Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mmogchart.com Updated to 20.0

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the love-the-stats dept.

136

SirBruce writes "Mmogchart.com has been updated to Version 20.0! This is a major update, with updated numbers for many games, most notably World of Warcraft, Eve Online, RuneScape, and most of NCSoft's titles. I've also added three new MMOGs to the tracking data: Tibia, The Matrix Online, and Dungeons & Dragons Online. I've also removed the old subscriber data for Ragnarok Online in Japan, and unified the various total subscriptions charts. Also new to this update is preliminary market data for Asian MMOGs (including Ragnarok Online) that are commonly reported in terms of Peak Concurrent Users and Average Concurrent Users. Given the differences in pricing models, many of these games are not subscription-based, so a direct comparison with subscription MMOGs cannot be made. My thanks to everyone who helped with this update, and thanks to those of you who waited patiently for this update!"

cancel ×

136 comments

Wow (2, Interesting)

glassjaw rocks (793596) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431314)

It's pretty amazing that WOW has 50% of the total MMOG market share. Blizzard must be rolling in cash.

Re:Wow (2, Funny)

EnderGT (916132) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431351)

And yet they still can't keep their servers up...

Re:Wow (0)

theqmann (716953) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431355)

One of the problems I've heard about with the WoW subscription counts is that they count each gamecard based sale (e.g. pay for a card in a regular old store that you can push into a pre-existing account) as a whole separate subscription. This makes their subscription count much higher, since these cards are not really new accounts. Plus, since they are one-shot dealios, they don't ever have a cancellation date.

Re:Wow (1)

XXIstCenturyBoy (617054) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431389)

Hoe can that be possible? Those card are to be used on a particular suscribed account, player do not open a new account for every card.

That said, they probably have a lot of non-active account that still count as "subscriptions". I have 2, and although I don't pay for them any longuer, I know they are waiting for me...And I know of at least 3 or 4 people doing the same thing. Do we all count as suscribers?

Re:Wow (1)

HunterZ (20035) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431657)

Yes, in fact each of your two accounts counts as an individual subscriber in Blizzard's reported numbers. It's the same thing as hard drive manufacturers defining a gigabyte as 1,000,000,000 bytes instead of the way the rest of the computer world does (namely, 1024^3=1,073,741,824 bytes) - they artificially inflate the numbers for marketing/advertising purposes.

Re:Wow (0, Offtopic)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431780)

How many gigabits in one gigabyte? If the answer is not 8 then you're wrong. Now, how many gigabits are sent in one second at 1Gb/s? Again, the only correct answer is 1000000000. Now, how many bits in one gigabit? Once again, 1000000000. Add Byte=Bit*8 to these bits of unit information and you can see that 1GB is 1000000000 Bytes. Just because some ignorant programmers in the 70s thought 1024 was 'close enough' to 1000 doesn't mean its ok for educated people 30 years later to think ~1074 is still close enough to 1000.

There's an internal contradiction in your statemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15431826)

"Now, how many gigabits are sent in one second at 1Gb/s? Again, the only correct answer is 1000000000." (emphasis added)

Umm, how could the answer be anything other than 1 gigabits transferred in 1 second at 1Gb/s? I'm confused. . . Did you mean how many bits are sent in one second at 1Gb/s?

Re:There's an internal contradiction in your state (1)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432452)

I sit correced. The point, however badly voiced, stands.

Re:Wow (0, Offtopic)

HunterZ (20035) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432139)

Maybe this will help clear things up (it did for me):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix [wikipedia.org]

Natural or not, the inconsistency is silly. Apparently the method used to report the capacity of CDs and DVDs even differs in this way.

Re:Wow (0, Offtopic)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432293)

Just because some ignorant programmers in the 70s thought 1024 was 'close enough' to 1000 doesn't mean its ok for educated people 30 years later to think ~1074 is still close enough to 1000.
It is interesting how we can forget most of the history of computers just to suite our purpose. It is even more interesting how we decide to flame those who set it up because it doesn't suite our purpose.

Those idiot programers from the 70's were working with somethign called something like binary data and the binary systems. In case your not familier with this simple fundemental principle of computers, binary consist of 0's and 1's and each digit represent at least 2 posiible answers. So even today we use somethign called the binary system to address memory, file space and quite a few other things. Now, when addressing file size or space, we measure storage from the smallest possible unit called a bit. It just so happens that when you multiply a bit by itself, you end up with 4 possible answers two on or two off (11 or 00 or somethign in between) well continuously miltiply this and then you get 1024 or 2 ot the 10th power. take it even further and it goes up exponetialy by powers of 10.

When applying this to storage space or even memory, You solution of bytes as opsed to bits only works if that is the smallest number of units you are able to access. In memory and stoarage, you can still use bits. Now were your example might be worthy is in ethernet were the default size of the transmision packet is at least 8 bits (byte) wich is commonly refered to as an octet. An octet is numerical from 0 to 255 wich is a good reason we only have 255 addresable ip addresses in a given ranged subnet.

You, like the hardrive manufacturure are seeing this and saying hey, we can manipulate this and use it to our advantage. although I don't remeber any hardrive manufacturers insulting programers of the 70's in the process. In almost every filesystems in use, it goes back to binary data wich will be a multiple of two.

I am wondering who the bigest idiot is though. the programers form the seventies who used 2 to the 10th power for kilobit and followed from there, or the people who try and exploit simularities in naming and ignore IEC 60027-2 standards to benfit them selves.

Re:Wow (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15432627)

to suite our purpose. (spelling)
with somethign called (typing skills)
something like binary data (poor explanation, "like")
your not familier (you're, spelling)
fundemental (spelling)
binary consist (agreement)
digit represent (agreement)
posiible (spelling)
miltiply (spelling)
ot the 10th (typing skills)
power. take (capitalization)
wich (again, spelling)
saying hey, (punctuation)
programers (spelling)
advantage. although (capitalization)
them selves. (one word)

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15431876)

im pretty sure that they only count active subscriptions. that means no matter how people pay for it, it is currently paid for.

they arent doing any funny math.

Re:Wow (4, Informative)

SirBruce (679714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432110)

This isn't true.

World of Warcraft's Paying Customer Definition
World of Warcraft customers include individuals who have paid a subscription fee or purchased a prepaid card to play World of Warcraft, as well as those who have purchased the installation box bundled with one free month access. Internet Game Room players having accessed the game over the last seven days are also counted as customers. The above definition excludes all players under free promotional subscriptions, expired or canceled subscriptions, and expired pre-paid cards. Customers in licensees' territories are defined along the same rules.

If you buy multiple game cards, as someone else pointed it, it's still tied to the same individual account, so you still only get counted once. Now, the same individual could set up multiple accounts with different characters, but that's true for any MMOG. They'll be paying double for that. The cards don't expire, but they run in real time, so once activated, you only have that many days to enjoy the game. Then they expire.

People playing in the Internet Game Rooms aren't buying boxes with a free month, either.

It's possible to get double-counted if you logged in via a game room, and then liked the game so much you went out and subscribed or bought a game card. But that would only last for 7 days.

Bruce

Oh, wow! (-1, Troll)

Musteval (817324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431318)

Now I can finally satiate my burning desire to find out exactly how many people are playing crappy grindtastic MMORPGs at any given time!

Thank you, MMOGchart.com!

Just like with OSs (0, Flamebait)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431333)

The one that many consider the worst holds the biggest market share.

Before you mod me flamebait, let's rather try to find out just WHY WoW has the share it has. Because, frankly, I can't see the reason. Yes, I played it, yes, I was bored stiff after 3 months.

So tell me why, in case you enjoy the game. I really wish to know what makes WoW interesting. What is better than in the "other" MMORPGs? What makes WoW to something that deserves a 50+% market share?

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

Gronkers (912221) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431354)

Its the walmart of online games I think. Lowest common denominator.
Bait dangle
All that money they should be making and no worthwhile updates.

Re:Just like with OSs (2, Insightful)

Peganthyrus (713645) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431358)

It's like looking at a fantasy painting. A storybook illustration. All pretty and soft and pastel. Every other MMORPG screenshot I've seen is harsh and gritty and unappealing compared to the smooth pretty of WOW.

And it also got big enough that it has the social network effect. Wanna try one of these MMORPGs you keep hearing about? You probably want to play one your friends are on! They'll help you out and you can play with them.

Re:Just like with OSs (2, Insightful)

smbarbour (893880) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431456)

"Friends"? What the hell are "friends"? They seem like something I'd be interested in. Where can I get some of these "friends"? Are they available at the local drugstore?

Seriously though, the few friends that I have aren't interested in MMORPGs. I "meet" plenty of other players in-game though. Sure I don't "really" know them, and they don't "really" know me, but they recognize my character.

Re:Just like with OSs (0, Offtopic)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431580)

Hah, I moderated you

Re:Just like with OSs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15431581)

"Where do these [Friend]s drop? I've never seen one, and I've done BRD/BRS/Strat/Scholo/DM many, many times!"

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

Peganthyrus (713645) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431778)

I don't play MMORPGs except for the occasional dip into SL. Most of my friends are aware of MMORPGs, maybe half of them played them before WoW.

I think nowadays pretty much everyone I know who plays these things is on WoW and/or SL. People fool with other games, but it's these two that they keep mentioning regularly. ...that, or Endless Forest.

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

geniusj (140174) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432072)

I know what you're saying, and I agree with you. I also have a question for you. I'm just curious as to what your opinion is.

How do the following screenshots fare with you? (I realize it's not technically considered an MMORPG, but I'm curious none the less, as the founders are ex-blizzard)

Here they [guildwars.com] are [guildwars.com] . Or you can go here [guildwars.com] for the gallery.

Thanks

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

Peganthyrus (713645) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432521)

Prettyish terrain. Got no idea how appealing the characters might be, and that's what's important - WoW has these kinda-cartoony characters. (The gallery didn't work on Safari; I got the bg image overlapping the links and images and everything!)

Oh yeah, Mac client on launch might be part of why WoW did well too. Every single Mac gamer could get in on the ground floor with their friends instead of coming after their friends had already burned through it all.

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

geniusj (140174) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433515)

here [guildwars.com] you [guildwars.com] go [guildwars.com] !!! [guildwars.com]

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432942)

The biggest thing that keeps me away from Guildwars is the players. It's hard to find someone to truly game with. Everything is instanced, so there's little difference between Guildwars and let's say Diablo 2. After you make that connection (form a group) in town, your sent to your own instance, where you complete some quests and are sent back to the "lobby" (or town) to either continue with the same people or split up and continue with someone else.

I think it would be hard to track subscribers if they follow the pattern of gaming that I have. I play hardcore for a few weeks, then switch to another game that I will do the same with. I may go back later if the new game doesn't entertain me, but I'm most likely not going to. The only game that kept my attention for any period of time was Everquest (3 years!) and everything after that seems to lose me rather quick. Then again, it may be my adult game A.D.D. kicking in, but blasting through 50 levels in three months (WoW) isn't fun for me either.

Another thing I have a problem with is the constant spamming in Guildwars of "Will run for 2K! Self Invite!". I realize with any Mass Multiplayer community there will be this type of spam, but you can turn it off in most games.

This only paints the general community in Guildwars as 15 year olds that can't afford to pay subscription fees or those that choose not to. I'm not saying these are all bad people, but for the most part, they are very opinionated.

I understand the undertaking this guy goes through must be hell, but I think the updates are coming out of sheer update madness than waiting for all the data. He's missing a good chunk of the games out there. Not that it's going to sway the WoW numbers (which I have always doubted), but some of us like to look at the data without the large spike skewing everything. Where is the EQ2/EQ/Final Fantasy data? Again, not knocking the guy whatsoever, the undertaking is not something light. Just curious. Is SOE/PlayOnline not playing nice?

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433450)

Where is the EQ2/EQ/Final Fantasy data? Again, not knocking the guy whatsoever, the undertaking is not something light. Just curious. Is SOE/PlayOnline not playing nice?

Try visiting the site mentioned in the article. EQ2, EQ, and FFXI are all on there.

Re:Just like with OSs (2, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431368)

I believe WoW fills that incredible void of coming home with nothing to do after a hard day of work and it does it better then the others. Besides, most WoW are former Evercrack addicts anyway. ;)

Re:Just like with OSs (2, Interesting)

Wampus Aurelius (627669) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431541)

Besides, most WoW are former Evercrack addicts anyway.

Let's look closely at that chart for a moment. Everquest's subscription numbers from July 2001 till July 2004 is a nice, straight line hovering at just under 500k subscribers, with a slight bump right before WoW was released. WoW, by contrast, started at zero during September 2004, and has basically taken a straight line path up to 6.5 million today.

I would say that that indicates that WoW subscribers are coming from somewhere other than Everquest. In my time in WoW, I've only met one person who said he had played EQ before; most everyone else either played something else (myself, FFXI and Puzzle Pirates before WoW) or had not played MMOs at all before WoW.

I agree that WoW fills the after work void better than other games do. Not counting endgame content, you can log in to WoW, play for a half hour, and log off, and feel that you've done something useful with your time. You don't have to commit an entire evening, you don't have to spam "LFG" for hours and hours because there are other things to do, and you don't have to spend an hour waiting for a boat to arrive at a port so you can get from one island to another. *cough*Vanguard*cough*

Perhaps WoW is not "hardcore" or "immersive," but if you really wanted the true immersive, realistic experience that has been mentioned by those who long for hard grinds and wait times, you could walk (don't drive) to the nearest forest, wait for a squirrel or rabbit to run by, whack it with a shovel, and then walk back to your house. That's as immersive as immersive gets.

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431684)

Remind me never to play a squirrel character on your reality server, ok?

Re:Just like with OSs (2, Insightful)

theqmann (716953) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431413)

My guess is that it's one of the first MMOGs to not punish the player for doing ordinary things. I remember the horror stories from EQ were people would lose weeks of progress each time they died, and then would die a few more times trying to get their uberloot corpses back. The people I know who left WoW went to "harder" games, such as EQ2, since they couldn't fathom playing a game that didn't try to screw you over at every turn.

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

Sage Gaspar (688563) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432048)

EQ2 is a game with, basically, no death penalty that has almost nothing in the way of camping and encounter locking to prevent most possible griefing. Travel time is incredibly light. EXP comes fast. It may be harder in the sense of gameplay mechanics but I can't imagine how WoW could possibly be more friendly except to give you levels for free.

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432985)

You practically could go through WoW and get your levels free...you just have to have someone complete your quests for you. Ultimate powerleveling is just this. In other games you actually had to get in and fight some stuff. Not saying this is bad, but it doesn't instill confidence in those people you might pickup to help you complete a quest.

What a stupid post (4, Insightful)

technoextreme (885694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431459)

The one that many consider the worst holds the biggest market share.

I hate this type of post because it's pointless. Of course many people consider WOW the worst because it's very popular. Every single person is unique and to make a game that appeals to everyone is impossible. What one person might find fun another might hate. What you find boring another finds interesting. There is nothing wrong with that and that is why there are so many genres of games.

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431462)

I wouldn't consider WoW one of the worst. I no longer play, but I'd rate it among the best- low grind to cap, low penalties. Until they overpowered the game with raid items (meaning you had to raid to PvP) and killed world PvP with battlegrounds, it was fun. I far prefer it to most of the others in its genere- the Lineages, the EQs, the FFXI grind fests.

Re:Just like with OSs (2, Insightful)

Admiral Frosty (919523) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431466)

"Yes, I played it, yes, I was bored stiff after 3 months."

Ppff. That's not a problem with the game per say, it's a problem with the genre. One I share, in fact. I've played quite a number of MMO's, and I find that they ALL get extremely boring, it's just a matter of how soon. I've given up on ever finding a MMO that isn't a complete waste of time and money.

Quite frankly, I think that if we want to see the relization of the persistent virtual world, we desperatly need to grow beyond these immature fantasy romps.

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

Rabbitgod (923989) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431472)

WoW does not have a socal network. If you want a game with a wide socal network try EvE-Online. 120000 people 1 server corps (guilds) with thousands of members that accually work to geather to create content with in the game. When was the last time a WoW guild made the news on worldofwarcraft.com? Or on a freelance gameing news site? WoW is a great game for bringing in a lot of fresh blood to the MMO crowd but their are MMO's that offer so much more and it's my hope that in time more and more people will see that and in effect we will see better MMO's.

I see...we all have to be the same do we? (1)

sgant (178166) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431476)

You didn't like it, you were bored after 3 months...therefore EVERYONE shouldn't like it and be bored stiff.

Lineage has the second highest...have you played that? I can't see the draw for that one either, but obviously someone likes it.

Hey, we're all different. Blizzard can't please everyone all the time. You either like it, or don't. Don't take it so personally. Should everyone like or dislike the same movies? Books? You ask what makes the game interesting...but what could anyone say to change your mind? What list of things would make you reconsider it after you played it already for 3 months? You've made your mind up and we'd be wasting our time and yours trying to convince you.

And in the end, it's really no big deal. Go play something else as is your choice.

Re:I see...we all have to be the same do we? (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433000)

The biggest problem with this (and I completely understand your point, so don't take this wrong) is that MMOs needs massive numbers of players. Without a large player base, you have a hard time finding groups at odd hours of the day, and sometimes at peak times. It's a fine balance of enough content and not too much. If you don't put in enough, but make the game extremely fun, you'll have too many people for the content and you might as well not have enough people for that matter. They try to fix this "problem" by instancing everything so people have the opportunity to play all content without running into someone else that did it. Instancing is kind of the cheap way to alleviate this problem. It's far more time consuming and expensive to make the world bigger or make dungeons branch out to several different "boss" rooms in case your goal is taken.

I guess for the argument of my point, you need numbers in order to be successfull in more than just monetary means.

Re:Just like with OSs (4, Interesting)

flooey (695860) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431486)

So tell me why, in case you enjoy the game. I really wish to know what makes WoW interesting. What is better than in the "other" MMORPGs? What makes WoW to something that deserves a 50+% market share?

I like it because it's straightforward. There's not a lot of non-game activity required to play the game. The quests are straightforward, the game mechanics are straightforward, the class roles are straightforward. For the vast majority of the content, you either can do it on your own or can find a group within a few minutes by barking up the appropriate tree. I don't have to deal with idiotic guild politics and teen-aged angst, I don't have to deal with planning out my skill progression, I don't have to research where the best equipment is. I can do it all without all that junk.

On the other hand, the game does have those elements to it, but they're optional. For people who want to form guilds and take down huge monsters and collect phat loot, they can do that, and have a good time at it. I don't want to, and the game works well for me; other people want to, and the game works well for them.

Overall, I think that's what it has going for it. The game caters to basically all gaming styles.

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

sinij (911942) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432923)

>>>I like it because it's straightforward. There's not a lot of non-game activity required to play the game. The quests are straightforward, the game mechanics are straightforward, the class roles are straightforward.

I'm guessing you are new to MMORPGs, when you have few under your belt repetitiveness and sameness typical of WoW will not be something you want to experience.

You can compare WoW to a bland sitcom, while it delivers all typical elements it lacks wit, creativity and originality. If you never experienced anything similar you might not realize that they 'borrowed' a lot of ideas/concepts/implementations but for veterans of genre it is all been there done that.

It all comes down to marketing (3, Interesting)

shigelojoe (590080) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431494)

The main draw that other people have mentioned is that with so many people playing, it's easier to get an impression of the game before you start playing. Also, odds are that if you're interesting in starting WoW, you know someone who's been playing for a while and might be willing to toss you a few gold and invite you to join their guild. The main reason I play WoW instead of a different MMORPG is because I had many friends and relatives that played WoW as opposed to the one person I knew who played Ragnarok Online.

Another draw of WoW is the lore. Say what you will about those "paladins from space" the Draenei, but on the whole what keeps me coming back is the continuation of the lore that began in the first Warcraft.

Note that these two factors have little or nothing to do with actual gameplay. WoW isn't an excellent game in itself (especially when compared to other MMORPGS), but through marketing and by fostering a sizable, devoted community Blizzard has ensured a steady and increasing subscriber base.

All of this said, I do have a couple of gripes with WoW (no WoW post is complete without gripes, right? ;P):
-Crafting needs to be overhauled to allow customization; not only should blacksmiths and such be able to change the appearance of their creations to a degree but they should also be able to affect the bonuses an item gives. The higher the crafter's skill, the more bonuses can be stacked on the item. Jewelcrafting and socketed items are nice, but not good enough.
-Corpse runs. I realize there needs to be a token penalty for dying, and not dinging the player's experience is a good idea, but just rezzing after a few minutes would be better than manually having to guide your ghost back to your corpse.

Re:It all comes down to marketing (3, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431747)

Crafting needs to be overhauled to allow customization; not only should blacksmiths and such be able to change the appearance of their creations to a degree but they should also be able to affect the bonuses an item gives. The higher the crafter's skill, the more bonuses can be stacked on the item. Jewelcrafting and socketed items are nice, but not good enough.

Given the massive database problems such customization caused Sony in Star Wars Galaxies, I'd be careful what you wish for... you might just get it.

P.S. That's what Enchanting is for.

Re:Just like with OSs (3, Interesting)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431608)

Why are you people so desperate for attention? It's not enough to be the enlightened minority, your insecurity has you constantly challenging the majority to defend their "inferior" taste. God, the anti-WoW baiters are worse than the Digg whiners.

But do you really want to know why it works? Aside from the detailed backstory, extensible user interface, well-defined gameplay mechanics, and superior art and music - it's because you can jump. It has the feel of a first-person shooter with the controls of an RTS.

Guild Wars is just freakin' Diablo with a rotatable view, and you're still glued to the ground. Eve Online is nothing but a crappy space flight simulator for accountants.

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431980)

Really? that makes me all the more intrigued about Guild Wars. Diablo was a far better game WoW ever thought about being. "Controls of an RTS" is exactly what I HATED most about WoW, that and the fact that all the professions were nerfed to uselessness.

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432779)

Well, Arenanet was founded by some of the Diablo team...

GW is more of a card game, really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15432802)

Since you seem to have played Guild Wars at least a little you might know this already, but for anyone else who is wondering, the Diablo comparison isn't the complete picture.

Once you hit level 20 in Guild Wars, which takes most people well under two weeks, you move on to PVP (or the post-level-cap PVE content). By this point you've mastered the mechanical skills of playing, your level and gear are capped, and the game becomes more like a collectable card game than a character-sheet-centric RPG like Diablo.

You can only take 8 skills with you at a time so the metagame is all about finding combinations of skills that work well together and anticipating what skills your opponent will have. I've never liked the card games, mostly because of the transparent cash grab, but I was surprised to find I actually enjoyed building and trying out skill combos in Guild Wars (at least for a while, then I got bored; then came back after a few months, then got bored again). YMMV.

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

Mark Maughan (763986) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433040)

It's nice that you are glued to the ground in guild wars.
Fighters body block opponents from getting to their healers and nukers.

While at times I would like to jump, jumping would really mess up the football style PvP.

And guildwars is nothing like diablo.

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

JamesonTheIrish (961868) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431610)

Let me preface this by saying that the only other MMO i've ever played was FFXI. I played for about a year, starting when the ps2 version came out, and had a high level paladin. I've been on WoW for ~3 months.

1. WoW looks pretty. I don't find the music annoying and repetitive (yet), and the ui is highly customizable.

2. Less grind. I found the grind fun in FFXI, and that's what the game is mostly about. The problem arises when you're sitting around waiting for hours for a xp party. Even at low levels during non-peak hours, it was a problem. You could never do something in an hour, and you had to devote serious amounts of time. Eventually, it became a chore. In an hour, I can knock out a quest or 2 in WoW and turn them in. Good times. Some WoW instances take a long time, and drops are rare for epic loot, but if you find it unbearable you can start an alt for a while and have a little fun with a different character.

3. It's easy, social, and fun. "the hardcore mmorpg'er" (example: militant vanguard fanboys) don't like WoW, but WoW appeals to a wider audience (not just big geeks, like myself). The reason I started playing WoW was because half of my office already was, and I was looking for a new game. The game is pretty easy so far (37 war), I have a guild full of coworkers, and I don't waste a lot of time waiting for a party.

4. Crafting. Crafting in FFXI is hell. The moon has to be the right phase, which only occurs for 1 hour every real day or 2. Your items could break during the craft, in which case you could lose millions, but crafting was very profitable at higher levels. In WoW, crafting is easy, and there really isn't too much money to be made. I'm an alchemist, so I'll be doing Arcanite Transmutes, but I won't end up making money off of anything else. It's better than the frustrations of FFXI to me, and the average gamer would tend to agree.

5. Selling/buying gold. When I left FFXI, Square was doing absolutely nothing about it, and it was crippling the economy. Blizzard at least tries, and as of level 37 I haven't really noticed it impacting the market on the server. Maybe I will at higher levels, but not for now.

6. Maybe it's me, but I've noticed less asshats on my WoW server than I found on FFXI. The occasional "OMG!!1! CHUCK NORRIS!1!!" in the barrens aside, it's been a fairly decent experience.

There's more reasons, but those were just off the top of my head.

Blizzard's far from perfect (goes down every tuesday, connection issues, login queues, etc), but it's enjoyable to me. Maybe I'm one of the "moron gamers" who just doesn't understand why WoW sucks..

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431709)

The moon has to be the right phase, which only occurs for 1 hour every real day or 2.

Because I happen to know how to find this out...

In Vana'diel (the world FFXI takes place on), a moon cycle takes 84 Vana'diel days. The moon is divided into 12 phases, each lasting seven days. (The crescent and gibbous phases are doubled compared to Earth moon phases, so those last fourteen days, but it's easier to think of it as 12 phases.)

Vana'diel time runs 25 times faster than Earth time. So a complete moon cycle occurs every 84/25 Earth days, or 3.36 Earth days. Since each moon phase lasts seven days, you have 7/25 Earth days during which to craft. That gives a total of 6.72 hours every 3.36 days during which crafting has the highest success rate.

Except success rate isn't just determined by the phase of the moon, it's also determined by the day of the week. A Vana'diel week has eight days, every craft skill will have maximum success on only one day during the eight days of the Vana'diel week. So you actually have less than an hour every three or so Earth days where crafting success is maximized.

Notice that the phase lasts only seven days, though. That means that each moon cycle, one day does not occur during the optimal phase. So if you're trying to level that craft, you have to wait for a span of less than an hour that only occurs once every two moon cycles. (84 * 2 / 8 = 21 exact, so only two days swap off missing the cycle.)

For added fun, many people believe that the direction your character is facing also influences crafting results...

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

elhedran (768858) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431656)

Before you mod me flamebait, let's rather try to find out just WHY WoW has the share it has. Because, frankly, I can't see the reason. Yes, I played it, yes, I was bored stiff after 3 months.

Did you play with friends? or just pickup groups and solo? I joined way back, played for three months, got bored, put it on the shelf for more than a year. Then got to know a few people in real-life who played, convinced a few more, then it was one of the best games I've played.

You need to take advantage of the 'online' part of the genre. If you play it like a single-player game of course its going to suck. The fastest way to make it suck is to focus on 'beating' the game like you would say half-life or dungeon-seige.

To provide the other possible answer to your question, not everyone likes chocolate either.

Re:Just like with OSs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15431714)

What it really comes down to is that MMO games take place in entirely static worlds and try to create the illusion of purposeful existence in a non-static world; all MMO games eventually fail to provide the illusion at some point and boredom sets in.

WoW was amazing because no one quit before the level cap because the game was so well crafted ...

WoW sucked because after the level cap it became clear that all that remained was a worthess grind ...

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

Emetophobe (878584) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431847)

WoW was probably the 2nd best MMO i've ever played (1st being Ultima Online way back in the day). Once you're level 60 for a while and do nothing but farming battlegrounds and MC/BWL/ZG, you quickly get bored. Leading upto lvl60 was definitely fun for me though. After that it's a huge grind for a chance to win 1 epic in your farming guild a couple nights a week.

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

SirBruce (679714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432155)

>So tell me why, in case you enjoy the game. I really wish to know what makes
>WoW interesting. What is better than in the "other" MMORPGs? What makes WoW
>to something that deserves a 50+% market share.

1. Strong game IP franchies. People like the Warcraft universe. Of course, IP along is no gaurantee of success; look at Star Wars Galaxies or The Matrix Online.

2. Content, content, content. WoW has a ton of content. You can play it for 6 months and there's still new things to do. Every race has it's own feel. You can't say that about, say, DDO.

3. High soloability. You very rarely need to group, until you get into the tougher instances and the raids. This also helps attract casual players to the game.

4. Relatively few bugs. I'm not going to say WoW has no bugs, but compared to the bugged launches and events many other MMOGs had historically, WoW's level of quality was simply superior.

5. Many people credit the RvR as being an essential element in WoW's popularity, particular to retain high-level players. I'm less than convinced that every MMOG needs something like this to gain WoW-like subscription numbers, but it's still a strong element to it success. Not that unrestrained, full open PvP is not as popular; WoW's PvP is very structured.

Bruce

The good and bad (3, Insightful)

roastabotch (978042) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432275)

##warning this post is from a Eve-online fanboy##

WoW sucked up a ton of my time the last couple of years. I know enough about the game, I think, to give you a basic idea of why some people claim it's so awesome, and others (including me) think it's not that great.

Here are 4 points that WoW has going for it. Then, in italics, purely opinion on my part.

1. First of all, the game is dang easy to learn. The first ten levels of the game are nice and slow, in a protected environment, giving you plenty of time to learn your character. It does a great job of giving you a purpose, a little story, and just enough reward to hook you on the "I need more phat lewtz" idea. In other words "instant gratification".

This is the biggest reason that WoW got so popular. Anyone can sit down and play it. It was a nice change for the genre being able to start having fun without needing to "work for it". Many older MMO nerds will tell you, however, that having to work for something makes your accomplishment that much sweeter. This will be a unending battle between WoW fanbois and the rest of us. That said, this one huge attribute of WoW made Blizzard rich(er)

2. You can get something accomplished in a small amount of time. The trip to level cap is great fun. You can always log in, do something meaningful, and be done in 45 minutes if you like. Caters to the casual gamer.

This works great until the endgame. see point 4

3. No harsh death penalties You lose nothing if you die. No XP debt, no money, no items. Only a little time and a blow to your pride. In this way you are always making progress. It's a very friendly game to everyone, at least in theory. I point to the battlegrounds as a reference. Absolutely no way to lose anything by joining a battleground. If you lose, you still make progress.

People who have only played WoW will tell you how much of a turnoff death penalties would be to them, if they were to think about another game. I think this is unfortunate. Having something to loose when seeking to gain makes nearly everything that you do a lot more interesting. I'm not going to go on about it (you can find many reasons why many people like death penalties from any whiner in a developing game's forums) but I want to point out that people can just as easily ruin your fun. But in WoW, there's hardly anything you can do about it. blah blah death penalties actually reduce ganking blah blah.

4. Raiding Endgame Getting together with 40 people in the game and taking down bosses for items is the tried and true MMORPG way of keeping people subscribed. Frankly, it can be fun.

You almost HAVE to raid once you hit 60 in WoW. First of all, it's nearly all of the content that gets added. Second, WoW is so item-centric that you can't even have fun in the battlegrounds against people who raid. This is a complete turnaround from the 1-60 trip. You join a big guild, do the same raids week after week, each requiring a substancial time commitment. We're talking 4-7 hours here. It's not the same game.

Because of this, people end up rerolling (starting a new character) and/or not really even talking to people outside their guild. It's wierd. The same "hardcore" people that complain that WoW sucks, are the same people that the game caters to at the end. It's addicting though, I admit to that.


Re:The good and bad (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433034)

#4: I've had a hard time trying to figure this one out until you look at what is going on here. Raiders don't like the grind. They want the massive war without the fight to build their character to that point. Ask most Raid players and they will tell you they had their character designed from scratch to get to the high level just to raid. Either that or they will buy a pre-maxed character off E-Bay from someone that doesn't like the level cap game and play it for them. It makes me wonder how popular a game would be if they just took away the leveling, gave you a class with a function and set you free in the world. Quests and raids would be the only things to do. (I would hate this game of course. Leveling is my sense of accomplishment, not necesarily items. Items do help level, so I can't officially rule them out.)

"Deserving" market share is stupid (0, Troll)

jchenx (267053) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432422)

It's stupid to talk about any product "deserving" (or not deserving) market share. Gee, Linux "deserves" to get a better market share because it's OSS and that's a good thing? No, it should get the market share based on its merits. And it's not quite there yet (although arguably close). (You can argue that other products *cough Windows cough* have achieved their market share through less legal means, but that's a different conversation for now)

Accordingly, why should WoW deserve to get less market share because you, of all people, tend not to like it? Is it because it's popular? Heaven forbid that a popular product happens to be a better product, for those who buy it.

Everyone has their own opinions on products. All of those "hardcore gamers" who think that WoW is ruining the genre, or ruining games in general because it happens to be popular, need to look in the mirror. If we really want gaming to be a form of mass-market entertainment (see Nintendo's E3 2006 press conference for a really good speech on this), we need MORE titles like WoW. If you happen to be bored by it, then that's fine. Just don't spout this BS about how it doesn't "deserve" its market share.

Re:Just like with OSs (1)

menace3society (768451) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433037)

Remember "The Unix Hater's Handbook?" It mentioned the idea of "Worse is better" and the dominance that this phenomenon allowed Unix to achieve in the early 1990s. However, it holds true still (but Windows, and not Unix, is the target of ire) and not just applied to Operating Systems--the x86 processor architecture has killed off nearly all the far more elegant chip designs, RISC and CISC alike, in the last 10 years. x86 is so bad that Intel doesn't even fab "real" x86 chips anymore; they build what I understand to be a sort of ad-hoc load/store architecture and simulate the x86 instruction set through microcode (can you imagine MS cloning Wine, sticking that on top of a Linux distro, and selling the result as Windows 2010?).

WoW works the same way. No one thinks the game is perfect, but each player thinks a couple of features are integral to enjoying a MMOG while others are detrimental. But it's not a zero-sum proposition, since having five good features outweighs having five or even ten annoying ones. Therefore, you get a scenario where everyone plays the game because it has the good features they want, but complains about it because it has many features they hate. They promise they'll move on to whatever game fixes those problems, but invariably every game tries to please people by removing features, and ends up removing enough features that different people no longer have any desire to play the game.

Speaking of OSs... (1)

Onan (25162) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433282)

WoW has some good things going for it, but I'm not at all sure that it's the best game of its genre.

It is, however, the best game of its genre that will run on any operating system I'm willing to use.

I've been quite curious as to what percentage of WoW-players are mac-users. My guess is that it's quite high indeed, perhaps somewhere between a quarter and a third. There are what, around fifteen million macs recent enough to run it well in use today? Some nontrivial portion of those fifteen million will be used by people who have some interest in gaming, but have very few games available to them. Blizzard is one of the few companies that has had the sense to capitalize on this market, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised to hear that a million or two of those fifteen are also a million or two of Blizzard's six.

D&D Online and Toontown (1)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431356)

It's interesting to note that Toontown is doing better than D&D Online. That's a pretty bad sign for Atari, whose finances aren't doing particularly well these days.

Re:D&D Online and Toontown (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431477)

DDO is pretty new, it needs time to get its subscription base up. Its a fun game, although it does have content issues. My only fear is that at the moment its a biut shitzoid- it seems there's an MMO camp and a D&D camp among its devs. THe MMO camp adds things like raid dungeons where only 2 people get loot per raid (with a randomized loot algorithm, so you may pick your two people and they still get shit loot) with a 3 day wait before you can re-enter. Hopefully that bullshit will be killed in the next module.

Re:D&D Online and Toontown (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433059)

Even new, it still kept my attention a whole week before I re-rolled a new character and got bored out of my mind just trying to get the same old dungeons out of the way. I would have preferred a method of random dungeon generation like the books had. D&D and MMOs are not a good mix. D&D players want unique dungeon experiences with dungeon masters that can change the difficulty on the fly. Neverwinter hit on this slightly when they opened up the creation tools to allow people to custom craft and actually change the difficulty slider. The problem is that this takes a great amount of human intervention to keep this going right.

I will admit though, the combat in DDO was funner than most combat systems like WoW, EQ, EQ2, etc.

Kingdom of Loathing? (1)

Hoho19 (529839) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431435)

What about the funniest dang MMORPG out there!!?

Willing to say the unpopular thing (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15431441)

Just not from my own account: MMOs suck. World of Warcraft sucks.

Something's missing (0, Flamebait)

flooey (695860) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431513)

I don't see any numbers for Progress Quest [progressquest.com] ! That game is awesome!

Re:Something's missing (1)

daboman (304476) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431687)

That's not the only one missing.. how about Guild Wars [guildwars.com] ? It only [gamespy.com] won [ign.com] a few awards [guildwars.com] ..

Re:Something's missing (1)

cjb909 (838363) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432505)

Guild wars isn't techincally an MMO, since everything is instanced. Also, since there are no monthly fees, 1million+ copies sold doesn't translate into 1million current players. Its still my favorite game, and online experience, even if its not an MMO.

Re:Something's missing (1)

Knightking (810855) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433400)

Guild Wars has zero subscribers, due to that they don't have an option to subscribe.

Progress Quest stats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15433162)

Yes, this is indeed a glaring omission. Here is the number you require:

Progress Quest: 284,913

That's roughly twice Eve Online's population, and maybe a tenth of Runescape's free players.

(source: [progressquest.com] )

BBMMORPGs (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431588)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no browser-based MMORPGs on MMOG chart, as you should see a mention of for example Urban Dead which count enough players to be in. So what's wrong with BBMMORPGS? Do they not appear on this site because they are browser based or because they are free?

Re:BBMMORPGs (1)

glassjaw rocks (793596) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431651)

Runescape is on there, and that's java based, or were you talking more along the likes of starkingdoms?

Re:BBMMORPGs (2, Interesting)

JamesonTheIrish (961868) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431663)

It's because they're free. From the FAQ -

1. Why isn't listed?

There are four main reasons why a particular game isn't listed in the charts:

a) The game in question isn't really a MMOG, at least by my reckoning. Games like Diablo II and Phantasy Star Online fall into this category. Guild Wars developers say in their own FAQ that they do not consider their game a MMOG; in addition, it doesn't charge a monthly fee (see below). Please don't email me trying to insist otherwise; I'm not likely to be convinced.

b) The game in question is free and/or doesn't charge a regular monthly fee. Games like Furcadia, Magic: the Gathering Online, and Project Entropia are good examples; these games are normally free to play, but some players can also pay a variable amount to access additional content in the game. This makes it almost impossible to come up with a number comparable to monthly subscribers in other games.

c) The game in question is too small to chart. This would include games like A Tale in the Desert, Blade Mistress, Gemstone IV, and Meridian 59. In the past, I've been reluctant to chart games below about 10,000 subscribers, mainly because they made the charts very crowded, and it was not my goal to list every game that came along. Still, I have made exceptions for some smaller games that are making an impact, and it is possible that in the future more of the smaller MMOGs will be represented - but only if I get data for them.

d) I don't currently have good data for the game in question. This is the most likely reason why a MMOG you are looking for is not listed. This includes many foreign MMOGs that don't provide subscriber data, as well as newer games like Auto Assault. These games are certainly popular, but I simply do not have access to monthly subscription figures at this time. If you have any data on these or other games not listed, feel free to drop me a line!

SWG number bogus (1)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431723)

No way there is 190K left.

But the chart does show SWG in freefall since they released the CU, and that the NGE was downright catastrophic.

Should have listened to we who didn't want them to do away with the original game to begin with....

Re:SWG number bogus (2, Interesting)

Quarters (18322) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432396)

The first big slide for SWG players on that chart is Aug-Sept 2004, which predates the release of the CU by seven or eight months. The second dive (after the short level period) is pretty close to the time the CU got released. The downward slope doesn't really change much after that, so it could be said the NGE had no effect on subscriber numbers, either positively or negatively. The game was already into its death spiral.

Re:SWG number bogus (1)

Quarters (18322) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432441)

"...is pretty close to the time the NGE got released."

Sorry for the typo.

Re:SWG number bogus (1)

Maserati (8679) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433110)

And it looks like an awful lot of them are playing EVE now. Their sub numbers started slowly curving up around the time of that first dip and really took off after the second one. I guess all the Han Solo wannabes decided a rich space environment was better than a rapidly depopulating planetary environment.

Re:SWG number bogus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15433354)

I tried SWG again two weeks ago and it's really bad. On a server with light load (most are very light) there are rarely more than 10 people on all of Tatooine, 9 of which are Jedi. Combat is way too easy, esp. if you use a blaster. The legacy quest is very boring. etc I'll stop, the horse is starting to smell.

Re:SWG number bogus (1)

Sage Gaspar (688563) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433373)

SWG is actually rated as a C on his numbers page for accuracy, some "inside source" told him they had 120k subscribers without station access or time cards, and he just artificially bumped it up. Truth be told I know a lot of station access people including myself who don't actually even log into SWG and I don't imagine they have time cards flying off the shelves. That 120k might either be a lie or a lot of accounts that simply haven't expired yet. I know more people in SWG that multiboxed than in any other game I've played, so that might be it too.

WoW is Increasing the Market (4, Interesting)

MalusCaelestis (172079) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431767)

The chart looked about as I expected: World of Warcraft towers above the rest while several other MMOs lose ground. But what I didn't expect to see is that WoW's gains are significantly higher than its competitors' losses. World of Warcraft is doing more than dominating the market--it's increasing the size of the market.

I'm interested to see whether those gamers will move to other MMO games after World of Warcraft or if they're only in it for WoW.

Re:WoW is Increasing the Market (1)

evilsofa (947078) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432373)

Bingo.

First, look at the "Total Active Subscribers" chart, the one that does not divide things out by MMORPG. It's a relatively smooth curve. If you didn't know when WoW was released, you wouldn't be able to tell by this chart.

Now look at the "Total Active Subscribers - Absolute Contribution" chart. You'll see that the total non-WoW market had about 6.5 million subscribers at the WoW release date, and since then has only dropped by 250,000.

The market has doubled since WoW was released, and shows no signs of slowing down. This is nothing but good news for the development of other MMORPGs.

Re:WoW is Increasing the Market (2, Interesting)

ockegheim (808089) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433318)

Blizzard would have got a lot of people (like me) from their other RTS games. Also for mac users (like me) the games market is much more limited, and we're happy that Blizzard have always supported macs.

Re:WoW is Increasing the Market (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433348)

Some of the non-WoW are actually doing rather well. RuneScape, for example, a MMPORPG that people thought was dead and buried, is actually on the upswing. Final Fantasy XI was going up as of July 05. Heck, Final Fantasy is now bigger than Everquest. Everquest one and two basically leveled off and stayed there, instead of dropping into nothing. Eve Online, another "dead 'n buried" one is on the upswing and headed towards OK. Asheron's Call 1's numbers are much lower than I had expected, but Turbine must be keeping it around for some reason.

For tiny ones, Dofus is off to a good start, as is Toontown, Second Life, and Tibia.

I'd love to see what non-subscriber numbers Puzzle Pirates is pulling in. The developers once said they had several million dollars in unspent Doubloons (in-game money bought with real money), and as such must have a good income going outside of the subscriber system.

People who play more than one? (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15431981)

How does this account for people who play more than one game. This isn't exactly a good representation of the market as a whole because you don't know what kind of overlap exists.

Re:People who play more than one? (1)

SirBruce (679714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432184)

It can't account for people with more than one subscription. The game companies themselves can't account for it, either, since you could have a completely different name and credit card associated with the account. Still, you're paying twice, so you're essentially two customers any way you look at it, and deserve to be counted twice.

Bruce

Re:People who play more than one? (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433010)

Do you? I don't know if this is a fair look at the market place though. It inflates the actual number of users. If WoW has over 50% of the "marketshare" theoretically that amount of people COULD be the market place if everyone who played every other MMORPG also played WoW.

I don't think this chart really tells us anything other than WoW is popular, other games are less popular, which unless you live under a rock, you already know.

Re:People who play more than one? (1)

SirBruce (679714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433612)

It gives you and idea how many SUBSCRIPTIONS are out there. It makes little difference to your business plan if it's 2 people subscribing once or one person subscribing twice; you still get the same amount of money. If you want an idea of revenue potential, you can find that in other financial reports.

It also gives you an idea of relative popularity. You may already know that WoW is more popular than anything else, but did you know it's approximately half the market? Did you know RuneScape is more popular than EverQuest? Did you know Eve Online is now more popular than Asheron's Call was at its peak?

Bruce

what is included and what not? (1)

angrymilkman (957626) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432011)

They should either rename this site to MMORGPchart.com as all games are fighting/rpg based games. Otherwise games like hattrick.org (820k users) and travian.com (120k users) should also be included.

Re:what is included and what not? (1)

flooey (695860) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432132)

They should either rename this site to MMORGPchart.com as all games are fighting/rpg based games. Otherwise games like hattrick.org (820k users) and travian.com (120k users) should also be included.

Neither of those appears to charge a monthly fee, so they aren't games that MMOGchart would track. Check out the FAQ [mmogchart.com] for the types of games that aren't tracked.

If this trend continues... (1)

patternjuggler (738978) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432228)

...then by the year 2057, the earth will be consumed by a mass of WOW subscribers expanding at the speed of light.

Not to be taken at face value (2, Informative)

Sage Gaspar (688563) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432257)

One very important thing to note is that the last data point for a ton of the games on his list is June 2005 -- one example being Everquest 2.

The other thing to note is tabulating subscribers. In some of the Asian markets (can't tell you which ones in specific as I just looked this up myself) the Internet Game Rooms are very popular. You go in and buy an account that you then add points to on an hourly basis. Anyone who logs into one of those is counted for seven full days afterward by Blizzard as a paying subscriber. I'm sure there's lots of people who don't spend $15 American monthly on World of Warcraft but are counted as equal subscribers among their monthly-account-paying European and American brethren. Just as a reference it's about $3.73 to buy an account that you can spend points on and it costs a nickel an hour after that for gametime in WoW China, as per a Blizzard press release and Google's money translation calculator.

It's interesting to see what the Asian market means in terms of body count, but it makes me wonder what the relative revenue situations are like.

Re:Not to be taken at face value (1)

code-e255 (670104) | more than 8 years ago | (#15434013)

If you had read the official Blizzard press released, then you'd know they only count active Internet Game Room accounts which have been active in the last 7 days. So yes, their figures can be taken at face value.

From http://www.blizzard.com/press/060119.shtml [blizzard.com]

World of Warcraft's Customer Definition

World of Warcraft customers include individuals who have paid a subscription fee or purchased a prepaid card to play World of Warcraft, as well as those who have purchased the installation box bundled with one free month access. Internet Game Room players that have accessed the game over the last seven days are also counted as customers. The above definition excludes all players under free promotional subscriptions, expired or cancelled subscriptions, and expired pre-paid cards. Customers in licensees' territories are defined along the same rules.

Star Wars Galaxies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15432270)

I found to be most interesting the clip I found on Star Wars Glaxies under research:
Star Wars Galaxies (Accuracy Rating: C)
Since its launch in June 2003, the number of subscribers to Star Wars Galaxies has always been somewhat uncertain. An official statement released by John Smedley, President of SOE, in March 2004 suggested there were then currently between 200,000 and 300,000 subscribers and that SW: G was the "second largest MMO in the North American market". I assume he was discounting Ragnarok Online and possibly FFXI in that statement, so I put the number at that time at 275,000. Since then, the number of subscribers has fallen sharply, although there is no official word on exactly how much. In a more recent statement in March 2006, Smedley said that SWG was the fifth largest MMOG in the North American market, behind WoW, EQ2, EQ, and RuneScape, which would put the number of subscribers somewhere between 175,000 and 250,000. Inside sources offer a more precise but incomplete picture; as of March 2006 SWG only had 120,00 monthly paying subscribers, but this number does not include those who are subscribed to the game via game time cards or SOE station pass subscriptions. Based on previously known data, I've put the total number of subscribers for SWG at 190,000 for March 2006, but the actual number could be anywhere from 175,000 to 225,000.
I would say that it's typical for SWG & John Smedley to be acting like this. The other companies all got A's and a few B's for their active participation in this man's research. I'm glad I left SWG.

I really wish that the author of this site would simply put SWG at solid zeros.

I have a hard-time... (2, Interesting)

Todo Proudfoot (652832) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432558)

...believing this guys numbers. yeah, some of them may be accurate. Blizzard has been tooting their horn with their subscription numbers. But, I've been playing Star Wars Galaxies since the beginning back in 2003 and there is no way they currently have just under 200,000 subscribers. The number of subscribers has the be half or even 3/4 of what it was in it's peak. So, I know that number to be just wrong. What other numbers are just wrong? EverQuest still has 400,000 subscribers???

Gameplay of MMO's still not up to scratch (1)

Spekdah (804218) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432869)

There are thousands of articles around as to why WoW did well, from it's existing franchise, to taking the Warhammer minature artwork through to the game, to simplification and a slick interface. But I had had my does of EQ1 and to be honest find them all very boring these days. I am waiting for a generation shift, something new to come to the genre. Compare the gameplay of an MMO with the gameplay of a moden single player RPG like Oblivion, or the gameplay of Half-life 2. It's a huge gap still. Ever grind in Quake? I mean back in the 90's you could excuse the genre of better gameplay because of the additional technology involved, but these days they should be closer to the single player variants. Until they do, I have had my dose.

Guildwars (1)

kafka47 (801886) | more than 8 years ago | (#15432875)

I was shocked to see Guildwars missing. Some argue its not really an MMO, as it is a hub-centred world, however it shares this with DDO (which has been listed on mmogchart.com). I hope to see it listed in future, as the last subscriber numbers I saw put it near 1,000,000 people!

/K

Re:Guildwars (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433071)

1. Why isn't ________ listed? [mmogchart.com]

There are four main reasons why a particular game isn't listed in the charts:

a) The game in question isn't really a MMOG, at least by my reckoning. Games like Diablo II and Phantasy Star Online fall into this category. Guild Wars developers say in their own FAQ that they do not consider their game a MMOG; in addition, it doesn't charge a monthly fee (see below). Please don't email me trying to insist otherwise; I'm not likely to be convinced.

Re:Guildwars (1)

Quarters (18322) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433209)

Guildwars isn't a traditional MMO in that it doesn't have a monthly charge. It's a one-time purchase with online play. Charting GuildWars would be like charting Diablo, Freelancer, Battlefield 2, or any other online enabled game with some sort of player stat tracking.

Re:Guildwars (1)

Sage Gaspar (688563) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433406)

It seems to me the best way to chart these games would be some sort of income model rather than just raw population, and you could still compare how much money a game with a monthly fee has made compared to one without it. I wonder if the data's out there. Raw game population doesn't mean much when you take into account the vastly different pricing schemes, especially in different parts of the world, across all of these MMOs.

As for GW, if DDO is on there you can't rule out Guild Wars by just gameplay, and I'd suggest that a good way to track players are people who bought the box in the last month or two (which equates to the free trial periods on other games) and people who have purchased one of the expansions the company's selling in the past couple weeks. Of course, logons in the last week or two would work best if that information is out there.

Re:Guildwars (1)

SirBruce (679714) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433620)

Revenue numbers are interesting, but they don't tell the whole picture, either. A game with 1,000 subscribers paying $1,000 month for some amazing virtual experience would clock in at $1,000,000, whereas a game with 100,000 subscribers pay $10 a month would look the same. You wouldn't be able to tell from that that the second game was actually vastly more popular, and the other game seemed to cater to some rich elite with money to burn. Really, ALL of these data points are useful in different ways at different points in time. My subscription charts follow a very limited metric, but a useful one nonetheless.

Bruce

Re:Guildwars (1)

Knightking (810855) | more than 8 years ago | (#15433413)

That'd be quite amazing if, despite not having subscribers, GW somehow managed to have a million of them. I don't have a job, but if I had a job it'd pay $1,000,000 per year!

what about the avg / peak concurrent users ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15433455)

http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart10.html [mmogchart.com]
And what about the peak http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart9.html [mmogchart.com] ? More than one million concurrent user at peak? holy shit~
Hello? Just seeing this would mean that wow is far from having a 50% market share..
I don't know why sirbruce discount his own charts, maybe I missed something?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...