A smaller market would likely be healthier for sub based . If course there is no evidence that sub based games are what is best fir the market just opinIon
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar And yet millions of people are somehow having fun and paying for the games you consider garbage. Maybe it's you.
Yea.....until they move on to the next thing a few months to a year after release. You speak in half-truth here, but I think you know that. MMO communities do not have the staying power UO, EQ, AO, AC, DAOC, and even WoW had. They sell a ton of games, but the community is a transient one.
This keeps coming up as a response, and it's just not true.
SWToR has been running for several years, with a higher population than UO, EQ, AO, AC and DAoC. LotRO has been running for over seven years (with a higher population) and DDO has been running even longer. Champions Online and STO are both still running and the time frame for their duration is years, not months. There are certainly MMORPGs that peter out pretty quickly, but it would be strange if some of them didn't fail and shut down. Luckily it's games like Family Guy Online that shutdown, and not games like ArcheAge or Age of Conan.
Free2play games? lol. You are not even talking about the same thing I am, this is not a contest to see how many months you can survive as an MMO. First of all I forgot about LOTRO, which has been known for its community, the best thing it has going for it. I am talking about when the games were in their prime, not the fact that a few people still play them.
The so called communities of the current games you speak of (except LOTRO) pale in comparison to the communities of the older games. How many people log into SWTOR every day just to hang out with their friends online? I am not talking about loggin in with their boys to run a flashpoint. If you don't know what I am talking about that is the reason you are trying to debate me on this. There are no MMO communities anymore, except for LOTRO. The games are anti-community, it is their design and the players who flock to them. Hell, not to mention you are tossing out free to play games where people come and go all the time......which defines transient. Do you really think STO would be around if not free? Rethink your argument and come back later.
In the end this is all opinion, community to me may not mean the same to you. This is why the dude included "I didn't notice a rut" in the poll. For ME there is certainly a rut.
The mmos today have just as much starting power as the old ones. Regarding communities they have far more communities not just one monolithicculture anmore. Today there are dozensand hundreds of community's in these games.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
It's hard to be too critical on people not wanting to take risks on their $200+ million investments.
It's also far too early to throw in the towel on indie developers, just because there isn't a lot to show for it so far, time will tell there and if one is commercially successful then that could change a lot of things.
Also I think we'll see a lot more innovation out of Asia because there isn't one overwhelmingly dominant game like there is in NA. When one game is ten times the size of it's next largest competitor it's not shocking that everyone is trying to copy the king. Notice how the only Western AAA release in the last 10 years to not feature a linear quest grind was funded by a Korean company and most of the big budget sandboxy games are coming out of Korea as well. Granted EQN is being developed in the West but it's still a long way from being released.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar And yet millions of people are somehow having fun and paying for the games you consider garbage. Maybe it's you.
Yes millions of people are having fun but you forgot a keyword there and thats temporarily. The problem is not with the game at its core its more of a longevity issue. People have their "fun" and hop to the next title. Many on here see spending years on an MMO as a waste of time; actually taking time to build you character. A waste of time to me is playing an MMO for 2 months just to jump to another. I would rather just not play which I havent for the most part. I dont believe it ever will change. Hopefully one day there will be a developer that realizes not all of us wanted to be teleported everywhere, autogrouped up and instanced to death.
All games are temporary. The idea of being dedicated to a single game for years is just not viable anymore.
Embrace the temporary as that is our reality.
I reject your thesis, some day someone will build a game worthy of playing over the long haul, just won't be anything like the current offerings.
And i reject your rejection. So what if someone will try to do that .. if there is no demand.
I don't play a single game ... i play many games. I like variety in my gaming. And why would people stick to one game when there are so many choices?
Originally posted by Kyleran Originally posted by DMKano Originally posted by c0exist Originally posted by VengeSunsoar And yet millions of people are somehow having fun and paying for the games you consider garbage. Maybe it's you.
Yes millions of people are having fun but you forgot a keyword there and thats temporarily. The problem is not with the game at its core its more of a longevity issue. People have their "fun" and hop to the next title. Many on here see spending years on an MMO as a waste of time; actually taking time to build you character. A waste of time to me is playing an MMO for 2 months just to jump to another. I would rather just not play which I havent for the most part. I dont believe it ever will change. Hopefully one day there will be a developer that realizes not all of us wanted to be teleported everywhere, autogrouped up and instanced to death.
All games are temporary. The idea of being dedicated to a single game for years is just not viable anymore.
Embrace the temporary as that is our reality.
I reject your thesis, some day someone will build a game worthy of playing over the long haul, just won't be anything like the current offerings.
And i reject your rejection. So what if someone will try to do that .. if there is no demand.
I don't play a single game ... i play many games. I like variety in my gaming. And why would people stick to one game when there are so many choices?
LOL, yes the classic example about how to do it wrong, but there is hope even for you to one day realize your error.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
LOL, yes the classic example about how to do it wrong, but there is hope even for you to one day realize your error.
LoL .. as if there is a "wrong" way to use entertainment products. I use it in any way I like it ... not only there is little anyone can do about that, devs seem to respond and cater to players like me.
GREAT post and an interesting read. I love both the professionalism of the author in both nailing the problem and content. The "dirty words" even keep you reading.
Well done OP,
Anyway, my opinion about the poll and comments :
1) You hit the nail on the head with how the industry had taken a turn for the worst. BUT a lot of people here seem to enjoy short crap for what ever reason.
Add that, MMOs are no longer mmos. Yet mmorpg.com will list any game that requires an internet connection with other players on your screen.
It's almost to the point that we need a new site called mmorpg 2.com, where only real mmos should be listed. But the problem with that is only roughly five games would be listed. And of the five games, many have gone f2P cash grabs, leaving us with nothing.....So mmorpg 2.com would not work either
2) We have two new types of people posting on this site.
a) People looking for totally free games, railroading any topic that goes against their chance of playing totally free.
b) People that don't care if the games are mmos at all. EVEN IF THIS IS AN MMO SITE.
Good work on nailing the problem OP. But unfortunately it falls on deaf ears.......Marketing takes a front seat !
Been around longer than you have and been a F2P advocate for at least as long if not longer, nice try on the logic though.
Oh and what an MMO is is becoming a murky thing indeed... if you go for purity sake (massive online world with thousand or hundreds of thousands of people potentially around) you will quickly find games like ESO, SWTOR,etc do not match that criteria but they are in fact sold as MMORPGs. From my point of view if the game has interactions between a large group of people across an entire game world and the game world itself is persistent and, at least, to a degree modifiable by player actions then that game is an MMO (the instance argument is idiotic at best, sure there may be only 20-30 people in one area due to server architecture but if everyone in the game/server can interact with each other directly or indirectly via their avatars then you get and MMO).
The bottom line is - coming up with a AAA game that will be a hit 5 years from now - good luck with that, it is an incredibly difficult task.
That is not how software is being built, or rather not the only way. Look up Agile software development. That can and should be applied to game development and I suspect it already is.
Simply stated, if you continue to buy crap, they will continue to make crap.
The problem here is the consumer, not the developer...
Consumers pay to play an alpha for a game that is slated to be F2P.
Consumers pledge money to kick starters in order to get developers to make the game they want (which may or may not be vaporware).
Consumers pay real money for virtual items in cash shops.
Consumers pay subscriptions to games they hardly ever even play.
Consumers pre-purchase games in order to be part of the beta testing.
Consumers buy founders packs, lifetime subscriptions, you name it, based solely on hype and/or very limited exposure to the game.
Consumers will try every new game, even if it's not worth the box price, just to have something new to do while they wait on another game release.
Based on the above, there is no hope in sight for MMOs... the consumers are just plain daft. They might as well put a lighter to their wallet and say "Hey kids, look... fireworks!" Sure, some may have a brain, but they are so far outnumbered by those that don't that they are statistically insignificant.
What rut? I'm having a blast! The only "rut" that I see is my ever consistent lack of time to play all the great MMORPGs that are available now.
If you feel the MMO industry is in a rut, it's time to look inward and re-examine whether this genre is right for you. It might be time to walk a way and try something else.
They can adjust a game all day, but they can't help the issue between the keyboard and the chair. Played: UO, DAoC, AC, WoW, EVE, TR, WAR, Aion, Rift, SWTOR, GW2, TSW, ESO, Elite:D Play EVE for free for 21 days
LOL, yes the classic example about how to do it wrong, but there is hope even for you to one day realize your error.
LoL .. as if there is a "wrong" way to use entertainment products. I use it in any way I like it ... not only there is little anyone can do about that, devs seem to respond and cater to players like me.
People always do as they like, it just isn't always good for them or society (or gaming) as a whole. Even if Dev's are catering to you, don't take it as a compliment, as they are currently pandering to the lowest common denominator, it makes the most money after all.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
LOL, yes the classic example about how to do it wrong, but there is hope even for you to one day realize your error.
LoL .. as if there is a "wrong" way to use entertainment products. I use it in any way I like it ... not only there is little anyone can do about that, devs seem to respond and cater to players like me.
You're an advocate for playing solo because you don't want to deal with other folks. Devs aren't making solo-friendly, massively multiplayer games because their massively multiplayer gamers all want to play singleplayer. They're making them that way because the more casual players wanna be able to jump in and immediately make measurable progress. Looking for a group is not measurable progress. And since MMOs and PC gaming has become increasingly popular, more and more casual players are looking to jump into the genre. These are the players developers are trying to cater to. Not antisocial gamers who want to play in a social setting (note I mean to use the term antisocial, without its negative connotations, to simply identify a gamer who wishes to never interact with other players).
I agree there's no wrong way to use an entertainment product (so long as it does not interfere with others' ability to enjoy that product or stiff those who worked to create said product), but it's becoming increasingly obvious that you believe a cheap solution to a largely unrelated problem supports your theory about 9 out of 10 online gamers being purely awful human beings, your justification for playing solo, and your belief that everyone outside of these forums agrees with you.
LOL, yes the classic example about how to do it wrong, but there is hope even for you to one day realize your error.
LoL .. as if there is a "wrong" way to use entertainment products. I use it in any way I like it ... not only there is little anyone can do about that, devs seem to respond and cater to players like me.
People always do as they like, it just isn't always good for them or society (or gaming) as a whole. Even if Dev's are catering to you, don't take it as a compliment, as they are currently pandering to the lowest common denominator, it makes the most money after all.
Who says how you like to play is better ? Have you done some study or market research to show this or are you just some guy on a forum that thinks his way is better than someone else's.
You call people the lowest common denominator because they treat games like games and not a substitute for real life but I doubt you'd get much support if you said it like that.
As much as a story and lore hog that I am, I think the problem with most new MMOs is they want to tell a story. Old MMOs also told a story, but it wasn't the main story. The main story was made up by the player. This is the story that I used to enjoy the most. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of stories that the developers have made over the years that I love. WotLK and Cata in WoW, I loved those stories, but nothing will ever beat the story that you write yourself into. In Lotro, I spent about 5-6 hours thinking and writing a Bio and background story for my characters, that's for my main, maybe a little less for alts. I miss the days when you'd be walking down the road and see something. You think to yourself, "Self, my character is an adventurous knight, there may be bandits or something evil that needs vanquishing over there, let's do this! LEEEROOOY...okay maybe not lol". Or maybe "Self, I'm a timid and master farmer. I don't want to go over to that scary looking place. I'd rather just stay near a town and grow crops to sell." This is what I miss most in MMOs, the ability to choose.
Edit: Most MMOs today, you have enough quests or objectives to complete in an area to barely make it to the level that is needed for the next area. I would rather have the choice to do like maybe 70% of the quests of an area to get the level for the next area or zone. Even better, the game would be nice to level up with you like in Skyrim. You could travel almost anywhere you wish (I could understand making some dungeons and stuff high level only), and do anything you wish, with no limitation from your level.
Originally posted by Gravarg As much as a story and lore hog that I am, I think the problem with most new MMOs is they want to tell a story. Old MMOs also told a story, but it wasn't the main story. The main story was made up by the player. This is the story that I used to enjoy the most. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of stories that the developers have made over the years that I love. WotLK and Cata in WoW, I loved those stories, but nothing will ever beat the story that you write yourself into. In Lotro, I spent about 5-6 hours thinking and writing a Bio and background story for my characters, that's for my main, maybe a little less for alts. I miss the days when you'd be walking down the road and see something. You think to yourself, "Self, my character is an adventurous knight, there may be bandits or something evil that needs vanquishing over there, let's do this! LEEEROOOY...okay maybe not lol". Or maybe "Self, I'm a timid and master farmer. I don't want to go over to that scary looking place. I'd rather just stay near a town and grow crops to sell." This is what I miss most in MMOs, the ability to choose.
I also agree MMO developers are trying too hard to make every character the star of the story. They try to tell a story in which your character is the integral hinge on which the entire game world swings. It's not necessary, and I agree with you and feel time would be better spent creating a world that lives, breathes, and interacts with itself in dynamic ways that the player can inject himself into, rather than spent creating and writing grandiose stories that lead the player through very specific experiences.
Read up on the history of video games. In the early 80s, you had a massive influx of console games. They were all trying to capitalize on the popularity of Pac Man, which was a big time culture cross over and money maker. There was nothing there but $$$ to be reaped.
So they made every single game they could. None of them were any good, didn't matter. They pumped them out by the tens of thousands. 300 different versions of Pac Man. And none of them were any good. It quickly reached the point of market saturation. There were not enough people buying the product, and that was the end of that.
What happened next was the rise of Nintendo. An old, Japanese card game business steered the genre into better quality games. Almost immediately, the older consoles like Atari, Intellivision and all of the other smaller consoles went out of business. They could not make quality games, Nintendo could and they knew how to market them.
The number of people playing the games stayed about the same, but the actual number of available product was cut in half, all in about a year or so.
The point is, it took an outsider (which Nintendo was back then) to right the ship. That is what will have to happen with the MMO genre. You have well over 300 MMOs available right now to play, but there is not enough people even to support a third of that number of MMOs.
But because of the dreaded "Free to Play" business model, they can stretch out their games a lot longer than the console wars could. A crappy Free to Play game can be in existence a lot longer than a crappy Pac Man rip off, because it's free to play...when we all know it's not.
Just making a subscription game is not the answer. Star Wars tried that, and it was a epic failure. Elder Scrolls is trying the same thing, and it will turn out the same.
They need to focus on the actual game not the business plan. They do not understand that it is the Free to Play business model that halts creativity and forces you to design these chopped up, crap MMOs.
SO an outside developer, with probably his own money, will have to do what Nintendo did in the 80s. Create a game that is a great product, collect a big percentage of the playing base, and force those crap MMOs out of business. But it's not Chris Roberts, or Richard Garriot, or any of the known outside developers. It has to be someone who thinks in a different way, is not afraid to fail, and is willing to take total control over every aspect of his product.
LOL, yes the classic example about how to do it wrong, but there is hope even for you to one day realize your error.
LoL .. as if there is a "wrong" way to use entertainment products. I use it in any way I like it ... not only there is little anyone can do about that, devs seem to respond and cater to players like me.
People always do as they like, it just isn't always good for them or society (or gaming) as a whole. Even if Dev's are catering to you, don't take it as a compliment, as they are currently pandering to the lowest common denominator, it makes the most money after all.
Who says how you like to play is better ? Have you done some study or market research to show this or are you just some guy on a forum that thinks his way is better than someone else's.
You call people the lowest common denominator because they treat games like games and not a substitute for real life but I doubt you'd get much support if you said it like that.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar And yet millions of people are somehow having fun and paying for the games you consider garbage. Maybe it's you.
Yes millions of people are having fun but you forgot a keyword there and thats temporarily. The problem is not with the game at its core its more of a longevity issue. People have their "fun" and hop to the next title. Many on here see spending years on an MMO as a waste of time; actually taking time to build you character. A waste of time to me is playing an MMO for 2 months just to jump to another. I would rather just not play which I havent for the most part. I dont believe it ever will change. Hopefully one day there will be a developer that realizes not all of us wanted to be teleported everywhere, autogrouped up and instanced to death.
All games are temporary. The idea of being dedicated to a single game for years is just not viable anymore.
Embrace the temporary as that is our reality.
I reject your thesis, some day someone will build a game worthy of playing over the long haul, just won't be anything like the current offerings.
The players are changing - you are not taking that into the equation - the way we use technology is evolving as is the way we play games.
Its a lot more likely that future gamers play, leave, play, leave again (which is what the F2P model is perfect for) than the old idea of keeping a player for years - that model is dying out.
Remember that we are living in time of accelerated technology growth, our attention span is getting shorter and shorter, the new trends are coming in faster and faster and there is simply less time for an average gamer to stick to a single game.
So I will hold unto my thesis - time will tell, and
time destroys all things.
Well aren't you just a breath of sunshine. Bottom line seems to be that games being made to be disposable are the best way for companies to make money, because, like you said, the masses (newer gamers) don't want deep, time-consuming gameplay. They just want mmo's to play like single player games and be done in a few months so they can move on to the next. Us players that want deep, imersive worlds to game in for years aren't in high enough numbers for devs to bother with. Sucks for us, but mmos will never be that way again. We are too few.
Read up on the history of video games. In the early 80s, you had a massive influx of console games. They were all trying to capitalize on the popularity of Pac Man, which was a big time culture cross over and money maker. There was nothing there but $$$ to be reaped.
So they made every single game they could. None of them were any good, didn't matter. They pumped them out by the tens of thousands. 300 different versions of Pac Man. And none of them were any good. It quickly reached the point of market saturation. There were not enough people buying the product, and that was the end of that.
What happened next was the rise of Nintendo. An old, Japanese card game business steered the genre into better quality games. Almost immediately, the older consoles like Atari, Intellivision and all of the other smaller consoles went out of business. They could not make quality games, Nintendo could and they knew how to market them.
The number of people playing the games stayed about the same, but the actual number of available product was cut in half, all in about a year or so.
The point is, it took an outsider (which Nintendo was back then) to right the ship. That is what will have to happen with the MMO genre. You have well over 300 MMOs available right now to play, but there is not enough people even to support a third of that number of MMOs.
But because of the dreaded "Free to Play" business model, they can stretch out their games a lot longer than the console wars could. A crappy Free to Play game can be in existence a lot longer than a crappy Pac Man rip off, because it's free to play...when we all know it's not.
Just making a subscription game is not the answer. Star Wars tried that, and it was a epic failure. Elder Scrolls is trying the same thing, and it will turn out the same.
They need to focus on the actual game not the business plan. They do not understand that it is the Free to Play business model that halts creativity and forces you to design these chopped up, crap MMOs.
SO an outside developer, with probably his own money, will have to do what Nintendo did in the 80s. Create a game that is a great product, collect a big percentage of the playing base, and force those crap MMOs out of business. But it's not Chris Roberts, or Richard Garriot, or any of the known outside developers. It has to be someone who thinks in a different way, is not afraid to fail, and is willing to take total control over every aspect of his product.
So far, that person has not appeared on the map.
It's a bit different in some ways. The Nintendo was a lot more powerful then an Atari and that meant a lot in those days. The Super Nintendo was also a fair amount better then the Nintendo adding a large amount more colors and being 16 bit. It's difficult to produce something new on the merits of hardware alone in this age. I have a Windows 8 x86 (32 bit) tablet running a full version of Windows that is 8 inches and I can carry around. Most people don't even want to upgrade their hardware these days unless it's their phone or tablet. I doubt it would make a huge difference anyway. Games are already more complex (to make) then they need to be. You could argue that some older games were actually more complex to play then todays games even though they were quite a bit simpler to make. I really dislike RMT and MMOs today, but I don't see how it's going to go away as people seem to want to play them.
Well aren't you just a breath of sunshine. Bottom line seems to be that games being made to be disposable are the best way for companies to make money, because, like you said, the masses (newer gamers) don't want deep, time-consuming gameplay. They just want mmo's to play like single player games and be done in a few months so they can move on to the next. Us players that want deep, imersive worlds to game in for years aren't in high enough numbers for devs to bother with. Sucks for us, but mmos will never be that way again. We are too few.
Except deep and time consuming is not related. Deus Ex has deep gameplay. Dishonored has deep gameplay. All those games can be done in 2 weeks.
And yes, it would be good (for me) that MMOs play like deep SP games, and can be done in a few months, or even a few weeks.
Not if people continue to pay for the same garbage in 2004. That low of a standard, not many developers will look far if they feel that most fans standards are that low.
MMORPGs are indeed in a rut. But the main thing I do not see is challenge, gripping action from level one, dungeon-crawling, etc. Even going back to EQ so much of the action in these games has seemed to focus on standing in one place in an outdoor area, killing a safe, static group of monsters. I imagine an MMO with a much more dangerous frontier--mostly only wildlife in the overworld areas, but in caves, fortresses, etc., hostile entities, which have reasons for killing them. When people talk about the "glory days" of EQ I often think of standing in the Oasis killing crocodiles. Heroism, power, and fame should be earned, and there is no better way to do this than to enter into dangerous areas, at risk of experience, items, and life, and come out victorious. Anything less is a treadmill, and at no point do I support "tutorials"--that is what the manual is for. Sadly, if games like this were not made in '99, they will not be made now. That is why I voted yes.
Comments
Free2play games? lol. You are not even talking about the same thing I am, this is not a contest to see how many months you can survive as an MMO. First of all I forgot about LOTRO, which has been known for its community, the best thing it has going for it. I am talking about when the games were in their prime, not the fact that a few people still play them.
The so called communities of the current games you speak of (except LOTRO) pale in comparison to the communities of the older games. How many people log into SWTOR every day just to hang out with their friends online? I am not talking about loggin in with their boys to run a flashpoint. If you don't know what I am talking about that is the reason you are trying to debate me on this. There are no MMO communities anymore, except for LOTRO. The games are anti-community, it is their design and the players who flock to them. Hell, not to mention you are tossing out free to play games where people come and go all the time......which defines transient. Do you really think STO would be around if not free? Rethink your argument and come back later.
In the end this is all opinion, community to me may not mean the same to you. This is why the dude included "I didn't notice a rut" in the poll. For ME there is certainly a rut.
It's hard to be too critical on people not wanting to take risks on their $200+ million investments.
It's also far too early to throw in the towel on indie developers, just because there isn't a lot to show for it so far, time will tell there and if one is commercially successful then that could change a lot of things.
Also I think we'll see a lot more innovation out of Asia because there isn't one overwhelmingly dominant game like there is in NA. When one game is ten times the size of it's next largest competitor it's not shocking that everyone is trying to copy the king. Notice how the only Western AAA release in the last 10 years to not feature a linear quest grind was funded by a Korean company and most of the big budget sandboxy games are coming out of Korea as well. Granted EQN is being developed in the West but it's still a long way from being released.
And i reject your rejection. So what if someone will try to do that .. if there is no demand.
I don't play a single game ... i play many games. I like variety in my gaming. And why would people stick to one game when there are so many choices?
Yes millions of people are having fun but you forgot a keyword there and thats temporarily. The problem is not with the game at its core its more of a longevity issue. People have their "fun" and hop to the next title. Many on here see spending years on an MMO as a waste of time; actually taking time to build you character. A waste of time to me is playing an MMO for 2 months just to jump to another. I would rather just not play which I havent for the most part. I dont believe it ever will change. Hopefully one day there will be a developer that realizes not all of us wanted to be teleported everywhere, autogrouped up and instanced to death.
All games are temporary. The idea of being dedicated to a single game for years is just not viable anymore.
Embrace the temporary as that is our reality.
I reject your thesis, some day someone will build a game worthy of playing over the long haul, just won't be anything like the current offerings.
And i reject your rejection. So what if someone will try to do that .. if there is no demand.
I don't play a single game ... i play many games. I like variety in my gaming. And why would people stick to one game when there are so many choices?
LOL, yes the classic example about how to do it wrong, but there is hope even for you to one day realize your error."True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
LoL .. as if there is a "wrong" way to use entertainment products. I use it in any way I like it ... not only there is little anyone can do about that, devs seem to respond and cater to players like me.
Been around longer than you have and been a F2P advocate for at least as long if not longer, nice try on the logic though.
Oh and what an MMO is is becoming a murky thing indeed... if you go for purity sake (massive online world with thousand or hundreds of thousands of people potentially around) you will quickly find games like ESO, SWTOR,etc do not match that criteria but they are in fact sold as MMORPGs. From my point of view if the game has interactions between a large group of people across an entire game world and the game world itself is persistent and, at least, to a degree modifiable by player actions then that game is an MMO (the instance argument is idiotic at best, sure there may be only 20-30 people in one area due to server architecture but if everyone in the game/server can interact with each other directly or indirectly via their avatars then you get and MMO).
That is not how software is being built, or rather not the only way. Look up Agile software development. That can and should be applied to game development and I suspect it already is.
My gaming blog
Simply stated, if you continue to buy crap, they will continue to make crap.
The problem here is the consumer, not the developer...
Consumers pay to play an alpha for a game that is slated to be F2P.
Consumers pledge money to kick starters in order to get developers to make the game they want (which may or may not be vaporware).
Consumers pay real money for virtual items in cash shops.
Consumers pay subscriptions to games they hardly ever even play.
Consumers pre-purchase games in order to be part of the beta testing.
Consumers buy founders packs, lifetime subscriptions, you name it, based solely on hype and/or very limited exposure to the game.
Consumers will try every new game, even if it's not worth the box price, just to have something new to do while they wait on another game release.
Based on the above, there is no hope in sight for MMOs... the consumers are just plain daft. They might as well put a lighter to their wallet and say "Hey kids, look... fireworks!" Sure, some may have a brain, but they are so far outnumbered by those that don't that they are statistically insignificant.
What rut? I'm having a blast! The only "rut" that I see is my ever consistent lack of time to play all the great MMORPGs that are available now.
If you feel the MMO industry is in a rut, it's time to look inward and re-examine whether this genre is right for you. It might be time to walk a way and try something else.
They can adjust a game all day, but they can't help the issue between the keyboard and the chair.
Played: UO, DAoC, AC, WoW, EVE, TR, WAR, Aion, Rift, SWTOR, GW2, TSW, ESO, Elite:D
Play EVE for free for 21 days
People always do as they like, it just isn't always good for them or society (or gaming) as a whole. Even if Dev's are catering to you, don't take it as a compliment, as they are currently pandering to the lowest common denominator, it makes the most money after all.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
When the day comes we see topic being mature and constructive will be the time we might see as a community changes to this genre.
But topics like this one do more damage then good!
You're an advocate for playing solo because you don't want to deal with other folks. Devs aren't making solo-friendly, massively multiplayer games because their massively multiplayer gamers all want to play singleplayer. They're making them that way because the more casual players wanna be able to jump in and immediately make measurable progress. Looking for a group is not measurable progress. And since MMOs and PC gaming has become increasingly popular, more and more casual players are looking to jump into the genre. These are the players developers are trying to cater to. Not antisocial gamers who want to play in a social setting (note I mean to use the term antisocial, without its negative connotations, to simply identify a gamer who wishes to never interact with other players).
I agree there's no wrong way to use an entertainment product (so long as it does not interfere with others' ability to enjoy that product or stiff those who worked to create said product), but it's becoming increasingly obvious that you believe a cheap solution to a largely unrelated problem supports your theory about 9 out of 10 online gamers being purely awful human beings, your justification for playing solo, and your belief that everyone outside of these forums agrees with you.
Correlation does not always equal causation.
Who says how you like to play is better ? Have you done some study or market research to show this or are you just some guy on a forum that thinks his way is better than someone else's.
You call people the lowest common denominator because they treat games like games and not a substitute for real life but I doubt you'd get much support if you said it like that.
As much as a story and lore hog that I am, I think the problem with most new MMOs is they want to tell a story. Old MMOs also told a story, but it wasn't the main story. The main story was made up by the player. This is the story that I used to enjoy the most. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of stories that the developers have made over the years that I love. WotLK and Cata in WoW, I loved those stories, but nothing will ever beat the story that you write yourself into. In Lotro, I spent about 5-6 hours thinking and writing a Bio and background story for my characters, that's for my main, maybe a little less for alts. I miss the days when you'd be walking down the road and see something. You think to yourself, "Self, my character is an adventurous knight, there may be bandits or something evil that needs vanquishing over there, let's do this! LEEEROOOY...okay maybe not lol". Or maybe "Self, I'm a timid and master farmer. I don't want to go over to that scary looking place. I'd rather just stay near a town and grow crops to sell." This is what I miss most in MMOs, the ability to choose.
Edit: Most MMOs today, you have enough quests or objectives to complete in an area to barely make it to the level that is needed for the next area. I would rather have the choice to do like maybe 70% of the quests of an area to get the level for the next area or zone. Even better, the game would be nice to level up with you like in Skyrim. You could travel almost anywhere you wish (I could understand making some dungeons and stuff high level only), and do anything you wish, with no limitation from your level.
I also agree MMO developers are trying too hard to make every character the star of the story. They try to tell a story in which your character is the integral hinge on which the entire game world swings. It's not necessary, and I agree with you and feel time would be better spent creating a world that lives, breathes, and interacts with itself in dynamic ways that the player can inject himself into, rather than spent creating and writing grandiose stories that lead the player through very specific experiences.
Read up on the history of video games. In the early 80s, you had a massive influx of console games. They were all trying to capitalize on the popularity of Pac Man, which was a big time culture cross over and money maker. There was nothing there but $$$ to be reaped.
So they made every single game they could. None of them were any good, didn't matter. They pumped them out by the tens of thousands. 300 different versions of Pac Man. And none of them were any good. It quickly reached the point of market saturation. There were not enough people buying the product, and that was the end of that.
What happened next was the rise of Nintendo. An old, Japanese card game business steered the genre into better quality games. Almost immediately, the older consoles like Atari, Intellivision and all of the other smaller consoles went out of business. They could not make quality games, Nintendo could and they knew how to market them.
The number of people playing the games stayed about the same, but the actual number of available product was cut in half, all in about a year or so.
The point is, it took an outsider (which Nintendo was back then) to right the ship. That is what will have to happen with the MMO genre. You have well over 300 MMOs available right now to play, but there is not enough people even to support a third of that number of MMOs.
But because of the dreaded "Free to Play" business model, they can stretch out their games a lot longer than the console wars could. A crappy Free to Play game can be in existence a lot longer than a crappy Pac Man rip off, because it's free to play...when we all know it's not.
Just making a subscription game is not the answer. Star Wars tried that, and it was a epic failure. Elder Scrolls is trying the same thing, and it will turn out the same.
They need to focus on the actual game not the business plan. They do not understand that it is the Free to Play business model that halts creativity and forces you to design these chopped up, crap MMOs.
SO an outside developer, with probably his own money, will have to do what Nintendo did in the 80s. Create a game that is a great product, collect a big percentage of the playing base, and force those crap MMOs out of business. But it's not Chris Roberts, or Richard Garriot, or any of the known outside developers. It has to be someone who thinks in a different way, is not afraid to fail, and is willing to take total control over every aspect of his product.
So far, that person has not appeared on the map.
My money is on some guy on a forum.
Well aren't you just a breath of sunshine. Bottom line seems to be that games being made to be disposable are the best way for companies to make money, because, like you said, the masses (newer gamers) don't want deep, time-consuming gameplay. They just want mmo's to play like single player games and be done in a few months so they can move on to the next. Us players that want deep, imersive worlds to game in for years aren't in high enough numbers for devs to bother with. Sucks for us, but mmos will never be that way again. We are too few.
It's a bit different in some ways. The Nintendo was a lot more powerful then an Atari and that meant a lot in those days. The Super Nintendo was also a fair amount better then the Nintendo adding a large amount more colors and being 16 bit. It's difficult to produce something new on the merits of hardware alone in this age. I have a Windows 8 x86 (32 bit) tablet running a full version of Windows that is 8 inches and I can carry around. Most people don't even want to upgrade their hardware these days unless it's their phone or tablet. I doubt it would make a huge difference anyway. Games are already more complex (to make) then they need to be. You could argue that some older games were actually more complex to play then todays games even though they were quite a bit simpler to make. I really dislike RMT and MMOs today, but I don't see how it's going to go away as people seem to want to play them.
Except deep and time consuming is not related. Deus Ex has deep gameplay. Dishonored has deep gameplay. All those games can be done in 2 weeks.
And yes, it would be good (for me) that MMOs play like deep SP games, and can be done in a few months, or even a few weeks.