I love me some Casinos. If an MMO had a blackjack table, I'd never go adventuring, except to get more gold for...you guessed it. The Blackjack table!
Back in the old Phantasy Star Universe they had an area that was a roulette table. I spent many many nights just hanging out at the roulette wheel with my friends. Granted it didn't use real money, but it was still tons of fun.
clearly different people have radically different gaming interests.
Agreed
i dunno why that was in italics.
But the best part was that it didn't cost a thing. They've also had types of gambling in other games too, but that isn't really the type of gambling I meant in the original post. Most of those cases only utilized in game currencies that couldn't be purchased with real money or traded.
I think your gaming style is likely the core reason why many of the games I like seem to you to be bad. I have a theory as to why that is but its sensitive
I'm pretty sure there are a whole host of reasons the games you like seem bad to me.
casual insults aside, I think there is really only 2 but I am not getting into it
I didn't mean it to be an insult to you at all, but I'm pretty sure there will be more than 2 reasons.
lets not go back and forth on this today..for once.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Then nothing, it is irrelevant. Your time still has value.
Which he absolutely said.
Why ignore all of his post to withdraw a single sentence, out of context, to attempt to prove an argument?
When time is spent visiting with relatives, time isn't money, but it does still have intrinsic value. Nothing about that equates the two resources (time and money).
The objective reasoning behind the argument has nothing to do with the value of time itself, either as money or as an intrinsic, non-monetary, reward; it has to do with the equitability of the distribution of the resource among the population. I used real world data to prove the point.
It's weird. In RL I've never been interested in Keno or casinos or any of the number of cash games they have now locally in bars and stores. I've never bought a lottery ticket. I've had many opportunities but it's not my thing. I've always thought gambling is too stupid and boring. Yet I love gaming. I loved RPGs from the first moment I played Might and Magic and Daggerfall. I--now this is the odd part--loved random elements. From content standpoint, I felt random items and landscapes countered the high costs of content creation, and in some cases at least the quality loss--if any--is unimportant. I also felt moderate random deviations in coin loot and item quality or damage was more realistic and, for me anyway, believable.
In sum, I think if a game RELIES almost solely on random rewards to keep you playing then it's more like gambling. If however it has some random deviation in rewards on top of what's foremost strongly decision or information driven gameplay, I think it's complimentary. Think about it, would you be happy if every person looked the same? Or if every car had the same max speed? Or if every surprise was equally surprising? Or if the clouds always moved and looked the same way every new day? That gets repetitive fast. Maybe you feel differently. In my opinion, it's just not immersive.
The more strategy and information is involved in acquiring the reward, the less like gambling it's. I'll add that too.
People value many things, some more than others. Some people pursue the things that matter to them more single-mindedly than others. Generally, the more single-minded you are in pursuing a goal, the more focused you are on spending as much time as possible pursuing it, and the more you resent any barriers to achieving it. And if your goal is to become as powerful as possible in an MMORPG, then any barriers, including time, that get in your way will be a source of annoyance that needs to be overcome. Some people will use money to do that, and some games will provide means to accommodate that method.
And that's the point. The point of any game, MMORPGs included, should be to have fun.
The fact people see getting more powerful as an "annoyance" or an obstacle to overcome is an issue. If the content is fun, people will do it. You don't need some kind of carrot on a stick to get them to do it. It won't be seen as an "annoyance" or "obstacle". It's seen as content.
So the game is using time and/or money to give artificial stats as a replacement for the effort required to build player skills through processes that actually tend to be enjoyable. They tend to be enjoyable because in order to get good at the activities you want to do, you do the activities you want to do. Want to be a better at dungeons? Run more dungeons. PvP? Do more PvP.
Sort of like if you enjoy playing an instrument, you play an instrument to get better at playing it. If you love sports, you play sports to get better at sports. If you love to draw and paint then you draw and paint to get better.
Grinding on the other hand has you running quests and killing the same creature over and over and over to get better at dungeons and PvP. Or in the cases you can do the content you want to do in order to get better it still gives you an artificial disadvantage beyond the appropriate disadvantage your lack of experience gives you. So if you want to actually enjoy your content of preference on a fair level it's as you say "A source of annoyance that needs to be overcome."
So when you consider that and re-ask the question "Why watch a football game if they could be closing a deal that'll make them a fat wad of cash?" The answer is because they enjoy watching football, and that enjoyment has a value to them. But as previously stated, if enjoyment was the reason we grind, then we wouldn't need XP rewards. Which leaves one conclusion. The thing that No-Lifers grind for that have value to them is the XP itself, an idea backed up by the fact they constantly keep asking "If we don't get stronger for playing, what is the point of playing?"
As such, time and money are currencies I'm using to buy my way past content I don't want to be doing because an artificial barrier has been placed up to cater to people with an addiction. Of those two currencies, time is actually the more valuable IMO. Maybe not for people who were never taught the value of time by their parents, but I would way rather throw 20-40$ at something I perceive as a waste of my time than "earn" it through monotonous and brainless tasks that demand so much of my time that I wouldn't be able to enjoy the rest of my life if I gave it.
People value many things, some more than others. Some people pursue the things that matter to them more single-mindedly than others. Generally, the more single-minded you are in pursuing a goal, the more focused you are on spending as much time as possible pursuing it, and the more you resent any barriers to achieving it. And if your goal is to become as powerful as possible in an MMORPG, then any barriers, including time, that get in your way will be a source of annoyance that needs to be overcome. Some people will use money to do that, and some games will provide means to accommodate that method.
And that's the point. The point of any game, MMORPGs included, should be to have fun.
The fact people see getting more powerful as an "annoyance" or an obstacle to overcome is an issue. If the content is fun, people will do it. You don't need some kind of carrot on a stick to get them to do it. It won't be seen as an "annoyance" or "obstacle". It's seen as content.
So the game is using time and/or money to give artificial stats as a replacement for the effort required to build player skills through processes that actually tend to be enjoyable. They tend to be enjoyable because in order to get good at the activities you want to do, you do the activities you want to do. Want to be a better at dungeons? Run more dungeons. PvP? Do more PvP.''
Sort of like if you enjoy playing an instrument, you play an instrument to get better at playing it. If you love sports, you play sports to get better at sports. If you love to draw and paint then you draw and paint to get better.
Grinding on the other hand has you running quests and killing the same creature over and over and over to get better at dungeons and PvP. So if the content you want to be doing is dungeons and PvP it's as you say "A source of annoyance that needs to be overcome."
So when you consider that and re-ask the question "Why watch a football game if they could be closing a deal that'll make them a fat wad of cash?" The answer is because they enjoy watching football, and that enjoyment has a value to them. But as previously stated, if enjoyment was the reason we grind, then we wouldn't need XP rewards. Which leaves one conclusion. The thing that No-Lifers grind for that have value to them is the XP itself, an idea backed up by the fact they constantly keep asking "If we don't get stronger for playing, what is the point of playing?" It's all about the addiction. They play to feed their drug addiction (Literally leveling up activates the same reward centers in the brain as drugs, food, sex etc.) while we play for fun.
As such, time and money are currencies I'm using to buy my way past content I don't want to be doing because an artificial barrier has been placed up to cater to people with an addiction. Of those two currencies, time is actually the more valuable IMO. Maybe not for people who were never taught the value of time by their parents, but I would way rather throw 20-40$ at something I perceive as a waste of my time than "earn" it through monotonous and brainless tasks that demand so much of my time that I wouldn't be able to enjoy the rest of my life if I gave it.
And that's the point. The point of any game, MMORPGs included, should be to have fun.
The fact people see getting more powerful as an "annoyance" or an obstacle to overcome is an issue. If the content is fun, people will do it. You don't need some kind of carrot on a stick to get them to do it. It won't be seen as an "annoyance" or "obstacle". It's seen as content.
That is why games like Player Unknown Battleground, Overwatch, Hearthstone and MOBAs are taken over online gaming. Those games focus on fun, moment to moment gameplay, and forget about virtual world building.
And that's the point. The point of any game, MMORPGs included, should be to have fun.
The fact people see getting more powerful as an "annoyance" or an obstacle to overcome is an issue. If the content is fun, people will do it. You don't need some kind of carrot on a stick to get them to do it. It won't be seen as an "annoyance" or "obstacle". It's seen as content.
That is why games like Player Unknown Battleground, Overwatch, Hearthstone and MOBAs are taken over online gaming. Those games focus on fun, moment to moment gameplay, and forget about virtual world building.
I wouldn't necessarily say they are "taking over". Games like those are more prevalent than before, but there are a lot of games that appear to have been "taking over" gaming for a while. Survival games have increased exponentially in the past 5 years and just about every single one is specifically related to virtual world building.
And that's the point. The point of any game, MMORPGs included, should be to have fun.
The fact people see getting more powerful as an "annoyance" or an obstacle to overcome is an issue. If the content is fun, people will do it. You don't need some kind of carrot on a stick to get them to do it. It won't be seen as an "annoyance" or "obstacle". It's seen as content.
That is why games like Player Unknown Battleground, Overwatch, Hearthstone and MOBAs are taken over online gaming. Those games focus on fun, moment to moment gameplay, and forget about virtual world building.
I wouldn't necessarily say they are "taking over". Games like those are more prevalent than before, but there are a lot of games that appear to have been "taking over" gaming for a while. Survival games have increased exponentially in the past 5 years and just about every single one is specifically related to virtual world building.
the upward curve of adoption of survial games is indeed much steeper than in other genres of the past. This is directly related to the 'indie revolution' era we are currently in which started about 3 years ago which is nearly completely related to bringing the costs of entry into publication to zero as well as all the entry into tools required for development to zero.
This has cause a HUGE spike in games, so whatever is the trend of the day will have a great deal of that type of game for a full game development lifecycle (about 4 years). Thus, the trend could change and there could then be a huge spike in a different kind of 'genre' but only after the one genre has been exhausted and the pipeline then responds which has a 4 year lag.
Now I just threw a great deal of information on the table lets see if people can digest it properly.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I change that from "taking over" to "have already taken over". The various multiplayer battle arenas, which include FPS and MOBAS, already dominated online play. They've just taken more of the spotlight now with the rising of esports and twitch.
activision blizz just announced their quarter result yesterday (or was it day before?).
If you look at the blizz portion, it is all about Overwatch. Wow is only mentioned passingly. Hearthstone gets some spot-light too. It is clear which way the wind is blowing as far as Activision Blizz is concerned.
I am a bit miffed that D3 does not get much highlight either .. but D3 does not have a killer ongoing monetarization model like OW and HS.
I change that from "taking over" to "have already taken over". The various multiplayer battle arenas, which include FPS and MOBAS, already dominated online play. They've just taken more of the spotlight now with the rising of esports and twitch.
activision blizz just announced their quarter result yesterday (or was it day before?).
If you look at the blizz portion, it is all about Overwatch. Wow is only mentioned passingly. Hearthstone gets some spot-light too. It is clear which way the wind is blowing as far as Activision Blizz is concerned.
I am a bit miffed that D3 does not get much highlight either .. but D3 does not have a killer ongoing monetarization model like OW and HS.
Well, yes and no. I mean sure we're talking about blizzard. But Virtual World type games, where you're building large worlds, still have tremendous followings too, and we're talking about on scales that rival MOBAs and FPS games, like the rise of Minecraft, and virtual open world games like GTA5. Both of which it would be tough finding gamers that haven't heard of either of them.
Monetization of those two.. well.. I'm sure the GTA series will change to a different monetization as time progresses... it's inevitable unfortunately. How could a game about stealing, cheating and making money end up not having some type of loot box/cash shop?
Lol at the progression debate. This thread is about the money game, and for the publishers and developers it's a total win. They're bringing in more money per hour played than they've ever dreamed of.
It's the modern day arcade, keep popping in them quarters, except your doing it from home and on your own machine.
Lol at the progression debate. This thread is about the money game, and for the publishers and developers it's a total win. They're bringing in more money per hour played than they've ever dreamed of.
It's the modern day arcade, keep popping in them quarters, except your doing it from home and on your own machine.
What a gig
What has the flight sim niche got you to spend on your environment, gear and software? Most hobbies are about companies trying to cash in on the money game - hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, sport, martial arts, marital arts,
I've spent $140 on a single airplane. But that is not what this is about.
It's all about returns.
I'd love to see the numbers. If anyone is netting 30% or better.... your being fleeced my friend.
Lol at the progression debate. This thread is about the money game, and for the publishers and developers it's a total win. They're bringing in more money per hour played than they've ever dreamed of.
It's the modern day arcade, keep popping in them quarters, except your doing it from home and on your own machine.
What a gig
Gross Revenue and Net Revenue are extremely different things. I agree that the gross revenue for games is much higher now than it was in the past... However, the net has not changed drastically, and in fact has caused many companies to either scale back, or go under. The margins on todays games are not as good as they used to be, and companies need to be much more efficient to compete in todays markets.
And that's the point. The point of any game, MMORPGs included, should be to have fun.
The fact people see getting more powerful as an "annoyance" or an obstacle to overcome is an issue. If the content is fun, people will do it. You don't need some kind of carrot on a stick to get them to do it. It won't be seen as an "annoyance" or "obstacle". It's seen as content.
That is why games like Player Unknown Battleground, Overwatch, Hearthstone and MOBAs are taken over online gaming. Those games focus on fun, moment to moment gameplay, and forget about virtual world building.
If virtual world building was the problem then Minecraft wouldn't be one of the most popular games of all time, and certainly one of the biggest in the past few years. We wouldn't be going through the huge survival game craze we right now.
Virtual world building is fine. Building and immersion are content many people find fun, and that is mostly ignored by those who don't. Artificially gating content behind a grinding or pay to win barrier for everyone is what separates successful games from an entire MMO market in decline. It forces people to do content they don't want to, and that's the issue. That's why on most populated servers in survival games, if there is even a grind in the game it's been reduced to almost nothing by the people who run the server.
And that's the point. The point of any game, MMORPGs included, should be to have fun.
The fact people see getting more powerful as an "annoyance" or an obstacle to overcome is an issue. If the content is fun, people will do it. You don't need some kind of carrot on a stick to get them to do it. It won't be seen as an "annoyance" or "obstacle". It's seen as content.
That is why games like Player Unknown Battleground, Overwatch, Hearthstone and MOBAs are taken over online gaming. Those games focus on fun, moment to moment gameplay, and forget about virtual world building.
If virtual world building was the problem then Minecraft wouldn't be one of the most popular games of all time, and certainly one of the biggest in the past few years. We wouldn't be going through the huge survival game craze we right now.
Virtual world building is fine. Building and immersion are content many people find fun, and that is mostly ignored by those who don't. Artificially gating content behind a grinding or pay to win barrier for everyone is what separates successful games from an entire MMO market in decline. It forces people to do content they don't want to, and that's the issue. That's why on most populated servers in survival games, if there is even a grind in the game it's been reduced to almost nothing by the people who run the server.
Strange how we could disagree so vehemently over a closely related topic, but my initial thought after reading this post was to hit "Agree".
The fact that we even have the term "gating content" shows how hard MMORPGs have fallen into the trap of "the real fun doesn't start til endgame." That's one of the worst tropes of the genre, along with the idea that MMORPGs can somehow attempt to compete with, say, the action combat of a game much smaller in scope.
Better to focus on emphasizing what MMORPGs can offer that other genres cannot.
And that's the point. The point of any game, MMORPGs included, should be to have fun.
The fact people see getting more powerful as an "annoyance" or an obstacle to overcome is an issue. If the content is fun, people will do it. You don't need some kind of carrot on a stick to get them to do it. It won't be seen as an "annoyance" or "obstacle". It's seen as content.
That is why games like Player Unknown Battleground, Overwatch, Hearthstone and MOBAs are taken over online gaming. Those games focus on fun, moment to moment gameplay, and forget about virtual world building.
If virtual world building was the problem then Minecraft wouldn't be one of the most popular games of all time, and certainly one of the biggest in the past few years. We wouldn't be going through the huge survival game craze we right now.
Virtual world building is fine. Building and immersion are content many people find fun, and that is mostly ignored by those who don't. Artificially gating content behind a grinding or pay to win barrier for everyone is what separates successful games from an entire MMO market in decline. It forces people to do content they don't want to, and that's the issue. That's why on most populated servers in survival games, if there is even a grind in the game it's been reduced to almost nothing by the people who run the server.
Strange how we could disagree so vehemently over a closely related topic, but my initial thought after reading this post was to hit "Agree".
The fact that we even have the term "gating content" shows how hard MMORPGs have fallen into the trap of "the real fun doesn't start til endgame." That's one of the worst tropes of the genre, along with the idea that MMORPGs can somehow attempt to compete with, say, the action combat of a game much smaller in scope.
Better to focus on emphasizing what MMORPGs can offer that other genres cannot.
I don't really play any MMORPGs unless the leveling is enjoyable since I know that I will level alts to compare different classes/skill sets with each other. I have always thought that rushing to end game was a weird motivation for playing them since that is the part of them that least appeals to me.
On the subject of playing to their strengths... this has been one of my constant criticisms of the genre for a long time. Shoehorning single player quests as the main leveling mechanic just seems like such a waste of resources to me when their focus should really be on creating new reasons to group casually or formally - not in a retro "let's make all content hard for soloers" way but more like building on the zone or game-wide threats that can't be ignored like Rift, GW2 and others have flirted with.
We need that group/community activity with consequences development focus to really make them stand out as something fun and unique instead of being perceived by some as an annoyance that needs to be endured in order to get to the good stuff.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I don't really play any MMORPGs unless the leveling is enjoyable since I know that I will level alts to compare different classes/skill sets with each other. I have always thought that rushing to end game was a weird motivation for playing them since that is the part of them that least appeals to me.
On the subject of playing to their strengths... this has been one of my constant criticisms of the genre for a long time. Shoehorning single player quests as the main leveling mechanic just seems like such a waste of resources to me when their focus should really be on creating new reasons to group casually or formally - not in a retro "let's make all content hard for soloers" way but more like building on the zone or game-wide threats that can't be ignored like Rift, GW2 and others have flirted with.
We need that group/community activity with consequences development focus to really make them stand out as something fun and unique instead of being perceived by some as an annoyance that needs to be endured in order to get to the good stuff.
Precisely. The fact that folks will literally pay money to shorten the progression experience speaks to the misguided direction the genre seems to be taking.
As @Torval and I discussed in another thread, it's not enough to simply throw up some servers and demand folks pay you regularly anymore. But I think the subscription method can still be used effectively to create a strong niche that plays to the strengths of the genre. The shared world shooters, suvival games, etc. would indeed still be around; we just don't need MMORPG developers to try and force their square peg into that round hole. Find the square hole, instead. The game needs to be as much about the unexpected as the expected. The player should feel swept up in the events of the world, not like the world is simply a slot machine ready to take a quarter to give you a spin of the RNG wheel (both figuratively and literally).
The issue with steep vertical progression and enjoyable leveling / not gated content is that they are two features that don't go together.
Let's list all our primary content in MMORPGs:
1. Quests 2. Dungeons 3. World Events 4. PvP Arenas 5. Open World PvP 6. Territorial Control 7. Trading (Including the transportation of goods such as in ArcheAge) 8. Resource Gathering 9. Crafting 10. Housing / Guild Halls
Quests - In your general MMO questing tends to be zoned with the vast majority of quests in a zone falling within a certain level range. To give players options there tends to be more than one zone for each level range. Vertical progression harms this content in that it becomes too easy past a certain point. If you are actually running quests for the enjoyment of the quests themselves you can run into situations where you are actually punished for leveling by the quests you want to run become overly simple due to your level (This is a major issue for me on my hobbit in LOTRO when I did every Shire quest). You also will almost certainly run into situations where it is unenjoyable to quest together with friends because of level gap.
Some games due attempt to solve this by deleveling people in certain areas. But beyond this being a hated feature by many, it's almost never balanced well. In short the more variance in player power, the more difficult it becomes to balance content and deleveling systems. An issue that is non-existant in games without vertical progression and much simpler in games where vertical progression is limited / realistic.
Dungeons - Dungeons suffer many of the same problems you do with quests. They are built for players of a specific level, then that level changes. Many games allow you to do the same dungeon at multiple levels having epic or hard mode versions of dungeons. But you almost never see dungeons that you can run at every single level. I'm going to assume that this again is due to the massive difficulty that would be involved in balancing such a system.
World Events - Like quests and dungeons, it's not scaled well. Events that should involve the entire player base tend to exclude lower levels or be overly easy for high levels.
PvP Arenas - These aren't even fun with the disparity is too high, and it almost always is. You tend to either kill everyone too easily, or die too easily, taking out the challenge and satisfaction of legitimately killing another player through practice and skill or inducing rage as you die against opponents you had not hope of beating no matter how well you played and how poorly they did.
Open World PvP - Disparity makes this the absolute worst. Most of the complaints you hear about Open World PvP are in reality driven by gear disparity. Dieing to a level 100 in a level 20 zone isn't a product of Open World PvP. It's a product of the game making progression so ridiculous that opponents who are literally impossible for you to beat even exist.
Territorial Control - The absolute most fun content in any MMO in my opinion. Only problem is all low level / low gearscore players are effectively blocked out from taking any meaningful part in it because of the power gap.
Trading - In terms of playing the auction house / market this is one of the only things you can do enjoyably on a low level character (Unless they make skills involved in doing this type of content as they do in EVE for instance.) In terms of transportation of goods like you see in ArcheAge and EVE, if you go through any zones you have the need to defend yourself you may be tossing goods in the trash if you don't have the levels to defend them. Especially in PvP areas of highly populated games/servers. Some competition over goods is great but it's a lot less enjoyable when one side doesn't even stand a chance due to gear.
Resource Gathering - Again, you may be blocked out from doing this if there are high level NPCs or hostile players in the area you want to gather. It would be fun if you had some chance of winning but when gear and level effectively means you will die in one shot to any stronger player it locks you out of harvesting anywhere outside of safe zones enjoyably until max level.
Crafting - In most MMOs there are few goods you can craft at low levels more valuable than the materials involved in making them. Crafting is one of the few areas I'm ok with some progression but it does need to be useful starting at level 1. You shouldn't have to spend weeks, months, or years taking losses on crafting to make anything that will turn an even slight profit. It's not realistic and more importantly, it's not fun. Solving this issue is largely about making crafting a more involved process though. When you can straight up AFK while crafting after you have the resources it makes sense that it's something that generates no value. That value needs to come from effort few games allow you to put in.
Housing / Guild Halls - Pretty much one of the only things not ruined by vertical progression in most MMOs. Yay!
So like 80% of the main content in MMOs suffers from vertical progression in nearly every MMO 90% in ones that have neato good transportation systems like ArcheAge and EVE. The lower the vertical progression, the lesser these problems.
For instance while 90% of EVE is negatively effected by vertical progression, the negative effect is lessened because the vertical progression is lower, and there is no level grinding. So EVE is actually one of the few tolerable MMOs on the market if you despise power gaps.
Personally I think we need some more MMOs that ditch the gap entirely beyond temporary upgrades that are easily lost (Meaning that if you go into combat with super awesome gear, and die in super awesome gear, you suffer a lot more than someone who dies in crap gear.) But at least more games like EVE that address the gap and make it more reasonable would be nice.
If virtual world building was the problem then Minecraft wouldn't be one of the most popular games of all time, and certainly one of the biggest in the past few years.
It is not a "problem" per se. Just not that many games care about it. For every minecraft, there are many more non-virtual world games.
In fact, even minecraft is not a real persistent virtual world game.
For every minecraft, there are many more non-virtual world games...
And those games aren't MMOs. And that's ok. But they aren't going to satisfy anyone who wants an MMO.
You can serve chicken (Small Scale Multiplayer) and call it beef (MMOs) but you're just going to piss off anyone who actually wanted beef.
Your argument is "Everyone hate's tough meat (Grinding). Nobody is eating beef anymore. Chicken is overtaking the market. Let's just call the chicken beef and save the beef industry."
My argument is "Everyone hate's tough meat (Grinding). How about we stop making every single steak well-done and try serving some of it medium rare or grind it up and make hamburger (Address the grind)."
If you actually like beef, I think it's clear which argument makes sense, and one is just someone wasting everyone's time with nonsense.
Just like "Let's just call LoL is an MMO!" Is an argument that doesn't satisfy anyone who enjoys MMOs.
Lol at the progression debate. This thread is about the money game, and for the publishers and developers it's a total win. They're bringing in more money per hour played than they've ever dreamed of.
It's the modern day arcade, keep popping in them quarters, except your doing it from home and on your own machine.
What a gig
Gross Revenue and Net Revenue are extremely different things. I agree that the gross revenue for games is much higher now than it was in the past... However, the net has not changed drastically, and in fact has caused many companies to either scale back, or go under. The margins on todays games are not as good as they used to be, and companies need to be much more efficient to compete in todays markets.
Why do you think the margins are much narrower? I wouldn't have suspected that. If anything I would have thought with the power of current tech and decades of experience it would be easier than ever to leverage wider profit margins. So that's interesting.
The simple answer, competition. Todays consumer has many more products/companies competing for their dollar, and because of this, they get more buying power for that dollar. In the past (almost) 20 years the market has changed dramatically from a time when there were only a handful of options available to a time where there are so many, that you cant even list them all. There is also much more diversity of options, and different ways to spend your money.
If you look at the numbers for publicly traded gaming companies (NCSOFT just put out recent numbers), you can see their net revenue growth has slowed compared to the past. They are still seeing strong gross revenue growth, but it is not translating to similar growth in net revenue. the biggest growth in cost has come in two areas; marketing and service. They spend a lot of money to convince customers to choose their products, and then in service to keep them using them. This is all because of the competition.
One of the main reasons why many gaming companies changed focus from PC to Mobile was because they felt that PC was too competitive, and they didnt like the shrinking margins. Mobile was perceived to be where they could grow these margins back to previous levels. However, due to EVERYONE trying to do the same thing, it didnt really happen for most of them.
For every minecraft, there are many more non-virtual world games...
And those games aren't MMOs. And that's ok. But they aren't going to satisfy anyone who wants an MMO.
Neither is minecraft.
You are probably overestimating the population who ONLY want MMOs. I doubt most players care that much about MMO. For them, if a game is good, play it .. whether it is MMO or not is pretty irrelevant.
And those games aren't MMOs. And that's ok. But they aren't going to satisfy anyone who wants an MMO.
You are probably overestimating the population who ONLY want MMOs. I doubt most players care that much about MMO. For them, if a game is good, play it .. whether it is MMO or not is pretty irrelevant.
Most players probably don't. Of the kind who are looking for games titled MMOs, near 100% who will choose to play a game because it labeled itself as an MMO will.
Sort of like how I like chicken, and if I say "I'm feeling adventurous bring me some kind of meat dish you think is good" to the waiter, and they bring me chicken, I will happily consume it. And if I'm feeling in the mood for a MOBA I'll happily play SMITE.
But if I say "I'll take a full rack of ribs please" and I get served chicken my reaction is going to be "Um, there's been a mistake. I ordered ribs. Can you take this back and bring me some ribs?"
So what is the point in labeling a game as an MMO when it isn't? That label is meant to attract people who enjoy MMOs. Sure, maybe most people won't care. But it will piss off near 100% of the players who are drawn in by the MMO label. Not only that, it turns away people repulsed by the MMO label (As the WoW generation of MMOs has done to many.)
Most players probably don't. Of the kind who are looking for games titled MMOs, near 100% who will choose to play a game because it labeled itself as an MMO will.
Sure .. just that the MMO group is no where big enough for devs of these games to care. This is no different than saying some wants to play text adventures. Sure .. they are only happy if they have text adventures to play .. but their pop is so small that no one will care.
Comments
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Why ignore all of his post to withdraw a single sentence, out of context, to attempt to prove an argument?
When time is spent visiting with relatives, time isn't money, but it does still have intrinsic value. Nothing about that equates the two resources (time and money).
The objective reasoning behind the argument has nothing to do with the value of time itself, either as money or as an intrinsic, non-monetary, reward; it has to do with the equitability of the distribution of the resource among the population. I used real world data to prove the point.
In sum, I think if a game RELIES almost solely on random rewards to keep you playing then it's more like gambling. If however it has some random deviation in rewards on top of what's foremost strongly decision or information driven gameplay, I think it's complimentary. Think about it, would you be happy if every person looked the same? Or if every car had the same max speed? Or if every surprise was equally surprising? Or if the clouds always moved and looked the same way every new day? That gets repetitive fast. Maybe you feel differently. In my opinion, it's just not immersive.
The more strategy and information is involved in acquiring the reward, the less like gambling it's. I'll add that too.
The fact people see getting more powerful as an "annoyance" or an obstacle to overcome is an issue. If the content is fun, people will do it. You don't need some kind of carrot on a stick to get them to do it. It won't be seen as an "annoyance" or "obstacle". It's seen as content.
So the game is using time and/or money to give artificial stats as a replacement for the effort required to build player skills through processes that actually tend to be enjoyable. They tend to be enjoyable because in order to get good at the activities you want to do, you do the activities you want to do. Want to be a better at dungeons? Run more dungeons. PvP? Do more PvP.
Sort of like if you enjoy playing an instrument, you play an instrument to get better at playing it. If you love sports, you play sports to get better at sports. If you love to draw and paint then you draw and paint to get better.
Grinding on the other hand has you running quests and killing the same creature over and over and over to get better at dungeons and PvP. Or in the cases you can do the content you want to do in order to get better it still gives you an artificial disadvantage beyond the appropriate disadvantage your lack of experience gives you. So if you want to actually enjoy your content of preference on a fair level it's as you say "A source of annoyance that needs to be overcome."
So when you consider that and re-ask the question "Why watch a football game if they could be closing a deal that'll make them a fat wad of cash?" The answer is because they enjoy watching football, and that enjoyment has a value to them. But as previously stated, if enjoyment was the reason we grind, then we wouldn't need XP rewards. Which leaves one conclusion. The thing that No-Lifers grind for that have value to them is the XP itself, an idea backed up by the fact they constantly keep asking "If we don't get stronger for playing, what is the point of playing?"
As such, time and money are currencies I'm using to buy my way past content I don't want to be doing because an artificial barrier has been placed up to cater to people with an addiction. Of those two currencies, time is actually the more valuable IMO. Maybe not for people who were never taught the value of time by their parents, but I would way rather throw 20-40$ at something I perceive as a waste of my time than "earn" it through monotonous and brainless tasks that demand so much of my time that I wouldn't be able to enjoy the rest of my life if I gave it.
The fact people see getting more powerful as an "annoyance" or an obstacle to overcome is an issue. If the content is fun, people will do it. You don't need some kind of carrot on a stick to get them to do it. It won't be seen as an "annoyance" or "obstacle". It's seen as content.
So the game is using time and/or money to give artificial stats as a replacement for the effort required to build player skills through processes that actually tend to be enjoyable. They tend to be enjoyable because in order to get good at the activities you want to do, you do the activities you want to do. Want to be a better at dungeons? Run more dungeons. PvP? Do more PvP.''
Sort of like if you enjoy playing an instrument, you play an instrument to get better at playing it. If you love sports, you play sports to get better at sports. If you love to draw and paint then you draw and paint to get better.
Grinding on the other hand has you running quests and killing the same creature over and over and over to get better at dungeons and PvP. So if the content you want to be doing is dungeons and PvP it's as you say "A source of annoyance that needs to be overcome."
So when you consider that and re-ask the question "Why watch a football game if they could be closing a deal that'll make them a fat wad of cash?" The answer is because they enjoy watching football, and that enjoyment has a value to them. But as previously stated, if enjoyment was the reason we grind, then we wouldn't need XP rewards. Which leaves one conclusion. The thing that No-Lifers grind for that have value to them is the XP itself, an idea backed up by the fact they constantly keep asking "If we don't get stronger for playing, what is the point of playing?" It's all about the addiction. They play to feed their drug addiction (Literally leveling up activates the same reward centers in the brain as drugs, food, sex etc.) while we play for fun.
As such, time and money are currencies I'm using to buy my way past content I don't want to be doing because an artificial barrier has been placed up to cater to people with an addiction. Of those two currencies, time is actually the more valuable IMO. Maybe not for people who were never taught the value of time by their parents, but I would way rather throw 20-40$ at something I perceive as a waste of my time than "earn" it through monotonous and brainless tasks that demand so much of my time that I wouldn't be able to enjoy the rest of my life if I gave it.
This has cause a HUGE spike in games, so whatever is the trend of the day will have a great deal of that type of game for a full game development lifecycle (about 4 years). Thus, the trend could change and there could then be a huge spike in a different kind of 'genre' but only after the one genre has been exhausted and the pipeline then responds which has a 4 year lag.
Now I just threw a great deal of information on the table lets see if people can digest it properly.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If you look at the blizz portion, it is all about Overwatch. Wow is only mentioned passingly. Hearthstone gets some spot-light too. It is clear which way the wind is blowing as far as Activision Blizz is concerned.
I am a bit miffed that D3 does not get much highlight either .. but D3 does not have a killer ongoing monetarization model like OW and HS.
Monetization of those two.. well.. I'm sure the GTA series will change to a different monetization as time progresses... it's inevitable unfortunately. How could a game about stealing, cheating and making money end up not having some type of loot box/cash shop?
It's the modern day arcade, keep popping in them quarters, except your doing it from home and on your own machine.
What a gig
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Virtual world building is fine. Building and immersion are content many people find fun, and that is mostly ignored by those who don't. Artificially gating content behind a grinding or pay to win barrier for everyone is what separates successful games from an entire MMO market in decline. It forces people to do content they don't want to, and that's the issue. That's why on most populated servers in survival games, if there is even a grind in the game it's been reduced to almost nothing by the people who run the server.
The fact that we even have the term "gating content" shows how hard MMORPGs have fallen into the trap of "the real fun doesn't start til endgame." That's one of the worst tropes of the genre, along with the idea that MMORPGs can somehow attempt to compete with, say, the action combat of a game much smaller in scope.
Better to focus on emphasizing what MMORPGs can offer that other genres cannot.
On the subject of playing to their strengths... this has been one of my constant criticisms of the genre for a long time. Shoehorning single player quests as the main leveling mechanic just seems like such a waste of resources to me when their focus should really be on creating new reasons to group casually or formally - not in a retro "let's make all content hard for soloers" way but more like building on the zone or game-wide threats that can't be ignored like Rift, GW2 and others have flirted with.
We need that group/community activity with consequences development focus to really make them stand out as something fun and unique instead of being perceived by some as an annoyance that needs to be endured in order to get to the good stuff.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
As @Torval and I discussed in another thread, it's not enough to simply throw up some servers and demand folks pay you regularly anymore. But I think the subscription method can still be used effectively to create a strong niche that plays to the strengths of the genre. The shared world shooters, suvival games, etc. would indeed still be around; we just don't need MMORPG developers to try and force their square peg into that round hole. Find the square hole, instead. The game needs to be as much about the unexpected as the expected. The player should feel swept up in the events of the world, not like the world is simply a slot machine ready to take a quarter to give you a spin of the RNG wheel (both figuratively and literally).
Let's list all our primary content in MMORPGs:
1. Quests
2. Dungeons
3. World Events
4. PvP Arenas
5. Open World PvP
6. Territorial Control
7. Trading (Including the transportation of goods such as in ArcheAge)
8. Resource Gathering
9. Crafting
10. Housing / Guild Halls
Quests - In your general MMO questing tends to be zoned with the vast majority of quests in a zone falling within a certain level range. To give players options there tends to be more than one zone for each level range. Vertical progression harms this content in that it becomes too easy past a certain point. If you are actually running quests for the enjoyment of the quests themselves you can run into situations where you are actually punished for leveling by the quests you want to run become overly simple due to your level (This is a major issue for me on my hobbit in LOTRO when I did every Shire quest). You also will almost certainly run into situations where it is unenjoyable to quest together with friends because of level gap.
Some games due attempt to solve this by deleveling people in certain areas. But beyond this being a hated feature by many, it's almost never balanced well. In short the more variance in player power, the more difficult it becomes to balance content and deleveling systems. An issue that is non-existant in games without vertical progression and much simpler in games where vertical progression is limited / realistic.
Dungeons - Dungeons suffer many of the same problems you do with quests. They are built for players of a specific level, then that level changes. Many games allow you to do the same dungeon at multiple levels having epic or hard mode versions of dungeons. But you almost never see dungeons that you can run at every single level. I'm going to assume that this again is due to the massive difficulty that would be involved in balancing such a system.
World Events - Like quests and dungeons, it's not scaled well. Events that should involve the entire player base tend to exclude lower levels or be overly easy for high levels.
PvP Arenas - These aren't even fun with the disparity is too high, and it almost always is. You tend to either kill everyone too easily, or die too easily, taking out the challenge and satisfaction of legitimately killing another player through practice and skill or inducing rage as you die against opponents you had not hope of beating no matter how well you played and how poorly they did.
Open World PvP - Disparity makes this the absolute worst. Most of the complaints you hear about Open World PvP are in reality driven by gear disparity. Dieing to a level 100 in a level 20 zone isn't a product of Open World PvP. It's a product of the game making progression so ridiculous that opponents who are literally impossible for you to beat even exist.
Territorial Control - The absolute most fun content in any MMO in my opinion. Only problem is all low level / low gearscore players are effectively blocked out from taking any meaningful part in it because of the power gap.
Trading - In terms of playing the auction house / market this is one of the only things you can do enjoyably on a low level character (Unless they make skills involved in doing this type of content as they do in EVE for instance.) In terms of transportation of goods like you see in ArcheAge and EVE, if you go through any zones you have the need to defend yourself you may be tossing goods in the trash if you don't have the levels to defend them. Especially in PvP areas of highly populated games/servers. Some competition over goods is great but it's a lot less enjoyable when one side doesn't even stand a chance due to gear.
Resource Gathering - Again, you may be blocked out from doing this if there are high level NPCs or hostile players in the area you want to gather. It would be fun if you had some chance of winning but when gear and level effectively means you will die in one shot to any stronger player it locks you out of harvesting anywhere outside of safe zones enjoyably until max level.
Crafting - In most MMOs there are few goods you can craft at low levels more valuable than the materials involved in making them. Crafting is one of the few areas I'm ok with some progression but it does need to be useful starting at level 1. You shouldn't have to spend weeks, months, or years taking losses on crafting to make anything that will turn an even slight profit. It's not realistic and more importantly, it's not fun. Solving this issue is largely about making crafting a more involved process though. When you can straight up AFK while crafting after you have the resources it makes sense that it's something that generates no value. That value needs to come from effort few games allow you to put in.
Housing / Guild Halls - Pretty much one of the only things not ruined by vertical progression in most MMOs. Yay!
So like 80% of the main content in MMOs suffers from vertical progression in nearly every MMO 90% in ones that have neato good transportation systems like ArcheAge and EVE. The lower the vertical progression, the lesser these problems.
For instance while 90% of EVE is negatively effected by vertical progression, the negative effect is lessened because the vertical progression is lower, and there is no level grinding. So EVE is actually one of the few tolerable MMOs on the market if you despise power gaps.
Personally I think we need some more MMOs that ditch the gap entirely beyond temporary upgrades that are easily lost (Meaning that if you go into combat with super awesome gear, and die in super awesome gear, you suffer a lot more than someone who dies in crap gear.) But at least more games like EVE that address the gap and make it more reasonable would be nice.
You can serve chicken (Small Scale Multiplayer) and call it beef (MMOs) but you're just going to piss off anyone who actually wanted beef.
Your argument is "Everyone hate's tough meat (Grinding). Nobody is eating beef anymore. Chicken is overtaking the market. Let's just call the chicken beef and save the beef industry."
My argument is "Everyone hate's tough meat (Grinding). How about we stop making every single steak well-done and try serving some of it medium rare or grind it up and make hamburger (Address the grind)."
If you actually like beef, I think it's clear which argument makes sense, and one is just someone wasting everyone's time with nonsense.
Just like "Let's just call LoL is an MMO!" Is an argument that doesn't satisfy anyone who enjoys MMOs.
If you look at the numbers for publicly traded gaming companies (NCSOFT just put out recent numbers), you can see their net revenue growth has slowed compared to the past. They are still seeing strong gross revenue growth, but it is not translating to similar growth in net revenue. the biggest growth in cost has come in two areas; marketing and service. They spend a lot of money to convince customers to choose their products, and then in service to keep them using them. This is all because of the competition.
One of the main reasons why many gaming companies changed focus from PC to Mobile was because they felt that PC was too competitive, and they didnt like the shrinking margins. Mobile was perceived to be where they could grow these margins back to previous levels. However, due to EVERYONE trying to do the same thing, it didnt really happen for most of them.
You are probably overestimating the population who ONLY want MMOs. I doubt most players care that much about MMO. For them, if a game is good, play it .. whether it is MMO or not is pretty irrelevant.
Sort of like how I like chicken, and if I say "I'm feeling adventurous bring me some kind of meat dish you think is good" to the waiter, and they bring me chicken, I will happily consume it. And if I'm feeling in the mood for a MOBA I'll happily play SMITE.
But if I say "I'll take a full rack of ribs please" and I get served chicken my reaction is going to be "Um, there's been a mistake. I ordered ribs. Can you take this back and bring me some ribs?"
So what is the point in labeling a game as an MMO when it isn't? That label is meant to attract people who enjoy MMOs. Sure, maybe most people won't care. But it will piss off near 100% of the players who are drawn in by the MMO label. Not only that, it turns away people repulsed by the MMO label (As the WoW generation of MMOs has done to many.)