If a game is making you play solo, get out of that game or join a guild. Unless you are relentlessly solo like some of our posters you will find like minded players in guilds who will help out. These days MMOs are so easy you rarely need help anyway. Many group just for the pleasure of grouping.
It has never and will never be the case with MMORPGs.
Subscriptions favour those with abundant spare time to devote to playing.
Microtransactions favour those with abundant disposable income to spend on playing.
There are no equal terms to be had and no gamers in equal conditions to offer them to.
That's true. And in games with big power gaps it causes player division, a huge reason why players end up playing solo. Lower power gaps that mitigate this is better no matter what game design it is. Even in level based games, if advancement is faster at lower levels (a standard in most Sandbox designs), allowing players to always play catch up to their guildmates and friends, and keep playing with them.
That's part of it. Another cause in joining a long established game where the vast majority of the population is clustered in the current end game zone and anyone trying to level through play is essentially alone in a vast wasteland.
When I tried to play retail WoW and level up through the content playing solo didn't have much choice to it. There was simply nobody to be seen out in the world virtually all the time. If felt it quite odd with the massive population the game has.
That feeling is partly due to having spent most of my MMORPG time in City of Heroes to that point, and it has systems that allow people of disparate level to play together when grouped. Otherwise the content was level based, so you had to make sure you didn't leave the group in an area not appropriate for your actual level or you'd be smashed pretty quick if there was a large difference.
That game has so many features I've not seen elsewhere that allow players to customize game difficulty to their personal taste, that also apply to groups they lead so all those involved can play under those chosen conditions together.
I wish Baseball had those options. I would have liked to move the fence in when I came to bat. I could have led our little league in homeruns. Or maybe they'd have rules that stuck me in the "50' Fence Group", which of course might have robbed me of my esteemed "homerun king" prize. I didn't have that option, though.
However, I did garner a trophy for a record setting 10 Touchdown game, once. I left my opponents bloodied and exhausted. That was at the Apple Blossom Kindergarten, when one of the fathers showed up and handed it to me. Looked a lot like the hood ornament that went missing off my car. I proudly display that trophy on my fireplace mantel. (Someday I may get a fireplace to dress it up a little.)
If a game is making you play solo, get out of that game or join a guild. Unless you are relentlessly solo like some of our posters you will find like minded players in guilds who will help out. These days MMOs are so easy you rarely need help anyway. Many group just for the pleasure of grouping.
In all my years of playing MMORPGs I've found two guilds that enhanced my game experience rather than detract from it. They are not a resource I can look to with any confidence of success.
MMORPGs range in difficulty. I play some where one can take on a horde with ease (CoH for some archetypes) and others where one must be quite selective in what they attack and even then likely die if not paying careful attention to the circumstances surrounding the target before attacking (Project:Gorgon, Embers Adrift).
If a game is making you play solo, get out of that game or join a guild. Unless you are relentlessly solo like some of our posters you will find like minded players in guilds who will help out. These days MMOs are so easy you rarely need help anyway. Many group just for the pleasure of grouping.
In all my years of playing MMORPGs I've found two guilds that enhanced my game experience rather than detract from it. They are not a resource I can look to with any confidence of success.
MMORPGs range in difficulty. I play some where one can take on a horde with ease (CoH for some archetypes) and others where one must be quite selective in what they attack and even then likely die if not paying careful attention to the circumstances surrounding the target before attacking (Project:Gorgon, Embers Adrift).
I will certainly agree that getting a good guild is not easy, you have to take your time, do they have a website, what are their stated aims and so on. But that time is paid back over and over again when you are in a good guild. I can remember when soloing and doing some banter in guild text one officer explained the entire equipment upgrade system. No need to read up on that!
Amaranthar said You see, that shows that a lot of players do care about their look in-game.
Uniqueness is a factor, too. "Winning" is hard to define in an MMORPG, but having characters that "look the part", and still have a unique look, is a valuable thing for many.
That players are willing to buy cosmetics demonstrates they care about their look in-game in itself. It needed no further establishment.
There is no doubt such can increase the enjoyment a player derives from their character. If one wants to stretch the concept of "win" to the entirely subjective it can of course apply to anything, and thus mean essentially nothing.
An objective view requires some actual concrete game benefit be derived from spending money for any win to be available for payment.
But you guys are ignoring the better game play in my point. Put my game up against your game (designs), on equal quality of production, and my game's going to syphon off many of the gamers in your game. Simply because it's a better game experience.
And don't tell me "but it's free", because it's not and everyone knows it.
But see, here is the rub.
It won't.
I admit, I am kinda of apathetic about breaking that bit of info to you, but it's true.
Your game would have to be soo much better, and not just "better" but in the realm of "OMFG, This game made me shit my pants it was so fucking Awesome" level better, to get players to give up on their F2P game, which they can take breaks from, and come and go as they please, without worry, and feel like they always will have access to their character, and can just jump back in to talk with friends anytime they want, to go off and pay a sub just to access your game.
Not only would it have to be better, it would have to be so much better, that all their friends went to it as well.
Now, Will you be able to make that level of game?
No, now you will not, not unless you got access to some new level of tech shit that could redefine how games functioned, and reinvented what an MMO is from the ground up, which, lets be honest, and this is not a dis, but, we just need to wake up from the dream, put on the work boots, and accept that people stuck in the past on the old school sub based games, are not going to be the ones to do that.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Amaranthar said You see, that shows that a lot of players do care about their look in-game.
Uniqueness is a factor, too. "Winning" is hard to define in an MMORPG, but having characters that "look the part", and still have a unique look, is a valuable thing for many.
That players are willing to buy cosmetics demonstrates they care about their look in-game in itself. It needed no further establishment.
There is no doubt such can increase the enjoyment a player derives from their character. If one wants to stretch the concept of "win" to the entirely subjective it can of course apply to anything, and thus mean essentially nothing.
An objective view requires some actual concrete game benefit be derived from spending money for any win to be available for payment.
But you guys are ignoring the better game play in my point. Put my game up against your game (designs), on equal quality of production, and my game's going to syphon off many of the gamers in your game. Simply because it's a better game experience.
And don't tell me "but it's free", because it's not and everyone knows it.
But see, here is the rub.
It won't.
I admit, I am kinda of apathetic about breaking that bit of info to you, but it's true.
Your game would have to be soo much better, and not just "better" but in the realm of "OMFG, This game made me shit my pants it was so fucking Awesome" level better, to get players to give up on their F2P game, which they can take breaks from, and come and go as they please, without worry, and feel like they always will have access to their character, and can just jump back in to talk with friends anytime they want, to go off and pay a sub just to access your game.
Not only would it have to be better, it would have to be so much better, that all their friends went to it as well.
Now, Will you be able to make that level of game?
No, now you will not, not unless you got access to some new level of tech shit that could redefine how games functioned, and reinvented what an MMO is from the ground up, which, lets be honest, and this is not a dis, but, we just need to wake up from the dream, put on the work boots, and accept that people stuck in the past on the old school sub based games, are not going to be the ones to do that.
Naa. Games are so lacking these days, that's not a problem. Half of it is "lowest common denominator" and the other half is "enhanced CS enticements."
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those. And frankly, while I know there's gamers like that, and they have their rights too, but I really don't want to play with them. And I don't think I'm anywhere close to alone in that.
There are a few exceptions, of course. Games that are "almost" in some ways, but still not as good as could be. For various reasons. But the boredom is growing, even with them.
Naa. Games are so lacking these days, that's not a problem. Half of it is "lowest common denominator" and the other half is "enhanced CS enticements."
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those. And frankly, while I know there's gamers like that, and they have their rights too, but I really don't want to play with them. And I don't think I'm anywhere close to alone in that.
There are a few exceptions, of course. Games that are "almost" in some ways, but still not as good as could be. For various reasons. But the boredom is growing, even with them.
DS highlighted the easymode gameplay issue, but has done nothing to solve it from what I can see. Not that I would want everything like DS far from it, diversity is what we need. Just like ESO not pointing the way forward for MMOs. Look at classic, it is regarded as another type of MMO, one that "does not effect their thinking about the modern game" (Blizzard exec). The gaming industry is a behemoth heading in one direction; a single big subscription MMO, a new more difficult gaming genre, even multiple "classics" showing players like older gameplay is not going to change that.
Amaranthar said You see, that shows that a lot of players do care about their look in-game.
Uniqueness is a factor, too. "Winning" is hard to define in an MMORPG, but having characters that "look the part", and still have a unique look, is a valuable thing for many.
That players are willing to buy cosmetics demonstrates they care about their look in-game in itself. It needed no further establishment.
There is no doubt such can increase the enjoyment a player derives from their character. If one wants to stretch the concept of "win" to the entirely subjective it can of course apply to anything, and thus mean essentially nothing.
An objective view requires some actual concrete game benefit be derived from spending money for any win to be available for payment.
But you guys are ignoring the better game play in my point. Put my game up against your game (designs), on equal quality of production, and my game's going to syphon off many of the gamers in your game. Simply because it's a better game experience.
And don't tell me "but it's free", because it's not and everyone knows it.
But see, here is the rub.
It won't.
I admit, I am kinda of apathetic about breaking that bit of info to you, but it's true.
Your game would have to be soo much better, and not just "better" but in the realm of "OMFG, This game made me shit my pants it was so fucking Awesome" level better, to get players to give up on their F2P game, which they can take breaks from, and come and go as they please, without worry, and feel like they always will have access to their character, and can just jump back in to talk with friends anytime they want, to go off and pay a sub just to access your game.
Not only would it have to be better, it would have to be so much better, that all their friends went to it as well.
Now, Will you be able to make that level of game?
No, now you will not, not unless you got access to some new level of tech shit that could redefine how games functioned, and reinvented what an MMO is from the ground up, which, lets be honest, and this is not a dis, but, we just need to wake up from the dream, put on the work boots, and accept that people stuck in the past on the old school sub based games, are not going to be the ones to do that.
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those.
So you say, but anything one merely speaks of is easy.
Naa. Games are so lacking these days, that's not a problem. Half of it is "lowest common denominator" and the other half is "enhanced CS enticements."
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those. And frankly, while I know there's gamers like that, and they have their rights too, but I really don't want to play with them. And I don't think I'm anywhere close to alone in that.
There are a few exceptions, of course. Games that are "almost" in some ways, but still not as good as could be. For various reasons. But the boredom is growing, even with them.
DS highlighted the easymode gameplay issue, but has done nothing to solve it from what I can see. Not that I would want everything like DS far from it, diversity is what we need. Just like ESO not pointing the way forward for MMOs. Look at classic, it is regarded as another type of MMO, one that "does not effect their thinking about the modern game" (Blizzard exec). The gaming industry is a behemoth heading in one direction; a single big subscription MMO, a new more difficult gaming genre, even multiple "classics" showing players like older gameplay is not going to change that.
We have abundant diversity.
We have old and new. We have skill and classed base. We have tab-target, action combat, and turn-based. We have theme park and sandbox. We have fantasy, science-fiction, superhero, horror and beyond. We have PvE, PvP, and both combined. We have traditional and scaling content. We have varying difficulties.
Naa. Games are so lacking these days, that's not a problem. Half of it is "lowest common denominator" and the other half is "enhanced CS enticements."
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those. And frankly, while I know there's gamers like that, and they have their rights too, but I really don't want to play with them. And I don't think I'm anywhere close to alone in that.
There are a few exceptions, of course. Games that are "almost" in some ways, but still not as good as could be. For various reasons. But the boredom is growing, even with them.
DS highlighted the easymode gameplay issue, but has done nothing to solve it from what I can see. Not that I would want everything like DS far from it, diversity is what we need. Just like ESO not pointing the way forward for MMOs. Look at classic, it is regarded as another type of MMO, one that "does not effect their thinking about the modern game" (Blizzard exec). The gaming industry is a behemoth heading in one direction; a single big subscription MMO, a new more difficult gaming genre, even multiple "classics" showing players like older gameplay is not going to change that.
We have abundant diversity.
We have old and new. We have skill and classed base. We have tab-target, action combat, and turn-based. We have theme park and sandbox. We have fantasy, science-fiction, superhero, horror and beyond. We have PvE, PvP, and both combined. We have traditional and scaling content. We have varying difficulties.
We have a banquet of options.
Diversity, when it's spread out in different games and all chopped up, is meaningless.
Amaranthar said You see, that shows that a lot of players do care about their look in-game.
Uniqueness is a factor, too. "Winning" is hard to define in an MMORPG, but having characters that "look the part", and still have a unique look, is a valuable thing for many.
That players are willing to buy cosmetics demonstrates they care about their look in-game in itself. It needed no further establishment.
There is no doubt such can increase the enjoyment a player derives from their character. If one wants to stretch the concept of "win" to the entirely subjective it can of course apply to anything, and thus mean essentially nothing.
An objective view requires some actual concrete game benefit be derived from spending money for any win to be available for payment.
But you guys are ignoring the better game play in my point. Put my game up against your game (designs), on equal quality of production, and my game's going to syphon off many of the gamers in your game. Simply because it's a better game experience.
And don't tell me "but it's free", because it's not and everyone knows it.
But see, here is the rub.
It won't.
I admit, I am kinda of apathetic about breaking that bit of info to you, but it's true.
Your game would have to be soo much better, and not just "better" but in the realm of "OMFG, This game made me shit my pants it was so fucking Awesome" level better, to get players to give up on their F2P game, which they can take breaks from, and come and go as they please, without worry, and feel like they always will have access to their character, and can just jump back in to talk with friends anytime they want, to go off and pay a sub just to access your game.
Not only would it have to be better, it would have to be so much better, that all their friends went to it as well.
Now, Will you be able to make that level of game?
No, now you will not, not unless you got access to some new level of tech shit that could redefine how games functioned, and reinvented what an MMO is from the ground up, which, lets be honest, and this is not a dis, but, we just need to wake up from the dream, put on the work boots, and accept that people stuck in the past on the old school sub based games, are not going to be the ones to do that.
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those.
So you say, but anything one merely speaks of is easy.
Naa. Games are so lacking these days, that's not a problem. Half of it is "lowest common denominator" and the other half is "enhanced CS enticements."
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those. And frankly, while I know there's gamers like that, and they have their rights too, but I really don't want to play with them. And I don't think I'm anywhere close to alone in that.
There are a few exceptions, of course. Games that are "almost" in some ways, but still not as good as could be. For various reasons. But the boredom is growing, even with them.
DS highlighted the easymode gameplay issue, but has done nothing to solve it from what I can see. Not that I would want everything like DS far from it, diversity is what we need. Just like ESO not pointing the way forward for MMOs. Look at classic, it is regarded as another type of MMO, one that "does not effect their thinking about the modern game" (Blizzard exec). The gaming industry is a behemoth heading in one direction; a single big subscription MMO, a new more difficult gaming genre, even multiple "classics" showing players like older gameplay is not going to change that.
We have abundant diversity.
We have old and new. We have skill and classed base. We have tab-target, action combat, and turn-based. We have theme park and sandbox. We have fantasy, science-fiction, superhero, horror and beyond. We have PvE, PvP, and both combined. We have traditional and scaling content. We have varying difficulties.
We have a banquet of options.
Diversity, when it's spread out in different games and all chopped up, is meaningless.
Did you expect diversity of that nature in a single game? How would you cobble their contrary elements into a unified whole, the tab-action-turn-based combat in particular. Good luck with that.
Amaranthar said You see, that shows that a lot of players do care about their look in-game.
Uniqueness is a factor, too. "Winning" is hard to define in an MMORPG, but having characters that "look the part", and still have a unique look, is a valuable thing for many.
That players are willing to buy cosmetics demonstrates they care about their look in-game in itself. It needed no further establishment.
There is no doubt such can increase the enjoyment a player derives from their character. If one wants to stretch the concept of "win" to the entirely subjective it can of course apply to anything, and thus mean essentially nothing.
An objective view requires some actual concrete game benefit be derived from spending money for any win to be available for payment.
But you guys are ignoring the better game play in my point. Put my game up against your game (designs), on equal quality of production, and my game's going to syphon off many of the gamers in your game. Simply because it's a better game experience.
And don't tell me "but it's free", because it's not and everyone knows it.
But see, here is the rub.
It won't.
I admit, I am kinda of apathetic about breaking that bit of info to you, but it's true.
Your game would have to be soo much better, and not just "better" but in the realm of "OMFG, This game made me shit my pants it was so fucking Awesome" level better, to get players to give up on their F2P game, which they can take breaks from, and come and go as they please, without worry, and feel like they always will have access to their character, and can just jump back in to talk with friends anytime they want, to go off and pay a sub just to access your game.
Not only would it have to be better, it would have to be so much better, that all their friends went to it as well.
Now, Will you be able to make that level of game?
No, now you will not, not unless you got access to some new level of tech shit that could redefine how games functioned, and reinvented what an MMO is from the ground up, which, lets be honest, and this is not a dis, but, we just need to wake up from the dream, put on the work boots, and accept that people stuck in the past on the old school sub based games, are not going to be the ones to do that.
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those.
So you say, but anything one merely speaks of is easy.
The difficulty comes in the doing.
Is that a reason not to do it?
It is if the one saying is unable to back it up with doing.
Naa. Games are so lacking these days, that's not a problem. Half of it is "lowest common denominator" and the other half is "enhanced CS enticements."
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those. And frankly, while I know there's gamers like that, and they have their rights too, but I really don't want to play with them. And I don't think I'm anywhere close to alone in that.
There are a few exceptions, of course. Games that are "almost" in some ways, but still not as good as could be. For various reasons. But the boredom is growing, even with them.
DS highlighted the easymode gameplay issue, but has done nothing to solve it from what I can see. Not that I would want everything like DS far from it, diversity is what we need. Just like ESO not pointing the way forward for MMOs. Look at classic, it is regarded as another type of MMO, one that "does not effect their thinking about the modern game" (Blizzard exec). The gaming industry is a behemoth heading in one direction; a single big subscription MMO, a new more difficult gaming genre, even multiple "classics" showing players like older gameplay is not going to change that.
We have abundant diversity.
We have old and new. We have skill and classed base. We have tab-target, action combat, and turn-based. We have theme park and sandbox. We have fantasy, science-fiction, superhero, horror and beyond. We have PvE, PvP, and both combined. We have traditional and scaling content. We have varying difficulties.
We have a banquet of options.
Diversity, when it's spread out in different games and all chopped up, is meaningless.
Did you expect diversity of that nature in a single game? How would you cobble their contrary elements into a unified whole, the tab-action-turn-based combat in particular. Good luck with that.
Of course not, not the way you put it. Mixing game types (Sandbox vs. Themepark) doesn't work well. There are all kinds of other ways to have diversity in play styles.
Amaranthar said You see, that shows that a lot of players do care about their look in-game.
Uniqueness is a factor, too. "Winning" is hard to define in an MMORPG, but having characters that "look the part", and still have a unique look, is a valuable thing for many.
That players are willing to buy cosmetics demonstrates they care about their look in-game in itself. It needed no further establishment.
There is no doubt such can increase the enjoyment a player derives from their character. If one wants to stretch the concept of "win" to the entirely subjective it can of course apply to anything, and thus mean essentially nothing.
An objective view requires some actual concrete game benefit be derived from spending money for any win to be available for payment.
But you guys are ignoring the better game play in my point. Put my game up against your game (designs), on equal quality of production, and my game's going to syphon off many of the gamers in your game. Simply because it's a better game experience.
And don't tell me "but it's free", because it's not and everyone knows it.
But see, here is the rub.
It won't.
I admit, I am kinda of apathetic about breaking that bit of info to you, but it's true.
Your game would have to be soo much better, and not just "better" but in the realm of "OMFG, This game made me shit my pants it was so fucking Awesome" level better, to get players to give up on their F2P game, which they can take breaks from, and come and go as they please, without worry, and feel like they always will have access to their character, and can just jump back in to talk with friends anytime they want, to go off and pay a sub just to access your game.
Not only would it have to be better, it would have to be so much better, that all their friends went to it as well.
Now, Will you be able to make that level of game?
No, now you will not, not unless you got access to some new level of tech shit that could redefine how games functioned, and reinvented what an MMO is from the ground up, which, lets be honest, and this is not a dis, but, we just need to wake up from the dream, put on the work boots, and accept that people stuck in the past on the old school sub based games, are not going to be the ones to do that.
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those.
So you say, but anything one merely speaks of is easy.
The difficulty comes in the doing.
Is that a reason not to do it?
It is if the one saying is unable to back it up with doing.
That lame and old. I'm not in the gaming industry and I have no effective way of building a game. That doesn't mean I can't know things about game design and human reactions and desires, or reason things out.
We have old and new. We have skill and classed base. We have tab-target, action combat, and turn-based. We have theme park and sandbox. We have fantasy, science-fiction, superhero, horror and beyond. We have PvE, PvP, and both combined. We have traditional and scaling content. We have varying difficulties.
We have a banquet of options.
Somewhat in that sense yes, but what I highlighted was difficulty, revenue models and gameplay styles. In all those areas and many more there is a one template mindset.
We do not have a diversity of difficulty, DS and the ability to change difficulty in solo games does not give us that. In games where developers give no difficulty setting in single player the games get ever easier if you actually need an example look at the AC franchise. In multiplayer the drive is to ever easier and in no genre is that so pronounced as MMOs, if you need an example nearly every "quality of life" update is an ever easier update.
We have few sandboxes, loads and loads of theme parks and few hybrids. Fantasy is the overwhelming theme choice for MMOs, WoW the overwhelming gameplay template. Of all the things you mentioned I would only say that PvE/PvP/both is genuinely diverse.
The fact we can find exceptions, some quite notable does not change the overall picture.
Naa. Games are so lacking these days, that's not a problem. Half of it is "lowest common denominator" and the other half is "enhanced CS enticements."
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those. And frankly, while I know there's gamers like that, and they have their rights too, but I really don't want to play with them. And I don't think I'm anywhere close to alone in that.
There are a few exceptions, of course. Games that are "almost" in some ways, but still not as good as could be. For various reasons. But the boredom is growing, even with them.
DS highlighted the easymode gameplay issue, but has done nothing to solve it from what I can see. Not that I would want everything like DS far from it, diversity is what we need. Just like ESO not pointing the way forward for MMOs. Look at classic, it is regarded as another type of MMO, one that "does not effect their thinking about the modern game" (Blizzard exec). The gaming industry is a behemoth heading in one direction; a single big subscription MMO, a new more difficult gaming genre, even multiple "classics" showing players like older gameplay is not going to change that.
We have abundant diversity.
We have old and new. We have skill and classed base. We have tab-target, action combat, and turn-based. We have theme park and sandbox. We have fantasy, science-fiction, superhero, horror and beyond. We have PvE, PvP, and both combined. We have traditional and scaling content. We have varying difficulties.
We have a banquet of options.
Diversity, when it's spread out in different games and all chopped up, is meaningless.
Did you expect diversity of that nature in a single game? How would you cobble their contrary elements into a unified whole, the tab-action-turn-based combat in particular. Good luck with that.
Of course not, not the way you put it. Mixing game types (Sandbox vs. Themepark) doesn't work well. There are all kinds of other ways to have diversity in play styles.
I'm sure there is. That doesn't discount that I mentioned.
Amaranthar said You see, that shows that a lot of players do care about their look in-game.
Uniqueness is a factor, too. "Winning" is hard to define in an MMORPG, but having characters that "look the part", and still have a unique look, is a valuable thing for many.
That players are willing to buy cosmetics demonstrates they care about their look in-game in itself. It needed no further establishment.
There is no doubt such can increase the enjoyment a player derives from their character. If one wants to stretch the concept of "win" to the entirely subjective it can of course apply to anything, and thus mean essentially nothing.
An objective view requires some actual concrete game benefit be derived from spending money for any win to be available for payment.
But you guys are ignoring the better game play in my point. Put my game up against your game (designs), on equal quality of production, and my game's going to syphon off many of the gamers in your game. Simply because it's a better game experience.
And don't tell me "but it's free", because it's not and everyone knows it.
But see, here is the rub.
It won't.
I admit, I am kinda of apathetic about breaking that bit of info to you, but it's true.
Your game would have to be soo much better, and not just "better" but in the realm of "OMFG, This game made me shit my pants it was so fucking Awesome" level better, to get players to give up on their F2P game, which they can take breaks from, and come and go as they please, without worry, and feel like they always will have access to their character, and can just jump back in to talk with friends anytime they want, to go off and pay a sub just to access your game.
Not only would it have to be better, it would have to be so much better, that all their friends went to it as well.
Now, Will you be able to make that level of game?
No, now you will not, not unless you got access to some new level of tech shit that could redefine how games functioned, and reinvented what an MMO is from the ground up, which, lets be honest, and this is not a dis, but, we just need to wake up from the dream, put on the work boots, and accept that people stuck in the past on the old school sub based games, are not going to be the ones to do that.
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those.
So you say, but anything one merely speaks of is easy.
The difficulty comes in the doing.
Is that a reason not to do it?
It is if the one saying is unable to back it up with doing.
That lame and old. I'm not in the gaming industry and I have no effective way of building a game. That doesn't mean I can't know things about game design and human reactions and desires, or reason things out.
You may feel it to be lame and old. It is accurate nonetheless.
It isn't a reference particular to you or this discussion either. Many people actively trying to break into the industry think they have the solutions but ultimately come short. Even people established in it, or who had been, aren't immune to such, as can be shown by recent examples of effective or quite possibly pending failure.
There are many cases of saying not backed up by doing in the attempts we know about, never mind those tried and failed that never became public knowledge.
We have old and new. We have skill and classed base. We have tab-target, action combat, and turn-based. We have theme park and sandbox. We have fantasy, science-fiction, superhero, horror and beyond. We have PvE, PvP, and both combined. We have traditional and scaling content. We have varying difficulties.
We have a banquet of options.
Somewhat in that sense yes, but what I highlighted was difficulty, revenue models and gameplay styles. In all those areas and many more there is a one template mindset.
We do not have a diversity of difficulty, DS and the ability to change difficulty in solo games does not give us that. In games where developers give no difficulty setting in single player the games get ever easier if you actually need an example look at the AC franchise. In multiplayer the drive is to ever easier and in no genre is that so pronounced as MMOs, if you need an example nearly every "quality of life" update is an ever easier update.
We have few sandboxes, loads and loads of theme parks and few hybrids. Fantasy is the overwhelming theme choice for MMOs, WoW the overwhelming gameplay template. Of all the things you mentioned I would only say that PvE/PvP/both is genuinely diverse.
The fact we can find exceptions, some quite notable does not change the overall picture.
We do have diverse difficulty. I know because even among those MMORPGs I play the difficulty is diverse and that is a tiny percentage of those available.
Numerous sandboxes and games of other than the fantasy genre aren't needed to establish diversity. They simply must be rather than not.
So long as there are exceptions the overall picture doesn't need to change, and even if one still feels it must there are at least plentiful options in the mean time.
We do have diverse difficulty. I know because even among those MMORPGs I play the difficulty is diverse and that is a tiny percentage of those available.
Numerous sandboxes and games of other than the fantasy genre aren't needed to establish diversity. They simply must be rather than not.
So long as there are exceptions the overall picture doesn't need to change, and even if one still feels it must there are at least plentiful options in the mean time.
This flies in the face of what we see in gaming, which has over the years become more of a one size fits all monolith. Just look at how dissimilar the earliest MMOs were to how similar they are now, and that includes the old MMOs which have all moved to a more similar template. The fact you can find some differences does not negate that, it just proves there are some exceptions, exceptions which prove the rule.
Naa. Games are so lacking these days, that's not a problem. Half of it is "lowest common denominator" and the other half is "enhanced CS enticements."
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those. And frankly, while I know there's gamers like that, and they have their rights too, but I really don't want to play with them. And I don't think I'm anywhere close to alone in that.
There are a few exceptions, of course. Games that are "almost" in some ways, but still not as good as could be. For various reasons. But the boredom is growing, even with them.
DS highlighted the easymode gameplay issue, but has done nothing to solve it from what I can see. Not that I would want everything like DS far from it, diversity is what we need. Just like ESO not pointing the way forward for MMOs. Look at classic, it is regarded as another type of MMO, one that "does not effect their thinking about the modern game" (Blizzard exec). The gaming industry is a behemoth heading in one direction; a single big subscription MMO, a new more difficult gaming genre, even multiple "classics" showing players like older gameplay is not going to change that.
We have abundant diversity.
We have old and new. We have skill and classed base. We have tab-target, action combat, and turn-based. We have theme park and sandbox. We have fantasy, science-fiction, superhero, horror and beyond. We have PvE, PvP, and both combined. We have traditional and scaling content. We have varying difficulties.
We have a banquet of options.
Diversity, when it's spread out in different games and all chopped up, is meaningless.
You do realize that many of the listed "diversities" are quite diametrically opposed, right?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Naa. Games are so lacking these days, that's not a problem. Half of it is "lowest common denominator" and the other half is "enhanced CS enticements."
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those. And frankly, while I know there's gamers like that, and they have their rights too, but I really don't want to play with them. And I don't think I'm anywhere close to alone in that.
There are a few exceptions, of course. Games that are "almost" in some ways, but still not as good as could be. For various reasons. But the boredom is growing, even with them.
DS highlighted the easymode gameplay issue, but has done nothing to solve it from what I can see. Not that I would want everything like DS far from it, diversity is what we need. Just like ESO not pointing the way forward for MMOs. Look at classic, it is regarded as another type of MMO, one that "does not effect their thinking about the modern game" (Blizzard exec). The gaming industry is a behemoth heading in one direction; a single big subscription MMO, a new more difficult gaming genre, even multiple "classics" showing players like older gameplay is not going to change that.
We have abundant diversity.
We have old and new. We have skill and classed base. We have tab-target, action combat, and turn-based. We have theme park and sandbox. We have fantasy, science-fiction, superhero, horror and beyond. We have PvE, PvP, and both combined. We have traditional and scaling content. We have varying difficulties.
We have a banquet of options.
Diversity, when it's spread out in different games and all chopped up, is meaningless.
You do realize that many of the listed "diversities" are quite diametrically opposed, right?
For the love of all that is holy, dealing with lunacy is like being trapped in a whirlpool sucking you down.
Look, you can always add mud into a cake mix. What we're trying to do here is come up with BETTER BATTER.
Amaranthar said You see, that shows that a lot of players do care about their look in-game.
Uniqueness is a factor, too. "Winning" is hard to define in an MMORPG, but having characters that "look the part", and still have a unique look, is a valuable thing for many.
That players are willing to buy cosmetics demonstrates they care about their look in-game in itself. It needed no further establishment.
There is no doubt such can increase the enjoyment a player derives from their character. If one wants to stretch the concept of "win" to the entirely subjective it can of course apply to anything, and thus mean essentially nothing.
An objective view requires some actual concrete game benefit be derived from spending money for any win to be available for payment.
But you guys are ignoring the better game play in my point. Put my game up against your game (designs), on equal quality of production, and my game's going to syphon off many of the gamers in your game. Simply because it's a better game experience.
And don't tell me "but it's free", because it's not and everyone knows it.
But see, here is the rub.
It won't.
I admit, I am kinda of apathetic about breaking that bit of info to you, but it's true.
Your game would have to be soo much better, and not just "better" but in the realm of "OMFG, This game made me shit my pants it was so fucking Awesome" level better, to get players to give up on their F2P game, which they can take breaks from, and come and go as they please, without worry, and feel like they always will have access to their character, and can just jump back in to talk with friends anytime they want, to go off and pay a sub just to access your game.
Not only would it have to be better, it would have to be so much better, that all their friends went to it as well.
Now, Will you be able to make that level of game?
No, now you will not, not unless you got access to some new level of tech shit that could redefine how games functioned, and reinvented what an MMO is from the ground up, which, lets be honest, and this is not a dis, but, we just need to wake up from the dream, put on the work boots, and accept that people stuck in the past on the old school sub based games, are not going to be the ones to do that.
Naa. Games are so lacking these days, that's not a problem. Half of it is "lowest common denominator" and the other half is "enhanced CS enticements."
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those. And frankly, while I know there's gamers like that, and they have their rights too, but I really don't want to play with them. And I don't think I'm anywhere close to alone in that.
There are a few exceptions, of course. Games that are "almost" in some ways, but still not as good as could be. For various reasons. But the boredom is growing, even with them.
I enjoy your points, but lets be honest, if it was easy enough to make a Sub based game that could pull in the F2P crowed, it would have been made already.
F2P cash shop games, are not where they once were.
Maybe 10 years ago, F2P games were new, and thus generating 22 dollars a month to a subs 15, and the suits saw that extra 7 dollars per player and sullied their pants, (keep in mind in a game like EQ, 7 dollars per player amounted to around 3.5 Million a month) but todays market, they are generating around 3.50 per player, depending on the game of course, some games are better at getting money from their players than others are.
However that is a bit deceptive, because while they are making less per player, they are often making more overall, as they would get far, far, less players willing to pay a sub, ad this, far more players are playing their game if it's free, even if a lot less of them individually are doing any noticeable fiscal support, but it still provides this community feel to the players that paying into the system.
Anyway, again, any game that had the brass balls to expect people to pay a sub just to access it, would need to have made a truly amazing game or a truly unique game that scratched just the right itch to keep them alive. IE: very niche' games, or just made by delusional developers that thought enough people really wanted that.
So again, will games get made that would be able to justify a sub fee in a F2P market? Outside some really niche' games, it's Not going to happen, and it's about time we all just accept that.
So, when people talk about something other than a cash shop, they also need to have an idea that is not a sub, if they want to be taken seriously, no dis, but, pitching an idea that is currently failing, is does not show one's brilliance in marketing and money generation.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Amaranthar said You see, that shows that a lot of players do care about their look in-game.
Uniqueness is a factor, too. "Winning" is hard to define in an MMORPG, but having characters that "look the part", and still have a unique look, is a valuable thing for many.
That players are willing to buy cosmetics demonstrates they care about their look in-game in itself. It needed no further establishment.
There is no doubt such can increase the enjoyment a player derives from their character. If one wants to stretch the concept of "win" to the entirely subjective it can of course apply to anything, and thus mean essentially nothing.
An objective view requires some actual concrete game benefit be derived from spending money for any win to be available for payment.
But you guys are ignoring the better game play in my point. Put my game up against your game (designs), on equal quality of production, and my game's going to syphon off many of the gamers in your game. Simply because it's a better game experience.
And don't tell me "but it's free", because it's not and everyone knows it.
But see, here is the rub.
It won't.
I admit, I am kinda of apathetic about breaking that bit of info to you, but it's true.
Your game would have to be soo much better, and not just "better" but in the realm of "OMFG, This game made me shit my pants it was so fucking Awesome" level better, to get players to give up on their F2P game, which they can take breaks from, and come and go as they please, without worry, and feel like they always will have access to their character, and can just jump back in to talk with friends anytime they want, to go off and pay a sub just to access your game.
Not only would it have to be better, it would have to be so much better, that all their friends went to it as well.
Now, Will you be able to make that level of game?
No, now you will not, not unless you got access to some new level of tech shit that could redefine how games functioned, and reinvented what an MMO is from the ground up, which, lets be honest, and this is not a dis, but, we just need to wake up from the dream, put on the work boots, and accept that people stuck in the past on the old school sub based games, are not going to be the ones to do that.
Naa. Games are so lacking these days, that's not a problem. Half of it is "lowest common denominator" and the other half is "enhanced CS enticements."
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those. And frankly, while I know there's gamers like that, and they have their rights too, but I really don't want to play with them. And I don't think I'm anywhere close to alone in that.
There are a few exceptions, of course. Games that are "almost" in some ways, but still not as good as could be. For various reasons. But the boredom is growing, even with them.
I enjoy your points, but lets be honest, if it was easy enough to make a Sub based game that could pull in the F2P crowed, it would have been made already.
F2P cash shop games, are not where they once were.
Maybe 10 years ago, F2P games were new, and thus generating 22 dollars a month to a subs 15, and the suits saw that extra 7 dollars per player and sullied their pants, (keep in mind in a game like EQ, 7 dollars per player amounted to around 3.5 Million a month) but todays market, they are generating around 3.50 per player, depending on the game of course, some games are better at getting money from their players than others are.
However that is a bit deceptive, because while they are making less per player, they are often making more overall, as they would get far, far, less players willing to pay a sub, ad this, far more players are playing their game if it's free, even if a lot less of them individually are doing any noticeable fiscal support, but it still provides this community feel to the players that paying into the system.
Anyway, again, any game that had the brass balls to expect people to pay a sub just to access it, would need to have made a truly amazing game or a truly unique game that scratched just the right itch to keep them alive. IE: very niche' games, or just made by delusional developers that thought enough people really wanted that.
So again, will games get made that would be able to justify a sub fee in a F2P market? Outside some really niche' games, it's Not going to happen, and it's about time we all just accept that.
So, when people talk about something other than a cash shop, they also need to have an idea that is not a sub, if they want to be taken seriously, no dis, but, pitching an idea that is currently failing, is does not show one's brilliance in marketing and money generation.
Did it ever occur to you that gamers are playing FtP because the genre isn't offering much worth paying for? We can see that people are getting bored with MMORPGs. They've done the rinse and repeat game play over and over again, game to game.
The genre is slowly losing steam. It'll take better designs, with more to do, to reverse course. You keep bringing up what has been and saying nothing else will work, all while it's drying up.
We do have diverse difficulty. I know because even among those MMORPGs I play the difficulty is diverse and that is a tiny percentage of those available.
Numerous sandboxes and games of other than the fantasy genre aren't needed to establish diversity. They simply must be rather than not.
So long as there are exceptions the overall picture doesn't need to change, and even if one still feels it must there are at least plentiful options in the mean time.
This flies n the face of what we see in gaming, which has over the years become more of a one size fits all monolith. Just look at how dissimilar the earliest MMOs were to how similar they are now, and that includes the old MMOs which have all moved to a more similar template. The fact you can find some differences does not negate that, it just proves there are some exceptions, exceptions which prove the rule.
When one is dissatisfied with the norm the exceptions are the only potential salvation. Accordingly they should be focused on rather than dismissed.
Many of those dissimilar earliest MMORPGs are available in some form. There are some too niche for broad adoption that still remain. Some that failed the market test have been resurrected by ardent fans. Some in development seek to escape the current mold.
Quite frankly, those that can't find something to suit in what remains of once was, what is, and what is seeking to become aren't trying hard enough.
Comments
However, I did garner a trophy for a record setting 10 Touchdown game, once.
I left my opponents bloodied and exhausted.
That was at the Apple Blossom Kindergarten, when one of the fathers showed up and handed it to me.
Looked a lot like the hood ornament that went missing off my car.
I proudly display that trophy on my fireplace mantel. (Someday I may get a fireplace to dress it up a little.)
Once upon a time....
In all my years of playing MMORPGs I've found two guilds that enhanced my game experience rather than detract from it. They are not a resource I can look to with any confidence of success.
MMORPGs range in difficulty. I play some where one can take on a horde with ease (CoH for some archetypes) and others where one must be quite selective in what they attack and even then likely die if not paying careful attention to the circumstances surrounding the target before attacking (Project:Gorgon, Embers Adrift).
It won't.
I admit, I am kinda of apathetic about breaking that bit of info to you, but it's true.
Your game would have to be soo much better, and not just "better" but in the realm of "OMFG, This game made me shit my pants it was so fucking Awesome" level better, to get players to give up on their F2P game, which they can take breaks from, and come and go as they please, without worry, and feel like they always will have access to their character, and can just jump back in to talk with friends anytime they want, to go off and pay a sub just to access your game.
Not only would it have to be better, it would have to be so much better, that all their friends went to it as well.
Now, Will you be able to make that level of game?
No, now you will not, not unless you got access to some new level of tech shit that could redefine how games functioned, and reinvented what an MMO is from the ground up, which, lets be honest, and this is not a dis, but, we just need to wake up from the dream, put on the work boots, and accept that people stuck in the past on the old school sub based games, are not going to be the ones to do that.
Half of it is "lowest common denominator" and the other half is "enhanced CS enticements."
There's no problem beating these current games for a better gaming experience, unless the audience is that "lowest common denominator" in both of those. And frankly, while I know there's gamers like that, and they have their rights too, but I really don't want to play with them. And I don't think I'm anywhere close to alone in that.
There are a few exceptions, of course. Games that are "almost" in some ways, but still not as good as could be. For various reasons.
But the boredom is growing, even with them.
Once upon a time....
So you say, but anything one merely speaks of is easy.
The difficulty comes in the doing.
We have abundant diversity.
We have old and new. We have skill and classed base. We have tab-target, action combat, and turn-based. We have theme park and sandbox. We have fantasy, science-fiction, superhero, horror and beyond. We have PvE, PvP, and both combined. We have traditional and scaling content. We have varying difficulties.
We have a banquet of options.
Once upon a time....
Once upon a time....
Did you expect diversity of that nature in a single game? How would you cobble their contrary elements into a unified whole, the tab-action-turn-based combat in particular. Good luck with that.
It is if the one saying is unable to back it up with doing.
There are all kinds of other ways to have diversity in play styles.
Once upon a time....
I'm not in the gaming industry and I have no effective way of building a game.
That doesn't mean I can't know things about game design and human reactions and desires, or reason things out.
Once upon a time....
We do not have a diversity of difficulty, DS and the ability to change difficulty in solo games does not give us that. In games where developers give no difficulty setting in single player the games get ever easier if you actually need an example look at the AC franchise. In multiplayer the drive is to ever easier and in no genre is that so pronounced as MMOs, if you need an example nearly every "quality of life" update is an ever easier update.
We have few sandboxes, loads and loads of theme parks and few hybrids. Fantasy is the overwhelming theme choice for MMOs, WoW the overwhelming gameplay template. Of all the things you mentioned I would only say that PvE/PvP/both is genuinely diverse.
The fact we can find exceptions, some quite notable does not change the overall picture.
I'm sure there is. That doesn't discount that I mentioned.
You may feel it to be lame and old. It is accurate nonetheless.
It isn't a reference particular to you or this discussion either. Many people actively trying to break into the industry think they have the solutions but ultimately come short. Even people established in it, or who had been, aren't immune to such, as can be shown by recent examples of effective or quite possibly pending failure.
There are many cases of saying not backed up by doing in the attempts we know about, never mind those tried and failed that never became public knowledge.
Saying is easy. Doing, not so much.
We do have diverse difficulty. I know because even among those MMORPGs I play the difficulty is diverse and that is a tiny percentage of those available.
Numerous sandboxes and games of other than the fantasy genre aren't needed to establish diversity. They simply must be rather than not.
So long as there are exceptions the overall picture doesn't need to change, and even if one still feels it must there are at least plentiful options in the mean time.
You do realize that many of the listed "diversities" are quite diametrically opposed, right?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Look, you can always add mud into a cake mix.
What we're trying to do here is come up with BETTER BATTER.
LOL, at you guys.
Once upon a time....
F2P cash shop games, are not where they once were.
Maybe 10 years ago, F2P games were new, and thus generating 22 dollars a month to a subs 15, and the suits saw that extra 7 dollars per player and sullied their pants, (keep in mind in a game like EQ, 7 dollars per player amounted to around 3.5 Million a month) but todays market, they are generating around 3.50 per player, depending on the game of course, some games are better at getting money from their players than others are.
However that is a bit deceptive, because while they are making less per player, they are often making more overall, as they would get far, far, less players willing to pay a sub, ad this, far more players are playing their game if it's free, even if a lot less of them individually are doing any noticeable fiscal support, but it still provides this community feel to the players that paying into the system.
Anyway, again, any game that had the brass balls to expect people to pay a sub just to access it, would need to have made a truly amazing game or a truly unique game that scratched just the right itch to keep them alive. IE: very niche' games, or just made by delusional developers that thought enough people really wanted that.
So again, will games get made that would be able to justify a sub fee in a F2P market? Outside some really niche' games, it's Not going to happen, and it's about time we all just accept that.
So, when people talk about something other than a cash shop, they also need to have an idea that is not a sub, if they want to be taken seriously, no dis, but, pitching an idea that is currently failing, is does not show one's brilliance in marketing and money generation.
We can see that people are getting bored with MMORPGs. They've done the rinse and repeat game play over and over again, game to game.
The genre is slowly losing steam.
It'll take better designs, with more to do, to reverse course.
You keep bringing up what has been and saying nothing else will work, all while it's drying up.
Once upon a time....
When one is dissatisfied with the norm the exceptions are the only potential salvation. Accordingly they should be focused on rather than dismissed.
Many of those dissimilar earliest MMORPGs are available in some form. There are some too niche for broad adoption that still remain. Some that failed the market test have been resurrected by ardent fans. Some in development seek to escape the current mold.
Quite frankly, those that can't find something to suit in what remains of once was, what is, and what is seeking to become aren't trying hard enough.