The problem with MMOs these days is developers are making games and not virtual worlds.

Muke · April 2013

Originally posted by tixylix

Really the only MMO out there now which still feels like one is EVE because CCP get it, they know how to maintain a virtual world and not just how to create a game. They don't do anything stupid like add 10 more levels every expansion,

The only mistake CCP makes is making sure a RMT machine built around moon materials and the devs exists because they hired the same players who were leaders of the groups holding the moons, and they themselves are playing members of those factions so get all benefits that come with it.

nariusseldon · April 2013

Originally posted by lizardbones

It has been said that however many copies of Arma II sold, they sold even more after the mod released. They sold enough new copies of the game that they dedicated resources to developing the mod, so it is a success.

If that is the yardstick of success, then we have 10x of F2P themepark as successful. DDO, LOTRO, STO, DCUO ... are all successful enough to develop more content.

And thtat is with all the competition in that part of the market.

Cecropia · April 2013

Originally posted by lizardbones

That's 1.7 Million characters. If your character dies 128 times, that ticker adds 128 characters to the game. There's no way to tell how many actual players have played.

It has been said that however many copies of Arma II sold, they sold even more after the mod released. They sold enough new copies of the game that they dedicated resources to developing the mod, so it is a success.

I agree that the success of that mod doesn't mean that there is a market for an MMO based around a free form world with little or no game play. It may or may not have any implications for MMOs at all.

"By August 2012, three months after release, the mod had registered more than one million unique users." From the wiki.

It will interesting to see how the real game fares.

TheLizardbones · April 2013

Originally posted by nariusseldon
Originally posted by lizardbones It has been said that however many copies of Arma II sold, they sold even more after the mod released. They sold enough new copies of the game that they dedicated resources to developing the mod, so it is a success.

If that is the yardstick of success, then we have 10x of F2P themepark as successful. DDO, LOTRO, STO, DCUO ... are all successful enough to develop more content.

And thtat is with all the competition in that part of the market.

They apparently got a million registered players. That is a good benchmark, even for MMOs.

Again, I don't think this leads directly to saying that you could do the same thing with an MMO or that it means there's a hidden market of people who just want a virtual world as an MMO. If that were the case, there would be a Minecraft MMO right now. Ten million copies of Minecraft for the PC have been sold. It has certainly spawned some games, but none of them are as successful as Minecraft and it hasn't spawned any MMOs that I'm aware of.

WarZ is the closest approximation of DayZ as an MMO, and the common point is more the zombies and the PvP, not the virtual world.

Aelious · April 2013

Originally posted by Axehilt
Originally posted by Aelious
People will follow quality. When there are quality "virtual world" type MMOs out we'll know how popular they can be. Right now what we know is that quality themepark games do attract players. Is it because it's a themepark or because it's a quality game? Would they prefer the same quality title in a more virtual world?

We'll know in the next few years I think.

Actually it's always game-quality that matters to players.

Look back through the history of videogames -- at games vs. simulation -- and you'll notice simulations (even the best ones) have never surpassed games.

Virtual worlds are simulations.

If you wanted to make a successful virtual world, you'd turn it into a game first. A sandbox which is a strong game would do very well*. But without that focus on gameplay, virtual worlds will do poorly just like simulation games.

(* I'd cite Sim City here, if it wasn't for their terrible launch turning the internet's unforgiving wrath upon it. Sim City has a density to interesting decisions which allows it to have fantastically fun gameplay, while also (mostly) being a simulation. Only mostly a simulation, because it's clear certain design decisions were made to promote fun gameplay rather than to be a meticulously realistic city simulation. But it's that sacrifice of realism for gameplay which makes it a fun game.)

I see why but you made a connection between SP simulations and VW MMOs. Different platform, different genre and different gameplay purpose. Plus, the history of MMOs as we know them is a lot shorter than PC games so it's hard to compare the two. For instance the "WoW bubble" has lasted a large portion of MMO history and put genre on a path that is just now getting more diverse. The reason I say this is because out of all the possible platforms to have a virtual world, an MMO would fit the best and be favored by people more than SP games.

I agree with you about the "game" portion being important and I don't think you have to sacrifice one for the other. The VW part IMO is more about the setting in which to put the game. I know we all carry our idea of what "virtual world" means .

Axehilt · April 2013

Originally posted by ltank
Why would we look at Xfire rankings that include non MMO's when we are clearly talking about MMOs here on this website which is dedicated to MMOs. Don't try and move the goalposts.

That's irrelevant.

Why would we look at additional data? To further prove the point that virtual worlds (simulations) have always been, currently are, and will always be niche. We look at past the past to plan for the future.

If you look at just MMOs, that's what the data shows.

If you look at all games, that's what the data shows.

If you look at current data, that's what the data shows.

If you look at historic data of the past 30+ years of the game industry, that's what the data shows.

tixylix · April 2013

Originally posted by lizardbones

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cecropia

You have no idea what you're talking about. The mod (not mob) was never free; you had to purchase Arma 2 in addition to an expansion to play DayZ. Four months after released IGN was calling it "one of the most popular PC games in the world". Also Xfuckingfire again? You really are a funny fellow

And you have no numbers to show. The best number is 1.7M number on its website .. and that is a small number for a free mod. Oh ... have to buy ARMA2 .. many already have ARMA2.

And your best example is a mod, not even a proper game. Tell me, which virtual world MMO is successful. Which is has sold 12M boxes? Which one has millions of sub?

The best is Eve, with not even a million subs .. with many years to build its audience no less. Even TOR, a failure in many's eyes, went from 0 to 4x Eve's number in a month.

That's 1.7 Million characters. If your character dies 128 times, that ticker adds 128 characters to the game. There's no way to tell how many actual players have played.

It has been said that however many copies of Arma II sold, they sold even more after the mod released. They sold enough new copies of the game that they dedicated resources to developing the mod, so it is a success.

I agree that the success of that mod doesn't mean that there is a market for an MMO based around a free form world with little or no game play. It may or may not have any implications for MMOs at all.

No 1.7 million unique players, says so on the site.

Sadly though everyone I know has gotten bored and are waiting for the SA.

Sulaa · April 2013

It's not a problem with MMOs and even with MMORPGs in general. Most players don't want games that take virtual world concept in mind when designing a game. There is niche for that kind of MMORPGs though.

Arclan · April 2013

Originally posted by Cecropia
...Four months after released IGN was calling it "one of the most popular PC games in the world".

And this occurs even though hacking is such a problem in the game/mod. I bet many players are like me and have bypassed that mod entirely and are waiting for the standalone. Major kudos to the DayZ dev team who seem to be breaking new ground on anti-hacking; stuff that Planetside-2 and other competitive games should learn from.

TheLizardbones · April 2013

Originally posted by tixylix
Originally posted by lizardbones Originally posted by nariusseldon Originally posted by Cecropia

You have no idea what you're talking about. The mod (not mob) was never free; you had to purchase Arma 2 in addition to an expansion to play DayZ. Four months after released IGN was calling it "one of the most popular PC games in the world". Also Xfuckingfire again? You really are a funny fellow

And you have no numbers to show. The best number is 1.7M number on its website .. and that is a small number for a free mod. Oh ... have to buy ARMA2 .. many already have ARMA2. And your best example is a mod, not even a proper game. Tell me, which virtual world MMO is successful. Which is has sold 12M boxes? Which one has millions of sub? The best is Eve, with not even a million subs .. with many years to build its audience no less. Even TOR, a failure in many's eyes, went from 0 to 4x Eve's number in a month.

That's 1.7 Million characters. If your character dies 128 times, that ticker adds 128 characters to the game. There's no way to tell how many actual players have played. It has been said that however many copies of Arma II sold, they sold even more after the mod released. They sold enough new copies of the game that they dedicated resources to developing the mod, so it is a success. I agree that the success of that mod doesn't mean that there is a market for an MMO based around a free form world with little or no game play. It may or may not have any implications for MMOs at all.

No 1.7 million unique players, says so on the site.

Sadly though everyone I know has gotten bored and are waiting for the SA.

That it does. It's been awhile since I looked at the site and the last time I looked, it had half a million characters, so you can tell it's been awhile. :-)

I am not knocking the mod or the mod's success. It's obviously been successful. I just don't see the parallel between this mod and making a virtual world MMO. The world of DayZ isn't the only feature of the game, and I would argue that it's not the most important feature. I would even say it's possible to write a much better virtual world than what DayZ has.

I'm not even saying that a virtual world isn't important or beneficial to making a game a good game. I think the world is very important, regardless of whether the game is an MMO or not. I do think if a game's sole defining feature is the virtual world, that game will not be successful. The "game" is more important. In fact, the virtual world is simply a part of the "game".

Amaranthar · April 2013

Originally posted by lizardbones

Originally posted by tixylix

Originally posted by lizardbones

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Cecropia

You have no idea what you're talking about. The mod (not mob) was never free; you had to purchase Arma 2 in addition to an expansion to play DayZ. Four months after released IGN was calling it "one of the most popular PC games in the world". Also Xfuckingfire again? You really are a funny fellow

And you have no numbers to show. The best number is 1.7M number on its website .. and that is a small number for a free mod. Oh ... have to buy ARMA2 .. many already have ARMA2. And your best example is a mod, not even a proper game. Tell me, which virtual world MMO is successful. Which is has sold 12M boxes? Which one has millions of sub? The best is Eve, with not even a million subs .. with many years to build its audience no less. Even TOR, a failure in many's eyes, went from 0 to 4x Eve's number in a month.

That's 1.7 Million characters. If your character dies 128 times, that ticker adds 128 characters to the game. There's no way to tell how many actual players have played. It has been said that however many copies of Arma II sold, they sold even more after the mod released. They sold enough new copies of the game that they dedicated resources to developing the mod, so it is a success. I agree that the success of that mod doesn't mean that there is a market for an MMO based around a free form world with little or no game play. It may or may not have any implications for MMOs at all.

No 1.7 million unique players, says so on the site.

Sadly though everyone I know has gotten bored and are waiting for the SA.

That it does. It's been awhile since I looked at the site and the last time I looked, it had half a million characters, so you can tell it's been awhile. :-)

I am not knocking the mod or the mod's success. It's obviously been successful. I just don't see the parallel between this mod and making a virtual world MMO. The world of DayZ isn't the only feature of the game, and I would argue that it's not the most important feature. I would even say it's possible to write a much better virtual world than what DayZ has.

I'm not even saying that a virtual world isn't important or beneficial to making a game a good game. I think the world is very important, regardless of whether the game is an MMO or not. I do think if a game's sole defining feature is the virtual world, that game will not be successful. The "game" is more important. In fact, the virtual world is simply a part of the "game".

Yes, and even if it's a Sandbox Worldly game that's still the case. The question is, what sort of "game"?

Siveria · April 2013

Originally posted by FromHell
Fear not...

EQ Next

Star Citizen

World of Darkness (also by CCP)

Elite Dangerous

Archeage

those five "virtual world "titles alone will probably keep many people busy for at least a decade

All I can say is In b4 they all end up somehow feeling the newest wow clone in how they play, with the exception of archeage. Devs are just too scared to try anything diffrent due to the costs, and I don't blame em, when the garbage like wow and such they make today is enough why try to do anything diffrent? I wish they would but yeah, most mmo's that have tried something diffrent but most of them have failed horribly.

Citor · April 2013

Maybe the problem is not in the developers of MMO maybe the prob is in us. Expect that we dont satisfy ourselves with what are currently in the market. and people had different perpective and likes about the game.

Phelcher · April 2013

Originally posted by Axehilt
Originally posted by ltank
Why would we look at Xfire rankings that include non MMO's when we are clearly talking about MMOs here on this website which is dedicated to MMOs. Don't try and move the goalposts.

That's irrelevant.

Why would we look at additional data? To further prove the point that virtual worlds (simulations) have always been, currently are, and will always be niche. We look at past the past to plan for the future.

If you look at just MMOs, that's what the data shows.

If you look at all games, that's what the data shows.

If you look at current data, that's what the data shows.

If you look at historic data of the past 30+ years of the game industry, that's what the data shows.

This^

And MMORPG's are even moAr niche...

Ironically it is these very niche MMORPG that we are suppose to be discussing here @ MMORPG.com... not Diablo3, etc..

Amaranthar · April 2013

Originally posted by Phelcher
Originally posted by Axehilt
Originally posted by ltank
Why would we look at Xfire rankings that include non MMO's when we are clearly talking about MMOs here on this website which is dedicated to MMOs. Don't try and move the goalposts.

That's irrelevant.

Why would we look at additional data? To further prove the point that virtual worlds (simulations) have always been, currently are, and will always be niche. We look at past the past to plan for the future.

If you look at just MMOs, that's what the data shows.

If you look at all games, that's what the data shows.

If you look at current data, that's what the data shows.

If you look at historic data of the past 30+ years of the game industry, that's what the data shows.

This^

And MMORPG's are even moAr niche...

Ironically it is these very niche MMORPG that we are suppose to be discussing here @ MMORPG.com... not Diablo3, etc..

Yep. That's why Henry Ford decided not to build cars. They didn't sell too well.

GroovyFlower · April 2013

Originally posted by tixylix
I remember getting into the genre because I wanted to be a part of an online community. I wanted to explore a world and feel like I was in this living, breathing online world where I could socialise with other people. I used to log in to these early MMOs and just stay logged in even when I was AFK, I felt a sense of place in the world, like it had its own ecology. I used to be scared to venture out in the world which used to be dangerous with heavy loss if you died, it just made exploration so much more fun.

See back then there wasn't this sense of linear progression, there wasn't this sense of entitlement, an end game or that everything you earn should last forever. Loss is fine but the problem we have now is people are so used to never losing and always being rewarded that they complain whenever there is risk vs reward. I play games nowdays and I'm constantly rewarded with badges and attachments and items, there is so much reward that I ignore it all and it becomes tedious.

I remember playing EQ2 when it first launched (just a good example, I didn't like the game much) and chests used to drop with the good loot in and they were quite rare. Your whole group was so excited to see what had dropped because it was rare, that moment of hearing the chest was magical. Nowdays though people ignore all the loot because it is boring, it's constantly being rewarded all the time that you'll get 12 drops of the same sword but with slightly different stats.

I just miss those old worlds that actually did feel like worlds, especially when playing SWG Pre CU. Really the only MMO out there now which still feels like one is EVE because CCP get it, they know how to maintain a virtual world and not just how to create a game. They don't do anything stupid like add 10 more levels every expansion, which just kills more of the old world and drives newer players and older ones further apart. No instead they give you sideways progression so you can instantly play with everyone and do anything at any time.

SWG used to be like that with the whole way worlds were designed, you would find new players doing same content as older players, it was just about when each player go round to doing it. People did it for the challenge and for the story, not always the reward, because people did things for fun. Now there seems to be this thinking of only doing stuff if it gives meaningful rewards. Of the little content SWG had (don't blame the game design, blame the shoddy developer) you got fun and interesting things that were of no use really, they just looked cool and showed you've done something.

I remember when EQ2 was being shown off and playing the beta 0 and being amazed. It was really the first and last leap forward in terms of graphics and immersiveness. I know it looks dated now and for some reason each time we saw the game it looks a little bit more dated too, which was weird. However that player experience of IoR to the Commonlands was just mind blowing for me personally. I haven't had that experience from an MMO since, now everything looks so dated compared to other games around, though back then EQ2 looked as good or even better than SP games, especially when they started showing it off in 2001/2002 time.

I'd just spend time in that game talking to people, listening to NPCs talk in the game and not just in cutscenes, which no MMO has done since, even EQ2 has gotten rid of it all. I'd spend my time grouping doing quests in and around the city and just spending each night grouping with people and having so much fun. It took me a month to get to level 20 before I was at the Fallen Gate and then realised the rest of the world sucked lol. It was as iff SOE made the game up to the end of level 20 and then rushed the rest, especially that horrible TS zone.

I just miss that sense of being in a virtual world, one that I'm proud of and can spend so much time in and where my achievements matter. I cannot get the same feeling in newer MMOs, they all feel like games and like you're going to complete them and get bored. Even WoW did this in the old Vanilla game, you had this sense of being in the most seamless world up to that date. Sadly they dumbed it down, made it so instance heavy, let you warp around anywhere without travel and killed world PVP with instant battlegrounds. Now WoW is basically a fan fiction themepark and it's so sad and is just a bloated mess of a game.

In a way though I thank SOE for making all my fave MMOs in EQ, SWG and PS... however I hate them for ruining them all. They always have ambition, even EQ2, PS2 and DCUO were ambitious and something new and innovative in their own ways. However what I do not get is why SOE can make great building blocks, then rush the game to launch, everyone quits within a couple months and then they trickle out poor quality content. I'll never get why their content quality and art quality always dives after launch, it is never as good as the original content. I'll never get why they cannot just listen to players when in beta they're saying it is way too early to launch. Even with PS2 we told them and now look at PS2, had a server merger already and when I last played it was pretty much dead compared to what it used to be. The stuff wrong with it still isn't fixed, stuff that shouldn't take long, yet SOE struggle with creating the content, it is like as soon as a project is released, they transfer 80% of the devs to a new project.

Only game world i realy had a feeling of seamless and immersive game world was Darkfall 1 world AGON no loadscreens no instance. Beautifull lush world you could explore for hours on end and forget outside world.

What i remember from EQ2 was fake looking graphics loadscreens and limited exploring areas and instance loadsrceens and more loads screens and waxmuseum mobs waiting to be lsaughtered, terible un immersive game i left after 2 weeks beta never to comeback.

Quirhid · April 2013

Originally posted by Amaranthar
Originally posted by Phelcher
Originally posted by Axehilt
Originally posted by ltank
Why would we look at Xfire rankings that include non MMO's when we are clearly talking about MMOs here on this website which is dedicated to MMOs. Don't try and move the goalposts.

That's irrelevant.

Why would we look at additional data? To further prove the point that virtual worlds (simulations) have always been, currently are, and will always be niche. We look at past the past to plan for the future.

If you look at just MMOs, that's what the data shows.

If you look at all games, that's what the data shows.

If you look at current data, that's what the data shows.

If you look at historic data of the past 30+ years of the game industry, that's what the data shows.

This^

And MMORPG's are even moAr niche...

Ironically it is these very niche MMORPG that we are suppose to be discussing here @ MMORPG.com... not Diablo3, etc..

Yep. That's why Henry Ford decided not to build cars. They didn't sell too well.

Hey, we're not complaining how there's not enough virtual world around, we're only suggesting what they should do to make them more popular. But then we get swamped by replies "this is not how MMORPGs are supposed to be" and "this is no longer a virtual world"...

If you want them to stay niche, fine, don't change. I agree with Axehilt that a "gamey sandbox" would do fairly well, but so far, developers are too focused on the world-part and neglecting the game-part.

The game-part is crucial to success. Some people just don't see that.

MarzAttakz · April 2013

Originally posted by Xoshua
MOBA's should have their own board or site, get them far far away from mmo's as possible. Look when I signed up here, 2004. I'm a veteran mmo player, I know my sh*t. Listen, regardless of whether you want to call if evolving for market purpose, it's still garbage. Look how many people don't play MMO's anymore from other threads? Look at how many people are making similar threads. There is a HUGE base of players looking for what MMO's are suppose to be. Yes, they are suppose to be A Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game, not a sh*tty instanced anti social piece of garbage the devs are pushing out like hotcakes.

There will be a MMO revolution soon enough. We the players are getting real sick of the garbage devs are putting out. We want our old genre back. If you want a F2P game or a Moba, go somewhere else kid.

Said it like a Champ!

WW4BW · April 2013

Originally posted by Quirhid
Originally posted by Amaranthar
Originally posted by Phelcher
Originally posted by Axehilt
Originally posted by ltank

Hey, we're not complaining how there's not enough virtual world around, we're only suggesting what they should do to make them more popular. But then we get swamped by replies "this is not how MMORPGs are supposed to be" and "this is no longer a virtual world"...

If you want them to stay niche, fine, don't change. I agree with Axehilt that a "gamey sandbox" would do fairly well, but so far, developers are too focused on the world-part and neglecting the game-part.

The game-part is crucial to success. Some people just don't see that.

Wait, what?... I thought the argument was the other way around.. Developers spending too much time making a game and too little focus on creating a world...

Or are you saying that those virtual worlds, that do get made, have too little game in them.

TheLizardbones · April 2013

Originally posted by Amaranthar
Yes, and even if it's a Sandbox Worldly game that's still the case. The question is, what sort of "game"?

It doesn't matter what sort of game. Not to answer the question about whether the Game or the World is more important. They are the same thing. A World without a Game is just a simulator that players can observe, but not touch. A Game without a World is nothing. Even Checkers has a World made up of alternatively colored squares.

This argument isn't really about Game versus World. You should get a cookie because the argument is about what kind of Game gets played. The answer is, "Whatever kind of game players want to play, as long as the developer does a good enough job with the project."

Axehilt · April 2013

Originally posted by Amaranthar
Yep. That's why Henry Ford decided not to build cars. They didn't sell too well.

If cars had been around for 30 years of mediocre sales, this analogy would fit.

If cars hadn't had clear utility; if cars' design hadn't been in line with a clear customer desire, this analogy would fit.

But it doesn't fit. We're talking about simulations (of which virtual worlds are a subset), which have forever been niche next to games (which focus on gameplay.)

Making a sandbox game-like and not world-like is part of aligning the design with the utility it needs to provide, and the clear customer desire it needs to serve. It's all about making design decisions for gameplay, not for world-simulation. Not every design decision faces that conflict, but enough of them are that it substantially changes the overall product.

Axehilt · April 2013

Originally posted by WW4BW
Wait, what?... I thought the argument was the other way around.. Developers spending too much time making a game and too little focus on creating a world...

Or are you saying that those virtual worlds, that do get made, have too little game in them.

Yeah he's clearly referring to virtual world makers. Their historic focus on world-sim, rather than gameplay, has resulted in niche products.

nariusseldon · April 2013

Originally posted by Citor
Maybe the problem is not in the developers of MMO maybe the prob is in us. Expect that we dont satisfy ourselves with what are currently in the market. and people had different perpective and likes about the game.

Don't speak for all. Just some.

I am pretty happy with gaming.

nariusseldon · April 2013

Originally posted by Quirhid

Hey, we're not complaining how there's not enough virtual world around, we're only suggesting what they should do to make them more popular. But then we get swamped by replies "this is not how MMORPGs are supposed to be" and "this is no longer a virtual world"...

uh? "The problem with MMOs these days is developers are making games and not virtual worlds" .. that sounds like a complaint to me.

And the replies are right on. Why should anyone trying to make them more popular?

Phelcher · April 2013

Exactly, why is someone trying to make those^ games popular on this site... which happens to have a focus on MMORPGs..

Very weird that "people" keep discussing non-niche games, in a very niche forum. Wonder why these "people" feign ignorance... even after being told. So weird.. to keep discussing those "other" games.. trying to make those popular, but unable to talk about the non-popular games, the niche MMORPG's..

Makes you wonder why someone post 10,000 times.. and then claim to stand for zero, if anything.

Howdy, Stranger!

The problem with MMOs these days is developers are making games and not virtual worlds.

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

The problem with MMOs these days is developers are making games and not virtual worlds.

Comments