That’s a specious argument if I’ve ever heard one. If only because of the sheer number of designers/developers that got their start in EQ, I think it’s fair to say that the genre as a whole owes a great deal to EQ, Verant/SOE, and the folks who worked on that game.

Which is not to say that UO and indeed (Hi Brian!) Meridian 59 aren’t also extremely important to the genre. I just think it’s a poor idea to dismiss EQ out of hand simply because someone has improved on the formulae.

Now, arguing a games greatness based on subscribers is a bit fubar unless you take into account varying aspects. Was the game built for a niche or large audience? EVE Online is an obvious niche title and built for it. WoW played off Blizzard’s normal “sell more boxes” approach, and therefore built towards gaining new customers. What irks me are the games *cough* Everquest 2 *cough* that don’t make up their mind until six months after release. Or games that come a year later and launch into a now flooded genre.

Another aspect to consider, what was the budget. You certainly don’t expect a Vanguard type budget to go into a niche game, but it happened. Those numbers are very valid… a lot of votes against building AAA niche games. Compare to Puzzle Pirates, a lot of votes for a game that built and executed their game plan brilliantly.

Lastly, launch period is considerably relevant. You can’t compare UO to WoW. You can compare UO to EQ though. I still believe UO is one of the pillars of success in the MMORPG market. I strongly believe EQ is not and it has been proven. Someone made a better EQ. No one has made a better UO!

Anyways, babbling on now… good evening.

Thanks

Phil