Monsters and Memories (Project_N) - Old School Indie MMO

Back in ’99, slow mob spawns, punishing grind, and mandatory grouping made sense. You had the time (because you were young and lacked responsibilities), and that scarcity felt meaningful. Today? Those same systems just feel like obstacles, not challenges - now that the novelty has worn off and we've been so much more exposed to alternatives from both a social and gaming standpoint.

The reality is, the audience for this game is tiny. You're basically designing for people who can dedicate hours at a time, with nothing else competing for their attention. That's not 13-year-olds reliving EQ, it's adults with nostalgia that are retired or on corporate or government welfare. Most of us have jobs, kids, or lives outside the game, and these systems punish anyone who can't drop four uninterrupted hours into a single zone. Soloing is a slog, finding groups is a nightmare if the population isn't dense, and splitting new players across multiple starting areas only spreads frustration thinner.

If Monsters & Memories wants to survive beyond a niche cluster of diehards, it has to reconcile its reverence for the past with the realities of modern gaming. Otherwise, it's not a challenging, nostalgic experience, it's an inaccessible relic that only a handful of people can realistically play. And that's a problem the game’s design shouldn't be shrugging off.

And maybe Shawn doesn't care. Maybe 500-1000 users are his expectations. I know he used to mention the Horse MMO for girls out of Germany or whatever that he worked on. But I don't see this surviving long-term - it won't be worth the infrastructure costs at some point. I have to imagine it's a lot more expensive to keep servers for this running than Horse MMOs for German Girls.

I think that's the frustrating part for me.

I think this game could be super fun. But all that shit that they're adding that's going to drive everyone off, they don't seem to want to budge on. The frustrating part is going to be a year into it when they realize they fucked up and can't sustain this model because the costs are too great, they're going to make changes to the game that gives it broader appeal, but it's going to be too late because they already burned the people who were on the fence.

It's bizarre to me that they're designing a grouping forced game while at the same time continually reasserting that they're making a niche game that won't have a large playerbase. Pick one, you can't have both.

Make it appealing to more people and keep the forced grouping, or make a niche game with 20 players where everyone is either boxing or solo.

It won't have 500-1k users. It will have closer to 7500. That's about as niche as it gets but quite doable for him and his team to develop around. Regardless, I get the time conundrum Kirun. I am 41 with kids who play hockey like I played EQ. I got no time, but still I like what they have done and are trying to do with this game. If they want to expand to more users, then corpse runs, lighting, and i'd argue banking would help them immensely.

Gravel said:

I think that's the frustrating part for me.

I think this game could be super fun. But all that shit that they're adding that's going to drive everyone off, they don't seem to want to budge on. The frustrating part is going to be a year into it when they realize they fucked up and can't sustain this model because the costs are too great, they're going to make changes to the game that gives it broader appeal, but it's going to be too late because they already burned the people who were on the fence.

It's bizarre to me that they're designing a grouping forced game while at the same time continually reasserting that they're making a niche game that won't have a large playerbase. Pick one, you can't have both.

Make it appealing to more people and keep the forced grouping, or make a niche game with 20 players where everyone is either boxing or solo.

Click to expand...

Ember’s Adrift is the perfect cautionary tale here. They thought they could buck modern realities by launching without Steam because they were convinced their "niche" vision would be strong enough to survive without the exposure or infrastructure that a broader platform provides and probably didn't think they needed to pay "the middle man". What happened? It was a flop. By the time they finally swallowed their pride and went to Steam, the damage was already done. The playerbase had dwindled, the initial spark was gone, and no amount of course correction could recover what was lost.

That's exactly the same trap I see here. You can't design a game around forced grouping, claim you only want a small, niche audience, and then somehow expect to maintain long-term sustainability. The math just doesn't work. If you burn through your early adopters by clinging to outdated systems, you don't get a second shot at winning them back later.

It's not about "compromising the vision", which all these shut-ins and Al Bundy has-beens like to cling to as a rebuttal. It's about acknowledging that the MMO landscape in 2025 is very different from 1999. Games that ignore that reality almost always end up the same way: too little, too late.

vegetoeeVegetoee said:

It won't have 500-1k users. It will have closer to 7500.

Click to expand...

I'm not gonna speculate on MNM's future player subscription numbers, but I'll say this: 7500 subscriptions is about double the entire p99 and Quarm 'active' user-base (not THJ cuz that shit ain't an MMO) combined, and is likely double the paying subscriber count of EQ Live itself.

So to reach 7500 paying subscribers, MnM would have to attract every current paying EQLive customer, as well as every EverQuest EMU player that is enjoying their favourite game for free.

The audience must expand past these folks.

Kirun said:

I think this is where I push back the hardest. Framing Vanguard and Pantheon as "failures to properly implement EQ" is just another way of sidestepping the uncomfortable truth: maybe EQ's model itself was never sustainable outside of its very specific moment in history. If multiple projects, decades apart, with different teams, resources, and technology, all collapse when trying to recreate that template, at some point you have to stop blaming execution and start questioning the design itself.

And on the point of "friction equals socialization," I don’t buy it. There's a difference between mechanics that enable interaction and mechanics that simply force it through inconvenience. A lack of maps doesn't create meaningful social bonds, it just makes people tab out to a fan site or Discord. Corpse runs don't build community, they just add a chore before you can get back to the actual gameplay. When players remember their EQ memories, they don't wax nostalgic about begging for ports or spamming /ooc for directions. They remember the people. If a mechanic needs tedium to generate those moments, then maybe it was never about the mechanic at all.

A lot of the arguments for "friction" boil down to wanting the game to force other players to socialize with you. Ports, maps, corpse runs, none of that is meaningful interaction. It's all just leverage. It puts other players in a position where they have to talk to you, not because the gameplay naturally encourages cooperation, but because the game punishes them if they don't.

If you actually believe in social play, then the mechanics themselves should be engaging enough that players choose to group, trade, or cooperate because it's rewarding in its own right. If the only way you can get people to talk to you in a multiplayer game is by making solo play miserable, that's not proof of a brilliant design, it's proof that the design is leaning on artificial scarcity to cover its weaknesses.

So when people defend "friction," what I really hear is: "I don't trust the game to be fun enough on its own, so I need it to punish players until they interact with me."

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this. I played a wood elf druid up to level 8 in the starting zone and saw a steady population of 50 - 70 players and an active /ooc of people asking for directions, tips on quests, groups, etc. and general sense of wellbeing in tone and dialogue. I had a bard twice ask to help someone use their 'find corpse' ability that they get at level 3 and our group was happy to take a break when that happened. A couple times I needed to use my Cure Disease to help some people who contracted rabies from nearby wolves (a debuff that lasts hours) and was glad to help. You don't get any of that kind of interaction in modern MMOs and there's a reason why. I repeatedly had to go to town to sell but also went to collect firewood for our campfire and brought food and water back for people who needed it. Without those systems, the interaction doesn't exist.

So I'll ask this then, what systems would you put in an MMO like this that would help foster community aside from "because the game is good". I never really guild in MMOs and maybe that's the best way to interact with others but it's not really my goal. I prefer to just log in and find a group with otherwise strangers and get to know them. I also play Marvel Rivals and you never get to know who you're playing with due to how fast the game plays and pushes you into new matches. It's not a problem because that's how the game is designed. You can't divorce the gameplay and pacing from how the community interacts with each other.

Hadden said:

I don't agree with this. I played a wood elf druid up to level 8 in the starting zone and saw a steady population of 50 - 70 players and an active /ooc of people asking for directions, tips on quests, groups, etc. and general sense of wellbeing in tone and dialogue. I had a bard twice pause our group play to help someone use their 'find corpse' ability that they get at level 3 and our group was happy to take a break when that happened. You don't get any of that kind of interaction in modern MMOs and there's a reason why. I repeatedly had to go to town to sell but also went to collect firewood for our campfire and brought food and water back for people who needed it. Without those systems, the interaction doesn't exist.

So I'll ask this then, what systems would you put in an MMO like this that would help foster community aside from "because the game is good". I never really guild in MMOs and maybe that's the best way to interact with others but it's not really my goal. I prefer to just log in and find a group with otherwise strangers and get to know them. I also play Marvel Rivals and you never get to know who you're playing with due to how fast the game plays and pushes you into new matches. It's not a problem because that's how the game is designed. You can't divorce the gameplay and pacing from how the community interacts with each other.

Click to expand...

If anyone ever left an XP group i was leader of to do a corpse locate, I’d immediately remove them and put them on my ignore list. I guarantee the rest of the group would thank me.

Quaid said:

I'm not gonna speculate on MNM's future player subscription numbers, but I'll say this: 7500 subscriptions is about double the entire p99 and Quarm 'active' user-base (not THJ cuz that shit ain't an MMO) combined, and is likely double the paying subscriber count of EQ Live itself.

So to reach 7500 paying subscribers, MnM would have to attract every current paying EQLive customer, as well as every EverQuest EMU player that is enjoying their favourite game for free.

The audience must expand past these folks.

Click to expand...

THJ is actually a great example though, and it's been mentioned several times in multiple threads (like the TLP's, or suing one). THJ works because it takes all of the shitty stuff about Everquest and makes it fun. All that "friction" we keep talking about is removed, and what's left is a fun game.

Gravel said:

THJ is actually a great example though, and it's been mentioned several times in multiple threads (like the TLP's, or suing one). THJ works because it takes all of the shitty stuff about Everquest and makes it fun. All that "friction" we keep talking about is removed, and what's left is a fun game.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but that fun game isn’t an MMO. It’s a solo lobby game.

vegetoeeVegetoee said:

It won't have 500-1k users. It will have closer to 7500. That's about as niche as it gets but quite doable for him and his team to develop around. Regardless, I get the time conundrum Kirun. I am 41 with kids who play hockey like I played EQ. I got no time, but still I like what they have done and are trying to do with this game. If they want to expand to more users, then corpse runs, lighting, and i'd argue banking would help them immensely.

Click to expand...

Where are these 7500 players coming from?

They don't even get that in a free playtest. It's actually funny, in thinking about this, I realized that EA is actually going to hurt them here. It's going to divide up their playerbase into people who are willing to pay a monthly subscription to test the game, and the ones who aren't. By the time the actual game releases 2-3 years later, those people will be long gone.

And I keep saying it, but in a game that relies on a healthy population because solo play is non-existent, this is how the game dies.

Gravel said:

Where are these 7500 players coming from?

They don't even get that in a free playtest. It's actually funny, in thinking about this, I realized that EA is actually going to hurt them here. It's going to divide up their playerbase into people who are willing to pay a monthly subscription to test the game, and the ones who aren't. By the time the actual game releases 2-3 years later, those people will be long gone.

And I keep saying it, but in a game that relies on a healthy population because solo play is non-existent, this is how the game dies.

Click to expand...

The have 7700 Uniques last test. That was up from the prior test. It's quite safe to assume EA will have that for launch, conservatively. Thus, it is not out of the ordinary to suspect they maintain that number over their first year of EA. Dunno why you guys are barking up the tree so much on this game. There will never be another WoW, but there could be a mini-EQ, that supports itself. Just look at LOTRO, it has half that and runs fine. I wouldn't play LOTRO, but I won't bark at those that do. Kudos to them for enjoying their game.

Quaid said:

This guy getting torn to fucking shreds lmao

Click to expand...

I don't know man, his first few days of frustration could've been solved by just inviting those other people running around fighting lowbie mobs to groups. A lot of these people are their own worst enemy. In the last test, I would routinely see 20-30 players LFG, but how many people actually made a post in LFM? There would only ever be 1-2 posts max. I found that it was really easy to get groups in M&M if I just started them myself, and in most cases, it took no longer than 10 minutes to get a proper group together for whatever I wanted to run. I think Erenshor would be more this guy's style because clearly he wants an MMO-like experience without actually interacting with other people.

Gravel said:

Where are these 7500 players coming from?

They don't even get that in a free playtest. It's actually funny, in thinking about this, I realized that EA is actually going to hurt them here. It's going to divide up their playerbase into people who are willing to pay a monthly subscription to test the game, and the ones who aren't. By the time the actual game releases 2-3 years later, those people will be long gone.

And I keep saying it, but in a game that relies on a healthy population because solo play is non-existent, this is how the game dies.

Click to expand...

Thats kind of what I was always curious about in Pantheon's case. The upfront cost of what 30-40 bucks is nothing really. But after that initial round of funding, minus the 30% steam cut and the merchant fee and upkeep for their own merchant system.. where does the money continue to come from a month later when word of mouth is only going but so far.. because progress is incredibly slow?

Im hoping for MNM's sake, that they have an upfront cost on a box that you can continue to play indefinitely, and a subscriber package that has perks associated with it similar to ESO's. What would be fair for an indie MMO to charge per subscriber to just keep the cost of a player playing, insignificant, if not raise a bit of money? Maybe all current content is playable on the box price, and the newest zone would be subscriber only as an incentive not only to the players to subscribe, but for the devs to continue to press for more content because the paid zone is now 3 months old? Just spit balling, but 5 bucks? 10 bucks? Whats acceptable in this kind of concept?

Hadden said:

I don't agree with this. I played a wood elf druid up to level 8 in the starting zone and saw a steady population of 50 - 70 players and an active /ooc of people asking for directions, tips on quests, groups, etc. and general sense of wellbeing in tone and dialogue. I had a bard twice ask to help someone use their 'find corpse' ability that they get at level 3 and our group was happy to take a break when that happened. A couple times I needed to use my Cure Disease to help some people who contracted rabies from nearby wolves (a debuff that lasts hours) and was glad to help. You don't get any of that kind of interaction in modern MMOs and there's a reason why. I repeatedly had to go to town to sell but also went to collect firewood for our campfire and brought food and water back for people who needed it. Without those systems, the interaction doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

I get what you’re saying, but here's the problem: most of the "interaction" you’re describing isn't really organic socialization, it's just people being forced into situations where they have to lean on others to get past arbitrary hurdles. You didn't cure disease or help find corpses because the game encouraged creativity or connection, you did it because the systems are intentionally punitive without that help. That's not the same thing as meaningful social gameplay.

The truth is, the reason modern MMOs don’t have those interactions isn't because players don't want to socialize. It's because designers figured out that needing to run to town constantly, or risk losing hours of progress to an uncurable debuff, or wander around blind until someone bails you out, is mostly just tedium masquerading as "community." People today are less willing to tolerate mechanics that waste their limited time just to manufacture small talk.

Yes, it's nice when someone tosses you a cure or directions. But do you really want the entire game built around manufacturing those little moments by making everything else more tedious than it needs to be? That's the tradeoff, and it's why most games moved away from these systems. Players don't need to be forced into dependence to create community. They need tools that make it natural and rewarding to connect without wrapping it in a time-tax.

This is the trap a lot of EQ nostalgics fall into: confusing necessity with meaning. You think back fondly on those little "moments" because that was all the game really gave you. But in 2025, when players can log into a hundred other games that don't waste their time with manufactured roadblocks, those same mechanics don't look charming anymore, now they look archaic.

Hadden said:

So I'll ask this then, what systems would you put in an MMO like this that would help foster community aside from "because the game is good". I never really guild in MMOs and maybe that's the best way to interact with others but it's not really my goal. I prefer to just log in and find a group with otherwise strangers and get to know them. I also play Marvel Rivals and you never get to know who you're playing with due to how fast the game plays and pushes you into new matches. It's not a problem because that's how the game is designed. You can't divorce the gameplay and pacing from how the community interacts with each other.

Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on the head with "you can’t divorce the gameplay and pacing from how the community interacts with each other." That’s exactly why these conversations keep circling around things like corpse runs, travel friction, downtime, and other old-school systems, because they directly shape the way people interact.

But here's the key difference: in 1999, those systems worked because the audience had endless time(due to youth - which they don't have now), few alternatives, and no competing expectations. Today? The average player has a backlog of 20 games, limited gaming hours, and a much lower tolerance for mechanics that feel like chores. That doesn't mean social interaction is dead, it means the design has to incentivize it instead of forcing it.

As for what I would do..

1. Shared goals and scaling rewards: Make grouping always more rewarding than soloing, but not punishing if you log in alone. You shouldn't need a guild just to progress, but when you do group, you should feel like you're at least doubling your efficiency.

2. Low-friction grouping tools: Not dungeon finder "teleports," but modern systems that let you flag for group activities, see who's nearby, and join up quickly. People don't want to spam LFG for an hour anymore.

3. Socially-driven mechanics: Think buffs that stack when cast by different classes, combo mechanics that reward coordination, or resource pooling that benefits everyone nearby. These give players a reason to notice and engage with strangers without making "failure to do so" feel like punishment. The AQ opening event from classic WoW is a great example I'd use of "community" building events that everyone can contribute to, that not only unlocks content but offers rewards.

4. Event-driven world design: Rotating zone events, camp defense, rare mob spawns - things that naturally draw players together on a timer without requiring anyone to sit on respawns for 4 hours. GW2 is a good example of these elements. Perhaps things that have a little more permanence than GW2, without too heavily falling into FOMO issues.

The problem with clinging to purely nostalgic systems is they confuse friction with connection. Modern designers have to create those social bonds intentionally, with mechanics that respect time and give people positive reasons to group up, not negative consequences for failing to.

In other words, if the market today won't tolerate 4-hour corpse runs, then developers have to evolve the toolkit for creating community, not pretend that punishing mechanics are the only way to get there.

I'd be fine if they added a "casual" server type with no item-drop deaths (Dark Souls style) and faster XP gain - I think it's fine to recognize people don't have an endless amount of time to play a game like this, but I think a lot of the feel of the game is capturing what I want to see in an EQ-like. MnM already has shared goals, an LFG tool, open buffing, and likely world events, so I think it's in the right direction there.

vegetoeeVegetoee said:

The have 7700 Uniques last test. That was up from the prior test. It's quite safe to assume EA will have that for launch, conservatively. Thus, it is not out of the ordinary to suspect they maintain that number over their first year of EA. Dunno why you guys are barking up the tree so much on this game. There will never be another WoW, but there could be a mini-EQ, that supports itself. Just look at LOTRO, it has half that and runs fine. I wouldn't play LOTRO, but I won't bark at those that do. Kudos to them for enjoying their game.

Click to expand...

In a game with limited bank space, no shared bank slots, and a player base comprised of oldschool MMO players, an enormous percentage of those 7700 uniques will almost certainly be boxed mule/transfer accounts. That actually explains why there is such a massive number of accounts with less than 2h playtime over the course of the week, and why it was a similar percentage on the previous test. I did find that kind of churn pretty crazy, so this makes more sense to me.

Also, MNM's conversion rate of free-test players to paying subscribers being 100% is extremely unlikely.

Kirun said:

You shouldn't need a guild just to progress, but when you do group, you should feel like you're at least doubling your efficiency.

Click to expand...

This is a wild one. I noticed someone brought it up to Shawn yesterday. Grouping with 1-2 extra players the exp feels much better. When you get to 5 or 6 though? It falls off a fucking cliff. Why would they design the experience curve to plummet as you add more people? Doesn't that discourage grouping? And yet, it was brought up to them and got a "we'll look into it" like it wasn't something they'd discussed.

Regardless, it's just another design decision someone made on their very small team to penalize the very thing they say they're designing the entire game around.

Hadden said:

I'd be fine if they added a "casual" server type with no item-drop deaths (Dark Souls style) and faster XP gain - I think it's fine to recognize people don't have an endless amount of time to play a game like this, but I think a lot of the feel of the game is capturing what I want to see in an EQ-like. MnM already has shared goals, an LFG tool, open buffing, and likely world events, so I think it's in the right direction there.

Click to expand...

I think that'd be an interesting experiment they could run. Open the next test up with a server like that, and see if it's significantly more popular. I'd bet it would be.

Quaid said:

In a game with limited bank space, no shared bank slots,

Click to expand...

FYI, shared bank slots were confirmed, they just haven't been implemented yet. As far as limited bank space goes, it's limited by the bags you purchase to fill your bank with. So while there is certainly a theoretical maximum, it's pretty large. I have about 100 slots of space on my main character. I believe there will also be storage crates you'll be able to place in housing to store more items.