I would probably be mostly on FFXIV if it wasn't for my wife playing WoW as well. She's not going to make the jump to a new MMO, probably ever. I'm really gonna be struggling with the 40k MMO is out.
0
Options
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
Hell, my mom and her husband STILL play Everquest, so I doubt that WoW's going to be closing servers anytime soon.
Unless they get bought a major Asian corporation and due to budget restructuring, was found lacking in profits and so the parent company decides to change the locks on the office the following week.
Wow and everquest will probably close when the companies they run under fold.
Which means most likely not anytime soon or ever.
Thanks to moores law the hardware those services run on gets cheaper and cheaper, while less and less people play it meaning you need fewer and fewer servers. Running lets say Planetside (the original) probably costs far less than it does now. They can probably run it on a single server. And planetside even though its far less popular than everquest or WoW is still running, and right now its practically free.
I don't know where I got the information, but my understanding is that SOE uses EQ1 as a training grounds for new designers. So even if it's not turning a huge profit, it is useful as a training tool, and worth keeping around. If it does make a few bucks, all the better.
EQ1 paid for itself many times over, and I bet the server requirements to run it are far less than modern games, so might as well keep it running as long as people are willing to sub. They just consolidate servers as need-be, etc.
Most people want to progress on their own time and at their own pace. In short, most people prefer to solo when not doing dungeons.
Developers have responded in kind. It's basically as simple as that.
Yep. I played Everquest back in the day. You could solo(some classes were better at it then others) but it was slow and tedious and that only got worse as you leveled. The game was intended for group play. However, sitting around for a couple hours trying to find a group was not fun. There was no automated process for it so you sat around advertising in zone chat. It was really rather aggravating at times. You might spend the bulk of your play time for that evening not actually playing the game. God help you if you were the redheaded stepchild class no one wanted.
That's a game that would have really benefited from some public quest type system that you sometimes find in newer mmos. And really, if you're going to make a game that's group centric you really need to have an automated matching system to put people together.
If you want a game that requires co-op some games that come to mind are Dungeons and Dragons Online. It is all instanced but every one pretty much requires a well constructed group of players. It's kind of hard to find a group sometimes though, but its still out there. Vindictus is another game that requires several real players to get a game going that is going to have a successful outcome. If you want a themepark mmo that requires co op for most content I suspect you are out of luck.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
For old software though cost to run might have an opposite effect.
Lets say EQ1 could only run on 16 bit processors for example, costs can skyrocket because who makes that anymore?
Were going to see the same with 32 bit at some point where its effectively depreciated.
VMs with hypervisor essentially makes this argument moot. As long as we stick with the x86 architecture, VMs of multiple deprecated servers on a single modern blade is where that all goes, easily and effectively.
Ultima Fucking Online still has shards and a community, and I doubt EA dedicates a full rack's worth of hardware to that game across all of their datacenters. It's probably a rounding error's worth of cost to keep that game running.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
If you want a game that requires co-op some games that come to mind are Dungeons and Dragons Online. It is all instanced but every one pretty much requires a well constructed group of players. It's kind of hard to find a group sometimes though, but its still out there. Vindictus is another game that requires several real players to get a game going that is going to have a successful outcome. If you want a themepark mmo that requires co op for most content I suspect you are out of luck.
DDO is pretty much the perfect MMO to play Coop. The AC overhaul made it easier to get decent protection from armor, but made it pretty much impossible to be an invulnerable ACmonster.
DDOs drawback is that it's tough if you don't have a group you regularily play with. Ideally you'll be 4-6 friends and you'll stick together all the time (or perhaps almost all of the time. It's a good idea to split into two groups when you're grinding lower difficulty runs to open up for those tougher Elite runs).
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
For old software though cost to run might have an opposite effect.
Lets say EQ1 could only run on 16 bit processors for example, costs can skyrocket because who makes that anymore?
Were going to see the same with 32 bit at some point where its effectively depreciated.
VMs with hypervisor essentially makes this argument moot. As long as we stick with the x86 architecture, VMs of multiple deprecated servers on a single modern blade is where that all goes, easily and effectively.
Ultima Fucking Online still has shards and a community, and I doubt EA dedicates a full rack's worth of hardware to that game across all of their datacenters. It's probably a rounding error's worth of cost to keep that game running.
Um I don't see how it makes it moot. When I was specifically arguing that when 32 bit is depreciated cost to run the old software might skyrocket. We should still be a long way off from that point but I do see it happening eventually. I would say blizzard/soe is more likely to fold before that happens.
For old software though cost to run might have an opposite effect.
Lets say EQ1 could only run on 16 bit processors for example, costs can skyrocket because who makes that anymore?
Were going to see the same with 32 bit at some point where its effectively depreciated.
VMs with hypervisor essentially makes this argument moot. As long as we stick with the x86 architecture, VMs of multiple deprecated servers on a single modern blade is where that all goes, easily and effectively.
Ultima Fucking Online still has shards and a community, and I doubt EA dedicates a full rack's worth of hardware to that game across all of their datacenters. It's probably a rounding error's worth of cost to keep that game running.
Um I don't see how it makes it moot. When I was specifically arguing that when 32 bit is depreciated cost to run the old software might skyrocket. We should still be a long way off from that point but I do see it happening eventually. I would say blizzard/soe is more likely to fold before that happens.
Numbers! I like that I can play WoW solo, and if I want I can queue for group content. Having played EQ in its prime, it was no fun to get on and not be able to do anything but kite (if your class could) if you just wanted to putter around by yourself. Last time I levelled a char some, I was running Ashenvale quests on my wee rogue and wound up doing them with three other players. I didn't have to, but it was fun enough to plow through with others and queue for dungeons at the same time. Last call was they had dropped about 350/400k subs; I really can't understand how they let themselves fall into the year without a patch trap again and again.
EDIT: They're down 200k - "Blizzard had their Q1 2014 earnings call today, announcing that WoW is down to 7.6 million subscribers. This is down 200k from the Q4 2013 call that listed WoW at 7.8 million subscribers."
Posts
Also consider that a lot of games are coming out with the b2p or f2p models which cant compare 'subs' to wow.
Unless they get bought a major Asian corporation and due to budget restructuring, was found lacking in profits and so the parent company decides to change the locks on the office the following week.
Which means most likely not anytime soon or ever.
Thanks to moores law the hardware those services run on gets cheaper and cheaper, while less and less people play it meaning you need fewer and fewer servers. Running lets say Planetside (the original) probably costs far less than it does now. They can probably run it on a single server. And planetside even though its far less popular than everquest or WoW is still running, and right now its practically free.
Lets say EQ1 could only run on 16 bit processors for example, costs can skyrocket because who makes that anymore?
Were going to see the same with 32 bit at some point where its effectively depreciated.
Yep. I played Everquest back in the day. You could solo(some classes were better at it then others) but it was slow and tedious and that only got worse as you leveled. The game was intended for group play. However, sitting around for a couple hours trying to find a group was not fun. There was no automated process for it so you sat around advertising in zone chat. It was really rather aggravating at times. You might spend the bulk of your play time for that evening not actually playing the game. God help you if you were the redheaded stepchild class no one wanted.
That's a game that would have really benefited from some public quest type system that you sometimes find in newer mmos. And really, if you're going to make a game that's group centric you really need to have an automated matching system to put people together.
Just try to get a 16 bit piece of software to run in a 64 bit OS.
VMs with hypervisor essentially makes this argument moot. As long as we stick with the x86 architecture, VMs of multiple deprecated servers on a single modern blade is where that all goes, easily and effectively.
Ultima Fucking Online still has shards and a community, and I doubt EA dedicates a full rack's worth of hardware to that game across all of their datacenters. It's probably a rounding error's worth of cost to keep that game running.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
DDO is pretty much the perfect MMO to play Coop. The AC overhaul made it easier to get decent protection from armor, but made it pretty much impossible to be an invulnerable ACmonster.
DDOs drawback is that it's tough if you don't have a group you regularily play with. Ideally you'll be 4-6 friends and you'll stick together all the time (or perhaps almost all of the time. It's a good idea to split into two groups when you're grinding lower difficulty runs to open up for those tougher Elite runs).
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Um I don't see how it makes it moot. When I was specifically arguing that when 32 bit is depreciated cost to run the old software might skyrocket. We should still be a long way off from that point but I do see it happening eventually. I would say blizzard/soe is more likely to fold before that happens.
Uh... that's what the VM is for.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
EDIT: They're down 200k - "Blizzard had their Q1 2014 earnings call today, announcing that WoW is down to 7.6 million subscribers. This is down 200k from the Q4 2013 call that listed WoW at 7.8 million subscribers."
I forgot how much I enjoy the game. It's a good leveling experience and with a friend and each of your companions you can have a full group of 4.
3DS FC: 5086-1134-6451
Shiny Code: 3837