You're talking about music stations and TV as if they are equivalent to games individually there, that's not exactly a 1:1.
Even then, consider how much the delivery for those have changed. We've gone from cable and public broadcasting to a variety of groups competing for ownership of media and subs, with several large brands dominating that.
Sure we could compare that to MMOs and the drift in live service models, but that's not a favorable comparison and reinforces the negative points about few and long standing over any kind of medley scenario, and what that means to saturation of market on the level of how many can feasibly compete for a given space.
I am just saying that other entertainment industries and areas within gaming are not being effected by this "saturation effect" yet somehow without any evidence at all, we are supposed to believe the MMO genre is somehow being saturated. The only data being used to support this theory is that MMO's lately cannot retain players.
Where is the evidence to disprove that the new games just do not resonate with players? Where are the MMO's launching with high satisfication rating that are "not gaining customers due to saturation"?
Is there anyone claiming that new games aren't resonating with players?
We do not live in an all or nothing reality.
And you seem to be making up your own metrics and argument on this last comment and I'm not really sure why. If you want to talk data then we should be talking about sunk cost and user retention as it relates to MMOs.
You know, that thing I mentioned about "What other entertainment industries are built around the pretense that you're continuously engaging with the exact same thing for months/years?"
You mentioned TV and radio as a counterpoint to that, but both of those are services which are used to provide a variety of shows and songs to people. That's a far cry different from engaging with a single piece of entertainment for years on end.
Who out there listens to one album every day for years? Yes, people mix other games into their MMO playing, but there's a distinct loyalty point to be made about a form of media that sees players investing time in a consistent recurring fashion. The best you'll demonstrate on other media is going to generally be an exception to the norm, or a stretch as you try to apply it to entire entertainment delivery platforms. To which I did note on the likes of TV platforms, we do see an example of platforms that maintain a limited number of successful operation without being absorbed into one of the dominant groups or floundering out around some gimmick. Even Hulu is just an extension of Disney, and cable is dominated by a very limited number of longstanding providers.
This is also you responding to a statement that from the beginning was noting that parts of the genre may be hitting saturation. Not the MMO genre as a whole. This was even clarified to you, so you cycling back to that argument seems disingenuous.
Point on that one ends up being how many MMOs of the high fantasy theme, using some deviation of tab mechanics, has come out as opposed to exploring the broader genre. We can note that the MMOs which have perpetuated at least have deviancy in play factors and some theme, but there are large swathes of the MMO genre that is functionally untested.
A big chunk of the rush on making MMOs was delivering to a rather narrow audience, seeking to replicate success that'd already been had, rather than actually innovating the genre. The continued trickle of MMOs has at least half the time continued that trend.
Which goes to repeat the opening statement of this comment. We do not live in an all or nothing reality. You're the only one that's making claims things have to happen for one reason or another rather than it being a blend of causes. And I'm really not sure why as you're usually a more reasoned commenter than this.
Is there anyone claiming that new games aren't resonating with players?
Umm YEAH! There are plenty of people on this site saying this genre is doing great and new games are being made this way because this is what players want now. If you are not reading that, then you are not paying attention.
Who out there listens to one album every day for years?
If you cant see the similiarity then there is not much I can do. This statement above is laughable to me. I know you recognize that bands can have more than 1 album just like games can have expansions.
So you saying this is either. A ). You cant comprehend B ). You dont want to comprehend C ). You do comprehend but do not want to engage in an honest debate on the issue.
Based on your previous comments I am picking C here.
Which goes to repeat the opening statement of this comment. We do not live in an all or nothing reality. You're the only one that's making claims things have to happen for one reason or another rather than it being a blend of causes. And I'm really not sure why as you're usually a more reasoned commenter than this.
I am not saying that there are not other factors. Have you ever heard of "5 whys methodology" or "Root cause analysis".
Read up then you will understand what I am doing. I am not talking about all the ancillary issues. I am going to the heart of the matter.
Is there anyone claiming that new games aren't resonating with players?
Umm YEAH! There are plenty of people on this site saying this genre is doing great and new games are being made this way because this is what players want now. If you are not reading that, then you are not paying attention.
Who out there listens to one album every day for years?
If you cant see the similiarity then there is not much I can do. This statement above is laughable to me. I know you recognize that bands can have more than 1 album just like games can have expansions.
So you saying this is either. A ). You cant comprehend B ). You dont want to comprehend C ). You do comprehend but do not want to engage in an honest debate on the issue.
Based on your previous comments I am picking C here.
Which goes to repeat the opening statement of this comment. We do not live in an all or nothing reality. You're the only one that's making claims things have to happen for one reason or another rather than it being a blend of causes. And I'm really not sure why as you're usually a more reasoned commenter than this.
I am not saying that there are not other factors. Have you ever heard of "5 whys methodology" or "Root cause analysis".
Read up then you will understand what I am doing. I am not talking about all the ancillary issues. I am going to the heart of the matter.
1) You're arguing with people outside of the present dialogue then, not with me.
Why are you trying to argue against a position others have taken elsewhere, as opposed to the position I've actually taken myself?
I'm not a stick for you to substitute masks over and vent your grievances about others at.
2) And SOE has made a variety of MMOs. You wanna call a new album an expansion, but the difference from one Metallica Album to the next can be as divisive for someone as going from EQ to EQ2. Even sticking to the expansion argument, you are then making an example of an individual who fits my point, sticking with a particular thing over time buying up the continuation of the one they love. This also dismisses the entire TV example addressed.
Which throws a bit of a wrench into your ABCs there as I could turn around and assert the exact same back at you.
You want to claim you're going to the root cause, but your original comment was being directly dismissive of this as even being a possibility.
I am uncertain why you are being this way, but you are being highly dishonest at the moment with this line of dialogue Brainy.
1) You're arguing with people outside of the present dialogue then, not with me.
Why are you trying to argue against a position others have taken elsewhere, as opposed to the position I've actually taken myself?
I'm not a stick for you to substitute masks over and vent your grievances about others at.
Agree I do this, namely because this is a public forum and I am trying to make a point that others can understand. I will specifically disagree with your point if I am in disagreement, which I am generally very direct with. I don't treat these types of posts as one on one private messages in general.
So yes I agree I did that a few times. So if you didn't recognize that, then my bad.
2) And SOE has made a variety of MMOs. You wanna call a new album an expansion, but the difference from one Metallica Album to the next can be as divisive for someone as going from EQ to EQ2.
1) You're arguing with people outside of the present dialogue then, not with me.
Why are you trying to argue against a position others have taken elsewhere, as opposed to the position I've actually taken myself?
I'm not a stick for you to substitute masks over and vent your grievances about others at.
Agree I do this, namely because this is a public forum and I am trying to make a point that others can understand. I will specifically disagree with your point if I am in disagreement, which I am generally very direct with. I don't treat these types of posts as one on one private messages in general.
So yes I agree I did that a few times. So if you didn't recognize that, then my bad.
2) And SOE has made a variety of MMOs. You wanna call a new album an expansion, but the difference from one Metallica Album to the next can be as divisive for someone as going from EQ to EQ2.
Mists of pandaria would like to speak with you.
1) You do realize how nonsensical it is to do this, no? Arguing against a position I did not take just serves to confuse matters. That is itself a strawman fallacy, and serves to detract from argument instead of offer a coherent or meaningful one.
2) As for MoP, you're going to have to explain how you think that proves or disproves the topic. It seems rather that you've just added another tangent that yes, expansions can be divisive as well. That doesn't negate the point in the least, so what's the comment supposed to serve?
You're making progressively less coherent arguments right now and it's leaving me quite confused as to your position and goal. The fact you just admitted you're not really arguing against me directly and instead using me as a proxy to argue a point/position I didn't take, just makes it all the more irrational.
1) You do realize how nonsensical it is to do this, no? Arguing against a position I did not take just serves to confuse matters. That is itself a strawman fallacy, and serves to detract from argument instead of offer a coherent or meaningful one.
2) As for MoP, you're going to have to explain how you think that proves or disproves the topic. It seems rather that you've just added another tangent that yes, expansions can be divisive as well. That doesn't negate the point in the least, so what's the comment supposed to serve?
You're making progressively less coherent arguments right now and it's leaving me quite confused as to your position and goal. The fact you just admitted you're not really arguing against me directly and instead using me as a proxy to argue a point/position I didn't take, just makes it all the more irrational.
I get you want to drag me into this entire theoretical arguement and discuss what may or may not be possible and dispute every single issue and its remote case.
I on the otherhand am talking from a practical side of what is the most likely case and root cause. If you have another theory that is "MOST LIKELY" then we can debate that. But trying to what if me all day with extremely remote possible cases isnt productive to me.
I have made a case that saturation is not the main cause of retention problems in MMO's, I have shown ample amount of facts proving my case.
What are the facts against the case I am making that Quality of the product is actually the root cause of retention in MMO's?
I am just not interested in running in circles with you on this. If you have some hard evidence then put it out there and I will discuss that, if its logical I will encorporate it and revise my theory. I am not going to change my mind or theory on what if's.
1) You do realize how nonsensical it is to do this, no? Arguing against a position I did not take just serves to confuse matters. That is itself a strawman fallacy, and serves to detract from argument instead of offer a coherent or meaningful one.
2) As for MoP, you're going to have to explain how you think that proves or disproves the topic. It seems rather that you've just added another tangent that yes, expansions can be divisive as well. That doesn't negate the point in the least, so what's the comment supposed to serve?
You're making progressively less coherent arguments right now and it's leaving me quite confused as to your position and goal. The fact you just admitted you're not really arguing against me directly and instead using me as a proxy to argue a point/position I didn't take, just makes it all the more irrational.
I get you want to drag me into this entire theoretical arguement and discuss what may or may not be possible and dispute every single issue and its remote case.
I on the otherhand am talking from a practical side of what is the most likely case and root cause. If you have another theory that is "MOST LIKELY" then we can debate that. But trying to what if me all day with extremely remote possible cases isnt productive to me.
I have made a case that saturation is not the main cause of retention problems in MMO's, I have shown ample amount of facts proving my case.
What are the facts against the case I am making that Quality of the product is actually the root cause of retention in MMO's?
I am just not interested in running in circles with you on this. If you have some hard evidence then put it out there and I will discuss that, if its logical I will encorporate it and revise my theory. I am not going to change my mind or theory on what if's.
I didn't drag you into anything.
YOU rebuked the notion of existing games offering any measure of saturation from my original comment with your hardline statement saying it's just not a factor, going as far as making an "only" cause statement even.
And here you are now walking that back and making a different more moderated claim.
I thought you were better than this Brainy.
I didn't give you what ifs. I made a statement about contributing factors that your comment derided using absolute terms, which caused my latter response.
I have counterpointed your facts built from your original absolute pretense, presenting the condition that this is not an absolute scenario.
It's only in these last few comments that you changed that to a relative response of "but this is the primary factor".
This made all the more nonsensical by you agreeing with the original sentiment, be it shared in a slightly more aggressive format by Tiller. Just raising a subject of hypocrisy as well.
If you don't want to "run in circles", then don't make false arguments.
This is functionally just a tacit way of saying you actually acknowledge my original comment is fine without admitting your initial response was flawed or wrong in any way for taking it's absolute stance by pretending it didn't happen.
I don't think it's in trouble, it's just the nature of the genre itself makes the market always in an oversaturated state, companies realized it and moved on to more profitable pastures. The pie is cut in way too many slices and has been for at least a decade.
1) You do realize how nonsensical it is to do this, no? Arguing against a position I did not take just serves to confuse matters. That is itself a strawman fallacy, and serves to detract from argument instead of offer a coherent or meaningful one.
2) As for MoP, you're going to have to explain how you think that proves or disproves the topic. It seems rather that you've just added another tangent that yes, expansions can be divisive as well. That doesn't negate the point in the least, so what's the comment supposed to serve?
You're making progressively less coherent arguments right now and it's leaving me quite confused as to your position and goal. The fact you just admitted you're not really arguing against me directly and instead using me as a proxy to argue a point/position I didn't take, just makes it all the more irrational.
I get you want to drag me into this entire theoretical arguement and discuss what may or may not be possible and dispute every single issue and its remote case.
I on the otherhand am talking from a practical side of what is the most likely case and root cause. If you have another theory that is "MOST LIKELY" then we can debate that. But trying to what if me all day with extremely remote possible cases isnt productive to me.
I have made a case that saturation is not the main cause of retention problems in MMO's, I have shown ample amount of facts proving my case.
What are the facts against the case I am making that Quality of the product is actually the root cause of retention in MMO's?
I am just not interested in running in circles with you on this. If you have some hard evidence then put it out there and I will discuss that, if its logical I will encorporate it and revise my theory. I am not going to change my mind or theory on what if's.
I didn't drag you into anything.
YOU rebuked the notion of existing games offering any measure of saturation from my original comment with your hardline statement saying it's just not a factor, going as far as making an "only" cause statement even.
Seriously? You have been debating this entire point the entire time over the term 'only reason'? If I had used 'main reason'.
I mean lets get real here. Its obvious that people dont play old games for just 1 single reason. There is going to be other factors like price, computer specs etc...
I was implying the majority of players, not some niche group. If you would have just stated that point, I would have conceded it long ago, I have done that already in numerous other posts. I am not so stupid to know that the decline in MMO's has only a single all encompassing cause.
This is what I am talking about, you are dragging me into this debate over a very technical detail.
And finally, if you notice I didnt direct that statement directly at you. Mainly because I wasnt talking directly at you but I agree it looks bad being you had just said that (in part). This is because I didnt fully disagree with your statement. However I have been hearing this statement for awhile and its been in many threads just recently. Being that this thread is directly about analyzing this genre and why its in trouble, I thought I would point that out now.
So yes, am I walking it back a bit now, it looks that way. I see your point, and can now understand your reaction. The timing of the comment wasnt the best, and I should have clarified that I wasnt against the partial statement. Just so we are clear, I am not disputing that this genre full of games has as an effect on new releases, I just dont believe its the 'MAIN' reason for its retention problem.
1) You do realize how nonsensical it is to do this, no? Arguing against a position I did not take just serves to confuse matters. That is itself a strawman fallacy, and serves to detract from argument instead of offer a coherent or meaningful one.
2) As for MoP, you're going to have to explain how you think that proves or disproves the topic. It seems rather that you've just added another tangent that yes, expansions can be divisive as well. That doesn't negate the point in the least, so what's the comment supposed to serve?
You're making progressively less coherent arguments right now and it's leaving me quite confused as to your position and goal. The fact you just admitted you're not really arguing against me directly and instead using me as a proxy to argue a point/position I didn't take, just makes it all the more irrational.
I get you want to drag me into this entire theoretical arguement and discuss what may or may not be possible and dispute every single issue and its remote case.
I on the otherhand am talking from a practical side of what is the most likely case and root cause. If you have another theory that is "MOST LIKELY" then we can debate that. But trying to what if me all day with extremely remote possible cases isnt productive to me.
I have made a case that saturation is not the main cause of retention problems in MMO's, I have shown ample amount of facts proving my case.
What are the facts against the case I am making that Quality of the product is actually the root cause of retention in MMO's?
I am just not interested in running in circles with you on this. If you have some hard evidence then put it out there and I will discuss that, if its logical I will encorporate it and revise my theory. I am not going to change my mind or theory on what if's.
I didn't drag you into anything.
YOU rebuked the notion of existing games offering any measure of saturation from my original comment with your hardline statement saying it's just not a factor, going as far as making an "only" cause statement even.
Seriously? You have been debating this entire point the entire time over the term 'only reason'? If I had used 'main reason'.
I mean lets get real here. Its obvious that people dont play old games for just 1 single reason. There is going to be other factors like price, computer specs etc...
I was implying the majority of players, not some niche group. If you would have just stated that point, I would have conceded it long ago, I have done that already in numerous other posts. I am not so stupid to know that the decline in MMO's has only a single all encompassing cause.
This is what I am talking about, you are dragging me into this debate over a very technical detail.
And finally, if you notice I didnt direct that statement directly at you. Mainly because I wasnt talking directly at you but I agree it looks bad being you had just said that (in part). This is because I didnt fully disagree with your statement. However I have been hearing this statement for awhile and its been in many threads just recently. Being that this thread is directly about analyzing this genre and why its in trouble, I thought I would point that out now.
So yes, am I walking it back a bit now, it looks that way. I see your point, and can now understand your reaction. The timing of the comment wasnt the best, and I should have clarified that I wasnt against the partial statement. Just so we are clear, I am not disputing that this genre full of games has as an effect on new releases, I just dont believe its the 'MAIN' reason for its retention problem.
If we look back at the conversation chain, we'll quickly find that I stated that point very early, as it was a qualifying remark for my first response to you. Even demonstrated by several example points "sunk cost as well as breadth of content offerings".
This is exacerbated by you at no point claiming you were talking about majority of players. The only time you did so was in regards to endgame in New World.
There's also a big difference between "only" and "main", which is made all the more pointed when it's preceded by dismissal of other potentials.
If you're going to play the "then you should have said that from the start" argument, perhaps don't be doing that exact thing for multiple parts of your comments.
No. You did your best to not concede to anything, despite how insane of a rabbit hole had to be dove until you got bluntly called on it.
It bothers me that I have to get this aggressive in pointing out such behavior and mistakes before people will admit, and even then its yet more excuse-seeking.
The best defense in this comment you have is that you made it as a blanket response to people and comments that don't even exist in the thread.
It was just a badly thought out comment and subsequent argument in general.
1) You do realize how nonsensical it is to do this, no? Arguing against a position I did not take just serves to confuse matters. That is itself a strawman fallacy, and serves to detract from argument instead of offer a coherent or meaningful one.
2) As for MoP, you're going to have to explain how you think that proves or disproves the topic. It seems rather that you've just added another tangent that yes, expansions can be divisive as well. That doesn't negate the point in the least, so what's the comment supposed to serve?
You're making progressively less coherent arguments right now and it's leaving me quite confused as to your position and goal. The fact you just admitted you're not really arguing against me directly and instead using me as a proxy to argue a point/position I didn't take, just makes it all the more irrational.
I get you want to drag me into this entire theoretical arguement and discuss what may or may not be possible and dispute every single issue and its remote case.
I on the otherhand am talking from a practical side of what is the most likely case and root cause. If you have another theory that is "MOST LIKELY" then we can debate that. But trying to what if me all day with extremely remote possible cases isnt productive to me.
I have made a case that saturation is not the main cause of retention problems in MMO's, I have shown ample amount of facts proving my case.
What are the facts against the case I am making that Quality of the product is actually the root cause of retention in MMO's?
I am just not interested in running in circles with you on this. If you have some hard evidence then put it out there and I will discuss that, if its logical I will encorporate it and revise my theory. I am not going to change my mind or theory on what if's.
I vividly remembered Blizzard employee or Eve Employee says most people don't subscribe after their trial.
I think you have a point. If the games were better, there could be more retention.
But a point I want to make is there are many people complaining on the forum. But I dont' think the people complaining even agree with each other. You could ask everyone complaining and their favorite game is probably all different and they seemed to all think mmorpg should be designed differently.
For your case. What is your favorite mmorpg, and what kind of mmorpg do you enjoy playing?
For your case. What is your favorite mmorpg, and what kind of mmorpg do you enjoy playing?
1) UO (after trammel was best to me, even though I quit not long after trammel, my houses were all in felluca) 2) Daoc 3) ESO tied with WoW - (both in first 3 years) before ez mode 4) WoW Classic - still liked it but bored of it quickly, been there done that.
I played a bunch of other MMO's but those are at the top for me, I believe if any of those games were to release NOW with new graphics, completely new content and a 'few' QOL improvements, would absolutely demolish anything that is out there now.
Some games I wish I played but never did. SWG and EQ Too dated to go back and play EQ.
But a point I want to make is there are many people complaining on the forum. But I dont' think the people complaining even agree with each other. You could ask everyone complaining and their favorite game is probably all different and they seemed to all think mmorpg should be designed differently.
I agree there are alot of differing opinions. What I have seen is many of these people dont even know what they want and how their ideas will effect their own long term enjoyment of the game.
People say they want these super niche features.
One of the biggest things for an MMO is a thriving playerbase. A big playerbase is likely to drive additional sales. If you have really niche mechanics that drive away the playerbase then many others will leave with them. I hear this all the time where people say they love this "niche game and its mechanics" then when asked why they dont play it if its their perfect game, they say because nobody else is.
So some mechanics, even thou some people might like the ability to do it occassionally might actually drive away so much of the playerbase that it kills the game. PK & griefing is an example of this IMO. If you are going to allow this, then stick it on its own server, so it doesnt bring down the rest of your playerbase.
TLDR Devs need to be smart and figure out which mechanics are really important, and which mechanics people are just saying are important but can live without. If the mechanic is super controversial, then stick it on its own server.
I wouldn't say the market in general is saturated, but I would point out the oversaturation of particular genres or subgenres within.
Thing to consider with MMOs and live service titles similarly is sunk cost as well as breadth of content offerings, along with the flipside of that butting heads against a "content locust" mentality.
Not sure I get the Doom v Fortnite thing, given target audience is a consideration there.
This isn't saying all genres are oversaturated , hence "currently catered to". And yeah some of them also fall under the "for lack of competition" banner.
Look at New World, it had 25mil copies sold after only a few months.
WoW only sold like 800k copies its first 3 months. Eso only had 1.2mil copies sold at launch.
Its not a lack of customers, its a retention problem.
There is no extra cost to play New World after initial purchase. Yet it is barely getting 30k players right now. If they would have retained the 25mil players studios would all be trying to copy the New World formula. 24mil+ players wont even play this game FREE (since they already made the B2P purchase).
The vast majority of players in New World have never even done any end game dungeons. People have quit way before that because they know the End Game is totally flawed. So this is not a content locust problem in this case.
What other MMO is even worthy of playing in the last 7 years?
There has been a 7 year drought in MMO's and still these new MMO's cant get anyone to play.
Imagine if a decent movie was released and was the only 1 in theaters for 8 months LOL. It would probably be one of the highest selling just by default (unless covid stopped people).
The deck it totally stacked in favor of these new MMO's yet none can even perform. (more intenet players, more gamers alive, lack of new releases, most are free or low cost, technology enhancements) When new studios have all these advantages and it still cant even beat a 20 year old game. There is a huge problem.
If someone wants to say in 2007 there was a saturation problem. MAYBE that could be plausible. But in 2023 with a 7 year drought with FEW AAA games released. Blaming saturation is just an excuse.
Is New World a success or not? and what is the measuring stick?
I'd point out "If the games were better, there could be more retention." is not precluding market saturation, rather that speaks to it.
Market saturation mandates new products need to take market share from existing titles. That means having to make games that can actually pull and hold retention, rather than seeing players go "well this game is better" or even just "this one sucks less". What's the incentive to move away from WoW of FF14 or ESO or otherwise if the new title just feels meh or more of the same?
Point in case, "I want X game but better." is itself pulling from existing media to transfer to new media. You have to by it's virtue take from the existing market to do so.
And yeah that leads right into the dilemma of what makes a good game is in part just a improved technical level of production, but also a much more subjective combination of mechanics and subsequent play.
New World was not a success. It was almost a success. They had great graphics, good pve mechanics, great classes, awesome quests but horrifying pvp. IT took the average 6 weeks for the hardcore crowd to get to end game and everyone moved on. IT wasn't really complex enough to keep people playing. It was like a trophy game to put on your resume and move on. No one has made a home in it.
This user is a registered flex offender. Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say. Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark. Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
Is New World a success or not? and what is the measuring stick?
Yeah its a good question, and it all depends on what part do you want to talk about.
Was it profitable? Pretty sure the answer is yes. I have heard numbers like $50mil dev budget at launch with $150mil more for advertising. They had 25mil sales 5 months after release so thats problably 1 billion revenue. Profit = success (assuming they stop sinking money into it).
Reputation? - 99%+ of your customer base quit. Mixed user rating on steam. 5.6 user rating metacritic. Doesnt seem all that impressive. Customer satisfaction = not success.
Future revenue - This year I am sure they have spent at least 50mil to 100mil (dev budget + ads). To release a free expansion, that brought in a very short bump in players. 1 year from now, I doubt they will be able to charge big money for an expansion and get alot of buyers. Future revenue = not a success.
The reality is, if this game would have retained 25%+ of the accounts, this game would be able to charge for expansions and make $1 billion per year. This will not happen now IMO. Additionally the studio would have been respected and been able to launch other games. This is probably the main reason amazon fired its head gaming executive and why the lead dev for NW is now out. Shareholder perspective = not a success.
I don't think it's in trouble, it's just the nature of the genre itself makes the market always in an oversaturated state, companies realized it and moved on to more profitable pastures. The pie is cut in way too many slices and has been for at least a decade.
Maybe the Riot MMO will be cool.
No developers are making garbage, and players are finally getting sick of their crap.
1) You do realize how nonsensical it is to do this, no? Arguing against a position I did not take just serves to confuse matters. That is itself a strawman fallacy, and serves to detract from argument instead of offer a coherent or meaningful one.
2) As for MoP, you're going to have to explain how you think that proves or disproves the topic. It seems rather that you've just added another tangent that yes, expansions can be divisive as well. That doesn't negate the point in the least, so what's the comment supposed to serve?
You're making progressively less coherent arguments right now and it's leaving me quite confused as to your position and goal. The fact you just admitted you're not really arguing against me directly and instead using me as a proxy to argue a point/position I didn't take, just makes it all the more irrational.
I get you want to drag me into this entire theoretical arguement and discuss what may or may not be possible and dispute every single issue and its remote case.
I on the otherhand am talking from a practical side of what is the most likely case and root cause. If you have another theory that is "MOST LIKELY" then we can debate that. But trying to what if me all day with extremely remote possible cases isnt productive to me.
I have made a case that saturation is not the main cause of retention problems in MMO's, I have shown ample amount of facts proving my case.
What are the facts against the case I am making that Quality of the product is actually the root cause of retention in MMO's?
I am just not interested in running in circles with you on this. If you have some hard evidence then put it out there and I will discuss that, if its logical I will encorporate it and revise my theory. I am not going to change my mind or theory on what if's.
I vividly remembered Blizzard employee or Eve Employee says most people don't subscribe after their trial.
I think you have a point. If the games were better, there could be more retention.
But a point I want to make is there are many people complaining on the forum. But I dont' think the people complaining even agree with each other. You could ask everyone complaining and their favorite game is probably all different and they seemed to all think mmorpg should be designed differently.
For your case. What is your favorite mmorpg, and what kind of mmorpg do you enjoy playing?
For me the best game was Everquest but even I cannot stomach some of the ridiculous time it takes to do things. I was stuck in the Karanas and getting no more experience and decided to go to Oasis of Marr but died along the way there and along with the loss of experience I had to go recover my corpse. Everything just takes so long to do.
I know that those things are what make the game good but my pet peeve is the meditation time and the lack of mobs. Not many people play at the lower level on P99 so getting groups is almost impossible so soloing on a shaman is slow below 20.
If you ask me what game do I want , I honestly cannot answer that. I really love certain things about Everquest and hate other things so what game can I settle on.
WoW is too easy a game for me but I do appreciate the world. I love the world. I loved how coming into Teldrassil for the first time or Valley of Trials or Mulgore feels. WoW is such a beautiful world but I never found it much of a challenge. Yet it has many things that make it a wonderful world to play in.
I loved FFXIV when I played it but I don't think I can go through playing a fresh toon again there.
So this question is very complex and not easily answered.
This is what you get when you have less quality, less content, and more monetization.
Stagnation.
Lack of any real innovation other than how they can drain players wallets.
I know I've been on the hope train for years that something awesome and new would come along. In the meantime I'm playing 20 year old MMORPGs.
If 25 million people bought New World I would say the genre is ripe for the picking if something people actually want to play gets released and has more than a 0.1 percent retention rate.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
I don't think it's in trouble, it's just the nature of the genre itself makes the market always in an oversaturated state, companies realized it and moved on to more profitable pastures. The pie is cut in way too many slices and has been for at least a decade.
Maybe the Riot MMO will be cool.
No developers are making garbage, and players are finally getting sick of their crap.
Maybe…but my contention is that even if they were all masterpieces, there will never be enough people who subscribe to the mmo play style - which is far more of a time commitment than typical casual gaming- to keep every game thriving.
I dunno how you address the infinite lifecycle model in the genre, but it’s real. Nobody worries about madden 23 cannibalizing madden 22, but it’s a real issue in the mmo space.
Comments
We do not live in an all or nothing reality.
And you seem to be making up your own metrics and argument on this last comment and I'm not really sure why. If you want to talk data then we should be talking about sunk cost and user retention as it relates to MMOs.
You know, that thing I mentioned about "What other entertainment industries are built around the pretense that you're continuously engaging with the exact same thing for months/years?"
You mentioned TV and radio as a counterpoint to that, but both of those are services which are used to provide a variety of shows and songs to people. That's a far cry different from engaging with a single piece of entertainment for years on end.
Who out there listens to one album every day for years? Yes, people mix other games into their MMO playing, but there's a distinct loyalty point to be made about a form of media that sees players investing time in a consistent recurring fashion. The best you'll demonstrate on other media is going to generally be an exception to the norm, or a stretch as you try to apply it to entire entertainment delivery platforms. To which I did note on the likes of TV platforms, we do see an example of platforms that maintain a limited number of successful operation without being absorbed into one of the dominant groups or floundering out around some gimmick. Even Hulu is just an extension of Disney, and cable is dominated by a very limited number of longstanding providers.
This is also you responding to a statement that from the beginning was noting that parts of the genre may be hitting saturation. Not the MMO genre as a whole. This was even clarified to you, so you cycling back to that argument seems disingenuous.
Point on that one ends up being how many MMOs of the high fantasy theme, using some deviation of tab mechanics, has come out as opposed to exploring the broader genre. We can note that the MMOs which have perpetuated at least have deviancy in play factors and some theme, but there are large swathes of the MMO genre that is functionally untested.
A big chunk of the rush on making MMOs was delivering to a rather narrow audience, seeking to replicate success that'd already been had, rather than actually innovating the genre. The continued trickle of MMOs has at least half the time continued that trend.
Which goes to repeat the opening statement of this comment. We do not live in an all or nothing reality. You're the only one that's making claims things have to happen for one reason or another rather than it being a blend of causes. And I'm really not sure why as you're usually a more reasoned commenter than this.
If you cant see the similiarity then there is not much I can do. This statement above is laughable to me. I know you recognize that bands can have more than 1 album just like games can have expansions.
So you saying this is either.
A ). You cant comprehend
B ). You dont want to comprehend
C ). You do comprehend but do not want to engage in an honest debate on the issue.
Based on your previous comments I am picking C here.
I am not saying that there are not other factors. Have you ever heard of "5 whys methodology" or "Root cause analysis".
Read up then you will understand what I am doing.
I am not talking about all the ancillary issues. I am going to the heart of the matter.
Why are you trying to argue against a position others have taken elsewhere, as opposed to the position I've actually taken myself?
I'm not a stick for you to substitute masks over and vent your grievances about others at.
2) And SOE has made a variety of MMOs. You wanna call a new album an expansion, but the difference from one Metallica Album to the next can be as divisive for someone as going from EQ to EQ2. Even sticking to the expansion argument, you are then making an example of an individual who fits my point, sticking with a particular thing over time buying up the continuation of the one they love. This also dismisses the entire TV example addressed.
Which throws a bit of a wrench into your ABCs there as I could turn around and assert the exact same back at you.
You want to claim you're going to the root cause, but your original comment was being directly dismissive of this as even being a possibility.
I am uncertain why you are being this way, but you are being highly dishonest at the moment with this line of dialogue Brainy.
Mists of pandaria would like to speak with you.
2) As for MoP, you're going to have to explain how you think that proves or disproves the topic. It seems rather that you've just added another tangent that yes, expansions can be divisive as well. That doesn't negate the point in the least, so what's the comment supposed to serve?
You're making progressively less coherent arguments right now and it's leaving me quite confused as to your position and goal. The fact you just admitted you're not really arguing against me directly and instead using me as a proxy to argue a point/position I didn't take, just makes it all the more irrational.
I get you want to drag me into this entire theoretical arguement and discuss what may or may not be possible and dispute every single issue and its remote case.
I on the otherhand am talking from a practical side of what is the most likely case and root cause. If you have another theory that is "MOST LIKELY" then we can debate that. But trying to what if me all day with extremely remote possible cases isnt productive to me.
I have made a case that saturation is not the main cause of retention problems in MMO's, I have shown ample amount of facts proving my case.
What are the facts against the case I am making that Quality of the product is actually the root cause of retention in MMO's?
I am just not interested in running in circles with you on this. If you have some hard evidence then put it out there and I will discuss that, if its logical I will encorporate it and revise my theory. I am not going to change my mind or theory on what if's.
YOU rebuked the notion of existing games offering any measure of saturation from my original comment with your hardline statement saying it's just not a factor, going as far as making an "only" cause statement even.
And here you are now walking that back and making a different more moderated claim.
I thought you were better than this Brainy.
I didn't give you what ifs. I made a statement about contributing factors that your comment derided using absolute terms, which caused my latter response.
I have counterpointed your facts built from your original absolute pretense, presenting the condition that this is not an absolute scenario.
It's only in these last few comments that you changed that to a relative response of "but this is the primary factor".
This made all the more nonsensical by you agreeing with the original sentiment, be it shared in a slightly more aggressive format by Tiller. Just raising a subject of hypocrisy as well.
If you don't want to "run in circles", then don't make false arguments.
This is functionally just a tacit way of saying you actually acknowledge my original comment is fine without admitting your initial response was flawed or wrong in any way for taking it's absolute stance by pretending it didn't happen.
What is this insanity?
Maybe the Riot MMO will be cool.
I mean lets get real here. Its obvious that people dont play old games for just 1 single reason. There is going to be other factors like price, computer specs etc...
I was implying the majority of players, not some niche group. If you would have just stated that point, I would have conceded it long ago, I have done that already in numerous other posts. I am not so stupid to know that the decline in MMO's has only a single all encompassing cause.
This is what I am talking about, you are dragging me into this debate over a very technical detail.
And finally, if you notice I didnt direct that statement directly at you. Mainly because I wasnt talking directly at you but I agree it looks bad being you had just said that (in part). This is because I didnt fully disagree with your statement. However I have been hearing this statement for awhile and its been in many threads just recently. Being that this thread is directly about analyzing this genre and why its in trouble, I thought I would point that out now.
So yes, am I walking it back a bit now, it looks that way. I see your point, and can now understand your reaction. The timing of the comment wasnt the best, and I should have clarified that I wasnt against the partial statement. Just so we are clear, I am not disputing that this genre full of games has as an effect on new releases, I just dont believe its the 'MAIN' reason for its retention problem.
This is exacerbated by you at no point claiming you were talking about majority of players. The only time you did so was in regards to endgame in New World.
There's also a big difference between "only" and "main", which is made all the more pointed when it's preceded by dismissal of other potentials.
If you're going to play the "then you should have said that from the start" argument, perhaps don't be doing that exact thing for multiple parts of your comments.
No. You did your best to not concede to anything, despite how insane of a rabbit hole had to be dove until you got bluntly called on it.
It bothers me that I have to get this aggressive in pointing out such behavior and mistakes before people will admit, and even then its yet more excuse-seeking.
The best defense in this comment you have is that you made it as a blanket response to people and comments that don't even exist in the thread.
It was just a badly thought out comment and subsequent argument in general.
I vividly remembered Blizzard employee or Eve Employee says most people don't subscribe after their trial.
I think you have a point. If the games were better, there could be more retention.
But a point I want to make is there are many people complaining on the forum. But I dont' think the people complaining even agree with each other. You could ask everyone complaining and their favorite game is probably all different and they seemed to all think mmorpg should be designed differently.
For your case. What is your favorite mmorpg, and what kind of mmorpg do you enjoy playing?
1) UO (after trammel was best to me, even though I quit not long after trammel, my houses were all in felluca)
2) Daoc
3) ESO tied with WoW - (both in first 3 years) before ez mode
4) WoW Classic - still liked it but bored of it quickly, been there done that.
I played a bunch of other MMO's but those are at the top for me, I believe if any of those games were to release NOW with new graphics, completely new content and a 'few' QOL improvements, would absolutely demolish anything that is out there now.
Some games I wish I played but never did. SWG and EQ
Too dated to go back and play EQ.
I agree there are alot of differing opinions. What I have seen is many of these people dont even know what they want and how their ideas will effect their own long term enjoyment of the game.
People say they want these super niche features.
One of the biggest things for an MMO is a thriving playerbase. A big playerbase is likely to drive additional sales. If you have really niche mechanics that drive away the playerbase then many others will leave with them. I hear this all the time where people say they love this "niche game and its mechanics" then when asked why they dont play it if its their perfect game, they say because nobody else is.
So some mechanics, even thou some people might like the ability to do it occassionally might actually drive away so much of the playerbase that it kills the game. PK & griefing is an example of this IMO. If you are going to allow this, then stick it on its own server, so it doesnt bring down the rest of your playerbase.
TLDR
Devs need to be smart and figure out which mechanics are really important, and which mechanics people are just saying are important but can live without. If the mechanic is super controversial, then stick it on its own server.
Is New World a success or not? and what is the measuring stick?
Market saturation mandates new products need to take market share from existing titles. That means having to make games that can actually pull and hold retention, rather than seeing players go "well this game is better" or even just "this one sucks less". What's the incentive to move away from WoW of FF14 or ESO or otherwise if the new title just
feels meh or more of the same?
Point in case, "I want X game but better." is itself pulling from existing media to transfer to new media. You have to by it's virtue take from the existing market to do so.
And yeah that leads right into the dilemma of what makes a good game is in part just a improved technical level of production, but also a much more subjective combination of mechanics and subsequent play.
Someone who is registered as being a flex offender is a person who feels the need to flex about everything they say.
Always be the guy that paints the house in the dark.
Lucidity can be forged with enough liquidity and pharmed for decades with enough compound interest that a reachable profit would never end.
Was it profitable? Pretty sure the answer is yes. I have heard numbers like $50mil dev budget at launch with $150mil more for advertising. They had 25mil sales 5 months after release so thats problably 1 billion revenue.
Profit = success (assuming they stop sinking money into it).
Reputation? - 99%+ of your customer base quit.
Mixed user rating on steam.
5.6 user rating metacritic.
Doesnt seem all that impressive.
Customer satisfaction = not success.
Future revenue - This year I am sure they have spent at least 50mil to 100mil (dev budget + ads). To release a free expansion, that brought in a very short bump in players. 1 year from now, I doubt they will be able to charge big money for an expansion and get alot of buyers.
Future revenue = not a success.
The reality is, if this game would have retained 25%+ of the accounts, this game would be able to charge for expansions and make $1 billion per year. This will not happen now IMO. Additionally the studio would have been respected and been able to launch other games. This is probably the main reason amazon fired its head gaming executive and why the lead dev for NW is now out.
Shareholder perspective = not a success.
I know that those things are what make the game good but my pet peeve is the meditation time and the lack of mobs. Not many people play at the lower level on P99 so getting groups is almost impossible so soloing on a shaman is slow below 20.
If you ask me what game do I want , I honestly cannot answer that. I really love certain things about Everquest and hate other things so what game can I settle on.
WoW is too easy a game for me but I do appreciate the world. I love the world. I loved how coming into Teldrassil for the first time or Valley of Trials or Mulgore feels. WoW is such a beautiful world but I never found it much of a challenge. Yet it has many things that make it a wonderful world to play in.
I loved FFXIV when I played it but I don't think I can go through playing a fresh toon again there.
So this question is very complex and not easily answered.
Stagnation.
Lack of any real innovation other than how they can drain players wallets.
I know I've been on the hope train for years that something awesome and new would come along. In the meantime I'm playing 20 year old MMORPGs.
If 25 million people bought New World I would say the genre is ripe for the picking if something people actually want to play gets released and has more than a 0.1 percent retention rate.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/I dunno how you address the infinite lifecycle model in the genre, but it’s real. Nobody worries about madden 23 cannibalizing madden 22, but it’s a real issue in the mmo space.