Economically, that isn't feasible. The developmental costs for a MMO are the highest of any genre.
Not more expensive than AAA Single player games. This myth still seems to float around.
And in terms of mechanics, it's contradictory. MMOs are meant to create communities. Communities only exist and thrive in a long-term setting.
And they fail at that, none of the MMOs released in the last 10 years have been able to create communities. They all fail. All of them are online single player games with horribly dull and repetitive game-play.
? MMO are most certainly more expensive to develop, you have to deal with bad dive concurrency, massively shared state, server technology that can expand and contract depending on player load, managing player load on instances, balancing, security, thr economic model, different player tastes, social interaction...
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Re communities, I have played 3 MMO in ths last 2 years in ths main, GW2. ESO,LOTR. All gave pleasant busy communities - if you are prepared to join in and contribute.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
If you cut out the open world, and did something like warframe, it is no more expensive than a online shooter.
MMOs are not meant to be anything. If so, it would not have abandoned the open world design, and become so solo friendly. It is just another type of game, hoping to make some money.
A "properly designed MMORPG" would retain playerbase, subscription and-or free to play. The reason why today's MMOs do not retain playerbase, is their design.
This.
I'll go further and say when the content became trivialized because casual players griped about "the grind", that was the beginning of the end. Its not just making content slower, but making it matter. If mmos were designed with meaningful progression from 1-max level and everything in between was actually fun and a real challenge, the turn over wouldn't be nearly as high. Sure, you'll lose a few of the folks that will be upset that they aren't max level after 1 week and casuals who can't deal with not being able to keep up with the no-lifers, but in general the game will last longer.
Food for thought: In early Everquest, the vast majority of the playerbase (at least 75%) never experienced all the content before the next expansion launched.
So in the last 10 years there has not been a SINGLE "well designed" MMO?
Do you know how absolutely ridiculous that sounds?
How about you start and tell us what you consider to be a well designed MMORPG that has launched in the last decade?
Don't forget that we are talking specifically about retention (and community, at least I have been, because that is core to retention) here in this thread. What are the well designed MMORPGs in terms of those elements?
And please recognise that I said 'could be argued'.
The vast majority of AAA MMORPGs in the last 10 years are well designed games.
Not going to list them as we know which games those are.
In terms of retention and community?
Please, list a few, because I want know your benchmark.
I updated my post - take Aion, Lotro, Rift, FF14AR and imagine them launching in 2000-2003 timeframe - they would all be hugely successful just as gen 1 MMOs were during that time in terms of retention and community.
Having 5-6 games to chose from compared to 100+ makes a huge ddifference.
It's not game design - it's an entirely different market 2015 and 2003 - night and day.
I couldn't disagree more.
While some of the more recent games might have been successful at a time where there were less options, they still wouldn't have fostered the community or retained players like early games did. They are fundamentally different from the ground up and it baffles me that you cannot see how the modern casual breed of MMORPG isn't a night and day difference from games like UO and Everquest.
Give it a rest nari, you do like to beat your drum about what you like.
MMOS have been made more smaller, short-term, quick fix; over the last decade. So they are already designed that way. Players are like test rats who have come to expect short-term so maybe that's why they have so little retention.
If all your read is teenage fiction I don't think your brain is going to develop much beyond that of a teenagers. Do we only want games that retard our mental facilities?
Give it a rest nari, you do like to beat your drum about what you like.
MMOS have been made more smaller, short-term, quick fix; over the last decade. So they are already designed that way. Players are like test rats who have come to expect short-term so maybe that's why they have so little retention.
If all your read is teenage fiction I don't think your brain is going to develop much beyond that of a teenagers. Do we only want games that retard our mental facilities?
Are you suggesting old MMOs did the opposite? Are you ready to set yourself as an example of this happening?
(Man, you really set yourself up with that!)
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Its true though, things have changed drastically in the last decade of MMOs. In today's mmos you level up multiple times an hour fighting mobs you can solo while completing dozens of quest. Meanwhile, these trivial accomplishments speed players through content that took months to create and yield weapons and complete sets of powerful armor for tasks no more complicated than tying your shoe.
This is not the genre I started playing in 1998. The struggle to hit level 20 in Everquest was just as real as the struggle at level 50. The process of acquiring new items at low level was as hard or harder than it even was once you reached level cap (months later). The process of getting to an area where you could gain experience at a good pace was often more dangerous than the actual battle to level up. You felt like the king of the world if a higher level happened to bequeath to you certain trash loots like a fine steel sword. Nothing was free, there were no guarantees, and your virtual life was hanging by a thread at all times. Your only lifeline in old games was your ability to make friends and communicate. After that you can only hope everyone has had their coffee and ready to bring their A-game or you'd likely end the day further from your objective than you started.
Does that really sound like a game you've played lately?
THOSE are the elements that retained players. No one is going to stick around in a game where theres no sense of accomplishment and with players breezing through mounds of trivial content, developers can't possibly be expected to launch expansions fast enough to retain players. Collecting welfare gear is not a feature conducive to longevity.
Give it a rest nari, you do like to beat your drum about what you like.
MMOS have been made more smaller, short-term, quick fix; over the last decade. So they are already designed that way. Players are like test rats who have come to expect short-term so maybe that's why they have so little retention.
If all your read is teenage fiction I don't think your brain is going to develop much beyond that of a teenagers. Do we only want games that retard our mental facilities?
Are you suggesting old MMOs did the opposite? Are you ready to set yourself as an example of this happening?
(Man, you really set yourself up with that!)
Open world and size was what he was talking about here, and old MMOs were certainly better at that. I think you are suggesting some of the gameplay could be quite simple and that's true. You had to put in more time in the past, that means longer retention is needed, that's good in my eyes.
Has my retention been effected by playing simpler short-term MMOs? Maybe, I don't really remember.
Economically, that isn't feasible. The developmental costs for a MMO are the highest of any genre.
And in terms of mechanics, it's contradictory. MMOs are meant to create communities. Communities only exist and thrive in a long-term setting.
If you cut out the open world, and did something like warframe, it is no more expensive than a online shooter.
MMOs are not meant to be anything. If so, it would not have abandoned the open world design, and become so solo friendly. It is just another type of game, hoping to make some money.
Strange, I play EVE since 2003, it's a open world and it promotes group play as well as solo.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
You may not, but the genre was founded on it and I'm pretty sure it's still a large enough audience to justify its continued existence in future MMORPG games.
That's "tradition for tradition's sake." It's not a reason. For open worlds to be worth implementing there has to actually be a rational reason to do so. "Tradition" isn't enough. If tradition was enough, we'd all still think the world was flat because traditionally that's how we thought of things.
In reply to the thread in general:
Designing games with the intention of long-term retention is the only way to have halfway decent short-term retention.
Retention has a significant influence on player count, which can have that same influence on revenue.
Virtually all games follow this long-tail model. It's only a tiny handful of games which act as the exception. I think even saying "Top 10 most popular games at any given time" over sells it, as it's really only like the top 3. Games get old and people stop playing them. That's the nature of game-making.
MMOs are clearly only games with unusually high population in a shared space. From an entirely logical perspective, games like LoL obviously aren't MMOs and any site claiming they are is wrong in the claim. It's understandable why people want data on these popular games -- but just don't call them MMOs.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So in the last 10 years there has not been a SINGLE "well designed" MMO?
Do you know how absolutely ridiculous that sounds?
How about you start and tell us what you consider to be a well designed MMORPG that has launched in the last decade?
Don't forget that we are talking specifically about retention (and community, at least I have been, because that is core to retention) here in this thread. What are the well designed MMORPGs in terms of those elements?
And please recognise that I said 'could be argued'.
The vast majority of AAA MMORPGs in the last 10 years are well designed games.
Not going to list them as we know which games those are.
In terms of retention and community?
Please, list a few, because I want know your benchmark.
I updated my post - take Aion, Lotro, Rift, FF14AR and imagine them launching in 2000-2003 timeframe - they would all be hugely successful just as gen 1 MMOs were during that time in terms of retention and community.
Having 5-6 games to chose from compared to 100+ makes a huge ddifference.
It's not game design - it's an entirely different market 2015 and 2003 - night and day.
I couldn't disagree more.
While some of the more recent games might have been successful at a time where there were less options, they still wouldn't have fostered the community or retained players like early games did. They are fundamentally different from the ground up and it baffles me that you cannot see how the modern casual breed of MMORPG isn't a night and day difference from games like UO and Everquest.
And that is quite simply more fawning over old games with the proverbial rose coloured glasses. I really get tired of this attitude. Oh they are night and day difference, that is correct. Old graphics, old grindy gameplay, corpse runs, death penalties, PvP ganking, camping etc.
Yes wonderful. Lets all go back to those days. Oh wait a minute! You can!!
Except hardly anyone does. Oh right, the games changed, didn't they. But of course when a game with some of the same features comes out they invariably go down with the rest.
There is good and bad in both old and new. But lets get away from the drooling over UO and EQ. They weren't that good. They were just new and different at the time. DMKano has it right. There is no magic game design that is going to appeal to all players.
Find a game you like and if you can't well that's too bad. Just gonna have to wait for the old days to roll around again, I guess.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
If you cut out the open world, and did something like warframe, it is no more expensive than a online shooter.
MMOs are not meant to be anything. If so, it would not have abandoned the open world design, and become so solo friendly. It is just another type of game, hoping to make some money.
A "properly designed MMORPG" would retain playerbase, subscription and-or free to play. The reason why today's MMOs do not retain playerbase, is their design.
No sir - retention rates for majority of MMOs have been around 25% after the first month for over 10 years - there are exepctions but this is the average.
This is why cash shop and F2P is king - players can come and go and spend money as they please whenever
Well, a lot of people would say legitimately that there hasn't been a properly designed MMORPG for 10 years.
I know that you worship at the alter of 'F2P' (which we both know is actually hybrid), but it really is not why it is 'king' . You would have to be naive to think that, or just not bothered all that with being intellectually honest.
A lot of people are completely out of touch with games development and design. How many posters here have even talked to an actual game Dev ever?
Im glad for you having an inside track, getting to talk to game devs, but when you start using statements like that. It can come across the wrong way. You dont have to have talked to a game dev to know the pulse of game development. Matter of fact having an outside looking in approach sometimes can give you a better view. The closer you are to the source the narrower your field of view is.
and i quote "On average, 6.21% of players who logged in for the first time in the 1st month a game is released will log on 360 days after their first login."
and the second graph is very telling. If you read it carefully, LESS than 25% of players will play a MMO for more than a month, even if they sign up the first month.
So may be the solution is just plan MMOs like single player games. Play a few weeks, get the money from the whales, and move on to develop another one.
BTW, the article is about f2p MMOs, but they are the majority of MMOs anyway.
In nearly every post or thread started on here, it seems you don't even like MMORPGs. I am just having a difficult time comprehending why you still play MMORPGs when you don't even like the nature of the game? I am sure I am not the only one on the forums who sees this?
So in the last 10 years there has not been a SINGLE "well designed" MMO?
Do you know how absolutely ridiculous that sounds?
How about you start and tell us what you consider to be a well designed MMORPG that has launched in the last decade?
Don't forget that we are talking specifically about retention (and community, at least I have been, because that is core to retention) here in this thread. What are the well designed MMORPGs in terms of those elements?
And please recognise that I said 'could be argued'.
The vast majority of AAA MMORPGs in the last 10 years are well designed games.
Not going to list them as we know which games those are.
In terms of retention and community?
Please, list a few, because I want know your benchmark.
Those days have been long gone unfortunately post 2004. Since WoW hit the shelves and made millions it showed lead designers and investors that people want lobby based, hand holding mmorpgs. But does it really show that? Before the WoW boom, there was a niche market of gamers who had their specified style of mmorpgs. There were niche communities with a lot of retention. You know the old school mmos. Most where about communities and had great communities. The problem is that when WoW became the mmo monopoly of design because of their big cash flow, the genre followed suit. They believed this is how you'd make money in this genre. WoW also brought in a lot of players who are not even passionate about the genre and just treat it like another FPS game. The direction and philosophy as of late has been very toxic to the community because it catered to those who where not necessarily passionate about the genre but more of less the instant gratification playerbase. When mmo's became soloable, the community suffered.
You should be asking this "SInce none of the mmo can defeat WOW and compared to WOW they all suck ballz, should they be converted to single player games?". And the answer is : YES!!!
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
You don't have to be a wanna be PC game dev or some PC game dev cheerleader to know that all the great MMORPG features that people have generally favored have been spread across several games. There has yet to be a game that can capture a fair amount of quality features that people want in an MMORPG. This is why retention rate is bad. Hype gets people in, disappointment gets them out.
"The combat is incredible, but it's too on rails"
"The story and questing is awesome but the combat sucks"
"Best crafting and housing, but the graphics engine is terrible"
"There's voice acting, but there's bots and gold sellers all over the game"
Subscriptions were bad because the value didn't add up. Developers are incapable of keeping up a content schedule to justify a box cost plus premium sub. F2P models are even worse because the devs + publishers don't have the integrity or creativity to keep certain integral aspects of games away from pay gates and they also sneak in shitty subscription models.
You don't need to know Cryengine or Unreal SDKs or somebody who uses them to sort all this out. So yah, there hasn't been a "good" MMORPG in a LONG time. There's been stuff just good enough to check out and put down when the next thing comes along.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
On another note, I feel like developers are too busy trying to be tolerated by millions rather than loved by thousands. MMORPGS are not meant to start out mainstream. WoW was a phenomenon and there are too many attempts to recreate this.
MMORPG game business is a lot like the music industry. Good bands with good music start out with cult followings THEN go mainstream. There's nothing wrong with doing niche content. Good niche grows into mainstream.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
F2P MMOs don't need high retention rates with all players. They just need high retention rates with whales, which support the rest of the F2P population. Most of the games do this well, even if it comes at the cost of good gameplay for the non-paying population.
If an MMO was designed for the short term, then it wouldn't be attractive to whales like current F2P (and some B2P and even sub based) MMOs are. The idea is to keep the whales active and give them reasons to constantly spend money on a cash shop each month to keep a constant stream of revenue going. If the game was designed to be enjoyed for a short term only there wouldn't be much incentive for whales to keep spending money.
Some of these "whales" will easily spend $100+ a month and I've heard of people spending $1000+ per month on facebook games with little in the ways of gameplay alone.
If you cut out the open world, and did something like warframe, it is no more expensive than a online shooter.
MMOs are not meant to be anything. If so, it would not have abandoned the open world design, and become so solo friendly. It is just another type of game, hoping to make some money.
A "properly designed MMORPG" would retain playerbase, subscription and-or free to play. The reason why today's MMOs do not retain playerbase, is their design.
No sir - retention rates for majority of MMOs have been around 25% after the first month for over 10 years - there are exepctions but this is the average.
This is why cash shop and F2P is king - players can come and go and spend money as they please whenever
Well, a lot of people would say legitimately that there hasn't been a properly designed MMORPG for 10 years.
I know that you worship at the alter of 'F2P' (which we both know is actually hybrid), but it really is not why it is 'king' . You would have to be naive to think that, or just not bothered all that with being intellectually honest.
A lot of people are completely out of touch with games development and design. How many posters here have even talked to an actual game Dev ever?
Im glad for you having an inside track, getting to talk to game devs, but when you start using statements like that. It can come across the wrong way. You dont have to have talked to a game dev to know the pulse of game development. Matter of fact having an outside looking in approach sometimes can give you a better view. The closer you are to the source the narrower your field of view is.
You are quite correct that working closely with a single game developer will tend to result in a skewed view based on what you experience. However, when you work with multiple developers, and follow many more via events such as GDC you get a much better picture of the industry as a whole. This helps to allow for educated statements about gaming... but does not ensure it. There are just as many clueless people in the industry, as there are outside of it.
There is a LOT of merit to bringing in people from other industries, and then providing them with the background needed to provide educated input. They can often point out issues that have been taken for granted, or solutions that seem obvious to outsiders. They can also often see trends that mirror other industries, and as such better predict the eventual outcome better than those in the industry (who believe that they are special). (If anyone tells you that the gaming industry is 'special' and that you need years of experience in the industry to understand it... they are full of it)
Gaming is an entertainment product, and has similarities to many other industries (in different ways). This industry has a tendency to be incestious and self absorbed with how 'different' it is, rather than trying to find common ground with other industries. This is starting to break down as larger media companies are starting to incorporate gaming as just another product type in their portfolio.
This is one of the reasons why you are starting to see gaming articles from sources like Forbes, CNN, and other non gaming news. This is also one of the reasons why ESports are finally in a position to be a viable product. Gaming has moved from the niche to the mainstream, and much the 'mystique' is being stripped away.
Comments
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
[mod edit]
They are already designed for the short term, that's why the retention is so short.
Maybe they should be designed long term instead, if they want long term profits? But that would involve not copying WoW, so it won't happen
This thread is literally 'I want poorer value for money' genius.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Chinese companies are expert in doing this.
It is feasible business model, at least it used to be because it does not work as great nowadays as it used to be.
Anyway - I would not play short-term designed MMORPG.
Did you expect anything else from OP?
This.
I'll go further and say when the content became trivialized because casual players griped about "the grind", that was the beginning of the end. Its not just making content slower, but making it matter. If mmos were designed with meaningful progression from 1-max level and everything in between was actually fun and a real challenge, the turn over wouldn't be nearly as high. Sure, you'll lose a few of the folks that will be upset that they aren't max level after 1 week and casuals who can't deal with not being able to keep up with the no-lifers, but in general the game will last longer.
Food for thought: In early Everquest, the vast majority of the playerbase (at least 75%) never experienced all the content before the next expansion launched.
Something has changed...
I couldn't disagree more.
While some of the more recent games might have been successful at a time where there were less options, they still wouldn't have fostered the community or retained players like early games did. They are fundamentally different from the ground up and it baffles me that you cannot see how the modern casual breed of MMORPG isn't a night and day difference from games like UO and Everquest.
Give it a rest nari, you do like to beat your drum about what you like.
MMOS have been made more smaller, short-term, quick fix; over the last decade. So they are already designed that way. Players are like test rats who have come to expect short-term so maybe that's why they have so little retention.
If all your read is teenage fiction I don't think your brain is going to develop much beyond that of a teenagers. Do we only want games that retard our mental facilities?
Are you suggesting old MMOs did the opposite? Are you ready to set yourself as an example of this happening?
(Man, you really set yourself up with that!)
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Its true though, things have changed drastically in the last decade of MMOs. In today's mmos you level up multiple times an hour fighting mobs you can solo while completing dozens of quest. Meanwhile, these trivial accomplishments speed players through content that took months to create and yield weapons and complete sets of powerful armor for tasks no more complicated than tying your shoe.
This is not the genre I started playing in 1998. The struggle to hit level 20 in Everquest was just as real as the struggle at level 50. The process of acquiring new items at low level was as hard or harder than it even was once you reached level cap (months later). The process of getting to an area where you could gain experience at a good pace was often more dangerous than the actual battle to level up. You felt like the king of the world if a higher level happened to bequeath to you certain trash loots like a fine steel sword. Nothing was free, there were no guarantees, and your virtual life was hanging by a thread at all times. Your only lifeline in old games was your ability to make friends and communicate. After that you can only hope everyone has had their coffee and ready to bring their A-game or you'd likely end the day further from your objective than you started.
Does that really sound like a game you've played lately?
THOSE are the elements that retained players. No one is going to stick around in a game where theres no sense of accomplishment and with players breezing through mounds of trivial content, developers can't possibly be expected to launch expansions fast enough to retain players. Collecting welfare gear is not a feature conducive to longevity.
Open world and size was what he was talking about here, and old MMOs were certainly better at that. I think you are suggesting some of the gameplay could be quite simple and that's true. You had to put in more time in the past, that means longer retention is needed, that's good in my eyes.
Has my retention been effected by playing simpler short-term MMOs? Maybe, I don't really remember.
Strange, I play EVE since 2003, it's a open world and it promotes group play as well as solo.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
That's "tradition for tradition's sake." It's not a reason. For open worlds to be worth implementing there has to actually be a rational reason to do so. "Tradition" isn't enough. If tradition was enough, we'd all still think the world was flat because traditionally that's how we thought of things.
In reply to the thread in general:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And that is quite simply more fawning over old games with the proverbial rose coloured glasses. I really get tired of this attitude. Oh they are night and day difference, that is correct. Old graphics, old grindy gameplay, corpse runs, death penalties, PvP ganking, camping etc.
Yes wonderful. Lets all go back to those days. Oh wait a minute! You can!!
Except hardly anyone does. Oh right, the games changed, didn't they. But of course when a game with some of the same features comes out they invariably go down with the rest.
There is good and bad in both old and new. But lets get away from the drooling over UO and EQ. They weren't that good. They were just new and different at the time. DMKano has it right. There is no magic game design that is going to appeal to all players.
Find a game you like and if you can't well that's too bad. Just gonna have to wait for the old days to roll around again, I guess.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Im glad for you having an inside track, getting to talk to game devs, but when you start using statements like that. It can come across the wrong way. You dont have to have talked to a game dev to know the pulse of game development. Matter of fact having an outside looking in approach sometimes can give you a better view. The closer you are to the source the narrower your field of view is.
But I don't want a short term MMO...
In nearly every post or thread started on here, it seems you don't even like MMORPGs. I am just having a difficult time comprehending why you still play MMORPGs when you don't even like the nature of the game? I am sure I am not the only one on the forums who sees this?
Those days have been long gone unfortunately post 2004. Since WoW hit the shelves and made millions it showed lead designers and investors that people want lobby based, hand holding mmorpgs. But does it really show that? Before the WoW boom, there was a niche market of gamers who had their specified style of mmorpgs. There were niche communities with a lot of retention. You know the old school mmos. Most where about communities and had great communities. The problem is that when WoW became the mmo monopoly of design because of their big cash flow, the genre followed suit. They believed this is how you'd make money in this genre. WoW also brought in a lot of players who are not even passionate about the genre and just treat it like another FPS game. The direction and philosophy as of late has been very toxic to the community because it catered to those who where not necessarily passionate about the genre but more of less the instant gratification playerbase. When mmo's became soloable, the community suffered.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
You don't have to be a wanna be PC game dev or some PC game dev cheerleader to know that all the great MMORPG features that people have generally favored have been spread across several games. There has yet to be a game that can capture a fair amount of quality features that people want in an MMORPG. This is why retention rate is bad. Hype gets people in, disappointment gets them out.
"The combat is incredible, but it's too on rails"
"The story and questing is awesome but the combat sucks"
"Best crafting and housing, but the graphics engine is terrible"
"There's voice acting, but there's bots and gold sellers all over the game"
Subscriptions were bad because the value didn't add up. Developers are incapable of keeping up a content schedule to justify a box cost plus premium sub. F2P models are even worse because the devs + publishers don't have the integrity or creativity to keep certain integral aspects of games away from pay gates and they also sneak in shitty subscription models.
You don't need to know Cryengine or Unreal SDKs or somebody who uses them to sort all this out. So yah, there hasn't been a "good" MMORPG in a LONG time. There's been stuff just good enough to check out and put down when the next thing comes along.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On another note, I feel like developers are too busy trying to be tolerated by millions rather than loved by thousands. MMORPGS are not meant to start out mainstream. WoW was a phenomenon and there are too many attempts to recreate this.
MMORPG game business is a lot like the music industry. Good bands with good music start out with cult followings THEN go mainstream. There's nothing wrong with doing niche content. Good niche grows into mainstream.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
F2P MMOs don't need high retention rates with all players. They just need high retention rates with whales, which support the rest of the F2P population. Most of the games do this well, even if it comes at the cost of good gameplay for the non-paying population.
If an MMO was designed for the short term, then it wouldn't be attractive to whales like current F2P (and some B2P and even sub based) MMOs are. The idea is to keep the whales active and give them reasons to constantly spend money on a cash shop each month to keep a constant stream of revenue going. If the game was designed to be enjoyed for a short term only there wouldn't be much incentive for whales to keep spending money.
Some of these "whales" will easily spend $100+ a month and I've heard of people spending $1000+ per month on facebook games with little in the ways of gameplay alone.
You are quite correct that working closely with a single game developer will tend to result in a skewed view based on what you experience. However, when you work with multiple developers, and follow many more via events such as GDC you get a much better picture of the industry as a whole. This helps to allow for educated statements about gaming... but does not ensure it. There are just as many clueless people in the industry, as there are outside of it.
There is a LOT of merit to bringing in people from other industries, and then providing them with the background needed to provide educated input. They can often point out issues that have been taken for granted, or solutions that seem obvious to outsiders. They can also often see trends that mirror other industries, and as such better predict the eventual outcome better than those in the industry (who believe that they are special). (If anyone tells you that the gaming industry is 'special' and that you need years of experience in the industry to understand it... they are full of it)
Gaming is an entertainment product, and has similarities to many other industries (in different ways). This industry has a tendency to be incestious and self absorbed with how 'different' it is, rather than trying to find common ground with other industries. This is starting to break down as larger media companies are starting to incorporate gaming as just another product type in their portfolio.
This is one of the reasons why you are starting to see gaming articles from sources like Forbes, CNN, and other non gaming news. This is also one of the reasons why ESports are finally in a position to be a viable product. Gaming has moved from the niche to the mainstream, and much the 'mystique' is being stripped away.