I just watched the latest youtube video (few days old now), and felt like the title of pantheon being "Not Niche", or pretending as if it's not, essentially indoctrinates its future marketing failure. I sincerely hope that whoever is responsible for any form of PR, doesn't truly believe the game is not niche. However the point is moot if the only form of marketing will be word of mouth. Pathfinder pledge here for over 3 years, and have to say, it's videos like the latest one that make me lose faith in the game.
Not only does it have to compete with big (long awaited) titles coming (e.g. Lost Ark, Ashes of Creation, Diablo 4), but it also doesn't think it has a niche market? If you have never witnessed someone unfamiliar with a dungeon crawl actually sit down and play a dungeon crawl, then that would be the biggest eye opener. It takes a nontrivial amount of time before the sincere engagement happens.
On an ancillary topic mentioned in the video, the idea of a person overpowering 20 mobs seemed "plasticy" (creating a sense of a cheap experience), and suggested this idea is removed from Pantheon entirely. I think this is an inaccurate methodology. A user clearing an area using a skillful technique should be rewarded, but a user clearing an area by pressing a couple buttons is a bad design. If everyone could do it, then that would be completely undesirable. The door for skill, and reward should stay open.
In the same note as this, the antithesis of forced grouping means the game is unplayable by yourself. However, a user does need the ability to reasonably progress doing solo activities if desired. Everquest had this balance for some time, and people could choose paths to take (solo or group). In 2021, user's are less likely to sit in a group for hours, or futhermore have a stable group for hours. According to this recent video, even making grouping considerably easier would lead to ideas of teleportation, quick finds, mercenaries, and so on which would again make the game feel "plasticy". To me these aren't "plasticy", but partially essential to making the game feel playable at all, lest your game becomes niche after all.
Hello,
Niche game or not, it makes no difference. They don't want Pantheon referenced to as a niche game because of the exclusionary connotations that the remark implies.
VR is trying to make a game to can appeal to anyone but just because Pantheon won't appeal to everyone (note the difference there) doesn't mean they shouldn't try the game first before passing judgement.
Referring to the game as niche, or a clone, or even a spiritual successor is passing judgement on the game before trying it and would exclude people who may or may not have liked Pantheon. Terms like that also *attract* some people who might be looking for something very specific and if they don't find that in Pantheon could lead to disappointment.
It's better for everyone if we refer to Pantheon as Pantheon and encourage people to check out the gameplay, the lore, and the tenets for themselves.
Byproducts said:Hello,
Niche game or not, it makes no difference. They don't want Pantheon referenced to as a niche game becaues of the exclusionary connotations that the remark implies.
VR is trying to make a game to can appeal to anyone but just because Pantheon won't appeal to everyone (not the difference there) doesn't mean they shouldn't try the game first before passing judgement.
Referring to the game as niche, or a clone, or even a spiritual successor is passing judgement on the game before trying it and would exclude people who may or may not have liked Pantheon. Terms like that also *attract* some people who might be looking for something very specific and if they don't find that in Pantheon could lead to disappointment.
It's better for everyone if we refer to Pantheon as Pantheon and encourage people to check out the gameplay, the lore, and the tenets for themselves.
benty said:I think you're contradicting yourself, or if this truly is the VR take, then it is littered with hypocrisy. "Niche game or not, it makes no difference", but then the following statements clearly illustrated an opinion on why a "niche" label makes a difference. Regardless, the examples I'm referring to have little to do with the label, and more to do with what they're building. The game design IS niche, pretending it isn't, it's a little like the pot calling the kettle black. This lends itself directly to a marketing problem, or at the very least an identity crisis. Especially in the context of what they're removing as effects that feel "plasticy".
The game design fact and the game design perception are separate from each other. Whether or not the game design is niche makes no difference when talking about the perception, because everyone's perception of what niche means is different, which means everyone will have a preconceived notion of what Pantheon is before they've even looked at the game.
The ask is simply that you don't label the game, regardless of your feelings on what is or isn't niche.
We are dealing with semantics here - niche means different things to different people.
Clearly VR does not want a game that appeals only to veterans of EQ or Vanguard or similar games. They want as much new blood as possible to expand the base. Thus, and reasonably, not niche.
They do want a game that will focus on people that want certain "old school" elements with which we all are presumably familiar so I need not summarize them. But they do not consider this so limiting as to make the game a "niche" game. Are they right or wrong? Who cares! This is a matter of the definition of a word not the design of a game and it is interest in the game that has us here.
On grouping versus solo - forced grouping would severely limit interest in the game. VR has said Pantheon will not take this route. Assuming that they will stick to this, the only issue is how they make soloing feasible for that part of the subscription base that prefers to solo or that wants to play on a particular day when interruptions or schedule preclude grouping. A topic much discussed in other threads so no need to deal with it here.
IMO:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1588672538/pantheon-rise-of-the-fallen/faqs#project_faq_78859
What makes Pantheon Unique?
" We believe we are offering something that no one else is - a return to classic-style game play that encourages more social interaction and rewards effort. We believe that the player should dictate how far they progress and not have everyone with the same quality of character, despite the amount of effort put in. To us effort = reward and there will be a difference between players that have a lot of dedication versus those who can only play a little. We believe that when players get together and put in a group effort, the rewards should match. We believe that content and encounters should be meaningful and memorable and not something that gets rushed through in a few seconds, leaving little impression on the players. We believe we can make a world players will actually want to live in again, instead of a game people play when they have some spare time. "
Last updated: Tue, January 14 2014 6:14 PM MST
---
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1588672538/pantheon-rise-of-the-fallen/posts/1070199 (Dec 1, 2014) Nov Video
" ... We are targeting a ‘niche’ audience who wants more of a challenge, with a mixture of classic MMO mechanics and modern ideas. ... "
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1588672538/pantheon-rise-of-the-fallen/posts/1016589 (Oct 13, 2014) Oct Vid
" ... We are targeting a ‘niche’ audience who wants more of a challenge, with a mixture of classic MMO mechanics and modern ideas. ... "
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1588672538/pantheon-rise-of-the-fallen/posts/1149531 (Feb 27, 2015) New Video
" ... We are targeting a ‘niche’ audience who wants more of a challenge, with a mixture of classic MMO mechanics and modern ideas. ... "
--
So, from January 14th, 2014 to at least February 27th, 2015, they were targeting a niche audience.
All the money they gathered during that time, and likely for several years after, was based on that premise and promise.
Attempting to change the meaning of a word is of little value, and just makes them look desperate.
They wrote niche. No-one at VR should be surprised when their potential customers hold them to the meaning of the word.
Agree completely. Up until these last two videos I still had hope for the game.
Now after watching them both, I have no real hope anymore. I am starting to regret pledging.
I signed up for a niche game, the niche game Brad said would be the future of MMOs. Because I agreed with him.
I did not want another game that tries to appeal to the general masses.
Sad to see it go this way. I had such hope.
dorotea said:We are dealing with semantics here - niche means different things to different people.
Clearly VR does not want a game that appeals only to veterans of EQ or Vanguard or similar games. They want as much new blood as possible to expand the base. Thus, and reasonably, not niche.
They do want a game that will focus on people that want certain "old school" elements with which we all are presumably familiar so I need not summarize them. But they do not consider this so limiting as to make the game a "niche" game. Are they right or wrong? Who cares! This is a matter of the definition of a word not the design of a game and it is interest in the game that has us here.
On grouping versus solo - forced grouping would severely limit interest in the game. VR has said Pantheon will not take this route. Assuming that they will stick to this, the only issue is how they make soloing feasible for that part of the subscription base that prefers to solo or that wants to play on a particular day when interruptions or schedule preclude grouping. A topic much discussed in other threads so no need to deal with it here.
vjek said:Leevolen said:The kickstarter failed though; targeting a niche audience may have contributed to that.
Those niche specific updates were long after the kickstarter failed. Throughiout and more than a year after, in fact.
Fair enough, but they were targeting the old EQ audience as early as Feb. 1, 2014. That didn't prove to be a great strategy. The team and the game have seen a lot of changes since then and the direction shifted even with McQuaid still at the helm.
kellindil said:Agree completely. Up until these last two videos I still had hope for the game.
Now after watching them both, I have no real hope anymore. I am starting to regret pledging.
I signed up for a niche game, the niche game Brad said would be the future of MMOs. Because I agreed with him.
I did not want another game that tries to appeal to the general masses.
Sad to see it go this way. I had such hope.
I know it. I've been hearing this and I would say it's definitely how I feel now. This does not feel like what myself and others pledged to. The pathetic video aside, I've been noticing things like branded level-numbers on mobs and an emphasis on 3rd person perspective- I don't want World of Warcraft. Also, I don't care for the Shrek-like graphics per streams. Joppa's past praise of WoW is concerning. And ofc, the passing of Brad is very concerning.
If clinging to things Brad specifically has said:
But the truth is that with every generation there is pretty much the same breakdown into what genres and styles of games people are interested in. MMOs were never for 'everybody' any more than an FPS or RTS was for 'everybody'. But for the people who did enjoy them, what was wrong with acknowledging this fact and then getting your butt in gear and making the best possible game for them that you could? Choose your audience. Determine the resources you'll need to make a game they'll truly love and enjoy. And then commit to creating just that. That's where we're at for the moment, especially with MMOs (although one could argue RTS games are in a similar if not worse state). Developers are finally realizing that the answer isn't somehow designing a game that everyone in the world would enjoy but rather to choose a healthy demographic and go after them with everything you've creatively got. With Pantheon we've chosen to focus on PvE and making the E in PvE matter a lot more than it has for some time. We've decided to attract gamers who love to team up with each other and take on the AI -- cooperative gamers who want more than session based games but to work together in a truly persistent environment. We've decided to go after people who want to explore and experience vast handcrafted worlds with compelling storylines and quests. We've targeted the online gamer who when they experience something emotionally intense would rather experience that with other people -- that, to them at least, experiencing challenges and even overcoming them together and as a team provides for much more memorable shared experiences -- memories and nostalgia that just doesn't naturally occur in single player games or even in online games where the other players you encounter you really never have a reason to get to know.
This sounds pretty much like making a game that most people could enjoy if they give it a chance, but knowing that not everyone will like it.
...And no, not all of them will end up liking the game. But I absolutely believe a bunch of them will -- the gamespace has grown more than 10 fold vs the number of online gamers in 1999 (when EQ launched). That means more than the group is larger -- it means more varieties of people with differing tastes and experiences will enter this community. Please realize that this happening is essential to the success of the game. It might be tempting to just write-off or ignore or marginalize this incoming group of people (mostly younger folks, millennials). But we can't. We need to engage them, take the time to explain why you are excited about Pantheon, what makes it tick, what it's bringing back that has been missing so long from MMOs, and also the exciting new game mechanics and features that we're building up and upon the foundational MMO experience we already mostly have in place. Let them know why they are seeing what they are seeing in these twitch streams. Take the time to politely point out what makes a game like Pantheon so unique (nowadays) and fun in ways that most current MMOs aren't. There really isn't a game like Pantheon in development right now of which I'm aware. I like that. I like the idea of filling in this gap and providing a long missed experience for a large group of old school gamers who have literally felt orphaned by the less social, less community focused, less cooperative and flat-out easier MMOs of late.
But our target audience is bigger than that group. We are casting a broader net, so to speak. We are absolutely convinced that a large group of younger players will end up loving the game, assuming we can reach them, show them something that seems fun and interesting, provide answers to their questions no matter how simple or sophisticated. These people love Dark Souls, Call of Duty, the better MOBAs, the survival games -- they crave both challenge and risk and reward, but they also crave experiencing these things together with other real people. There's just something that's part of human nature where if you experience something exciting, dangerous, tension-filled, etc. and you experience that with other actual people, those events have a greater impact and create much deeper and longer lasting memories. So our challenge (the dev team and the community's) is to figure out how to reach these groups and explain to them what they're looking at, why things work the way they work, and how much FUN these games can be.
It's pointless to call this niche (or not) overall. But in my experience seeing it among the community it is at least 80% of the time used as a gatekeeping/exclusionary reaction to someone making a comment about a feature or system. A means to tell people the game isn't for them etc. It's not a terribly helpful descriptor.
I'm not very involved with the community, so I don't have a full scope of history here into the overall desires for the game. The point of this post was basically to state the issue of making a game intrinsically group based, unarguably core, unlike most other MMOs, siting Everquest as a guide, and simultaneously deviating from the idea it's niche. It's not that it won't appeal to everyone, it's that it definitely will not, and the audience it does appeal to is very different (niche). It seems like more of an issue sorting out the design, and audience.
As I mentioned it makes me lose faith in the game. Whether it comes to fruition, or has any level of success after, seems like it has to remain true to its intent that it's building something around a set of mechanics or ideas that is very particular. If it's not building that, then people will draw the parallel to other games.
vjek said:IMO:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1588672538/pantheon-rise-of-the-fallen/faqs#project_faq_78859
What makes Pantheon Unique?
" We believe we are offering something that no one else is - a return to classic-style game play that encourages more social interaction and rewards effort. We believe that the player should dictate how far they progress and not have everyone with the same quality of character, despite the amount of effort put in. To us effort = reward and there will be a difference between players that have a lot of dedication versus those who can only play a little. We believe that when players get together and put in a group effort, the rewards should match. We believe that content and encounters should be meaningful and memorable and not something that gets rushed through in a few seconds, leaving little impression on the players. We believe we can make a world players will actually want to live in again, instead of a game people play when they have some spare time. "
Last updated: Tue, January 14 2014 6:14 PM MST
---
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1588672538/pantheon-rise-of-the-fallen/posts/1070199 (Dec 1, 2014) Nov Video
" ... We are targeting a ‘niche’ audience who wants more of a challenge, with a mixture of classic MMO mechanics and modern ideas. ... "https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1588672538/pantheon-rise-of-the-fallen/posts/1016589 (Oct 13, 2014) Oct Vid
" ... We are targeting a ‘niche’ audience who wants more of a challenge, with a mixture of classic MMO mechanics and modern ideas. ... "https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1588672538/pantheon-rise-of-the-fallen/posts/1149531 (Feb 27, 2015) New Video
" ... We are targeting a ‘niche’ audience who wants more of a challenge, with a mixture of classic MMO mechanics and modern ideas. ... "--
So, from January 14th, 2014 to at least February 27th, 2015, they were targeting a niche audience.
All the money they gathered during that time, and likely for several years after, was based on that premise and promise.
Attempting to change the meaning of a word is of little value, and just makes them look desperate.
They wrote niche. No-one at VR should be surprised when their potential customers hold them to the meaning of the word.
I <3 U. Another design choice refactored.
benty said:I'm not very involved with the community, so I don't have a full scope of history here into the overall desires for the game. The point of this post was basically to state the issue of making a game intrinsically group based, unarguably core, unlike most other MMOs, siting Everquest as a guide, and simultaneously deviating from the idea it's niche. It's not that it won't appeal to everyone, it's that it definitely will not, and the audience it does appeal to is very different (niche). It seems like more of an issue sorting out the design, and audience.
As I mentioned it makes me lose faith in the game. Whether it comes to fruition, or has any level of success after, seems like it has to remain true to its intent that it's building something around a set of mechanics or ideas that is very particular. If it's not building that, then people will draw the parallel to other games.
Do you not see why they want to change the nature of the discussion? You've passed judgement on a game that's still in a fledgeling state based on your own notions concerning a term (which admittedly Brad aput in many people's heads.) Then, when they want to change the way people talk about Pantheon, you passed judgment on it a second time because you believe them changing the discussion is the same as them changing the game even though there is little evidence that the direction of the game has changed since 2015.
Don't you see why this type of discussion is harmful to the game and the community? Insisting on referring to the game as this or that just applies a person's preconceived notion to the game as a whole. They will forever see the game through that lens, cancelling out most of the unique qualities the game offers. Just like how Brad referred to the game as niche and now that's what many insist the game must be, even when Brad himself later said they "want to cast a broader net."
Nebulous labels like niche, regardless of their accuracy, will cause more harm than good.
Iksar said:All those posts/updates are from the failed and notably different game that Pantheon could have ended up as, but thankfully didn't.
How is it that Pantheon had a failed and notably different game when, as far as I can tell, the game is still in Pre-Alpha after 7 years and 10 months of development? And how could you even know if that version, if it had managed to be released, wouldn't have been better?
I see this whole debate as a clear dilineation of people still trying to hold on to what they interpreted Brad's ramblings from 6+ years ago to mean vs what the true design intent behind those ramblings looks like now that they are being implemented.
I'll be frank. I was not following this game as seriously 6 years ago - it was barely on my radar. I, honestly, do not care what Brad might have said or implied during one of his stream of consciousness blog posts. I do not care whether the game is "niche" or not, whether it was meant to appeal to the "EQ crowd" or not, or that it sticks to what "EQ did" or not.
All I care about is that we get a good MMO.
What matters now is that the team (which has always been involved - this was never "the Brad show") stick to the tenets they have outlined. That they continue to push forward the vision they have. That they stay true to evolving the genre in the direction it should have gone in, had it not gone down the path that led to the current "MMO genre".
To me, there is this group of people who want the game to be "niche". They want the game to be "exclusionary". They want the game to be "for me, but not for you" because they don't want those "evil casual gamers to come in an ruin everything". That group seems to be incapable of understanding that you can create a great MMO, that also just so happens to be appealing to a lot of people. That you can appeal to a lot of people without compromising the vision/tenets. That you can make a great MMO without being "niche".
The important part, in all of this (for ME), is that VR stick to their tenets. That they don't sacrifice their vision.
Let go of what happened 5, 6, 7, 8 years ago. Joppa has repeatedly talked about how the core vision has not changed, yet some of you continue to hang on to the pedantic meanderings of someone who is gone. The team now, the team that was with that individual when creating the core design document, is in charge. That's it. Sorry if that sounds harsh.
Stop thinking that just because the paint job may have changed, that the entire blueprint is different.
Brad's gone. Accept it. This isn't loyalty - it's cultish and silly, IMO. You are losing sight of the forest for the trees. You are waging a semantics battle with no consideration to what is actually trying to be communicated.
Move on.
Iksar said:All those posts/updates are from the failed and notably different game that Pantheon could have ended up as, but thankfully didn't.
Gee I wonder why people have been posting they are losing faith in Pantheon here, Reddit, and elsewhere. I see this often. Coincidence?
Like it or not those posts came from Brad and VR with intent on the whole point of Pantheon: to NOT be like other mmo's on the Live market. Things like having 1st person emphasis (not 3rd person like WoW), perception of mobs (not level-numbers branded right on mobs like WoW), worldly and meaningful graphics again (not Shrek-like, plasticy graphics like WoW) and so much more. Apparently, you have failed to notice what Brad and the community envisioned from the beginning, that I was present at, and that seems to be vanishing even more so since his passing. I am not at all surprised (one only needs to look to the current mmo market and this exact argument over the past 20 years). Poor design and poor creativity. I've seen a lot of people come, then go. Pantheon is looking too much like WoW and Shrek, and that is just sad.
Syrif said:Iksar said:All those posts/updates are from the failed and notably different game that Pantheon could have ended up as, but thankfully didn't.
Gee I wonder why people have been posting they are losing faith in Pantheon here, Reddit, and elsewhere. I see this often. Coincidence?
Like it or not those posts came from Brad and VR with intent on the whole point of Pantheon: to NOT be like other mmo's on the Live market. Things like having 1st person emphasis (not 3rd person like WoW), perception of mobs (not level-numbers branded right on mobs like WoW), worldly and meaningful graphics again (not Shrek-like, plasticy graphics like WoW) and so much more. Apparently, you have failed to notice what Brad and the community envisioned from the beginning, that I was present at, and that seems to be vanishing even more so since his passing. I am not at all surprised (one only needs to look to the current mmo market and this exact argument over the past 20 years). Poor design and poor creativity. I've seen a lot of people come, then go. Pantheon is looking too much like WoW and Shrek, and that is just sad.
I tend to think that it is because the game is now 8 years in development and still not in alpha, not because of some perceived deviation from what "Brad said" 7 years ago...
Finn said: ... Move on.
Byproducts said: ... Nebulous labels like niche, regardless of their accuracy, will cause more harm than good.
IMO:
What are the other options? Embrace a public design goal of: the game appeals to a broader, wider, broadest, widest, non-niche audience?
Ok, let's walk down that lane for a minute.
Now you've got a game that isn't the game that everyone pledged/donated money to for 7 years and 10 months. (or from the kickstarter to brad's death, take your pick)
Now you've got a game that WILL appeal to a broad, wide audience. What's the logical end result of such a public design goal?
Every decision, every design, every implemention; How can this 'thing' appeal to the wider, broader, widest, broadest possible target audience. How can we get more customers. How can we make this 'sticky'? How can we make more money? How can we encourage all our customers to pour their wallents into our bank accounts, instead of just a subscription? How can we improve shareholder dividends? How can we improve share/stock price (if applicable)? How can we make more money? How can we monetize every second of every moment every customer is consuming our service? How can we get in on RMT? How can we shift the entire focus of the game to making it impossible to enjoy without paying us for every interaction, click, and second of time? Loot boxes, cash-shop keys, bags, gear, items, potions, XP, levels.
Now it's all in scope, and all on the table, because the ends justify the means, and we MUST appeal to a broader/wider and/or broadest/widest target demographic.
It completely shifts the focus of design and implementation away from anything remotely resembling thematic consistency, fun, or challenge.
Sounding familiar? It should. That's the exact design philosophy that removes all of the features that narrow, restrict, or limit the target audience and instead.. expand it to reach exactly one goal: Increase subscribers. Increase subscriber retention. Increase cash shop sales. Increase krono purchases. Increase every RMT feature uptake & use.
If you design your game to attract the largest possible audience, you will, intentionally, if successfull, have to give up every single thing about the game that obtained all the donations for Pantheon from January 2014 until Brad died. If you're ok with that? Then I'm not sure what to tell you, except such an attitude excludes at least one ethical premise: Integrity.
There are dozens or hundreds of broad/mass-market appeal MMOs in existence. Now we're just going to get another one, after the entire reason this game was supposed to be different was the opposite of that?
Iksar said:If clinging to things Brad specifically has said:
But our target audience is bigger than that group. We are casting a broader net, so to speak. We are absolutely convinced that a large group of younger players will end up loving the game, assuming we can reach them, show them something that seems fun and interesting, provide answers to their questions no matter how simple or sophisticated. These people love Dark Souls, Call of Duty, the better MOBAs, the survival games -- they crave both challenge and risk and reward, but they also crave experiencing these things together with other real people. There's just something that's part of human nature where if you experience something exciting, dangerous, tension-filled, etc. and you experience that with other actual people, those events have a greater impact and create much deeper and longer lasting memories. So our challenge (the dev team and the community's) is to figure out how to reach these groups and explain to them what they're looking at, why things work the way they work, and how much FUN these games can be.
It's pointless to call this niche (or not) overall. But in my experience seeing it among the community it is at least 80% of the time used as a gatekeeping/exclusionary reaction to someone making a comment about a feature or system. A means to tell people the game isn't for them etc. It's not a terribly helpful descriptor.
Nice find, and agreed.
Leevolen said:
4:50 "We're building its foundation on EverQuest 1 and Vanguard and a lot of cool new features as well." (The foundation, not the walls/ceiling.) "We don't want to be only thought of, you know, as an old school game because there's lots of neat stuff we can talk about that's fairly new and modern." -McQuaid
EverQuest release date: 1999 / Vanguard release date: 2007
8 years difference and the two didn't have the same walls/ceiling. 2014-2021 is nearly the same amount of time and Pantheon will exceed that before release. It's reasonable to expect the walls/ceiling to be even more different as a result.
vjek said:Finn said: ... Move on.Byproducts said: ... Nebulous labels like niche, regardless of their accuracy, will cause more harm than good.IMO:
What are the other options? Embrace a public design goal of: the game appeals to a broader, wider, broadest, widest, non-niche audience?
Ok, let's walk down that lane for a minute.
Now you've got a game that isn't the game that everyone pledged/donated money to for 7 years and 10 months. (or from the kickstarter to brad's death, take your pick)
As someone who is very guilty of having concerns based on fears - I get this fear. However, IMO, that is what it is. You are afraid that a desire to be more broadly appealing will result in a fundamental change in the design philosphy of the game. That the core of what Pantheon is "supposed to be" will be lost.
The issue is that - barring some of what I referred to as "paint color changes" - what has actually been changed from the beginning? The tenets seem largely unchanged (mostly just expanded on). The desires for meaningful content/progression/immersion/interaction/on and on seem unchanged. The overall intent of the game seems consistent and solid. What, specifically, are you pointing at that has changed to the extent that you think the desire to have a "broader appeal" is actually being harmful to the vision?
I keep seeing people say that if the game isn't niche, or that if tries to appeal to too many people, then it will "become just like WoW". That seems like a HUGE slipperly slope/false correlation to me. VR wants Pantheon to break the mold of current MMOs, that has not changed. The assumption that people seem to be making is that you can't be both broadly appealing AND be a good MMO.
I thought the whole reason we were here is because we believed that WAS possible, and that it is what VR is trying to do.
"If you build it, they will come."
Make a good MMO, and people will flock to it. You don't have to design around "niche" or "not niche". You just need to make a quality MMO. VR still seems dedicated to that happening. Outside of your FEARS of what might happen, what do you think has actually shifted?