So, who won the 3rd gen?

[Viin]

TF2 has ongoing revenue generation.

Ah ha, I didn't know they had an item store now. OK, so then Rainbow Six: Vegas.

[Rendakor]

I can't see including WoT. Honestly I still don't really understand why it is in this forum.

If it really bothers you, you can have it moved. 

I agree though; I don't consider WoT, LoL or the like MMOs.

[Scold]

In terms of profits compared to costs, I would be shocked if RuneScape didn't win. Last I checked a couple of years ago, they had 8.5 million active subscribers at $5 a month, on pretty much the opposite of a AAA MMO budget. They've also managed to carry on the UO spirit in a lot of ways, which is nice.

[Amaron]

I don't see why SWTOR, GW2, or TSW deserve a "win" honestly.  Even the people who like SWTOR will agree they failed miserably at updating.   TSW is great in many ways but seems to find some random thorn which eventually burns out most people.   GW2 group content is not looking good in execution or potential.

[Rokal]

I agree though; I don't consider WoT, LoL or the like MMOs.

The answer would have been LoL if it wouldn't lead to an argument about what an MMO is. Like WoW, it exploded into popularity and is inspiring dozens of clones. It's also the best example of a popular Western game built F2P from the ground up, which will become the more smart business model for MMOs moving forward.

[Merusk]

I can't see including WoT. Honestly I still don't really understand why it is in this forum.

If it really bothers you, you can have it moved. 

I agree though; I don't consider WoT, LoL or the like MMOs.

Their roots are MMO-like experiences so they get lumped-in.  They're really Massive multiplayer chatroom lobbies with a directed, single-game experience. 

In truth, like Video Games the MMO 'genre' is old enough to have created splinters and sub-genres.  Calling anything "THE BEST" or "THE WINNER" is as futile as trying to do the same for any interacive electronic entertainment aka "Video Game." 

[Lantyssa]

Was third gen based on a date, or a features set?  I like Rift, but it doesn't bring much to the table other than the rifts.  So if we're terming WoW 2nd gen, then Rift (and SWTOR) need to be right along with it.  

WoW improved upon EQ.  RIFTS was the next step from WoW.  Maybe 2.5, but I think enough lessons were learned by Hartsman between WoW and EQ2 that it's worthy of being called next-gen.  Given its lineage, that'd make it a true Third Generation game, too.

[Venkman]

If you define generations as "the MMO most MMOer is playing or has played", then WoW is third generation, EQ1 is second, UO is first. UO predated EQ by quite awhile, and if I recall correctly, had a good amount of press for records it achieved (including first to 100k, huge for this genre at a time before broadband). It was a remarkably different game, but it still was the first "huge" MMO if I understand it.

The closest to an actual fourth generation I think we've come is Club Penguin, in that it was wildly successful and evolved a number of conventions (browser based, hybrid business models, focused on new audience, etc). But that really depends on the audience you're talking to.

Like,. if we stick to the most talked about games in the traditional now-adult focused AAA still-subs-until-f2p big budget MMOs, I'm not sure between Rift and TSW. The former isn't successful enough to mark a point from which to evolve, and it's standout features were similar enough to other meager-performers. Meanwhile, the latter is probably going to die without a miracle (which is a shame).

GW2 can maybe be on the list by Christmas, earliest.

[Kageru]

The reason world of World of Tanks is here is because there's now three categories and two forums. PC/Console games, Online games, Online Persistent Worlds / RPG's. Online games have started to get persistent elements like experience, skill unlocks and a strategy map.

[Llyse]

Like,. if we stick to the most talked about games in the traditional now-adult focused AAA still-subs-until-f2p big budget MMOs, I'm not sure between Rift and TSW. The former isn't successful enough to mark a point from which to evolve, and it's standout features were similar enough to other meager-performers. Meanwhile, the latter is probably going to die without a miracle (which is a shame).

GW2 can maybe be on the list by Christmas, earliest.

Out of all those names only TSW got my my money after WotLK... So it's Rift by revenue, SWTOR by subscriber base and TSW for being different as the indie favourite. GW2 is still too new

[lamaros]

If you define generations as "the MMO most MMOer is playing or has played", then WoW is third generation, EQ1 is second, UO is first. UO predated EQ by quite awhile, and if I recall correctly, had a good amount of press for records it achieved (including first to 100k, huge for this genre at a time before broadband). It was a remarkably different game, but it still was the first "huge" MMO if I understand it.

The closest to an actual fourth generation I think we've come is Club Penguin, in that it was wildly successful and evolved a number of conventions (browser based, hybrid business models, focused on new audience, etc). But that really depends on the audience you're talking to.

Like,. if we stick to the most talked about games in the traditional now-adult focused AAA still-subs-until-f2p big budget MMOs, I'm not sure between Rift and TSW. The former isn't successful enough to mark a point from which to evolve, and it's standout features were similar enough to other meager-performers. Meanwhile, the latter is probably going to die without a miracle (which is a shame).

GW2 can maybe be on the list by Christmas, earliest.

I agree. Despite the OP attempting to ignore it you have to say that it's still the WoW era.

GW2 isn't going to change anything. Why is it's revenue model a novelty all of a sudden? It's the same as GW (which launched around WoW)...

[Spiff]

One of the defining factors of an MMO is it's ongoing development I'd say; hard to talk about the full quality and success before it's even released a decent expansion.
Of course by that metric it's too early to even include SWOR, but maybe it is.

I'm loving GW2 and a lot of the design is refreshing and even groundbreaking, but an MMO is so much more than the basic design and GW2 has been dropping the ball all over the place so far. All in all not a great launch and they'd better iterate well or they're gonna see a lot of  when the honeymoon's over, sub or no sub.

[Margalis]

WoW successfully defended its title against challengers. That is the answer. Although now the champ looks a bit aged and could be dethroned by some plucky newcomer.

TSW has some cool stuff in it and sure, maybe some newer games have introduced some new features that seem "must have", but the idea that a game like TSW or SWTOR won anything other than "dud of the year" doesn't make much sense.

[Furiously]

I'd say TSW and GW2 are both 4th gen, where new things are being tried again.

[satael]

I'd say you are not eligible to win before you release an expansion (or atleast 1 year has passed since release). If you can show any kind of growth after that (or even stable numbers) then you have done alot better than most MMOs of the past few years.

[Falconeer]

GW2 isn't going to change anything. Why is it's revenue model a novelty all of a sudden? It's the same as GW (which launched around WoW)...

Because GW1 was not a DIKU and was barely a MMORPG, especially because it was not largely perceived as one at the time, which was the difference. GW1 didn't cross path with all the big MMORPG of the time, it was simply received as a different thing.

So it's not the revenue model that is a novelty. The novelty is that they used such revenue model for an AAA Diku from the start. They demolished the wall that forces players to be supporters or doomsayers, to be in or out, to switch it on or off. They demolished that 15$ monthly wall that butchers the population on servers and creates ghost towns one subscription day to the next. Most importantly, they demolished the reason so many players feel entitled to develop harsh feelings towards the MMO they are playing and ragequit while brandishing the "I am paying for this!" card.
And they didn't do it with a clone, or with a low production value game. They did it while delivering an awesome, enormous open world DIKU MMORPG.

This is the novelty.

[Merusk]

Another game for Falc to fanboy over.  Joy!  Using past metrics it'll be dead in a few months.

One of the defining factors of an MMO is it's ongoing development I'd say; hard to talk about the full quality and success before it's even released a decent expansion.
Of course by that metric it's too early to even include SWOR, but maybe it is.

No, it's not, because SWOR isn't ever going to get an expansion.  If the F2P transition doesn't bring in significant revenues it will go on ultra life support for the duration of the required contract with LucasArts and then be quietly shuttered.  

I'd say TSW and GW2 are both 4th gen, where new things are being tried again.

I'd agree with that... mainly because I already said it about GW2. ;)  I almost consider TSW the last of the 3rd because they still rely on subs.

[Cyrrex]

All this thread is accomplishing is making me almost want to play GW2.  Almost!

[Murgos]

I agree. Despite the OP attempting to ignore it you have to say that it's still the WoW era.

I didn't attempt to ignore anything. I specifically stated that it was the overall best MMORPG and that I was deliberately excluding it by focusing on a later time domain (generation) because otherwise it would make for a boring conversation, and shit, something must have improved enough in the last 8 years to be 'better', right?  Later, we can take our consensus champ and then see how it stacks up to WoW or EQ or UO or whatever.

Also, I love that there is a small section of posters who are all, <robovoice>"Bzzt, does not compute.  Earnings not directly comparable.  Metrics do not correlate." </robovoice>. 

It's a conversation, you converse and eventually, maybe, a consensus opinion will form.  Even if the opinion is, "Nah, this conversation is stupid, it's WoW and everything else is shite and after 8 years no one has done anything." it's still a consensus.

So far it's a tentative, "Probably GW2 but too early to be sure." but would people have said SWToR if I asked the same question last January?

[Falconeer]

So far it's a tentative, "Probably GW2 but too early to be sure." but would people have said SWToR if I asked the same question last January?

SWTOR had a solid group of fans, but I am sure we all agree that no there wasn't anything even remotely close to a consensus about SWTOR. A very strong and common opinion, outside of the honeymooning forums, was that it was a worse WoW with story.

EDIT: Engrish.

[lamaros]

There's no way GW2 will move us from the WoW era. (IMO, etc).

[Hawkbit]

No, but I think the feature set is the cap of this generation.  Considering GW2 warts and all, I do not believe there will be a 'better' game in the next four years.  Though some of the open world stuff Trion is doing with RIFT is nifty and warrants attention.

[Zetor]

People actually did answer the SWTOR question last December / this January. Not many people put the numbers above 750k, even those who liked the game...

[eldaec]

I don't understand what the hell you people are arguing about.

[Hutch]

- The definition of 3rd generation, as it pertains to MMOGs
- Whether the definition of "best" MMOG can include criteria other than financial success
- Whether you can have a meaningful discussion on this topic without including WoW

[Scold]

So do RuneScape and MapleStory just not count because they're aimed at people a decade or so younger than us?

[Nebu]

So do RuneScape and MapleStory just not count because they're aimed at people a decade or so younger than us?

No.  They don't count because they're terrible, derivative games.

[HaemishM]

There is no 3rd generation because I still don't think we've gotten out of the FIRST generation yet. Almost everything out there is still just iterations on the EQ theme. Secret World and Planetside are the closest things we have to an MMOG that has broken those molds (in different ways) and the MOBA revolution has kind of change the whole discussion about massively multiplayer anyway. F2P has also changed the whole dynamic of the game, in a good way.

[Ingmar]

There is no 3rd generation because I still don't think we've gotten out of the FIRST generation yet. Almost everything out there is still just iterations on the EQ theme. Secret World and Planetside are the closest things we have to an MMOG that has broken those molds (in different ways) and the MOBA revolution has kind of change the whole discussion about massively multiplayer anyway. F2P has also changed the whole dynamic of the game, in a good way.

I disagree with this; MOBAs haven't changed anything because they're not massively multiplayer. 10 people in a match. They have very large communities, but so does Call of Duty. It's basically the same argument that people used to say that GW1 wasn't an MMO; I think it probably was - barely - because at least there's an actual world involved rather than a literal series of menus.

And if you sit basically anyone down and have them play EQ, then a modern MMO, there's no way that anyone says they're from the same generation. They're about as similar as Doom 1 and CoD, and I don't think you could argue that those are the same generation of FPS.

[Kail]

So do RuneScape and MapleStory just not count because they're aimed at people a decade or so younger than us?

They're both older that World of Warcraft.  If you start including games that old, then talking about the "winner" is kind of a foregone conclusion.  I'm sure RuneScape is doing great for an indie title, but as far as I can tell, it's not pulling in a hundred million dollars a month.

[HaemishM]

And if you sit basically anyone down and have them play EQ, then a modern MMO, there's no way that anyone says they're from the same generation. They're about as similar as Doom 1 and CoD, and I don't think you could argue that those are the same generation of FPS.

While the interfaces may have changed, mostly to do with quality of life, what real innovations have been made in either of these genres that are generational?

For FPSes, the biggest innovation from Doom 1 to CoD is multiplayer and a level/unlock system. The basic tenets of gameplay are almost exactly the same.

Everquest to WoW to Rifts the lineage is blatantly evolutionary. The biggest innovations have been instancing and respecs, and respecs is really just an extension of UO's skills-based character building. Hell, even TSW's classless/levelless system isn't that far off considering that the gameplay is almost exactly of the same type.

To my mind, generational shifts occur with much more striking dissimilarity. Adding a world populated by hundreds of other people to what is essentially single-player RPG's was a generational shift - and as a result, it caused a significant sea change in the entire video game industry. From subscription fees to microtransactions to the addition of multiplayer in almost every video game released (well, at least 50% or more), that one innovation created a seismic shift in video games. But nothing that's been done or tried has succeeded in doing so to the MMO market since.

F2P is close, but it hasn't translated to a gameplay shift of such important magnitude.

Just my opinion, but I've always been really cynical about MMOG's and the use of generational designations. After EQ's success, everyone in the industry tried to make their new MMO be "THE NEXT GENERATION!!!!" Only it wasn't, we didn't, and the whole medium has stagnated horribly.

[Ingmar]

See it seems like you're trying to say that to have a new "generation" you have to actually create a new medium or genre. Which is just not how I would ever use the term.

[Raph]

FWIW, I tend to do generations completely differently and wouldn't count what's going on now as 3rd gen but as a higher number. I dive based on "who was able to influence who."

UO/EQ/AC/M59/Realm/Dark Ages/Lineage and more were all really started around the same time.

WoW/DAoC/SWG/Runescape were learning the lessons of the first set.

IMHO, the generation after that was the F2P generation, and F2P in general is the winner. I would probably pick Maple Story even though it actually predates WoW in Korea. But in many ways, what happened is that the first gen begat Korean gaming, and from that were born what today we call social gaming and what we call F2P web gaming... which were then eventually exported back to the US.

[Outlawedprod]

Serek Dmart & Allods?

/ducks


On a more serious note I would consider League of Legends the true winner.  It's not exactly a persistent singular world but the # of games and meta discussion of the game and community has certainly neared massively multiplayer online when viewed as a whole instead of in terms of a match.

[Scold]

So do RuneScape and MapleStory just not count because they're aimed at people a decade or so younger than us?

They're both older that World of Warcraft.  If you start including games that old, then talking about the "winner" is kind of a foregone conclusion.  I'm sure RuneScape is doing great for an indie title, but as far as I can tell, it's not pulling in a hundred million dollars a month.

It's pulling in more like 20-25 million a month, I think. That's still pretty damn good, and almost certainly beating most of the AAA MMOs.  MapleStory is probably making significantly more than that.