What is a good lifespan of a MMORPG?

[Linken.6345]

3 hours ago, uberkingkong.8041 said:

How about passion should that be a factor in MMORPG ideal lifespan?

Ex. first 5 expansions is fun, but the next expansions to come out are just not interesting anymore. Would that be an indicator that for an ideal lifespan and good time to move on the next?

It seems like regular games they usually do like 2-3 expansions and then move onto the next game, should MMORPGs move on too?

I really like how GW1 moved onto GW2, with the titles and playing the previous game meant something.

Also, should ideal lifespan take into consideration new players? So things like how fresh the server is or game is would that be a factor in an ideal lifespan of an MMORPG?

The player should move on if they dont find it fun anymore yes.

Said player or players cant say the mmorpg should move on tho since there might be more players still finding it fun and playing pretty simple.

[Kiki.9450]

1 hour ago, Linken.6345 said:

The player should move on if they dont find it fun anymore yes.

Said player or players cant say the mmorpg should move on tho since there might be more players still finding it fun and playing pretty simple.

Exactly. One thing we players would likely never get access to are the metrics these game companies use to determine what's fun and popular and what makes money. They use that information to help decide what direction to take their games in. Just because there's a loud minority on the forums, Reddit, elsewhere, complaining about <new thing> doesn't mean that <new thing> isn't successful, per the metrics being pulled by a game company.

That said, if there is something a player dislikes about a game, leaving constructive criticism ("thing bad" is useless, "I don't like thing because reasons" is much better and can potentially be actioned on) will help developers make better decisions in the future. And that said, it usually takes a while for criticism to be seen implemented effectively in a game for bigger features or issues. Most of these game companies run a massive ship and those can take a very long time to turn around.

[uberkingkong.8041]

On 3/9/2024 at 2:40 PM, EphemeralWallaby.7643 said:

The lifespan is until I quit for good.

~EpWa

I think the Guild Wars 1 community was like this.

It may not be the common game of MMORPG, but you had spend years getting all these items and achievements and progression and so on. Then after 7 or whatever years they pull plug thats it for GW1 now everyone please GW2. How did think those people felt? Honestly it worked out, it was ok for GW1 to GW2. I think if another MMORPG not GW2, created a new MMORPG, its bothways can be good can be bad. GW2 transition is a good use case of it being very good to create a new version.

 

On 3/10/2024 at 1:38 PM, Ashen.2907 said:

As long as it takes to recoup initial development costs. Anything after that is gravy.

With this, from a coding point of view. Dependencies of the code, of the running the game etc. Upgrading them can be a lot of work too.

Any coders? Upgraded AngularJS to Angular 13? A lotta work. Mine as well rewrite.

AngularJS is 2010, and say maybe its supported anymore, and a lotta code to rewrite is it worth upgrading or just rewrite which is basically make a new game, if you use this thought in regards to video games rather than website.

On 3/9/2024 at 2:58 PM, Sajuuk Khar.1509 said:

Even today an MMO getting to 10 years of active content development(yearly expansions or seasonal content releases) is pretty rare. Getting to 15 is a huge accomplishment, and getting to 20 is something only a handful have done(again with active content development and not just the servers are still up)

GW2 is already past its first major milestone, and even if it died when it hit 15 it would be in a pretty small number of MMOs to have lasted as long as it did.

I agree, but is it good to keep trucking through, or is there or should there be a lifespan, some indicator to create new.
Maybe if everyone has the best gear, and new content is just too easy because everyone has the best gear, and its tough to make challenging stuff when everyone the best gear.
When in a new game, people start from 0 again. Is the starting from 0 a factor?

One other popular thing is classics. Classic WoW, start from 0 again.
Do you see a classic GW2? Start over again from 0 GW2?
Seems to happen after 10-15 years or so of an MMORPG.
If a MMORPG is doing a lot of classics, is that an indicator of lifespan at the end. Not necessarily a dead game, GW1 isn't dead but its at the end of the lifecycle.
Is that a good time to make a new game, new version of the game. Ex. GW1 to GW2.

[uberkingkong.8041]

On 3/9/2024 at 2:40 PM, EphemeralWallaby.7643 said:

The lifespan is until I quit for good.

~EpWa

I think the Guild Wars 1 community was like this.

It may not be the common game of MMORPG, but you had spend years getting all these items and achievements and progression and so on. Then after 7 or whatever years they pull plug thats it for GW1 now everyone please GW2. How did think those people felt? Honestly it worked out, it was ok for GW1 to GW2. I think if another MMORPG not GW2, created a new MMORPG, its bothways can be good can be bad. GW2 transition is a good use case of it being very good to create a new version.

 

On 3/10/2024 at 1:38 PM, Ashen.2907 said:

As long as it takes to recoup initial development costs. Anything after that is gravy.

With this, from a coding point of view. Dependencies of the code, of the running the game etc. Upgrading them can be a lot of work too.

Any coders? Upgraded AngularJS to Angular 13? A lotta work. Mine as well rewrite.

AngularJS is 2010, and say maybe its supported anymore, and a lotta code to rewrite is it worth upgrading or just rewrite which is basically make a new game, if you use this thought in regards to video games rather than website.

On 3/9/2024 at 2:58 PM, Sajuuk Khar.1509 said:

Even today an MMO getting to 10 years of active content development(yearly expansions or seasonal content releases) is pretty rare. Getting to 15 is a huge accomplishment, and getting to 20 is something only a handful have done(again with active content development and not just the servers are still up)

GW2 is already past its first major milestone, and even if it died when it hit 15 it would be in a pretty small number of MMOs to have lasted as long as it did.

I agree, but is it good to keep trucking through, or is there or should there be a lifespan, some indicator to create new.
Maybe if everyone has the best gear, and new content is just too easy because everyone has the best gear, and its tough to make challenging stuff when everyone the best gear.
When in a new game, people start from 0 again. Is the starting from 0 a factor?

One other popular thing is classics. Classic WoW, start from 0 again.
Do you see a classic GW2? Start over again from 0 GW2?
Seems to happen after 10-15 years or so of an MMORPG.
If a MMORPG is doing a lot of classics, is that an indicator of lifespan at the end. Not necessarily a dead game, GW1 isn't dead but its at the end of the lifecycle.
Is that a good time to make a new game, new version of the game. Ex. GW1 to GW2.

[XSevSpreeX.2143]

Without reading 2 pages of long posts, I'll say this. Guild Wars 1 was still going strong when ANet made the decision to make GW2, at the time stating that GW1's engine could not support the vision they had for the game. I think given that 11 years later and GW2 is still also doing very well, they made at least a couple of right decisions along the way.

[uberkingkong.8041]

14 minutes ago, XSevSpreeX.2143 said:

Without reading 2 pages of long posts, I'll say this. Guild Wars 1 was still going strong when ANet made the decision to make GW2, at the time stating that GW1's engine could not support the vision they had for the game. I think given that 11 years later and GW2 is still also doing very well, they made at least a couple of right decisions along the way.

Yeah this game still feels good.

GW1 still feel felt good at the time they moved on GW2.

 

Should the time to move on be while its good. Seeing some indicator its to move on.

#esports scene I think is the only thing GW2 wasn't as successfully bringing from GW1 was the. The #esports scene as of today, I don't think it as big as when GW2 came about. 2013-2017 was really popular for #esports, maybe the peak in popularity, obviously it was there before.

GW2 is many things, I would not just consider it an MMORPG. Other MMORPGs don't have WvW, don't have conquest PvP, etc. Those things are not necessarily MMORPG.

GW1 even though not verbatim MMORPG, it had the vibes. Goto a city and you see 50+ other people doing stuff, that to me is MMORPG vibe, even if the actual doing things is limited to 8, but going to cities, seeing dance parties, and hearing all the chatter that was fun. I miss those days.

All that time spent on grinding for all the minis, gear, cosmetics, etc and GW1 PvP rank and all that, thats a lot of hours, days, years.

 

But I guess lifecycle is broad, so ideal lifecycle might be better word. GW1 to GW2 was really good whatever their formula was to determine the lifecycle is good time move on to the next game, and GW1 was thriving at the time too, so very bold, and whatever the formula was, it was a good move.

 

#offtopic Honestly for Diablo4, I feel that game should take notes from GW1. If in Diablo 4 if you see more than 10 people, maybe like 50+ like GW2, might be more fun.

Guild Wars has a lot of good use cases. Good decision making. GW1 to GW2, the thought process of GW1, mercenaries and so on. Only bad thing I can say is #esports vibe in GW1 was through the roof but in GW2 it didn't quite get there. Diablo4 they don't even have anything close to #esports unlike GW1, they should be taking notes.

Edited March 15 by uberkingkong.8041

[Bladestrom.6425]

1 hour ago, uberkingkong.8041 said:

I think the Guild Wars 1 community was like this.

It may not be the common game of MMORPG, but you had spend years getting all these items and achievements and progression and so on. Then after 7 or whatever years they pull plug thats it for GW1 now everyone please GW2. How did think those people felt? Honestly it worked out, it was ok for GW1 to GW2. I think if another MMORPG not GW2, created a new MMORPG, its bothways can be good can be bad. GW2 transition is a good use case of it being very good to create a new version.

Hall of monuments was the smart solution to reward those who played GW1 for many years,  i still wear a HOM item to this day and it felt great to get the GW1 rewards in day 1 of GW2.  

 

[uberkingkong.8041]

6 minutes ago, Bladestrom.6425 said:

Hall of monuments was the smart solution to reward those who played GW1 for many years,  i still wear a HOM item to this day and it felt great to get the GW1 rewards in day 1 of GW2.  

 

Yeah I really like that, something to show for continuing the franchise game.

[Ashantara.8731]

2 hours ago, uberkingkong.8041 said:

[Guild Wars 1] may not be the common game of MMORPG, but you had spend years getting all these items and achievements and progression and so on. Then after 7 or whatever years they pull plug thats it for GW1 now everyone please GW2. How did think those people felt? Honestly it worked out, it was ok for GW1 to GW2. I think if another MMORPG not GW2, created a new MMORPG, its bothways can be good can be bad. GW2 transition is a good use case of it being very good to create a new version.

Guild Wars 1 had better art design and much more exciting content than GW2, so the transition was not a smooth one. I had to take a three year break after GW2 was released and I tried it out, because it was lacking everything that made GW1 so fantastic. After the break, I was able to embrace GW2 as a totally different, new game.

The only two things GW2 did better than GW1 are the free movement (jumping, swimming, dodging) and the character creation options. The quality of story, the writing, the excitement of exploration and achievements, even the skill system, don't hold a candle to GW1.

Edited March 15 by Ashantara.8731

[Assolador.3598]

On 3/9/2024 at 4:18 PM, uberkingkong.8041 said:

Let me ask something, do you think it was a good move that GW1 created GW2 and they focused 100% on the newer game?

Now GW2, whats a good lifespan of a MMORPG? SO that a new version of it comes out?

to be devil advocate, anet is working on a unreal engine 5 f2p mmo, so u never know

[Bladestrom.6425]

21 hours ago, Ashantara.8731 said:

Guild Wars 1 had better art design and much more exciting content than GW2, so the transition was not a smooth one. I had to take a three year break after GW2 was released and I tried it out, because it was lacking everything that made GW1 so fantastic. After the break, I was able to embrace GW2 as a totally different, new game.

The only two things GW2 did better than GW1 are the free movement (jumping, swimming, dodging) and the character creation options. The quality of story, the writing, the excitement of exploration and achievements, even the skill system, don't hold a candle to GW1.

i loved GW1, but art design in GW2 is a lot better (log in to GW1 today and its quite striking how it has aged) .   GW2 has better pvp and skills are MUCH more fluid and obviously its a mmorpg not a corpg.  Very different game styles.  I do agree on the writing though, as the game has progressed that has weakened.

[Ashantara.8731]

On 3/16/2024 at 5:24 PM, Bladestrom.6425 said:

i loved GW1, but art design in GW2 is a lot better (log in to GW1 today and its quite striking how it has aged) .

I disagree. Of course it looks "aged", but it had a clear design line, not the aesthetic cacophony that is GW2. Everything in GW1 looked great and homogenous, and that - among other things - made it much more immersive than GW2.

On 3/16/2024 at 5:24 PM, Bladestrom.6425 said:

GW2 has better pvp and skills are MUCH more fluid and obviously its a mmorpg not a corpg.  Very different game styles.

PvP in GW1 was more fun IMO, but that is probably a matter of personal taste.

As for the skill system, GW2's is more fluid? I disagree. It is too limited in some ways (as skills are bound to weapons), and too complex in other ways (trait system). You had a lot more freedom and variety in GW1 -- sometimes a simpler structure is beneficial to gameplay, flexibility and - ultimately - fun.

Of course, I agree that the MMO aspect is something that was missing in GW1, but that doesn't say anything about the overall quality of the game.

On 3/16/2024 at 5:24 PM, Bladestrom.6425 said:

I do agree on the writing though, as the game has progressed that has weakened.

👍

Edited March 17 by Ashantara.8731
typo

[Ruufio.1496]

I just got my 20 year cape in RuneScape 3 so I'd say at least 20 years.

[uberkingkong.8041]

15 hours ago, Ruufio.1496 said:

I just got my 20 year cape in RuneScape 3 so I'd say at least 20 years.

Just because a game is old and still going, does it mean it is doing the right thing?

Looking for ideal lifespan, games these days are pushing 28 million newplayers when there is a new game.

Should everygame follow the habits of the older games that don't do much and just kicking?

Apparently GW1 felt the need to make GW2 and what do you think the population would like if GW1 never made GW2.

Saying GW1 had tech issues, so need to make GW2, however Runescape that game has a missing modern tech issues, so whats the deal with Runescape?

Just because MMORPGs MUDs, basically samething determines how you define Massively Multiplayer Online RPG, MUD is tons of people on online, its open world. Its just text no visuals though so technically it an MMORPG.

Whats the criteria to be considered an MMORPG?

What are ideal indicators to determine a lifespan of an MMORPG

Older MMORPGs haven't a new one so neither should anyone else, is that ideal? Again GW1 GW2, what would it look like if GW1 just kept living story going into that game and not decide its time for GW2.

GW1 isn't an MMORPG, why stop making living story for GW1? Myself I'd like to say GW1 is an MMORPG, its in its uniqueness. goto a city and there will be 60+ people running around in the city, then you go into the wilderness a player cap, but GW2 has a playercap in the open world. Hence trying to join an instance on a world boss, its full.

[Astralporing.1957]

1 hour ago, uberkingkong.8041 said:

Just because a game is old and still going, does it mean it is doing the right thing?

Not "just because". It depends on how popular it still remains. Some games end up dead in the water even before they released, while others can last for years and years. There's no clear, hard limit that can say when the lifespan expires, it's just something that happens naturally.

1 hour ago, uberkingkong.8041 said:

Looking for ideal lifespan, games these days are pushing 28 million newplayers when there is a new game.

...thats's rare, even for mass market cellphone games. If that's your standarts, then they're way too high. And it would mean no new MMORPG would ever get made (because no new MMORPG will ever get 20+ million players on release).

Seriously, it seems like you already know what answer you want to hear, and keep pushing it because other posters do not seem to supply it. If so, speak clearly, and we will tell you why we disagree. And if you don't have an answer on your own, just understand that it's because there's no such clear defined answer at all - every case is pretty much unique and not something that can be guided by some clear generic rules.

[uberkingkong.8041]

On 3/17/2024 at 2:11 PM, Astralporing.1957 said:

Not "just because". It depends on how popular it still remains. Some games end up dead in the water even before they released, while others can last for years and years. There's no clear, hard limit that can say when the lifespan expires, it's just something that happens naturally.

...thats's rare, even for mass market cellphone games. If that's your standarts, then they're way too high. And it would mean no new MMORPG would ever get made (because no new MMORPG will ever get 20+ million players on release).

Seriously, it seems like you already know what answer you want to hear, and keep pushing it because other posters do not seem to supply it. If so, speak clearly, and we will tell you why we disagree. And if you don't have an answer on your own, just understand that it's because there's no such clear defined answer at all - every case is pretty much unique and not something that can be guided by some clear generic rules.

I would not be surprised to see a new MMORPG get 20+ million players.

Hogwarts legacy, zelda tears of the kingdom, palworld. just to name 3 games that had over 20+ million copies sold. New games are very hot, compared to expansions.

Even  look at this,  Diablo 4 sold 10 million copies. Seems to be a total flop but they got 10+ million to buy it. Blizzard right now seems to be having issues so not good idea to go off of their games. People most likely bought its franchise game and its new, not an expansion.

Anet has done it in the past, did they ever talk about it? GW1 to GW2? Why discontinue GW1 if people do not consider it MMORPG then why get rid of it? I consider it MMORPG. I made a ton of friends in GW1, guild battles, doing runs for others.

Anet I think is leading in the innovation in MMORPG scene, don't you think moving the standards of MMORPG lifespan is something should be checked. Don't you want to keep the franchise going. It's not like technology is staying stagnant, every couple years a next gen technology comes out.

If you think about it, PS4 release date is 2013, GW2 came out 2012, so GW2 would be a PS3, Xbox 360 was 2005, Xbox One came out 2013. So GW2 is a PS3/Xbox360 era game just to give some context.

Edited March 19 by uberkingkong.8041

[Astralporing.1957]

49 minutes ago, uberkingkong.8041 said:

I would not be surprised to see a new MMORPG get 20+ million players.

Hogwarts legacy, zelda tears of the kingdom, palworld. just to name 3 games that had over 20+ million copies sold. New games are very hot, compared to expansions.

Even  look at this,  Diablo 4 sold 10 million copies. Seems to be a total flop but they got 10+ million to buy it. Blizzard right now seems to be having issues so not good idea to go off of their games. People most likely bought its franchise game and its new, not an expansion.

Anet has done it in the past, did they ever talk about it? GW1 to GW2? Why discontinue GW1 if people do not consider it MMORPG then why get rid of it? I consider it MMORPG. I made a ton of friends in GW1, guild battles, doing runs for others.

Anet I think is leading in the innovation in MMORPG scene, don't you think moving the standards of MMORPG lifespan is something should be checked. Don't you want to keep the franchise going. It's not like technology is staying stagnant, every couple years a next gen technology comes out.

If you think about it, PS4 release date is 2013, GW2 came out 2012, so GW2 would be a PS3, Xbox 360 was 2005, Xbox One came out 2013. So GW2 is a PS3/Xbox360 era game just to give some context.

You are comparing number of copies sold (the number we use as a mark of popularity of single player games) to number of players. GW2 is nearing 20 million copies sold (last number i heard was 17 million, but that was before EoD). That does not mean it has (or ever had) 17 million players - the peak number was around 4 million, and it was at launch. Meanwhile WoW at its peak had 12 million players - and was then a giant no new MMORPG game will ever equal (because nowadays the market is so very different than then).

Expecting any (even the best made) new MMORPG to get 20+ million players at start (or even half that number) is a pure fiction, and only shows complete lack of understanding of that market.

And as for the latter part of your post, it's clear you are trying to project towards some goal. I'm still not sure what that goal is, because what you actually say doesn't really convey any special meaning. It's just a set of statements without any mention about how you think they would be relevant to the discussed thread.

(although i am starting to think more and more that this is just another "GW3 now" thread in disguise)

Edited March 19 by Astralporing.1957

[mercury ranique.2170]

skimming over everything said here, I miss one factor.
In my personal experience, development of a new game takes longer and longer.

For example two bigger franchises:

GTA
GTA3: 2001
GTA VC: 2002
GTA SA: 2004
GTA4: 2008
GTA5: 2013
GTA6: 2025

Elder scrolls:
TES1: 1994
TES2: 1996
TES3: 2002
TES4: 2006
TES5: 2011
TES6: 2028 (in 2023 the dev said it would hit the market in about 5 years)

Given the current draught in qualified developpers, it is good to asume that this window is stretched further.

Development of GW2 took 5 years (counting from the release of Eye of the North). So it is safe to assume that a GW3 would cost atleast double. So if they would start today, I would see a release around 2034. In the mean time all resources go into development  (otherwise it would stretch even further) and there would be no new content for 10 years.

Obviously you can argue, it doesn't have to be this long, but my point remains. It takes more and more time to create a game from scratch.

[kharmin.7683]

2 hours ago, mercury ranique.2170 said:

 It takes more and more time to create a game from scratch.

Which might be why Anet decided to build GW2 on top of GW1's engine.  Hindsight, now, shows the limitations of that decision.

[mercury ranique.2170]

46 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Which might be why Anet decided to build GW2 on top of GW1's engine.  Hindsight, now, shows the limitations of that decision.

I doubt that. If I recall correctly the main reason for making GW2 was cause they couldn't do what they wanted to do in the GW1 framework. In my view this means they had a clear idea on what they wanted and created GW2 as a framework to be able to do the things they wanted to do. So I do not think that time was the factor in that decision, but functionality.
 

[kharmin.7683]

19 minutes ago, mercury ranique.2170 said:

I doubt that. If I recall correctly the main reason for making GW2 was cause they couldn't do what they wanted to do in the GW1 framework. In my view this means they had a clear idea on what they wanted and created GW2 as a framework to be able to do the things they wanted to do. So I do not think that time was the factor in that decision, but functionality.
 

Understood, but my point was that if GW2 were built on the GW1 engine, as we've been told, then it would have taken Anet a lot longer to create GW2 from scratch.  This might have been part of the influence on that decision.

[Astralporing.1957]

3 hours ago, kharmin.7683 said:

Understood, but my point was that if GW2 were built on the GW1 engine, as we've been told, then it would have taken Anet a lot longer to create GW2 from scratch.  This might have been part of the influence on that decision.

It was built on gw1 engine in about the same way as UE5 games are built on UE4 one. It's not really the same engine, it's an evolved version. You can call it "Guild Wars Engine 2.0" (with it being in 2.5+ iteration at this moment, because the engine we have now is not exactly the same as the one we have started with)

As a counterexample, devs making Mass Effect Andromeda did decide to change from evolved version of old Mass Effect engine into a completely new one, and the results were way, waay worse than what we've had with GW2.

Edited March 19 by Astralporing.1957

[eyelogix.1654]

On 3/16/2024 at 5:24 PM, Bladestrom.6425 said:

i loved GW1, but art design in GW2 is a lot better (log in to GW1 today and its quite striking how it has aged) .   GW2 has better pvp and skills are MUCH more fluid and obviously its a mmorpg not a corpg.  Very different game styles.  I do agree on the writing though, as the game has progressed that has weakened.

GW1 has aged poorly. I loved the gameplay because it was quite fun but the graphics starts to show, but at the same time even the devs had trouble keeping it balanced with all the skills.
GW2 has some issues as well.
I loved everything they have done so far even if the story hasn't been the best even if it has improved in SotO to some degree.

[uberkingkong.8041]

14 hours ago, mercury ranique.2170 said:

skimming over everything said here, I miss one factor.
In my personal experience, development of a new game takes longer and longer.

For example two bigger franchises:

GTA
GTA3: 2001
GTA VC: 2002
GTA SA: 2004
GTA4: 2008
GTA5: 2013
GTA6: 2025

Elder scrolls:
TES1: 1994
TES2: 1996
TES3: 2002
TES4: 2006
TES5: 2011
TES6: 2028 (in 2023 the dev said it would hit the market in about 5 years)

Given the current draught in qualified developpers, it is good to asume that this window is stretched further.

Development of GW2 took 5 years (counting from the release of Eye of the North). So it is safe to assume that a GW3 would cost atleast double. So if they would start today, I would see a release around 2034. In the mean time all resources go into development  (otherwise it would stretch even further) and there would be no new content for 10 years.

Obviously you can argue, it doesn't have to be this long, but my point remains. It takes more and more time to create a game from scratch.

I have to disagree with this.

Maybe for big corporations, that's a big corporation game. There is a lot of politics that happen that hamper development time.

With smaller more nerdy more gamer companies that make games because they enjoy it, they be pushing out new games quickly.

Palworld was only 2 years to make and early access they have 25 million copies sold and 8 million within the first week.

Mind you Palworld had a part-time, 0 skills, 0 years experience developer helping to make it work. Small team too.

3 hours ago, eyelogix.1654 said:

GW1 has aged poorly. I loved the gameplay because it was quite fun but the graphics starts to show, but at the same time even the devs had trouble keeping it balanced with all the skills.
GW2 has some issues as well.
I loved everything they have done so far even if the story hasn't been the best even if it has improved in SotO to some degree.

GW1 graphics is newer than WoW and Runescape. Just to give some context.

Edited March 19 by uberkingkong.8041

[eyelogix.1654]

On 3/20/2024 at 12:24 AM, uberkingkong.8041 said:

GW1 graphics is newer than WoW and Runescape. Just to give some context.

GW1 graphics has aged like milk.
WoW has a different artsyle compared to GW1. You can't really compare apple with oranges.

Edited March 21 by eyelogix.1654