the only thing I can think of that can kill WoW is WoW itself. I played WoW from the end of BC to the first month of Cata, and even then I could see it starting to rot. The golden age of WoW was BC to about mid-Wotlk. Wotlk was the last really good expansion that WoW will ever get because it tried to keep up BC's success and difficulty, but started to flop after Ulduar (or rather, people could tell it was a flop).
I seriously doubt that WoW will just suddenly lose all it's subs to one big game, but it could happen. I think WoW will die the death of a thousand cuts: poor expansions and patches, better games being released (like D2 and GW2 for example), and a general lack of interest over time. I was getting bored of WoW by the end of Wotlk, Cata just made it more obvious to me.

 

[direkiller]

snip

*legasp* your taking my points out of order to make yourself look more valid, and not reading my whole thing. I'm done after this, your seriously just sitting there debating with me over this when I have provided proof to my side and the ones to yours haven't been the best.

Lets look at the definition of persistent one more time.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+persistent&qpvt=persistent+definition&FORM=DTPDIA
The very first one is: continuing despite problems This makes the world persistent since X group is advancing on Y group despite having to face a problem.

Now lets look at the definition of world.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+world&go=&form=QB
There are plenty there to choose from. I'm going to say that the maps in CoD are a world since they are all connected, not in a physical sense but they are all within their own little confines, their own little worlds. So they are all their own little playgrounds that players fight each other on.

Combine both and you have persistent world. Since players are fighting eachother, which presents a problem to both sides, they are both persistent despite the problems they are facing. And each map or what have you is actually its only little floating world within the confines of a game.

And if you want to go with the "it resets" defense then realize that if a persistent world doesn't change in any way because of player's action then it isn't a true persistent world. Also, servers have to be reset, therefore I am still correct, since nothing can stay persistent forever without reset in almost all MMO's.

On the second sentence you took it out of context, and I didn't say that in my post, so your lying outright to make yourself seem more correct.

I'm done after this post, your wasting both of our times with this. Once a person resorts to lying to make their side seem more reasonable, then it stops being a fair playing field and I'm not going to be here to fight dirty.

why are you doing word gynastics past the point that no one whould agree with you?

context of the words together is what is important. You twist the words so much

this is a persistent world
http://www.gameogre.com/eveonline1.jpg
this is too
http://www.gamesitestop100.com/rotation/rotate.php
even this is
http://www.pakman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/minecraft3-300x199.jpg


this is not
http://i.imgur.com/A0dE2.png

as for things you never said

i was grouping
"Using one of these, I could argue that the persistence of the the enemy makes the world persistent, despite the size. It also doesn't say if it has to be in the same world, so Call of Duty is still a MMO because it can host thousands of servers full of at least 16 people per server."
this
"we can call any game that comes out that has a following at least 1,000 online an MMO."
and this togeter
"like stated before, its a massive multiplayer online game and 10 people is not massive"
it was not takein out of contex

as you seem to have missed part of the critea il post it again:
"Most MMOGs also share other characteristics that make them different from other multiplayer online games. MMOGs host a large number of players in a single game world, and all of those players can interact with each other at any given time. Popular MMOGs might have thousands of players online at any given time, usually on a company owned server. Non-MMOGs, such as Battlefield 1942 or Half-Life usually have fewer than 50 players online (per server) and are usually played on private servers."
(it is refering to half-life multiplayer not singleplayer)


Lol games are not single game worlds where large number of people interact.It is small rooms where small number of people interact. MMO is not a general term for games with multiplayer like your using it. It refers to a spcific type of game. LoL is not one of those games

"
There are plenty there to choose from. I'm going to say that the maps in CoD are a world since they are all connected, not in a physical sense but they are all within their own little confines, their own little worlds. So they are all their own little playgrounds that players fight each other on."

little and Massive do not go togeter(as little in this case also reffers to the number of player interactions aswell) also see above it list games like COD


"and if you want to go with the "it resets" defense then realize that if a persistent world doesn't change in any way because of player's action then it isn't a true persistent world. Also, servers have to be reset, therefore I am still correct, since nothing can stay persistent forever without reset in almost all MMO's."

When i say it resets i mean your current mach has no barring on the next mach. In a MMO barring technical issues what you do today effects the next with mechanics built into the game.

 

[him over there]

Get everyone who plays it a significant other, a job that grants them a sense of pride and financial security, an aspiration for a skill or talent they can love and the lovely gift of self evaluation.

No players, no WoW.

Aside from that, a better game. Just make a better game. People say you can't kill something by being a copy of it but that makes no sense. You have to compete with it, not coexist, otherwise it doesn't go away. Just make a game similar to WoW but with maybe an aesthetic or intended atmosphere people want that they aren't getting. Look at Eve, it didn't kill WoW but drew a crowd by being in space. People like space.

 

[RJ 17]

-snip-

You'll want to read this sentence, that you wrote, again:

"This applies to all MMO's that are not WoW."

That is what I was talking about. Your description is very accurate for a great many recent MMOs. Not "all MMO's", even with the qualifier.

Sorry to ruin your feeble comeback though :/

Wow. Indeed I did write that sentence, and you've yet to do anything to disprove that statement. All you've done thus far name 3 MMO's and come up with a rather disjointed, random, and utterly unhelpful post in which you arbitrarily declare yourself superior. Or is your problem with the setence itself containing the words "all" and "except"? If that's the case, why bother with the 3 MMO's you mentioned in the first place?

Either way, fine. Whatever you say boss. Keep telling yourself that you've won if it really bothers you that much, because quite frankly I just really don't care about this particular exchange.

 

[DioWallachia]

people still play WOW? seriously, you people are getting more creepy than the Star Wars Prequel fans