I don’t actually know the percentage of MMO’s that fail, but it’s obviously high. Of course that depends on how you define failure. Some games are a financial success, but receive poor reviews/ratings, and naturally, the opposite happens too.
I made a significant pledge and I personally think Pantheon will be a success with players, reviewers and find financial success. But it seems the odds are stacked against us. For the past 25 years I have been playing MMO’s. And for the past 20 years I have done exactly what we are all doing now. Which is to chat on the forums and wait for our game. I have prepaid for more games than I can remember, most of which failed. Each of those games I was equally optimistic about. No one ever expects to fail, yet many do.
With so much disappointment over the years, it’s hard to forget that I was just as excited for Star Wars Galaxies, Age of Conan, WarHammer Online, Vanguard and of course, EverQuest Next. To me, those titles all had the same allure, the same sense of wonder and amazement before their release. And they have all failed, either immediately or eventually.
Again, I think Pantheon is destined to be a run-away success, the alpha gameplay looks amazing! But I always feel that way in this stage of development. Though I readily admit, Pantheon has game play mechanics that are far better than those games I just mentioned. I really do think it will break the mold of MMO failure.
However, other than death and taxes, there are no guarantees in life. I’ve had 20 years of disappointment with a few highlights, of course EQ1 and the first couple years of EQ2 and WoW were fantastic. Unfortunately the disappointment, to me, far outweighs the satisfaction. Has anyone else had these thoughts?
I've had similar thoughts. However, after a while of perusing the MMO genre (or more accurately the MMO playerbase) as a whole, I've tempered my expectations regarding Pantheons potential success.
I have very little doubt that Pantheon would be able to accrue a sizeable and loyal playerbase. There is a large market of older MMO players that haven't had a new game appeal to them for decades. However, much of the younger player base has an extremely different idea of what MMOs should be, and they make up a huge portion of the market. Pantheon--with it's conservative graphics, text-based narration, slower tab-target combat, and less ego-driven gameplay--will realistically be completely ignored by most younger MMO players or outright derided by the more toxic examples of the playerbase. These modern players refuse to play a game if they aren't swinging ego-gratifying greatswords, blinding themselves with excessive particle effects, and engaging in unscrupulous gambling mechanics within the first hour of gameplay.
I'm okay with this though. I'll take a good community in a less popular game over the miserable toxic communities that modern MMOs have.
hi
problem with MMos nowdays its publishers :D i know the goal for a compagny its to make money but in modern society its killing a compagny to make money at any COST
and unfortunatly publishers continu to make same games on different platformes ... 2 differents platform cannot handle the same game becoz of hardware
Consoles and PC dont have the same technologie even if now consoles are more powerful than before ..... PAD and mouse/keyboard...
one of the platform must suffert of the gameplay and unfortunatly its PC games ....
I hope pantheon will not port of consoles or make a total different game more adapted and not kill the gameplay of PC
@eraldus - I'm not sure if I blame publishers as much as you do. But I agree there is a problem with porting games. I have no idea what VR's plans are for ports, but I would imagine they are not thinking about a console release in any capacity. Seems like a really bad idea.
Sweety said:@eraldus - I'm not sure if I blame publishers as much as you do. But I agree there is a problem with porting games. I have no idea what VR's plans are for ports, but I would imagine they are not thinking about a console release in any capacity. Seems like a really bad idea.
During the last LAS debate some suspected VR might be coding with limited action set so consoles could more easily operate the UI. Pretty sure I remember VR (maybe Joppa) giving a definite "no", that there were no versions other than PC planned and that they definitely were not coding with console in mind.
It has definitely been an issue in other games. To be clear, I play console games and I play PC games, but the different control systems, displays and audiences are problematic for some genres if companies try and develop 'the same' game for both platforms types.
We know that some have more pessimistic views, some more optimistic and some waver or are in the middle.
Personally, I'm optimistic, but I believe that comes from a position of being given more than adequate information to be so.
Also, I think that negativity about a game being largely crowd funded is actually, to some extent, damaging to the project.
As for success or failure, I guess there needs to be three things happen: 1) It needs to release. 2) There needs to be a big enough sub-paying audience and 3) The game needs to be what that audience wants.
1) I can't count the number of times VR have reassured us that the game will release.
2) VR (Ben Dean) has more than once said things like "we have enough audience already to be able to sustain Pantheon with subs" when asked about niche audiences.
3) They have shown us many times a game (and some of us have played it and affirmed) that already feels good to play even in a pre-alpha condition. Yes, they have largely re-written and as reworking the design all the time, but Brad's vision appears to be largely intact in Joppa's hands (well, it was always a shared vision, I think) and moves forward.
Even if you don't trust what VR tells us (again, an odd self-defeating attitude for backers of VR and Pantheon, but people do express it) we have seen so much with our own eyes to give confidence, surely?
Differently people see things differently, though, of course, and maybe people feel they've seen similar before and it still failed *shrug* That's part of why Pantheon has come about, though? Because VR, like us, feel previous companies have got it wrong and, even when they've produced an MMORPG, it's just not got long-term appeal to a passionate and loyal audience like games like classic Everquest and Vanguard did.
In the end, people feel how they feel, but, as I say, I think it's pretty pointless and self-destructive to be pessimistic and negative. It's of course valid, interesting and useful (if done constructively) to talk over our concerns, but I do wish people would do it without assuming the worst (not saying you're doing that, Sweety).
Sure, I've had some of the same thoughts as @Sweety. I've played many of the samge games. I bought EQN:Landmark Alpha and played it on release and was definitely disappointed nothing came to fruition with EQ Next, as I believe many in this community were as well. Joppa has shared his frustrations as well with previous MMO games. I trust Pantheon has a great team of people who have been able to learn from these mistakes in the past and are developing a game that I want to play. That's why I pledged and that's why I'm following closer than I did in previous years.
@disposalist I think your statement of "Also, I think that negativity about a game being largely crowd funded is actually, to some extent, damaging to the project." is hitting the nail on the head. I also think this is part of the reason why Alpha will be more polished than it was originally planned to be. People say "Give me Alpha completely grey boxed and I would be happy" and for those people they are probably speaking truth. Looking at how much negative sentiment there is surrounding delays in Alpha, not being given a firm date, and historical changes in development, there are obviously quite a few people who wouldn't be as forgiving to a less polished product. Arguably members of this forum are some of the most dedicated, and hopefully forgiving players, that would encounter the Alpha. VR has mentioned the media push they want to coincide with Alpha and that much negativity could be crippling for future development instead of hopfully providing a fantastic launchpoint.
For now, I'll remain patient and optimistic with direction I see the game going and the content/information that VR chooses to share.
Sweety said:No one ever expects to fail, yet many do.
I do find it rather odd just how many times this statement comes up about other games, yet so very few think that it could happen with Pantheon as if Pantheon is somehow special. Could Pantheon fail? Yes it absolutely could fail. Are there warning signs that can make one think Pantheon could fail? Absolutely. Am I going to list them all out? No, because that will just get my post deleted and/or this thread locked because of the argument it will cause.
The only way for Pantheon to fail is if it's too much like EverQuest/Vanguard, and if VR sets their targets too high for what small playerbase the game can sustain.
The reason those other games have "failed" (some of them are still running, so it's hard to call them "failures") is because they tried to copy whatever the dominant MMO was at the time. They either expected or made claims that they would pull players away from other dominant games, which in most cases these days means World of Warcraft. MMO players aren't quick to change their main game once they've settled into it. They might try new ones here and there, but it's rare these days that we see players give up their primary game for another in the same way that we saw people mgirate from EverQuest to WoW back in 2004 and 2005, before WoW itself could even be considered a breakout success.
The kind of players that are interested in Pantheon today are very few and very niche. It may end up becoming the new home of disaffected players that don't like what the genre has become, it may even pick up a few new players that are interested in different systems than what the current MMOs offer, but that is an extreme minority of players today. Pantheon won't be siphoning players from WoW, FFXIV, ESO, or GW2. The best it can hope for, and I think the best metric for Pantheon's success, is that it cultivates a reasonable and sustainable playerbase that can keep the servers running, the developers fed, and new content coming on a regular cycle.
eunichron said:
some of them are still running, so it's hard to call them "failures"
Just a point of clafication. All the games I listed are no longer running.
eunichron said:
Pantheon won't be siphoning players from WoW, FFXIV, ESO, or GW2
I 100% agree with you. Those games are obviously successful, and the average (future) Pantheon player is not likely playing those games today. For example, I still play EQ2 every time there is a new expansion. I play for 2 months and realize, it's becoming like every other modern MMO, which is a single player game the allows you to group for 30 minutes to clear a quick dungeon and you never talk while doing it. I hate it.
Also, I played WoW classic last year when it launched. 2 months later, I quit because the players are it like a high speed, action packed MMO. The very thing Pantheon is trying to avoid. Which is why I think (and hope) Pantheon will succeed. Seems there is a gap in the market for this type of game. Still, I get nervious sometimes!
disposalist said:
We know that some have more pessimistic views, some more optimistic and some waver or are in the middle.
Personally, I'm optimistic, but I believe that comes from a position of being given more than adequate information to be so.
Also, I think that negativity about a game being largely crowd funded is actually, to some extent, damaging to the project.
As for success or failure, I guess there needs to be three things happen: 1) It needs to release. 2) There needs to be a big enough sub-paying audience and 3) The game needs to be what that audience wants.
1) I can't count the number of times VR have reassured us that the game will release.
2) VR (Ben Dean) has more than once said things like "we have enough audience already to be able to sustain Pantheon with subs" when asked about niche audiences.
3) They have shown us many times a game (and some of us have played it and affirmed) that already feels good to play even in a pre-alpha condition. Yes, they have largely re-written and as reworking the design all the time, but Brad's vision appears to be largely intact in Joppa's hands (well, it was always a shared vision, I think) and moves forward.
Even if you don't trust what VR tells us (again, an odd self-defeating attitude for backers of VR and Pantheon, but people do express it) we have seen so much with our own eyes to give confidence, surely?
Differently people see things differently, though, of course, and maybe people feel they've seen similar before and it still failed *shrug* That's part of why Pantheon has come about, though? Because VR, like us, feel previous companies have got it wrong and, even when they've produced an MMORPG, it's just not got long-term appeal to a passionate and loyal audience like games like classic Everquest and Vanguard did.
In the end, people feel how they feel, but, as I say, I think it's pretty pointless and self-destructive to be pessimistic and negative. It's of course valid, interesting and useful (if done constructively) to talk over our concerns, but I do wish people would do it without assuming the worst (not saying you're doing that, Sweety).
This is spot on. I am not trying to be pessimistic at all. But I’d be lying if I didn’t admit I get nervous based on the history of so many other MMO's. Also, I especially liked this comment:
disposalist said:
Even if you don't trust what VR tells us (again, an odd self-defeating attitude for backers of VR and Pantheon, but people do express it) we have seen so much with our own eyes to give confidence, surely?
Think back to EQ Next. I bought and played the Landmark Beta, I would guess most of us did. It was terrible. I remember thinking, "if this represent any part of the game, it's going to suck!". We all saw the demo videos and it looked pretty good, but we now know those were simulations and they lied to us all. My point is, we have hours and hours, and years and years of game play footage of Pantheon. So we don't have to trust the marketing and PR team. We can see the progress and we can see it's exactly what we hope it will be.
I think pantheon has stronger fundamentals for an MMO than most of the newer MMO's on the market. Most games that claim to be "MMOs" ditch the MMO part for a solo player experience in 60-75% of their world (if not more).
I was extremely young when I played EQ and I can't claim to remember every aspect of that game. But I do remember the grouping aspect and the feelings of accomplishment when your group pulled off the "impossible", even if it was just a normal trash pack that overran you. My father moved to WoW in 2004 and I went with him. This move was mostly because WoW offered improvements to some of the irritations that came with systems in EverQuest. I enjoyed the first three expansions of WoW, however, the group dependency aspect of the game slowly declined over those expansions. Activision took over at the end of Wrath and that was the final nail in the coffin. The following expansions had a drastic decline in quality, the game was pushed into the e-sports scene, and now most players play the game seasonally because there just isn't enough strong and lasting content to participate in.
I think that Pantheon has the potential to be a success if sticks to the grouping and class dependency aspects of combat, and remains fairly consistent in its difficulty scaling and expectation. I also think that Pantheon has the potential to draw players from other games if it can provide enough strong, lasting, and diverse content which players would want to consume consistently. Community and content are the two major draws for players and if you have both and can maintain both you have a recipe for success.