MMORPG.com Article about MMO Burnout

[waylander]

Link to the article

I find this interesting for a few reasons.

1. Recent news came out about the average PC gamer being 30+
2. The comments to the news article are made by a wide variety of people, mostly 30+
3. More people have played multiple MMORPG's, and several big named ones

I know people consider us the "hardcore of the hardcore" as I believe Raph termed us once, but with more modern MMORPG's scoring big initial sales it seems that the unwashed masses are finally coming to terms with the things we've been saying for years. Games of the future that want to be walking money machines like WoW are going to have to quit copying each other, and get back to the days of innovation.

People want dynamic worlds, random world events, a mixture of a player/npc economy that reacts to supply and demand (UO's original version), no more stupid levels that keep you from gaming with friends, etc.

PC game developers that want to make MMORPG's, need to realize that the 30+ age group needs to be able to play in 1 hour segments and see fun, improvement, and be able to take care of business. I don't know how many polls we've seen over the years indicate that a normal casual gamer has between 10-15 hours a week of playtime but its definately in line with a lot of posted comments from people who have real lives.

I know my personal peeve is that I hate long drawn out character development where you are defined by levels, and levels determine your available powers/bonuses/dmg/etc.

Anyway, I don't post in the general forum much but I thought it was a good write up with good follow up comments and its certainly reinforced what a lot of us have said here over the years.

[HaemishM]

I want an MMOG on the Wii using the Wiimote.

[shiznitz]

Burnout for me is something I didn't know I had until I find a new/old game to go (back?) to. Logging into an MMOG easily becomes a habit - much the same as plunking down in front of the TV.

Burnout is just a realization that everything you have yet to do in the game is pretty much the same as what you have done already.

[Lum]

Best article on the subject:

http://www.gignews.com/schubert1001.htm

[Yoru]

10-15 hours a week isn't particularly casual; at 15 hours, you're over 2 hours a day, every day of the week. That's less than average TV viewership, but it still sounds like quite a bit to me. A couple folks I know do play in what I'd consider a truly casual manner. I have a coworker who plays WoW about 3-5 hours a week, going home on his lunch hour to eat and game; it's taken him over a year and he's just gotten to 60. (It'll be interesting to see his playstyle adapt to that paradigm shift, but I digress.)

I also doubt mass-market casual players truly want a real dynamic world. A dynamic encounter system, maybe. A way to 'make their mark' on the world and have it be visible for other people, maybe. However, a real dynamic world and ecology system doesn't fit well with the 'let me log in for an hour and do something' paradigm; unless the population density is quite low, it tends to lead to areas that are immediately accessible to population centers being mined/hunted/stripped to the bone. (See very early UO for an example.)

The other things you listed, yes, more or less necessary for a casual-friendly game. Of particular importance is the ability to game with friends who play more/less than you do, regardless of time invested, and still have fun and be moderately effective. Maybe not as effective as a group that's min/maxed and munchkinized in a manner that would make JeffK proud, but still able to get by. This doesn't necessarily invalidate the Classes/Levels/Groups/Quests style of game, but it does require a lot of thought to properly graft some kind of sidekicking system into it. Some kind of dynamic encounter system (the computer-mediated equivalent of your PnP GM tossing out a random, but meaningful, encounter while travelling) would go well towards providing a timely sense of immersion and 'random world events'.

Anyway, fun article. Yay. :)

[waylander]

Best article on the subject:

http://www.gignews.com/schubert1001.htm

I had forgotten about that article, but yeh that is probably the best summarized version that still holds true today.

Like I said I was shocked to see that the average age of the PC gamer has topped 30, and that a lot of the posters (regardless of game they played) were pretty much on target with the issues of living a 30+ life that conflict with how the current crop of games are designed.  I'm pretty much the same way in that if I can't game with my friends, or I've got to commit a minimum of 3 hours per session if I log on that I'll quit a game. I think the longest amount of time I went without paying for an MMORPG was between the time I left DAOC and Shadowbane retail started, and then between the time I stopped playing SB regularly and picked up City of Villains (1.5 years).

[Venkman]

Like I said I was shocked to see that the average age of the PC gamer has topped 30

Considering this is about MMOGs, I'm not surprised. The average MMORPGer has been near that almost since Nick Yee started started his work.

But for gaming in general, I never thought much about it and realize I'm not surprised in this case either. The video game industry has been dominated by consoles for a long time, and those transcend various age categories more easily.

[Righ]

Lineage had one of the most extreme "exponential curve of death" implementations of any game. To crown it, they added (frankly excellent) siege mechanics and a fucking horrible 10% of level death penalty. Take Giran Castle by siege? It's going to cost you. People would grind through into silly levels, and retire from PvP because they couldn't face losing a week or more of advancement.

One of the most attractive things about an online roleplaying game is that it is a persistant world where your character evolves over time, providing a changing game experience with the same character. Game designers need to encourage people to indulge in that experience without compelling them to ignore everything else (in game and outside) in order to 'keep up with the neighbours'. Damion notes some stuff that aid that in the article, but the UO example is far from a great one. Much better examples can be found in Clan Lord (a Mac game that looks like shite, but has some very useful game mechanics) where there are five 'circles' of exponential difficulty. Small amounts of regular advancement through adventure and study over long periods of time (years even - there's no end to character development, and every day brings fractional gains to every character) will produce the greatest gain. It takes little time to go from fledgling to a useful member of society. It takes a fair few months to get to the 'high end' content, but it can be a few months of a few hours a week, rather than an epic grind. The catass has the greatest edge in knowing more people and having participated in more GM content (there's a very rich GM-led backstory to RP in), not having grinded up more levels (there's diminishing returns to adventuring experience). Its a shame that more games designers haven't seen Clan Lord, because they could learn a lot from it - its proof that one developer with few resources can amuse many players in a persistant world for a long time. I'm pretty sure if it didn't have the limited graphics it does (and sit on the 'unpopular' platform), it would be much more popular and better known.

[schild]

Burnout implies there's fun to be had. If that's the fight that's going to be fought, players have already lost.

[Xanthippe]

Burnout implies there's fun to be had. If that's the fight that's going to be fought, players have already lost.

I don't understand what you're saying here.  Please expound.

[schild]

Burnout implies there's fun to be had. If that's the fight that's going to be fought, players have already lost.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Please expound.

Discussing burnout IMPLIES that people are happy playing the games that have been created. It's the unfortunate belief that the reason people chose 'x' game is because it's fun rather than it makes for a pretty enough chat room for friends. See, Eve coincidentally has a decent mix of being a very pretty chat room and providing enough group content that it has become the MMOG of choice on f13. It has the largest most active guild f13 has ever had. That includes world of warcraft at launch. Do I think the game is fun? No. But lots of people do. Do I think World of Warcraft is fun? No. But the two are very different types of games. One has a fairly unlimited amount of content while the other is extremely limited. And by content, I mean fun things to do - not hand crafted dungeon crawls and how many different items could be crammed into an area. ANYWAY, burnout implies that one day someone liked something and only had a few problems and the next day someone got bored with something because the problems outgrew the amount of fun they were having. I like Damion a lot, but he and MMORPG.com are missing the forest for the trees here. These symptoms are not mutually exclusive.

OK so it’s conclusion time. I want to say this, I am burned out on WoW; I do not see DDO offering any type of long term plan to keep players either. The only things these games have are quests and raids. In my opinion PvP in WoW is a joke. DDO was a nice change, but I just don’t see myself playing the game for a very long time. Does that mean I am burnt out on video games overall, heck no.

Ignoring the 7th grade English class point he's trying to make here. Turbine never said DDO had or was about a long term plan. He's burned out on WoW (just be reading between the lines of the article), because he was number 3739483 of 7,000,000. There's no fun in that. WoW is like a Harrison Bergeron MMOG anyway. I know I've touched on it before, but just for arguments sake for those of you that have no clue what I'm talking about.

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else.

George came back in with the beer, paused while a handicap signal shook him up. And then he sat down again. “You been crying?” he said to Hazel.
 
“Yup,” she said,
 
“What about?” he said.
 
“I forget,” she said. “Something real sad on television.”
 
“What was it?” he said.
 
“It’s all kind of mixed up in my mind,” said Hazel.
 
“Forget sad things,” said George.
 
“I always do,” said Hazel.
 
“That’s my girl,” said George. He winced. There was the sound of a riveting gun in his head.
 
“Gee – I could tell that one was a doozy,” said Hazel.
 
“You can say that again,” said George.

 “Gee –” said Hazel, “I could tell that one was a doozy.”

That second part, it's about a balancing patch.

As for Damion's article, ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. The business side is cute and analyzing where the industry fails on the business side is always a chock full of masturbatory fun. He almost touches on the right bit before he kind of blows past it. When does the game become work, where does the fun end? Well, all those other points would be fucking great if the game weren't always work. Juvenile as some of the writing may be, people make it through jRPGs via 3 things:

1. Minor Adjustments to a formula that's proven to work.
2. Writing, that while mostly always shitty, is compelling enough to create emotional bonds between the player and the character.
3. Force of Will

MMOGs need to get that first part right. WoW didn't prove the diku derivative works or are fun. WoW proved that Blizzard is awesome [at polishing shit/gilding the lily]. If the formula worked, there'd be room for competition with WoW, which there isn't. Granted, Damion's article is completely fucking dated and back in 2001 people thought fun was wacking a foozle and chatting in cyberspace. It was still THE FUTURE back then. Now it's the norm and it fucking sucks.

Edit: Hit save instead of preview. Annyway, as I was saying, while it's nice that the discussion of burnout in the industry is taken seriously, I don't see it as being the problem to tackle. Are we looking at actual player burnout here - sure, maybe sometimes - with WoW I'm sure lots and lots of people had fun given they were in the right setting - lots of friends and lots of group adventures through lots of uerhm "interesting" places. Did they burn out on the game or the hanging out with friends? Or did they just wake up and smell the coffee? That they were missing playing good games while they sat around and played a game that meant jack and shit. For MMORPGs to overcome this massive issue that company's are calling "burnout" their games have to be fun AND meaningful. They can't be one of them and none of them are the latter and only some of them have elements of the former.

Edit: Clarification.

[Righ]

I agree with most of what schild says here. The place where I think he's wrong in his MMORPG argument is not even represented here - that WoW set the industry back by being a better version of the same old shit. I still think that in a few years we'll be praising the pig with lipstick that is WoW - rather than trying to make as much cash by copying WoW, people are going to realise that they cannot beat it and make different online games. Far from it setting the industry back, it lets us finally move on. Ding. Grats.

But I don't disagree for a second that we NEED to move on (DikuMUD combat was dated by the time DikuMUD was created - DikuMUD was just the first to roll such a system into their base release, thus making it endemic). Most of us want two things from an online game - we want to be able to play with/against other players as we choose, and we want some degree of change in the game experience over time, whether that be by character development or some other model. Everything else is up for grabs - and that leaves more scope for the developer than the lazy buggers have even realised.

The average age of MMORPG games is going to rise and the market diminish if it continues to be targeted towards the aspirations of a bunch of anoraks with spreadsheets who used to play pen and paper roleplaying games. It doesnt need to become purely the domain of cola slurping pimply teen fraggers, but it does need to include them because there's a fuckload more of them, and they have a large disposable income provided by their wealthy parents who are only too happy to see them not burning shit down "IRL". Do these kids spoil your "mature" roleplaying fun online? Yes? Too bad - the creators of future online adventure games will polish their game design awards with your tears.

[WindupAtheist]

Abandon all hope.  There was UO, then EQ, and that was pretty much the last time anything new came out.  Other games might add PVP or subtract some of the grind, but they're all basically the same.  And they're not even particularly bad, if you find one with nice production values and haven't played a million games just like it in the past.  But don't go thinking anyone is going to look at Blizzard's moneyhats and say "Gosh, we need to do something totally different from them!"  Nobody started innovating when EQ took the top of the heap, they just started frantically trying to copy it.  It won't be any different with WoW at the top.

Five years from now we'll be saying "Now that World of Starcraft has fifteen million subscribers, innovation is SURE to be just around the corner!"  Then a million games that look just like it will come out.

[sarius]

Best article on the subject:

http://www.gignews.com/schubert1001.htm

I had forgotten about that article, but yeh that is probably the best summarized version that still holds true today.

Like I said I was shocked to see that the average age of the PC gamer has topped 30, and that a lot of the posters (regardless of game they played) were pretty much on target with the issues of living a 30+ life that conflict with how the current crop of games are designed.  I'm pretty much the same way in that if I can't game with my friends, or I've got to commit a minimum of 3 hours per session if I log on that I'll quit a game. I think the longest amount of time I went without paying for an MMORPG was between the time I left DAOC and Shadowbane retail started, and then between the time I stopped playing SB regularly and picked up City of Villains (1.5 years).

Isn't that the truth.  I think Eve may have me hooked for skills offline alone, soon (as far as MMOG play).  I subscribed, but have not finished the tutorials.  EQ2-type games just take too much damn time now.  It's really hard to be there every night for the guild/friends as time moves on.

[AcidCat]

WoW set the industry back by being a better version of the same old shit..

Well the thing is, it may be the "same old shit" for many of you, but there are a whole lot of gamers out there that are experiencing this kind of game for the first time. Or second time, as in my case, my first MMORPG was FFXI. Like many other gamers, I haven't been playing since UO/Everquest and for us, the genre is still fresh and WoW is a great way to introduce people to the genre - or a great tonic after the sour taste FFXI eventually left in my mouth.

Saying that WoW "set the industry back" is really a completely wrong statement - maybe for your personal preference, but not in any kind of objective evaluation. WoW gave the genre the legitimacy of widespread appeal - bringing in a ton of new blood and new interest into MMORPGs. That there is a backlash by old school, elitist players who were there when the genre started  is not in the least bit surprising. You were there before the genre sold out to the unwashed masses, yes, we've heard it a hundred times.

Instead of bringing innovation to the genre, WoW brought market growth. Exactly what was needed. Innovation will come later, and those of you hungry for it now will have to wait another few years.

[Engels]

Dude, you talk about Wow like its a political party or some such. All Schild and others, including myself, are saying is that WoW does not encapsulate what MMOs were 'about' when we were playing them. We don't play WoW; we don't have a vested interest in its success or failure, since it has no appeal.

To make a comparison with the music industry, WoW is the equivalent of Nirvana. Everyone ended up thinking that Seattle was this big grunge haven, when in fact Nirvana was the exception to Seattle music. Did that mean that Seattle bands stopped playing? No, but it did mean that big corporate studios ignored potentially great bands simply because they didn't look or sound like unwashed heroin addicts.

I think its sad that the industry is reverting to trying to emulate WoW in order to get the big cash cow game online. Its not that big a deal; the most interesting games are not always the most successful ones and there's generally an inverse correlation between originality and economic might.

[Lum]

As someone working on a game right now, I think there's a lot to learn from WoW, but probably not what you all seem to be afraid of.

World of Warcraft is very accessible to new players. It generally works as advertised (hardware/network issues notwithstanding). It isn't as punishing of failure as previous efforts. It has a PvP component at its core. It has a healthy sense of humor. And it has a great deal of content. I personally think its success is a mixure of all of these.

They've also made some fairly critical errors, some of which came from following some games too closely, others from not paying attention to the mistakes other games had made. In particular I believe its endgame is far too "grindy" and the transition between pre-60 gameplay and post-60 gameplay is stark. It plays very much like the endgame was handed off to a different team from those that developed the 0-60 game; so much so that it plays as a different game. I think that in particular is what alienates most of the people here, because MMO veterans tend to aim straight for the endgame which in WoW's case is the weakest component of the game.

So any game that seeks to blindly emulate WoW will fail, because unless it's made by a company called Blizzard it most likely won't have Blizzard's resources, source material or reservoir of customer goodwill. However I haven't seen any games that are trying to be WoW 2, which is pretty surprising considering the game industry's history. I think most developers realize that beating WoW does not mean remaking it.

And yeah, Schild, fun would be good.

[WindupAtheist]

I think most developers realize that beating WoW does not mean remaking it.

I think any current developer (at least that I'm aware of) talking about "beating WoW" is like a member of the Bum of the Month Club talking about their "secret plan" to beat Joe Louis.  It's not technically impossible, but we all know it isn't going to happen.

[Akkori]

I still dont understand how the concept of an "endgame" fits with a persistent online world. Is it that hard to make up a game where there isn't some mad quest to be the first to "beat" the game?

[Yoru]

I still dont understand how the concept of an "endgame" fits with a persistent online world. Is it that hard to make up a game where there isn't some mad quest to be the first to "beat" the game?

In the end, you can only program in so many interactions, build so many models and map so much terrain. Eventually someone can and will do everything. After that, they need some kind of endlessly-repeatable 'endgame' or they'll drop sub. If you're entirely reliant on the game systems for fun, instead of something that can change on its own (e.g. other people), then the amount of Stuff in the game is even more limited. When there's a linear path, people will madly climb that path to get to the end.

Then they'll ask for more path. In WoW, 0->60 and then the raid progression or PVP ladder.

The sort of game that you're expecting, where there isn't a directed linear quest towards an end, is almost certain to be a more sandboxy, 'make your own goal' kind of game. See UO, ATITD, Wurm, any number of MUDs.

[shiznitz]

How about this for an endgame: "To complete {insert MMOG game name here} you must bed {insert hot model/actress name here}."  This will put "winning" completely out of the picture and players can just play!

[Lum]

I still dont understand how the concept of an "endgame" fits with a persistent online world. Is it that hard to make up a game where there isn't some mad quest to be the first to "beat" the game?

That would be why I prefer the term "elder game", yes. But "endgame" is what is commonly used even if the game does not actually end with a "YOU WIN" screen.

[Venkman]

I think its sad that the industry is reverting to trying to emulate WoW in order to get the big cash cow game online.

I don't see much of this reversion actually. First, nobody else has that perfect storm of huge masses of hardcore fanbois, rockstar status and beloved game-based IP. Second, nobody else has the ability to align that much cash to such a singular effort. In effect, WoW's success has forced innovation back into the genre as newer games need to redefine their own relevance as a time sink.

There'll eventually be something dethrone WoW. Like empires throughout history, each succeeding one has reigned surpreme for a shorter duration. Such may be the case here. But honestly, that is irrelevant.

Right now there still, even with WoW, no clear-cut path to guaranteed success. There's so many things to try, or try again, that we're more likely to see divergent paths than a string of WoW clones. There'll be a whole bunch of ideas that seem good on paper or at E3 that ultimately get dropped (ie, Mythica). There'll be some that launch due to inertia alone but require a revenue stream different from the players the company realizes they can't any longer expect (ie, AA). And there'll be some that achieve the success they need to achieve, even if people largely think not hitting GW or FFXI numbers mean it's a failure (ugh, that numbers game). Last I heard, the folks in Iceland were eating just fine.

The genre has a whole still has the same breadth of experiences it did four years ago. People just need to get beyond the popularity contest and stop expecting invention from the wrong places.

Saying that WoW "set the industry back" is really a completely wrong statement - maybe for your personal preference, but not in any kind of objective evaluation.

You are correct. WoW has simply become the new and more palpable ambassador for MMOGs, something more gamers can try than they could the harder-core offerings of the past. Some of us hope though that people who eventually leave WoW extend their stay in the genre to see the sheer number of ways one can interpret "massively multiplayer".

[AcidCat]

In particular I believe its endgame is far too "grindy" and the transition between pre-60 gameplay and post-60 gameplay is stark.

Yep, I agree this is the main fault of the game. It's only because I love the 1-59 game so much that I keep playing - I'm still finding stuff after several playthroughs that I haven't seen before, and the way the different classes play out is varied enough to keep me interested. But once I get to 60 and get bored of just "messing around" - helping guildies, farming for gold, doing Battlegrounds - I usually just start another character. As has been touched on earlier in this thread, as a working adult with a wife and two kids, I have other priorities. While I can play 1-59 at my pace, an hour here, two there, quitting whenever I need to - the Raiding Game that requires me to lock myself into place in front of my PC for 3+ hours simply doesn't work, period.

[bhodi]

That would be why I prefer the term "elder game", yes. But "endgame" is what is commonly used even if the game does not actually end with a "YOU WIN" screen.

I sort of see 'endgame' as analogous to those console games where you beat the last boss and then can wander around the world as a death machine, finally getting sweet sweet revenge on those cursed slimes that were the bane of your existance so long ago. You've more or less beaten all of the 'normal' challenges, and the only thing are left are exploration and those side-games for prestiege sort of like the FF7 weapons. The game doesn't really 'end', per say, but you've more or less finished the main thrust of it.

This is exactly what it feels like if you play WoW as a generally solo player or with a small party. You hit the wall of "Ok, what now? I'm out of quests, places to go, things to do that aren't raiding 40 man instances".

[Righ]

WoW set the industry back by being a better version of the same old shit..

Saying that WoW "set the industry back" is really a completely wrong statement - maybe for your personal preference, but not in any kind of objective evaluation.

You should probably read what I wrote before selectively chopping things out, and then reiterating the points I was making as though in disagreement with me. But whatever, I'm glad that you agree.

[Righ]

It plays very much like the endgame was handed off to a different team from those that developed the 0-60 game; so much so that it plays as a different game.

I wonder whay that is? Oh yeah... its a different design team. :)

I remain optimistic that because WoW represents a highly funded, polished and functional version of many of the existing MMORPG ideas, MORE developers will be prepared to look at newer (or at least less frequently used) ideas for their future online games. I don't expect the first cool new ideas out of the gate to topple WoW, but I do expect them to seed the online games development "club" with some fresh meat.

[AcidCat]

You should probably read what I wrote before selectively chopping things out, and then reiterating the points I was making as though in disagreement with me. But whatever, I'm glad that you agree.

Yeah I guess that's kind of what I did. My bad!

[Akkori]

So would it be accurate to say that the problem is in keeping *combat* players occupied? There seems to be no problem avoiding the, well, "problem" with endgames in a persistent game IF you are playing a sandbox-type game. Games that support a player controlled and deep economy like Eve or SWG have an endless supply of content.

So the question is, if it is possible to make it so that those who enjoy combat can create their own content like what happens in the economic or social aspects of MMO's?

[Righ]

Oh, it's possible. Look at some of the more sophisticated mudlibs (such as Nightmare) in use with LPMUD/MUDOS drivers. While the MUDs tend to have 'wizards' making local changes, that's purely an organisational crutch - there's no reason why 'creation' cannot be open, and implementation democratic (or some other form of governance, your choice).

[Venkman]

Of course it's possible. So far though the problem has resided in execution. Whether it's limited resources, a misunderstanding of what players currently think of as "playable" or it's really not knowing the complexity of an effort, so far we have a string of arguably "shallow" games with breadth (or where the combat is shallow, the most important part given the proportional success of combat-oriented games in this genre) or games with only one or two (one and a half really) activities done extremely well.

As to changes being governed by players, that's one thing ATITD does that I can't think of any other modern MMOG doing. The closest one is SL, but mostly because there the players not only make the world, the make the games played in them.

[Strazos]

Haemish has said it before, but I'll repeat it:

"Niche, baby."

I think the moment enough developers (and also VCs)  realize they don't need to be pulling in $85m+ a month from subs in order to be a success is the moment we'll begin to see better games.

[Margalis]

That's now how VCs work. VCs are not about moderate success.

VCs don't want 10 singles, they want 9 strikeouts and one grand slam. Most VCs are simply not interested in an idea that has a bankable, moderate upside. They want ideas that are less bankable but with huge upside.

That's why you see some *really* fucking stupid ideas/companies getting VC money. Because even though they are huge longshots the upside is in theory humongous and that makes it worth it. Some of those seemingly insane ideas will pay off huge in the small chance they actually work.

The difference between a huge success and a moderate success is so large, the math just works out that way. One huge success can pay for 9 dismal failures with plenty of money left over. That's the theory anyway. In reality I have no idea if that really bears out but that is how VCs operate.

Companies with moderate aims have a lot of trouble getting funding.

[Tale]

That would be why I prefer the term "elder game", yes. But "endgame" is what is commonly used even if the game does not actually end with a "YOU WIN" screen.

I just reinstalled EverQuest in anticipation of the progression server (which will probably bore me, but I have to try it). Apparently the "come back and get 21 days free" offer I ignored in December has kicked in, despite expiring in January. The thing that struck me was the number of noob questions in general chat, from people who were clearly on their first character around level 20-30. It's hard to comprehend the gap between someone starting EQ now, and the people who are 11 grindy expansions and 7 years into the elder game. I mean, are there people in the middle? Are they having fun? Are they in middle-content raiding guilds? Do they have dreams of breaking into the elder game in 2012?

I think the moment enough developers (and also VCs)  realize they don't need to be pulling in $85m+ a month from subs in order to be a success is the moment we'll begin to see better games.

At the moment the only realisation I'm seeing is "MMORPG = profit". Mourning lives on, D&L is worth releasing, every sci-fi/fantasy license has a MMOG coming, every smalltime company has its MMOG title. There is a "we have to get in on this phenomenon" mentality, where yes, they say they want to be WoW, but really they just want some pie.

[shiznitz]

That's now how VCs work. VCs are not about moderate success.

VCs don't want 10 singles, they want 9 strikeouts and one grand slam. Most VCs are simply not interested in an idea that has a bankable, moderate upside. They want ideas that are less bankable but with huge upside.

No VC wants 9 strikeouts and one grandslam, but I know you did not really mean that. What VCs want is to generate a 25%+ annual rate of return over a 5-10 year time horizon and collect a 20% fee out of that. There are innumerable combinations of minor success, major success, major failure and minor failure that will achieve those returns. One WoW certainly covers a dozen Horizons with moneyhats left over, but there is nothing inherently wrong in backing a dozen Eve Online-style niche games. I bet Eve has a 25% ROI at this point - but that is just a guess.