The Thrill Is Gone

[Cyrrex]

It doesn't take a big company to spend $100 million dollars over 5 years, that is actually a pretty medium sized operation, maybe even small. I'm not deliberately being difficult, but I think you may not totally grasp how expensive even one employee is once you're paying for an office for him to sit in, machines for him to do his work on, a network for those machines to sit on, licensing for all the software he uses and the source control he's checking in and out of, health insurance and other benefits, etc.

Now maybe if you're doing things in an overseas sweatshop developer and using pirated dev software, things are different, but software development on levels even just a little bit above Dwarf Fortress neckbeard territory is not a cheap undertaking in the slightest.

I've seen estimates of $200 million+ for WHO, so we're talking about an operation only half the size of what produced that.

/slamhead

You aren't getting the point I'm trying to make.  What I am saying is that these big ass companies making these supposedly big ass MMOs have TOO many employees.  And too many offices, too many machines, too many networks, too much licensing, too much insurance and benefits.  Most of the fictional 100 million budget we are talking about is pure wasted bureaucracy.  A smaller, more efficient company can make the exact same product (or better!) for far less.  So, I'm not saying that they don't use 100m.  I'm saying their product never really warranted it.  

I currently work in a company that has a big ass, multi-year project that is costing far more than the kind of money we are talking about here.  It's hysterically inefficient and wasteful.  It doesn't even remotely warrant the budget that it has.  This is common practice.

[Merusk]

or maybe I'm just getting old and jaded.

Sounds like this to me.

EDIT: You're primarily a PVP player, right? The innovation for you is all over in the FPS world. The number of people who want a PVP-centric MMO is really fairly low compared to the overall market, so it shouldn't really come as a surprise that it isn't being emphasized.

I don't think that's true. Aren't there more PvP servers in WoW than PvE? I think every recent "next big PvP game" been immensely popular for the first month as well.

I'd say people really want a good PvP MMO, but the only ones released have been endlessly flawed so far, so the initial player surge drops pretty quickly.

I mean what are they supposed to flock to? Darkfall? Mortal Online? Fallen Earth? A 12 year old UO? There's nothing for them out there. That's why it's kind of hard to claim that "most people" are not interested in a product that does not yet exist. (a good PvP MMO with wide range appeal)

The closest thing I can think of is EVE, but it lacks the wide-range appeal. However, as far as I know, it's one of, if not the strongest MMO in terms of active players next to WoW in the west...

Every 'real' PVPer will tell you that WoW PVP servers aren't 'real' PvP.  They're looking for oldschool UO or Eve, where nowhere is truly safe from that one guy who just wants to gank the fuck out of you and is willing to take the consequences.  There's a level of thrill there I can appreciate, but know it's niche.

Also, the PvP servers were initially more popular because it was another way for the H4rdc0r3 PvErs to set themselves aside from 'teh unashed masses.'  The long-term pvp crews went to Ticondrius, IIRC.

It IS funny however, that every time it comes up there's always that one guy who stands up, flag in hand and yells. "NO, they will flock to a PvP game if only someone would create a good one!"  Never mind the litany of games that can't get funding, which is why they're so under polished and unpopulated.  Perhaps its a self-fulfilling cycle, but I'm not risking MY $100 mil on it not being the case.

[Zzulo]

Just saying, I have never played a modern PvP-centric MMO that did not also come with an enormous bag of shit with it. Shit unrelated to the "player vs player" aspect.

They've all just been poor indie projects so far.

[Khaldun]

Pretty much this is the premise of the book I'm writing. Old and jaded is part of it, but clearly the idea that people had of what MMORPG's/virtual worlds could be has not come to pass. And appears unlikely to come to pass. So in those cases, it always behooves the people who had that idea to tool it back into the shop and say, "Why did I think that"? When you're that wrong (I'm in the 'you'), it means the problem is with you, not the the thing that disappointed.

Maybe.

[Ingmar]

It doesn't take a big company to spend $100 million dollars over 5 years, that is actually a pretty medium sized operation, maybe even small. I'm not deliberately being difficult, but I think you may not totally grasp how expensive even one employee is once you're paying for an office for him to sit in, machines for him to do his work on, a network for those machines to sit on, licensing for all the software he uses and the source control he's checking in and out of, health insurance and other benefits, etc.

Now maybe if you're doing things in an overseas sweatshop developer and using pirated dev software, things are different, but software development on levels even just a little bit above Dwarf Fortress neckbeard territory is not a cheap undertaking in the slightest.

I've seen estimates of $200 million+ for WHO, so we're talking about an operation only half the size of what produced that.

/slamhead

You aren't getting the point I'm trying to make.  What I am saying is that these big ass companies making these supposedly big ass MMOs have TOO many employees.  And too many offices, too many machines, too many networks, too much licensing, too much insurance and benefits.  Most of the fictional 100 million budget we are talking about is pure wasted bureaucracy.  A smaller, more efficient company can make the exact same product (or better!) for far less.  So, I'm not saying that they don't use 100m.  I'm saying their product never really warranted it.  

I currently work in a company that has a big ass, multi-year project that is costing far more than the kind of money we are talking about here.  It's hysterically inefficient and wasteful.  It doesn't even remotely warrant the budget that it has.  This is common practice.

And I'm telling you you're dreaming if you think you'll ever get an awesome MMO for $10 million. You might get a neat indie wreck like Fallen Earth, with some interesting ideas but no polish and lots of bugs. (Although I think I read recently that Icarus had just downsized from 110 to 30 employees or so, so maybe even getting that costs more than $10 million.)

EDIT: I suppose I should amend "if you think you'll ever get an awesome MMO for $10 million" to "if you think you'll ever get an awesome MMO for $10 million ever again" since I know that some of the earlier ones cost that (or less) to develop (although I think these budgets sometimes fail to include the actual operating costs of just running the company so we can perhaps think of them as actually being higher.)

[Kageru]

We've had quite a few people leave WoW PvP servers to join our guild. The general consensus being that open world PvP, at least in the context of WoW, was far more an annoyance factor than anything approaching fun.

WoW is doing quite a lot of innovation. Far more than anyone else in the industry. Going back and rejuvenating old content, non-level based progression, gear that shapes itself to your current character goal, raid hard-modes. Of course if you've got the blinkers on you miss it. Even in PvP Wintergrasp was interesting and arena throws up some lessons.

Either way I think it's a very hard argument to defend that WoW's success was the primary cause for Champions, Star Trek and most other releases simply being *bad*.

[Draegan]

WOW hasn't done anything to the genre.

Thanks for getting that first "Hurf durf I'm an idiot" icebreaker post out of the way.

First, fuck you very much.

Second, WOW has done nothing to the old formula except refine what was already out there (and did an excellent job of it).  But what has WOW brought to the table that pushes it forward with innovation?  WOW just polished the shit out of the EQ/DIKU format.  Balanced it, and opened up the game so more and more people of different play styles could enjoy it.  They didn't invent anything though.  They didn't invent instancing.  I guess you can give them props for "phasing".  In the end they turned the EQ format into something a multitude of more people could enjoy and they did an amazing job of it.

But honestly, you're a dickbag.

Edit:
Just read your response about camping and corpse runs etc.  That's not innovation or anything else.  That's taking an existing model and just making it better or less shitty.

Actually, I'll give WOW one innovative thing, and that's their addon system.  But as far as gameplay, it's still the same shit.

[LK]

And we're having discussions that are as old as WoW. Textbook arguments.

All Points Bulletin. Guild Wars 2. Those are my top pics for games that seem to be trying for something different; we'll see if they succeed. I was tempted to throw FFXIV on there but it's as yet unproven if it'll be more-of-the-same-with-slightly-better-combat or something that feels truly good to play. I have high hopes they don't make it extremely terrible to play.

[Draegan]

FFXIV isn't bringing anything new to the table.  Just a new experience and a new world.  Hell you can't even jump in their game.

Two games that have the potential to move the genre forward are Telara and GW2.  And that's going by PR speak.  So until I see the games I'll just wait and see.

[UnSub]

I'll throw this out there: WoW is the iPod of the MMO world. They may not have thought up the idea, but they have delivered it the best. There is innovation in that, but it isn't paradigm shifting innovation.

Thinking about it, two major factors work against MMO development: their long development time and their expected long existence. A MMO company is lucky to put out 1 MMO every 3-4 years and that's a long time between releases unless either your revenue is great and / or you slash development costs. In that time, you can easily be overrun by changing tastes and / or new big releases. With the number of MMOs coming out and are still around, there is a great chance that any MMO that doesn't get a flying start is headed into a death spiral - would EvE have survived if it was launched today given how poor it was at launch?

The second issue is that a MMO's long existence sees developers locked into one title for quite a while - they typically aren't taking their learnings from one MMO to another... and if they do, then there is a puzzle about why these developers seem to learn the wrong lessons. Perhaps they only take the most recent lessons, which don't work for launching games, I don't know. My rambling point is that unlike single player titles, where a developer can release one, see what worked and what didn't and get to improving those ideas in the next title, they can be locked into a MMO for several years post-release. They aren't innovating if it is 10+ years between the development of new titles.

The long development, long release life also sees these budgets blow out, with the expectation they'll make it up over the life of the game. MMO players say they want everything (see Arthur_Parker's card game example, where you can't just have a mini-game where you play cards, but need to have a lot of other mini-systems to supplement the main one and means it isn't a card game any more) and are, for good reason, reluctant to believe that something that isn't in launch is worth waiting for until it is patched in. So MMOs overpromise, underdeliver and incur massive debts that may never be paid back.

And this is in an industry where only 4% of projects that are started are profitable and only 20% of titles that appear on shelves are significantly profitable. If you are developing a MMO, the odds are against you.

[Draegan]

I'll throw this out there: WoW is the iPod of the MMO world. They may not have thought up the idea, but they have delivered it the best. There is innovation in that, but it isn't paradigm shifting innovation.

I can agree with that.

[NiX]

Same, that sums up what WoW is. Thread is over. I can't stand the thought of 20 more pages of people arguing what WoW did/didn't do and what it is or isn't.

[Xanthippe]

Moving along - there is an interesting mmo on the near horizon which is nothing like WoW and might not suck - APB.

What's different about it is that the two sides have different motivation.  Criminals commit crimes, Enforcers fight criminals.

It seems pretty innovative.  Whether it actually delivers on its promise is another matter.

[Ghambit]

You guys need to talk less about the Products and more about the Tools.  "Only THEN, will you find The Master."

[Sheepherder]

That's a pretty good analogy.  I'd still point to the fact that the evolution of the iPod is still pretty much the biggest and most innovative thing to hit the media player market despite the fact that everything Apple does is iterative of previous versions.

And yes Draegan, I know I'm a dick, thanks for pointing that out.

What's different about it is that the two sides have different motivation.  Criminals commit crimes, Enforcers fight criminals.

All it needs is a "taxpayer" faction to create an Ouroboros.

You guys need to talk less about the Products and more about the Tools.  "Only THEN, will you find The Master."

Blizzard owns and doesn't license all the tools worth having at the moment.  The remaining tools are ones like Paul Barnett.

[Ghambit]

Blizzard owns and doesn't license all the tools worth having at the moment.  The remaining tools are ones like Paul Barnett.

Witty, but wrong.  Maybe you misunderstood me.

[Sheepherder]

You are talking SDK's.  The only company I'd put money on having a completely functional and easy SDK is Blizzard.

[Malakili]

So, I made an off the cuff remark early in the thread about Planetside 2, but I definitely relate to this topic and I wanted to write something a little more substantial, so here goes.

I basically got to the point where I was very meh about MMOs about a year ago, well, a little more than a year ago at this point.   At first, I sort of grasped at straws and tried a bunch of different F2P MMOs, none of which I stuck with for more than a few weeks.  I didn't game at all over the summer, as I spent it abroad, but came back and decided to reactivate my WoW account, which I did for about a month.  Then I tried EVE again, which I did for a few months.  Around that time Champions Online also came out, which I didn't have huge hopes for, but I will admit to liking for a while.  But it too passed rather quickly.  Then I went back to World War 2 Online for a while.   Then took some time off from MMOs for the most part, and recently hit the ground running in WoW again to see what I can see before Cataclysm hits.

All this time I've never felt the way I used to about these games, but I do feel the urge to game and the long story short is that I keep going back to the games where I have an established community.  EVE, WoW and WW2O are all places I can reasonably seamlessly reintegrate myself back into the communities I was in before, and pick right up with the game.  That seems to be the draw at this point.   I'm really not interested to start from scratch, knowing noone or almost noone, build up characters, wealth, and contacts, join a guild, and all the leg work that is required to really get the most out of an MMO.  That seems to be the biggest issue with me and new MMOs, and aside from a community I am currently involved with getting majorly involved in a new MMO, I can't see that changing much the more I think about it.

There are definitely MMO projects out there that still pique my interest, don't get me wrong.  End of Nations looks neat, Planetside 2, when we actually find out anything about it, will be something I watch closely.  I'm more into PvP than I used to be, though what exactly PvP means, and in what context I like it I can't really say.  Do I like EVE, yes, but I also like shooters, and competitive RTS games, so there is a wide variety there.   At the moment, I like the format of WW2O for PvP.  There is tactical and strategic gameplay, winning and losing seems vitally important as it happens, but everything resets once the map is over (anywhere from a few weeks to a few months per map).  There is progression in terms of what you can use (in infantry, vehicles, air, and navy), but there isn't hit points, or new spells, or anything.  

But when I see, ooh boy Star Wars TOR, or even something I thought might be neat like Rift (read: Heroes of Telara),  I just no longer care all that much, it seems like we are largely stuck in the past, or maybe its just me.  I mean seriously, WoW, EVE and WW2O as three potential MMOs I could want to play at any given time, thats nothing in the last *half decade* maybe WoW just barely.  

I've gone through dozens of other games in that time period, and those genres seem to be going places that are at least decent (Dawn of War 2 is a good place for the RTS genre to be, TF2 has been a very solid shooter for a few years now, you can even argue Dragon Age was solid while it lasted).  But the MMO genre is just stuck in some sort of mire and it can't get out.  Somewhere in the mess of virtual worlds, persistent progression, monthly payments, net code, promised features, and everything else, their has to be a few decent games waiting to be made,  but the problem is, as I mentioned before, its not just that.  At this point, for me to seriously get into a new MMO long term I am going to need a community AND a great game, and thats problematic for anyone trying to sell me an MMO.

[Slayerik]

I was part of Neocron outpost battles. UO dread days. SB.exe sieges. Planetside all out war. EvE small gang actions/suicide ganks. I may be looking back with rose tinted glasses but these were my best experiences in any MMOs I have played.

No, most people just decided those things sucked.  There are a whole lot more people out there who would take your exact list and call it the absolutely worst times they've ever had in any MMO ever.  The only one of those i didn't experience was Neocron and i can honestly say i cannot imagine how someone can look back at those and go MOAR! and i fucking love pvp.  Some people get their jollies by having nails rammed into their nuts, most of them are at least smart enough to understand why the rest of us might not be so keen to experience it.

Did they? You are basically saying I'm broken, but if you didn't enjoy the examples there then you don't 'fuckin' love PvP'. Sorry, you just don't.

I'm not saying these games were exceptional, but the experiences were awesome and innovating in their own right. With SB, AoC poorly tried to go with the siege warfare route. These days, Eve can be the only example to compare to UO...which frankly is sad. PS had balls, and I had more fun being part of 50+ man raids in that game than I probably ever will again (barring PS2 hopefully).

Anyway, the fork in the road for the genre was EQ/UO. One thrives today, unfortunately my horse was shot after breaking a leg. There is more to MMO than Diku.

[Kageru]

Moving along - there is an interesting mmo on the near horizon which is nothing like WoW and might not suck - APB.

What's different about it is that the two sides have different motivation.  Criminals commit crimes, Enforcers fight criminals.

It seems pretty innovative.  Whether it actually delivers on its promise is another matter.

I'm going to err on the side of caution. APB is just another attempt to put an MMO wrapper around twitch gameplay. Which is met by the twitch games adding MMO elements like progression schemes and social networks. APB, like Crimecraft and Global agenda is going to have to prove it can compete with FPS games and have enough people willing to buy into their payment schemes. I'm dubious on both.

It would be very interesting to know what Blizzard are planning as their next MMO. WoW is pretty old now, and stupidly successful, which disallows them redesigning the core gameplay. The next game will be where they try to incorporate the lessons they've learned and new ideas. Of course if they come out with WoW2:reskinned I'll join the ranks of the disappointed.

[Ghambit]

I think an important factor that's lost in all this is user creep from one MMO to another.  Planetside is the perfect example as it was wildly popular until SWG came out.  That didnt mean PS was a bad game, just that people like trying new things.  So, once they left PS and went to SWG they then went to WoW.  And on and on.  Each game suffered due to sub. losses; in SWG's case it prompted a near total redesign that made things even worse.  In Planetside's case they couldnt push the model along (to combat this inate player boredom) due to lack of funding from sub. losses... and the game became crickets, which really doesnt work in a massive PvP game.

WoW's success was only partly due to design.  It was also smart release timing relative to the competition and the simple fact they succeeded in marrying people to the game just long enough to keep them grounded to it. 

[Margalis]

IMO, costs have mushroomed because of the increasing consumer demand for audiovisual quality.

Increasing demand from consumers or invented demand from developers?

I think if you look at what actually sells the demand for ever higher AV quality among consumers doesn't come close to actually matching what developers are pumping out. I would also point out that AV quality can do a lot to veneer over a lousy game and is thus attractive to developers for that reason as well.

Most of the best selling games of last year were fairly modest presentation wise. There is a huge echo-chamber effect when you read "hardcore" forums instead of sales charts.

[UnSub]

I didn't come up with the analogy - I think it was Cuppycake, but I can't find her original post on it.

Another side effect of MMOs having a long-term life expectancy: they look like failures when they just hang around. Planetside is the example here - did fantastically for a MMOFPS for much longer than anyone expected (especially as a sub-based FPS) but now looks like an embarrassment to SOE.

Past a certain point MMOs need to have a big closing down event and close down in triumph, rather than a 'going out of business sale'.

If someone will give me that $100m Signe is asking for, my MMO will only last for 5 years and be planned with a defined beginning, middle and end. That concept alone will see me earn $200m in my first year, guaranteed*.

* not a guarantee.

[Sheepherder]

Most of the best selling games of last year 2004 were fairly modest presentation wise.

UnSub, that might be about as popular as DRM.

[Spiff]

would EvE have survived if it was launched today given how poor it was at launch?

I'll throw that back as: Would it have survived if they had tried to launch it fully finished? (also read: Developed/marketed/budgeted thinking it would be fully finished)

What I'm thinking is EvE and to an extent WoW (as well as many other less important examples) underwent rather 'slow' launches, they didn't launch like "this is the NEW WoW" or "this game is everything to all people, so GO BUY IT RIGHT NOW!".
They actually changed/tweaked a lot well after launch and were in part able to craft themselves while they were out there, considering the input of paying customers. Of course they didn't do this by choice as much as because they didn't know any better and the MMO-world was far more naïve back then.

But what if they could do this by choice? What if exactly because of the complexities/life-cycle of an MMO they developed it allowing for heavy retooling post-launch?
I don't simply mean the tools, but the marketing/budgeting as well, so you don't have to appeal to the entire horde of jaded malcontents from the get go, screaming: "it isn't finished!!" or "it doesn't have all those ground-breaking things it promised!!", seeing your subs plummet and getting filed under 'another failure' about 30-60 days post-launch.
I'm just wondering which MMO that launched thinking they would compete with the big boys from launch actually did?
To a certain extent LoTRO I s'pose, but I'm pretty sure even they didn't hit the long-term targets they had envisioned.

Or maybe the only reason that worked was because we were all more naïve back then and wouldn't have the patience or accept such amateurism any more now that the business should have supposedly matured  .

[palmer_eldritch]

would EvE have survived if it was launched today given how poor it was at launch?

I'll throw that back as: Would it have survived if they had tried to launch it fully finished? (also read: Developed/marketed/budgeted thinking it would be fully finished)

What I'm thinking is EvE and to an extent WoW (as well as many other less important examples) underwent rather 'slow' launches, they didn't launch like "this is the NEW WoW" or "this game is everything to all people, so GO BUY IT RIGHT NOW!".
They actually changed/tweaked a lot well after launch and were in part able to craft themselves while they were out there, considering the input of paying customers. Of course they didn't do this by choice as much as because they didn't know any better and the MMO-world was far more naïve back then.

But what if they could do this by choice? What if exactly because of the complexities/life-cycle of an MMO they developed it allowing for heavy retooling post-launch?
I don't simply mean the tools, but the marketing/budgeting as well, so you don't have to appeal to the entire horde of jaded malcontents from the get go, screaming: "it isn't finished!!" or "it doesn't have all those ground-breaking things it promised!!", seeing your subs plummet and getting filed under 'another failure' about 30-60 days post-launch.
I'm just wondering which MMO that launched thinking they would compete with the big boys from launch actually did?
To a certain extent LoTRO I s'pose, but I'm pretty sure even they didn't hit the long-term targets they had envisioned.

Or maybe the only reason that worked was because we were all more naïve back then and wouldn't have the patience or accept such amateurism any more now that the business should have supposedly matured  .

Eve launched with the promise of doing exactly that, and all credit to CCP for keeping their word and releasing regular, significant free updates just as they promised. I don't see why a new game couldn't launch today with the same promise, as long as people had confidence in the business behind it.

As for competing with the big boys, there's really only one big boy in terms of subs for a subscription-based game. I think the determination to be the next WoW is a huge part of the problem - it's like every new restaurant chain tries to be the next MacDonalds. Couldn't an innovative MMO could be financially succesful, and give investors a good return on their money, with far fewer subs than WoW has? It's not like people expect every single player game to match the sales of The Sims, but for some reason they have unrealistic expectations for MMOs.

[tgr]

IMO, costs have mushroomed because of the increasing consumer demand for audiovisual quality.

Increasing demand from consumers or invented demand from developers?

Since we're on the point of demand for AV quality ... that works up to a point, and then you fall into the uncanny valley. Of course this can be circumvented by just making everything except the people as realistic as possible, but for me, as long as it keeps a certain minimum quality, I'm fine. I'm much more about the gameplay than the graphics. Hell, no-one will ever claim that serious sam 2 is a good-looking game compared to today's games, but it's sufficient and I would have absolutely no problems playing it.

Hell, I just played SS2 for 3 hours yesterday, and it still felt like it took 15 minutes.

[Sheepherder]

Since we're on the point of demand for AV quality ... that works up to a point, and then you fall into the uncanny valley.

People have been trotting this one out for over a decade.  I'm not sure it was ever more than some crazy bullshit that some asshole who took a philosophy course once spouted.

[Margalis]

Most of the best selling games of last year 2004 were fairly modest presentation wise.

No, the original quote is quite correct. Like I said read forums less and sales data more.

[Dtrain]

The uncanny valley is only a theory about how people relate to robotics. As long as it looks robotic they feel comfortable with it. If a robot looks sufficiently human, people get uncomfortable around it. The only actual study I have found in a cursory overview finds that this is MOSTLY true for introverts and those low on emotional stability.

Somewhere along the line it was converted into a theory of MMO design because someone was overfond of verbal masturbation and couldn't just say "I find the artistic direction of this product aestheticly displeasing." And with credentials like that, of course it's a pile of shit.

Edit: In the course of some research, I did find this photo though, the right side of which is 

[tgr]

Since we're on the point of demand for AV quality ... that works up to a point, and then you fall into the uncanny valley.

People have been trotting this one out for over a decade.  I'm not sure it was ever more than some crazy bullshit that some asshole who took a philosophy course once spouted.

If you're calling the "uncanny valley" line bullshit, then I'm going to go with "um, no, read the sentence I wrote after that". Faces is one of the things that ruin immersion the most for me, because they try too hard to get AV realism in. It's hard to do that realistically, so while MGS2 has faces which move, they're not trying to be TOO realistic/hi-def so at least I don't get caught up on the mistakes made in the facial simulation.

Diss it all you like, I've noticed how I'm being more and more preoccupied with the faults they keep making with character's faces as they try to up the ante on AV realism in that aspect. Literally every other improvement has been, to me, an improvement.

[Dtrain]

Since we're on the point of demand for AV quality ... that works up to a point, and then you fall into the uncanny valley.

People have been trotting this one out for over a decade.  I'm not sure it was ever more than some crazy bullshit that some asshole who took a philosophy course once spouted.

If you're calling the "uncanny valley" line bullshit, then I'm going to go with "um, no, read the sentence I wrote after that". Faces is one of the things that ruin immersion the most for me, because they try too hard to get AV realism in. It's hard to do that realistically, so while MGS2 has faces which move, they're not trying to be TOO realistic/hi-def so at least I don't get caught up on the mistakes made in the facial simulation.

Diss it all you like, I've noticed how I'm being more and more preoccupied with the faults they keep making with character's faces as they try to up the ante on AV realism in that aspect. Literally every other improvement has been, to me, an improvement.

I don't think anyone is saying they like bad art assets. The term itself has been coopted and used incorrectly. Bad art is bad art, if it has 20 polys or 200. Of course it gets easier to screw it up as it gets more complicated, but that isn't the uncanny valley - that's something else entirely. A creepy looking robot is a creepy looking robot, and THAT effect is what the term should describe. Consider the examples in the image from my last post. THAT is the uncanny valley.

[Kageru]

Uncanny valley is easy to find in MMO's. The "plastic people" of CO that just don't quite work right and as such look weirder and less organic than wow's well animated, low poly, caricatures.

In regards to WoW having a slow launch. The game had an extended open beta and word of mouth was massively favorable (It was up against EQ and original EQ2 though). It certainly launched with mature combat systems a lot more end-game content than most releases since it. Their main release fault being nobody believed there was a market that large.

[Margalis]

What in the world are you guys talking about?

If you make something clearly a representation, like an 8-bit mario sprite, nobody is going to look at it and say "I dunno, his eyes are too glassy." Mario's sprite is not supposed to model a real human. However Uncharted 2 character models are not representational, they are supposed to be realistic looking, which is why you hear all sorts of complains about their crazy eyes.

This is just common sense. The more familiar you are with something the more you can find fault in attempted recreations. It's why CG cars and dinosaurs always look better than CG humans, or why CG humans are the hardest things to animate. Nobody knows what a T-Rex looks like exactly so if it's a little off it's no big deal. Everyone knows exactly what a human face looks like and how humans move so even the slightest problems are easily perceptible.

I'm not saying anything that isn't common knowledge to anyone that does any sort of CG work.

Of course it gets easier to screw it up as it gets more complicated, but that isn't the uncanny valley - that's something else entirely.

It has nothing to do with "complicated" and everything to do with familiar. Humans are great at recognizing faces and other humans and are thus great at detecting when an attempt to recreate a human face or movement is off. Human movement isn't any more complicated than any other animal, complication is not the reason human animations will look off where animal animations look acceptable.

Whether or not you want to call that the "uncanny valley" or something else it's a very real phenomenon and it makes perfect sense. When it comes to the human forms other humans are experts. Robots from cybertron not so much.

[UnSub]

Most of the best selling games of last year 2004 were fairly modest presentation wise.

UnSub, that might be about as popular as DRM.

Hush, I'm reeling in investors as we speak! 

It's just the way I think that "story" needs to be dealt with - have a beginning, middle and end. I'm not sure anyone would actually invest in it, since a major strength for a MMO is a multi-year lifespan that sees the dollars roll in off the long-tail, but there is a price you pay for being open-ended. Having a fixed end-point has some issues related to a business structure, but they aren't insurmountable.

But that's the thing - if you want revolution in innovation, you need to have stuff that is different and tries new things. For $100m, no-one is going to do that.

As for graphics: they matter. They are your link to the entire video game world. For a new MMO, they have to be at least as good as the single player games just to be noticed on the shelf. "Good" is a relative term, of course, depending what your customers are looking for, but given the number of old MMOs who get facelifts it is something that is important to keep bringing in new players.