Originally posted by Loktofeit "And the ideals that the MMORPG began with have grown and become a complicated web of ideas that all link to the first three letters: MMO. And we can’t even agree on what exactly an MMO is most days. I’m not saying that a game like World of Tanks is an MMO, just that there’s a connection that’s obvious and we cover the game’s news when appropriate. But I digress… everything, as the title says, is not alright.
We’re 10 years on from World of Warcraft and Azeroth is still the only world that makes a real blip in the greater populace’s consciousness. There have been successes in the MMO industry to be sure, but nothing as great as what Blizzard stumbled into. And that’s not how it’s supposed to go… right? Aren’t cultural zeitgeist-leading trends like World of Warcraft supposed to help evolve the medium into something greater than what came before?"
I kinda see it differently, Bill. The second paragraph seems to only be true because you limit ""MMO" in the first. If you limit MMOs to class-restricted, level-based, fantasy games with few outliers, then not only can the platform not evolve, you ensure its stagnation, no?
If you're looking for successes in the MMO industry only among the DIKU-shackled designed, and dismiss games such as World of Tanks and League of Legends then the industry is not alright. IMO, the industry has expanded the MMO far beyond elves, raiding and the repetitive ascent from the "flimsy starter sword". MOBAs, PBBGs, ActionRPGs, and MMOFPS have expanded the platform, grown popular, and produced successes equal to the behemoth WoW.
MMOs are more than just the EQ/WOW games. I think it does the platform a disservice to relegate it to just that. It causes stagnation in both perception and acceptance, which in turn causes stagnation in progress.
But MMOs aren't a gaming platform; it's a genre. Bill was right to limit it. And, indeed, that genre is floundering.
If you include MOBAs, Action RPGs, and Coop RPGs, then you aren't talking about MMOs anymore. You're talking about any online game with RPG elements included. And, as such, has very little bearing on what's being released in the specific MMO industry (beyond arguments made in regards to influencing MMO developers).
World of Tanks is not an MMO. Neither is League of Legends. All the gaming journalism folks making their money off advertising can spout that non-sense all they want, but it won't be true. Because if WoT and LoL are MMOs, so is CoD. So is Battlefield. So is Evolve. So is TLoU for Christ's sake. Tell me, what is the difference between WoT and Battlefield? Both have different "classes." Both have tons of unlocks within those classes in terms of weaponry, perks, equipment, attachments, etc. Battlefield actually supports more players per match. What logic do you use to differentiate the two, then? The setting? The FPS view? Those both seem quite arbitrary to the definition created when WoT is included in "MMO." What's the difference between LoL and Evolve? Both unlock different "personas" each with unique abilities. Both include a leveling process of sorts (monsters in Evolve go through 3 stages throughout the match, actually requiring "farming" food to evolve those stages). Both include NPC hostiles towards both sides, some even providing temporary bufffs (oooh how familiar does that sound, LoLers?). All have progression unlocks, all are multiplayer, all have a lot of players (though not a lot playing in the same gameworld simultaneously). Relegating the MMO definiton to include WoT and LoL dilutes the definition to mean nothing. Why the hell gaming journalists can't see that defies logic, pointing to only one thing: ad-revenue, baby. Cover what sells.
Coincidentally, I feel like MMOs would be in a better place is gaming journalists had the balls to provide a hard differentiation. Stop including LoL revenue and comparing it to ESO revenue. Stop examining WoT's success through the lens of what makes an MMO a success or failure. Stop that shit. Just stop it. It's not helping the MMO genre. LoL's failure or success has no bearing whatsoever on ESO's. The rise of the MOBA shouldn't have even been a big deal for the MMO industry (save for maybe developers emulating them in instanced PvP design). Sorry, but they don't share much in the way of gameplay or design philosophy. Why the hell we even talk about WoT or LoL or Smite or any other MOBA when gauging the success of an MMO or the MMO genre's health baffles me.
If we exclude the games that obviously aren't, by any reasonable logic governing the use of "genres" in the first place, part of the MMORPG genre we can see it's not keeping pace with the rest of the gaming industry. That's an issue. And as much as I enjoyed Bill's article, I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion.
While I hope you're wrong about Bill's conclusion, I sure as hell appreciated your post. Thank you for sharing an incredibly meticulous and relevant thought.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Originally posted by Loktofeit "And the ideals that the MMORPG began with have grown and become a complicated web of ideas that all link to the first three letters: MMO. And we can’t even agree on what exactly an MMO is most days. I’m not saying that a game like World of Tanks is an MMO, just that there’s a connection that’s obvious and we cover the game’s news when appropriate. But I digress… everything, as the title says, is not alright.
We’re 10 years on from World of Warcraft and Azeroth is still the only world that makes a real blip in the greater populace’s consciousness. There have been successes in the MMO industry to be sure, but nothing as great as what Blizzard stumbled into. And that’s not how it’s supposed to go… right? Aren’t cultural zeitgeist-leading trends like World of Warcraft supposed to help evolve the medium into something greater than what came before?"
I kinda see it differently, Bill. The second paragraph seems to only be true because you limit ""MMO" in the first. If you limit MMOs to class-restricted, level-based, fantasy games with few outliers, then not only can the platform not evolve, you ensure its stagnation, no?
If you're looking for successes in the MMO industry only among the DIKU-shackled designed, and dismiss games such as World of Tanks and League of Legends then the industry is not alright. IMO, the industry has expanded the MMO far beyond elves, raiding and the repetitive ascent from the "flimsy starter sword". MOBAs, PBBGs, ActionRPGs, and MMOFPS have expanded the platform, grown popular, and produced successes equal to the behemoth WoW.
MMOs are more than just the EQ/WOW games. I think it does the platform a disservice to relegate it to just that. It causes stagnation in both perception and acceptance, which in turn causes stagnation in progress.
But MMOs aren't a gaming platform; it's a genre. Bill was right to limit it. And, indeed, that genre is floundering.
If you include MOBAs, Action RPGs, and Coop RPGs, then you aren't talking about MMOs anymore. You're talking about any online game with RPG elements included. And, as such, has very little bearing on what's being released in the specific MMO industry (beyond arguments made in regards to influencing MMO developers).
World of Tanks is not an MMO. Neither is League of Legends. All the gaming journalism folks making their money off advertising can spout that non-sense all they want, but it won't be true. Because if WoT and LoL are MMOs, so is CoD. So is Battlefield. So is Evolve. So is TLoU for Christ's sake. Tell me, what is the difference between WoT and Battlefield? Both have different "classes." Both have tons of unlocks within those classes in terms of weaponry, perks, equipment, attachments, etc. Battlefield actually supports more players per match. What logic do you use to differentiate the two, then? The setting? The FPS view? Those both seem quite arbitrary to the definition created when WoT is included in "MMO." What's the difference between LoL and Evolve? Both unlock different "personas" each with unique abilities. Both include a leveling process of sorts (monsters in Evolve go through 3 stages throughout the match, actually requiring "farming" food to evolve those stages). Both include NPC hostiles towards both sides, some even providing temporary bufffs (oooh how familiar does that sound, LoLers?). All have progression unlocks, all are multiplayer, all have a lot of players (though not a lot playing in the same gameworld simultaneously). Relegating the MMO definiton to include WoT and LoL dilutes the definition to mean nothing. Why the hell gaming journalists can't see that defies logic, pointing to only one thing: ad-revenue, baby. Cover what sells.
Coincidentally, I feel like MMOs would be in a better place is gaming journalists had the balls to provide a hard differentiation. Stop including LoL revenue and comparing it to ESO revenue. Stop examining WoT's success through the lens of what makes an MMO a success or failure. Stop that shit. Just stop it. It's not helping the MMO genre. LoL's failure or success has no bearing whatsoever on ESO's. The rise of the MOBA shouldn't have even been a big deal for the MMO industry (save for maybe developers emulating them in instanced PvP design). Sorry, but they don't share much in the way of gameplay or design philosophy. Why the hell we even talk about WoT or LoL or Smite or any other MOBA when gauging the success of an MMO or the MMO genre's health baffles me.
If we exclude the games that obviously aren't, by any reasonable logic governing the use of "genres" in the first place, part of the MMORPG genre we can see it's not keeping pace with the rest of the gaming industry. That's an issue. And as much as I enjoyed Bill's article, I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion.
But why not go all the way then and exclude all games that emphasize heavy instanced play (PvP/raids/dungeons) from MMOs? Whats exactly the difference between, idk, CoD/LoL match and "instanced MMO PvP" match like in "insert MMO here"?
What is the difference between 4-6 player coop PvE game and sandard dungeon in generic MMO?
What is the difference between 10-20 player coop PvE game and standard generic MMO raid?
Originally posted by GeezerGamer When you have micro-transaction / monetization cropping up in how the game is coded to encourage day to day spending, it undermines the whole concept of what the MMORPG is.
Perfectly said, sir. F2P kills immersion....AKA the only thing that really matters in MMORPGs.
Joined 2004 - I can't believe I've been a MMORPG.com member for 20 years! Get off my lawn!
Originally posted by remyburke Originally posted by GeezerGamerWhen you have micro-transaction / monetization cropping up in how the game is coded to encourage day to day spending, it undermines the whole concept of what the MMORPG is.
Perfectly said, sir. F2P kills immersion....AKA the only thing that really matters in MMORPGs. I'll second that (or are we on thirds now?)
Everyone knew this was coming. One after another, MMO game companies are imploding. When you over-saturate a genre with too much of the same for too long, it becomes stale and eventually dies. Hopefully, this will once again usher in the era of the indie niche MMORPG.
Joined 2004 - I can't believe I've been a MMORPG.com member for 20 years! Get off my lawn!
Originally posted by remyburke Everyone knew this was coming. One after another, MMO game companies are imploding. When you over-saturate a genre with too much of the same for too long, it becomes stale and eventually dies. Hopefully, this will once again usher in the era of the indie niche MMORPG.
The genre isn't oversaturated with MMORPGs, the genre is just full of a very particular kind of all-inclusive, casual-friendly MMORPGs. Theres a difference.
The genre is fine. There are lots of people with skills derived from designing and creating all the games out there. There are still a lot of new people getting involved in the industry.
The tools needed to design these games have greatly improved and will continue to do so.
Just look at all the new indie games popping up all over.
Wow will die of it's own accord. It's affect on the rest of the industry has greatly subsided.
I do think the f2p movement will also die due to it's highly disliked funding mechanisms. To all the people thinking f2p would take over the industry, you have always been wrong. It is just not a good funding design.
So enough of this negative nonsense. I am looking forward to the next ten years with delight!
But why not go all the way then and exclude all games that emphasize heavy instanced play (PvP/raids/dungeons) from MMOs? Whats exactly the difference between, idk, CoD/LoL match and "instanced MMO PvP" match like in "insert MMO here"?
What is the difference between 4-6 player coop PvE game and sandard dungeon in generic MMO?
What is the difference between 10-20 player coop PvE game and standard generic MMO raid?
Here's the thing: originally, MMOs weren't about the instanced, hard player cap PvE or PvP experiences. Limiting the number of players available to interact with one another went against the overarching design philosophy of MMORPGs: bring as many players together to interact in a virtual world as possible.
Speaking from my original in-depth experience (DAoC), dungeons and PvP didn't need to be limited to 5 players a run or 10v10. I'm not sure Mythic ever even really gave the idea of instancing and limiting player caps any thought (this was Shrouded Isles era, mind you). The idea was to build a virtual community within each realm that competed against the other two for dominance of the Frontiers (in part to access a very lucrative public dungeon that helped the entire realm through the farming of mats, leveling, rare drops, etc.).
Were there issues with such open-ended dungeons and PvP? Sure was. And people noticed. Developers noticed. But, instead of attempting ways to alleviate such issues organically within the open-ended areas, they decided, "Y'know what? It'd be easier to just limit the player's ability to cooperate and interact." This violated the very corner the MMORPG market resided in. MMORPGs started implementing instances and battlegrounds (unlike the battlegrounds of DAoC) and now MOBAs do instanced PvP better and shared world and Coop RPGs do dungeon runs better. Instead of maintaining their cornered market (massively multiplayer), developers thought it'd be better to try and mix the genres. It's a lot like attempting to build a minivan fit for racing. Sure, you might get one that goes enjoyably fast, but you'll never compete with the coupes built from the ground up for such a race.
MMORPGs cannot do instanced PvP better than FPSs, 3rd person shooters/RPGs, or MOBAs. Because whenever a breakthrough in technology allows MMORPGs to become more interesting in this arena, you can bet your ass the developers of those MOBAs, FPSs, and 3rd person shooters/RPGs are going to be exploiting the new technology to further the excitement, interactivity, and depth of their instanced PvP. MMORPGs cannot do scripted dungeon runs better than singleplayer/small Coop RPGs. They will always continue to push the envelope past what MMORPGs can do. The only thing MMORPGs will ever have on such small coop/PvP games is the fact that they bring together a lot larger amount of players. So why the hell wouldn't you play to that strength? It's like Metallica trying to play Classical music. It's not what their talents lend themselves to. Anyone remember when Lil Wayne tried to released a rock rap mixtape? No? That's because it sucked and everyone (including Lil Wayne) would rather forget that shit. For those who don't follow rap: can you sing me any song Garth Brooks released under the pseudonym Chris Gaines? Or maybe you're tired of the music industry analogies. You think Christopher Nolan is disappointed he didn't get the directing gig for the upcoming 50 Shades of Grey movie? Hell no. That's not in his wheelhouse. Think you're going to see him directing a slapstick comedy featuring Seth Rogen or Vince Vaughn? Nope. Because that isn't what he does well. Why the hell would he waste his time chasing a rabbit like that, when he can continue to hone his craft in the gritty suspense genre where he excels? Sure, he won't get the ticket money from folks that want to laugh out loud at the theater, but he will consistently fill seats with those who enjoy a good suspense/action flick.
When developers tried to make mmos that appealed to everyone that is when the mmo genre started the decline. It became more about profit compared to how great of a game we can make. Greed is what is killing the mmo genre.
I think we really need to remember the changes that the MMO gaming industry has gone though to find the roots of its potential demise. At first like back in the first few years of old EQ competition was kept in check. Sure you could play the robber and sneak up and steal people's kills but it tended to come with more deaths if you were not cooperating with others and those deaths had teeth in terms of time and progression it really hurt as in loosing your levels. Old EQ and then other games experimented with people at first there is no doubt, but at some point the competitive concept went too far and became about real world money. Many games were setting up tournaments and big cash was flying around. At some point World of Warcraft decided it wanted to cash in on this and their own pvp became a more highlighted part of the game. So the trend was set and actual MMO gaming as more than just a background for pvp arena type play faded away. Now I have nothing against good balanced pvp but when you bring real world money into the deal corruption and then devolution tends to be the result. The result was a strange and warped view of what players really wanted by high end developers. We drew lines, we cut our selves off from potential interaction, we had alliances and they were destroyed when the dark side of humanity became more celebrated by the industry than anything good. "Lets be bad guys" became the thing to play and yes many of us stabbed each other in the back. The farmer guilds evolved and set up claims over things like long term boss spawns and as this had value, deals were made, positions in raids were sold for [once again] real world money. So here we are now past that line, the one where you paid a sub fee and had a chance in the past for this fantasy based even ground perspective and now you pay to win, or even a chance to win. I made friends [for a while] with people I never could have in real life, we valued each other in game for more than just win win and then it was gone as the industry became about leaching more money and now it seems to be leaching it self to death. When the news that Sony sold off SOE went live recently that kind of crystallized for me that gaming of the past might be gone. I have played so many MMOs after old EQ at the beginning of the century, games from a good number of companies, but honestly the spirit of competition was not kept in check and like a good viper sent its toxin to do its work.
Honestly once it all became about money and tricking players in to paying way more than a monthly sub fee just to keep up... where did we think this was going to go?
Originally posted by Loktofeit "And the ideals that the MMORPG began with have grown and become a complicated web of ideas that all link to the first three letters: MMO. And we can’t even agree on what exactly an MMO is most days. I’m not saying that a game like World of Tanks is an MMO, just that there’s a connection that’s obvious and we cover the game’s news when appropriate. But I digress… everything, as the title says, is not alright.
We’re 10 years on from World of Warcraft and Azeroth is still the only world that makes a real blip in the greater populace’s consciousness. There have been successes in the MMO industry to be sure, but nothing as great as what Blizzard stumbled into. And that’s not how it’s supposed to go… right? Aren’t cultural zeitgeist-leading trends like World of Warcraft supposed to help evolve the medium into something greater than what came before?"
I kinda see it differently, Bill. The second paragraph seems to only be true because you limit ""MMO" in the first. If you limit MMOs to class-restricted, level-based, fantasy games with few outliers, then not only can the platform not evolve, you ensure its stagnation, no?
If you're looking for successes in the MMO industry only among the DIKU-shackled designed, and dismiss games such as World of Tanks and League of Legends then the industry is not alright. IMO, the industry has expanded the MMO far beyond elves, raiding and the repetitive ascent from the "flimsy starter sword". MOBAs, PBBGs, ActionRPGs, and MMOFPS have expanded the platform, grown popular, and produced successes equal to the behemoth WoW.
MMOs are more than just the EQ/WOW games. I think it does the platform a disservice to relegate it to just that. It causes stagnation in both perception and acceptance, which in turn causes stagnation in progress.
But MMOs aren't a gaming platform; it's a genre. Bill was right to limit it. And, indeed, that genre is floundering.
If you include MOBAs, Action RPGs, and Coop RPGs, then you aren't talking about MMOs anymore. You're talking about any online game with RPG elements included. And, as such, has very little bearing on what's being released in the specific MMO industry (beyond arguments made in regards to influencing MMO developers).
World of Tanks is not an MMO. Neither is League of Legends. All the gaming journalism folks making their money off advertising can spout that non-sense all they want, but it won't be true. Because if WoT and LoL are MMOs, so is CoD. So is Battlefield. So is Evolve. So is TLoU for Christ's sake. Tell me, what is the difference between WoT and Battlefield? Both have different "classes." Both have tons of unlocks within those classes in terms of weaponry, perks, equipment, attachments, etc. Battlefield actually supports more players per match. What logic do you use to differentiate the two, then? The setting? The FPS view? Those both seem quite arbitrary to the definition created when WoT is included in "MMO." What's the difference between LoL and Evolve? Both unlock different "personas" each with unique abilities. Both include a leveling process of sorts (monsters in Evolve go through 3 stages throughout the match, actually requiring "farming" food to evolve those stages). Both include NPC hostiles towards both sides, some even providing temporary bufffs (oooh how familiar does that sound, LoLers?). All have progression unlocks, all are multiplayer, all have a lot of players (though not a lot playing in the same gameworld simultaneously). Relegating the MMO definiton to include WoT and LoL dilutes the definition to mean nothing. Why the hell gaming journalists can't see that defies logic, pointing to only one thing: ad-revenue, baby. Cover what sells.
Coincidentally, I feel like MMOs would be in a better place is gaming journalists had the balls to provide a hard differentiation. Stop including LoL revenue and comparing it to ESO revenue. Stop examining WoT's success through the lens of what makes an MMO a success or failure. Stop that shit. Just stop it. It's not helping the MMO genre. LoL's failure or success has no bearing whatsoever on ESO's. The rise of the MOBA shouldn't have even been a big deal for the MMO industry (save for maybe developers emulating them in instanced PvP design). Sorry, but they don't share much in the way of gameplay or design philosophy. Why the hell we even talk about WoT or LoL or Smite or any other MOBA when gauging the success of an MMO or the MMO genre's health baffles me.
If we exclude the games that obviously aren't, by any reasonable logic governing the use of "genres" in the first place, part of the MMORPG genre we can see it's not keeping pace with the rest of the gaming industry. That's an issue. And as much as I enjoyed Bill's article, I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion.
Your post is one worth reading and rereading several times, if for no other reason than to digest what you are really saying there.
MMOs have evolved beyond just the MMORPGs. Developers have acknowledged that. Publishers have acknowledged that. Investors and money managers have acknowledged that. Journalists have acknowledged that.
Your post is the online gaming version of "that's not real music! stop calling it music! It doesn't even have a band. What kind of music doesn't have a band?"
I don't doubt many here will cheer you on and rally behind your cause. They also want everyone - including the people that make MMOs - off their lawn, too.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
While everyone else blames casuals, f2p, and the lack of rapingly hard open world PVP for the demise of the industry, I'm gonna stick with the tried and true scapegoat.
Since MMO's stemmed from SRPG's which stemmed from PNP which in a sense stemmed from books, I think its fair to say this:
MMO's are an Art/Entertainment form encapsulated in a computer Application.
This at once yields a struggle/dichotomy:
The Art/Enterainment Experience versus the Cost/Profit of developing the application.
We're at a point where the two are locked in battle.
We've got a fickle, demanding audience that ranges between those who enjoy the journey and those who power level to the top and gripe about there never being enough endgame.
We've got an audience of (largely) cheapskates who want to pay as little as possible for the product. (I for one hate F2P because I can do the math to see what I'd have to pay to get to the end and its just beyond what I'm willing to pay, moreso on mobile than PC)
We've got developers who are absolutely capable of making the content we want but are hogtied by the bottom line and whatever pay model may be in place.
Are we dead? Far from it. But we're in for a rough ride toward the equilibrium point where this fight balances out again.
I just want a place I can log in, meet people, have fun and enjoy my time working toward a goal I know I can afford to reach. I'd prefer it be more sandboxy than storyline, I'd like it to be griefer-minimized and please for the love of fucking god make it sci-fi.
it was not necessarily the "casuals" (whatever that is)
it was not necessarily FTP, PTW (basically the same thing)
not really the content locusts (although...)
it is/was the "whales"
who gets to buy their way into alpha/beta for recent/new MMO games? who buys guarentees for limited land space? who pays for ridiculously expensive in game items (be they ships or whatever)? who pays for development period?
and because of all this, the only feedback that devs receive are from people (i won't call them gamers or players) with fat wallets - not those that want to enter a world and play in that world for years
so we get cash shops, when at their most tame, offer the ability for people to skip their way through a game with paypal (as in "i''ve got 2 kids, three jobs, 3 dogs and a needy significant other - i don't have time to play) - great, an MMO is "finished' within a month - well, that was "fun?"
at their worst of course they offer a jump to "endgame" (whatever that is, MMOs shouldn't have an endgame) and a way to strut around as the most tricked out "powerful player"
I honestly feel that the people who make MMORPGs have forgotten what they are supposed to be doing. MMORPGs were originally an attempt to bring pencil and paper tabletop role playing games "to life" so to speak. Tabletop rpgs in turn were an attempt to let us enter the fantasy worlds created in novels or some approximation of those.
Well, ok, if you ever played table top games, think back to that. Try to remember how it felt. Try to remember what you did in those games. Mostly it was about taking your character out to have adventures. It was also about simply being in the fantasy world. It most certainly was not about doing an endless series of trivial chores for NPCs. If you played tabletop games did you ever go around your starting town amassing a list of chores from the townsfolk: collect 10 rat tails and bring them back, kill 7 stray cats and bring me their pelts, gather 14 daisies and 3 buttercups and return them to me, and so on and so on.
Tabletop games were also never about getting to max level as quickly as possible and then grinding for gear upgrades until you burned out.
And think about fantasy novels. Would you read a novel in which the characters did the sorts of things developers give us to do in these games? I wouldn't. The most common theme in fantasy novels is a group of people or sometimes just one person setting out on a long journey and having nail biting adventures along the way. In what way have MMORPGs captured that essence of fantasy adventure?
Developers need to try to remember what makes fantasy adventure appealing to people and then try to capture at least some of that feeling in their games.
We started with that in mind, playing to have fun. We then got handed a carrot and got excited. We have been chasing the carrot ever since. I think GW2 moved in a direction more MMOs need to start doing, making the carrot mean a lot less and return to the fun as the focus. Only thing is, can gamers stop chasing the carrot? We need to change our reason for gaming as much as devs would need to change how they make content and rewards.
The carrot is part of the fun for a lot of people.
Leveling up, getting gear, shuffling talents are all a part of the fun for RPGs, for me at least.
Originally posted by remyburke F2P killed the genre.
This is what I tend to think.
You guys are thinking MMO's are on a revival tour. And I'm telling you that MMO's are done.
Look it - MMO's... like... for real MMO's are like Arcades. You go to some place with your friends. Spend a few bucks. Spend a few hours. Have a great social experience. Have some spirited competition. Have fun. And go home. That's what Arcades were. And that's what MMO's were.
F2P killed it. It turned our beloved Arcades into Slot Machines.
I do foresee something new replacing. I've thought maybe Co-Op RPG's will be on the rise. But who knows?
F2P didn't hold a gun to developers heads telling them to make cheesy games. With the exception of ArcheAge which actually could have been fun for quite a while if it wasn't for being optimized to nickle and dime the shit out of you, most games are just another attempt to draw as many players as possible, majoring in the minors and lacking the elements that make for an immersive gaming experience the way this genre did originally.
Your post is one worth reading and rereading several times, if for no other reason than to digest what you are really saying there.
MMOs have evolved beyond just the MMORPGs. Developers have acknowledged that. Publishers have acknowledged that. Investors and money managers have acknowledged that. Journalists have acknowledged that.
Your post is the online gaming version of "that's not real music! stop calling it music! It doesn't even have a band. What kind of music doesn't have a band?"
I don't doubt many here will cheer you on and rally behind your cause. They also want everyone - including the people that make MMOs - off their lawn, too.
But that analogy only holds true if a bunch of people were shouting that Skrillex was country music and trying to sell his CDs to country music fans.
What we've acknowledged is that some folks, either through apathy or ignorance (do note here that I do not think you fall into the ignorant category), have begun to include games that aren't MMORPGs in the genre. They're playing Skrillex on Country Music Television and telling folks it fits because the CMT company knows Skrillex is all the rage now and wants in on some of that sweet money they can make by playing him on their channel. Some folks don't know any better, and some have finally thrown up their hands and said, "Well, they're gonna keep calling it country. Whatever, it's country."
I'm not doubting that online gaming has branched off and genres have borrowed ideas and used certain features from other genres to spice up their games. But a gear grind does not, an MMO, make. Nor does a 5v5 instanced PvP session. Or 4-man dungeon runs. Those things aren't the defining features of an MMO. They're used in MMOs (though less appealingly than the genre that naturally fits the amount of players included in those features), but they do not make an MMO massively multiplayer. And thus, not all games using these features qualify as an MMO.
From the first time I ever fired up my first MMO. I realized that it truley was the ultimate evolution of gaming.
We've def hit a bad patch, but it will come around. One day another game will rise up and conquer.
The genera is a young one.... With a hand-full of winners, a single great shining-star, and fields of the broken and dying. But there will be light again. There will be big-budget projects again, and there will be more small fish who rise from the depths and hit it big.
It might not happen in the next 5 years, or even the next 10, But it WILL happen.
Originally posted by remyburke F2P killed the genre.
This is what I tend to think.
You guys are thinking MMO's are on a revival tour. And I'm telling you that MMO's are done.
Look it - MMO's... like... for real MMO's are like Arcades. You go to some place with your friends. Spend a few bucks. Spend a few hours. Have a great social experience. Have some spirited competition. Have fun. And go home. That's what Arcades were. And that's what MMO's were.
F2P killed it. It turned our beloved Arcades into Slot Machines.
I do foresee something new replacing. I've thought maybe Co-Op RPG's will be on the rise. But who knows?
I already started dabbling into new hobbies.
The problem is, the ones I'm interested in are more expensive, seasonal, and/or not friendly to insomniacs because they all take place outdoors.
And I'm damn sure I won't be going back to spending my free time at the bars anymore.
lol. GW2 is not "doing it right". Seriously? You gain your quests by not even talking to any npc or players and automatically join groups in any given area to complete the quest. You don't have to say a word to anyone if you don't want to ever. Even npc's. I have to say that its a pretty world but the game is so boring. And yet, I'm a soloer. To say that I'm bored with a game when I never have to talk to anyone even though I'm a soloer means something. It means the game is a failure.
As for f2p, I maintain that the concept is one that's ruining the genre. It's a windfall of money for the game creators but we are still seeing less in these games than we did before when subscription models were the way to go.
And we are still being ignored by developers and the initial investors. They don't care about creating something that lasts, they just want the money. And if it only lasts a short time, they will create another game that's basically the same with a few small gimmicks and different graphics to distinguish it so we play it for a short time, they get a short term return, and then do it again.
Terrific read and I happy to see that someone is finally admitting to the implosion of the genre that has taken place over the past year or so. The industry HAS changed, for the better and then for the worst at the same time.
The last MMO I technically played was Destiny from release of the game until the release of the Crota expac. I felt as if I had officially had my way with the game and wanted to do something completely different with my time. I tried it with single player games and felt some satisfaction with a game that had a beginning, a middle and an end. I am growing tired of chasing the virtual carrot on the stick for the next best ________. You can fill in your own blanks.
So many new MMO's and I have not played any of them. Watching from the sidelines for their eventual washing out of initial wave of new players eager to try a different game. Eventually seeing that the new game is really an old game in a different skin. And they all are. It will be very hard to recapture that age of wonder which was the 1980's. Granted that technology has improved and has brought many interesting visuals and techniques to the business, but at the same time, copycatting old mediums in order to emulate success of past winners. Leaving us with clones and repetitious cycles that demand much of our time and financial resources to find that feeling of accomplishment and enjoyment that was more easily found before.
We don't need any "new" mmorpg's, we just need the companies to refine and improve on the ones we already have and let us find our way. If we need something new, something we have not done before, we will be sure to let everyone know. Very loudly I expect.
Originally posted by Robokapp MMOs will not make it into the next decade I'm afraid. MMOs reaching the age of 5 are increasingly rare.
I agree, but all someone has to do is say your definition of an MMO is subjective.
If you put yourself through the metal gymnastics, you can rationalize MMOs to mean whatever you want.
For example, someone will come in here and tell you that MMOs will always be alive because MMOs are all electronic games that require an internet connection. Therefore, MMOs will be around for ever, as long as we can keep rationalizing and making excuses and changing definitions.
Even Online Poker can be a MMO now. I'm actually surprised MMORPG.com hasn't added Online Poker to the game list.
It is the beast it has become due to the fact people who should have stayed in accounting are now working in development dictating and being consulted about how developers can make the most money instead of how fun and creative they can make a game.. The creative "artsy" side of game development is all now lead by a generation of developers who no longer like taking risk due to job security. What we are seeing emerge now is the dawn of of a new era that all games are designed to grab as much money as possible even making fans pay for alpha development and beta stages of a game, and then making promises to the consumer that we are sticking to our vision and payment model only to work behind the scenes to create a system that picks your pocket and bold face lie to get money from you. We will continue this downward progression until people are just sick of wasting time on poorly produced betas and having money picked right out of their pockets for access. of course a new generation of player's now exist that doesn't mind if the game sucks as long as it doesn't cost anything, and these type of gamers are the ones who have given these greedy lying game company's a pass.
Comments
While I hope you're wrong about Bill's conclusion, I sure as hell appreciated your post. Thank you for sharing an incredibly meticulous and relevant thought.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
But why not go all the way then and exclude all games that emphasize heavy instanced play (PvP/raids/dungeons) from MMOs? Whats exactly the difference between, idk, CoD/LoL match and "instanced MMO PvP" match like in "insert MMO here"?
What is the difference between 4-6 player coop PvE game and sandard dungeon in generic MMO?
What is the difference between 10-20 player coop PvE game and standard generic MMO raid?
Perfectly said, sir. F2P kills immersion....AKA the only thing that really matters in MMORPGs.
Joined 2004 - I can't believe I've been a MMORPG.com member for 20 years! Get off my lawn!
I'll second that (or are we on thirds now?)
Joined 2004 - I can't believe I've been a MMORPG.com member for 20 years! Get off my lawn!
The genre isn't oversaturated with MMORPGs, the genre is just full of a very particular kind of all-inclusive, casual-friendly MMORPGs. Theres a difference.
The genre is fine. There are lots of people with skills derived from designing and creating all the games out there. There are still a lot of new people getting involved in the industry.
The tools needed to design these games have greatly improved and will continue to do so.
Just look at all the new indie games popping up all over.
Wow will die of it's own accord. It's affect on the rest of the industry has greatly subsided.
I do think the f2p movement will also die due to it's highly disliked funding mechanisms. To all the people thinking f2p would take over the industry, you have always been wrong. It is just not a good funding design.
So enough of this negative nonsense. I am looking forward to the next ten years with delight!
Here's the thing: originally, MMOs weren't about the instanced, hard player cap PvE or PvP experiences. Limiting the number of players available to interact with one another went against the overarching design philosophy of MMORPGs: bring as many players together to interact in a virtual world as possible.
Speaking from my original in-depth experience (DAoC), dungeons and PvP didn't need to be limited to 5 players a run or 10v10. I'm not sure Mythic ever even really gave the idea of instancing and limiting player caps any thought (this was Shrouded Isles era, mind you). The idea was to build a virtual community within each realm that competed against the other two for dominance of the Frontiers (in part to access a very lucrative public dungeon that helped the entire realm through the farming of mats, leveling, rare drops, etc.).
Were there issues with such open-ended dungeons and PvP? Sure was. And people noticed. Developers noticed. But, instead of attempting ways to alleviate such issues organically within the open-ended areas, they decided, "Y'know what? It'd be easier to just limit the player's ability to cooperate and interact." This violated the very corner the MMORPG market resided in. MMORPGs started implementing instances and battlegrounds (unlike the battlegrounds of DAoC) and now MOBAs do instanced PvP better and shared world and Coop RPGs do dungeon runs better. Instead of maintaining their cornered market (massively multiplayer), developers thought it'd be better to try and mix the genres. It's a lot like attempting to build a minivan fit for racing. Sure, you might get one that goes enjoyably fast, but you'll never compete with the coupes built from the ground up for such a race.
MMORPGs cannot do instanced PvP better than FPSs, 3rd person shooters/RPGs, or MOBAs. Because whenever a breakthrough in technology allows MMORPGs to become more interesting in this arena, you can bet your ass the developers of those MOBAs, FPSs, and 3rd person shooters/RPGs are going to be exploiting the new technology to further the excitement, interactivity, and depth of their instanced PvP. MMORPGs cannot do scripted dungeon runs better than singleplayer/small Coop RPGs. They will always continue to push the envelope past what MMORPGs can do. The only thing MMORPGs will ever have on such small coop/PvP games is the fact that they bring together a lot larger amount of players. So why the hell wouldn't you play to that strength? It's like Metallica trying to play Classical music. It's not what their talents lend themselves to. Anyone remember when Lil Wayne tried to released a rock rap mixtape? No? That's because it sucked and everyone (including Lil Wayne) would rather forget that shit. For those who don't follow rap: can you sing me any song Garth Brooks released under the pseudonym Chris Gaines? Or maybe you're tired of the music industry analogies. You think Christopher Nolan is disappointed he didn't get the directing gig for the upcoming 50 Shades of Grey movie? Hell no. That's not in his wheelhouse. Think you're going to see him directing a slapstick comedy featuring Seth Rogen or Vince Vaughn? Nope. Because that isn't what he does well. Why the hell would he waste his time chasing a rabbit like that, when he can continue to hone his craft in the gritty suspense genre where he excels? Sure, he won't get the ticket money from folks that want to laugh out loud at the theater, but he will consistently fill seats with those who enjoy a good suspense/action flick.
Just IMHO but here it is.
I think we really need to remember the changes that the MMO gaming industry has gone though to find the roots of its potential demise. At first like back in the first few years of old EQ competition was kept in check. Sure you could play the robber and sneak up and steal people's kills but it tended to come with more deaths if you were not cooperating with others and those deaths had teeth in terms of time and progression it really hurt as in loosing your levels. Old EQ and then other games experimented with people at first there is no doubt, but at some point the competitive concept went too far and became about real world money. Many games were setting up tournaments and big cash was flying around. At some point World of Warcraft decided it wanted to cash in on this and their own pvp became a more highlighted part of the game. So the trend was set and actual MMO gaming as more than just a background for pvp arena type play faded away. Now I have nothing against good balanced pvp but when you bring real world money into the deal corruption and then devolution tends to be the result. The result was a strange and warped view of what players really wanted by high end developers. We drew lines, we cut our selves off from potential interaction, we had alliances and they were destroyed when the dark side of humanity became more celebrated by the industry than anything good. "Lets be bad guys" became the thing to play and yes many of us stabbed each other in the back. The farmer guilds evolved and set up claims over things like long term boss spawns and as this had value, deals were made, positions in raids were sold for [once again] real world money. So here we are now past that line, the one where you paid a sub fee and had a chance in the past for this fantasy based even ground perspective and now you pay to win, or even a chance to win. I made friends [for a while] with people I never could have in real life, we valued each other in game for more than just win win and then it was gone as the industry became about leaching more money and now it seems to be leaching it self to death. When the news that Sony sold off SOE went live recently that kind of crystallized for me that gaming of the past might be gone. I have played so many MMOs after old EQ at the beginning of the century, games from a good number of companies, but honestly the spirit of competition was not kept in check and like a good viper sent its toxin to do its work.
Honestly once it all became about money and tricking players in to paying way more than a monthly sub fee just to keep up... where did we think this was going to go?
Your post is one worth reading and rereading several times, if for no other reason than to digest what you are really saying there.
MMOs have evolved beyond just the MMORPGs. Developers have acknowledged that. Publishers have acknowledged that. Investors and money managers have acknowledged that. Journalists have acknowledged that.
Your post is the online gaming version of "that's not real music! stop calling it music! It doesn't even have a band. What kind of music doesn't have a band?"
I don't doubt many here will cheer you on and rally behind your cause. They also want everyone - including the people that make MMOs - off their lawn, too.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
While everyone else blames casuals, f2p, and the lack of rapingly hard open world PVP for the demise of the industry, I'm gonna stick with the tried and true scapegoat.
Obama.
Yeah.
Since MMO's stemmed from SRPG's which stemmed from PNP which in a sense stemmed from books, I think its fair to say this:
MMO's are an Art/Entertainment form encapsulated in a computer Application.
This at once yields a struggle/dichotomy:
The Art/Enterainment Experience versus the Cost/Profit of developing the application.
We're at a point where the two are locked in battle.
We've got a fickle, demanding audience that ranges between those who enjoy the journey and those who power level to the top and gripe about there never being enough endgame.
We've got an audience of (largely) cheapskates who want to pay as little as possible for the product. (I for one hate F2P because I can do the math to see what I'd have to pay to get to the end and its just beyond what I'm willing to pay, moreso on mobile than PC)
We've got developers who are absolutely capable of making the content we want but are hogtied by the bottom line and whatever pay model may be in place.
Are we dead? Far from it. But we're in for a rough ride toward the equilibrium point where this fight balances out again.
I just want a place I can log in, meet people, have fun and enjoy my time working toward a goal I know I can afford to reach. I'd prefer it be more sandboxy than storyline, I'd like it to be griefer-minimized and please for the love of fucking god make it sci-fi.
it was not necessarily the "casuals" (whatever that is)
it was not necessarily FTP, PTW (basically the same thing)
not really the content locusts (although...)
it is/was the "whales"
who gets to buy their way into alpha/beta for recent/new MMO games? who buys guarentees for limited land space? who pays for ridiculously expensive in game items (be they ships or whatever)? who pays for development period?
and because of all this, the only feedback that devs receive are from people (i won't call them gamers or players) with fat wallets - not those that want to enter a world and play in that world for years
so we get cash shops, when at their most tame, offer the ability for people to skip their way through a game with paypal (as in "i''ve got 2 kids, three jobs, 3 dogs and a needy significant other - i don't have time to play) - great, an MMO is "finished' within a month - well, that was "fun?"
at their worst of course they offer a jump to "endgame" (whatever that is, MMOs shouldn't have an endgame) and a way to strut around as the most tricked out "powerful player"
thanks to the whales, MMOs are dead
This article seems like it was only made to plug "crowfall"
Pvp based game that, like the rest, will die.
The carrot is part of the fun for a lot of people.
Leveling up, getting gear, shuffling talents are all a part of the fun for RPGs, for me at least.
This is what I tend to think.
You guys are thinking MMO's are on a revival tour. And I'm telling you that MMO's are done.
Look it - MMO's... like... for real MMO's are like Arcades. You go to some place with your friends. Spend a few bucks. Spend a few hours. Have a great social experience. Have some spirited competition. Have fun. And go home. That's what Arcades were. And that's what MMO's were.
F2P killed it. It turned our beloved Arcades into Slot Machines.
I do foresee something new replacing. I've thought maybe Co-Op RPG's will be on the rise. But who knows?
But that analogy only holds true if a bunch of people were shouting that Skrillex was country music and trying to sell his CDs to country music fans.
What we've acknowledged is that some folks, either through apathy or ignorance (do note here that I do not think you fall into the ignorant category), have begun to include games that aren't MMORPGs in the genre. They're playing Skrillex on Country Music Television and telling folks it fits because the CMT company knows Skrillex is all the rage now and wants in on some of that sweet money they can make by playing him on their channel. Some folks don't know any better, and some have finally thrown up their hands and said, "Well, they're gonna keep calling it country. Whatever, it's country."
I'm not doubting that online gaming has branched off and genres have borrowed ideas and used certain features from other genres to spice up their games. But a gear grind does not, an MMO, make. Nor does a 5v5 instanced PvP session. Or 4-man dungeon runs. Those things aren't the defining features of an MMO. They're used in MMOs (though less appealingly than the genre that naturally fits the amount of players included in those features), but they do not make an MMO massively multiplayer. And thus, not all games using these features qualify as an MMO.
From the first time I ever fired up my first MMO. I realized that it truley was the ultimate evolution of gaming.
We've def hit a bad patch, but it will come around. One day another game will rise up and conquer.
The genera is a young one.... With a hand-full of winners, a single great shining-star, and fields of the broken and dying. But there will be light again. There will be big-budget projects again, and there will be more small fish who rise from the depths and hit it big.
It might not happen in the next 5 years, or even the next 10, But it WILL happen.
I already started dabbling into new hobbies.
The problem is, the ones I'm interested in are more expensive, seasonal, and/or not friendly to insomniacs because they all take place outdoors.
And I'm damn sure I won't be going back to spending my free time at the bars anymore.
lol. GW2 is not "doing it right". Seriously? You gain your quests by not even talking to any npc or players and automatically join groups in any given area to complete the quest. You don't have to say a word to anyone if you don't want to ever. Even npc's. I have to say that its a pretty world but the game is so boring. And yet, I'm a soloer. To say that I'm bored with a game when I never have to talk to anyone even though I'm a soloer means something. It means the game is a failure.
As for f2p, I maintain that the concept is one that's ruining the genre. It's a windfall of money for the game creators but we are still seeing less in these games than we did before when subscription models were the way to go.
And we are still being ignored by developers and the initial investors. They don't care about creating something that lasts, they just want the money. And if it only lasts a short time, they will create another game that's basically the same with a few small gimmicks and different graphics to distinguish it so we play it for a short time, they get a short term return, and then do it again.
Bill,
Terrific read and I happy to see that someone is finally admitting to the implosion of the genre that has taken place over the past year or so. The industry HAS changed, for the better and then for the worst at the same time.
The last MMO I technically played was Destiny from release of the game until the release of the Crota expac. I felt as if I had officially had my way with the game and wanted to do something completely different with my time. I tried it with single player games and felt some satisfaction with a game that had a beginning, a middle and an end. I am growing tired of chasing the virtual carrot on the stick for the next best ________. You can fill in your own blanks.
So many new MMO's and I have not played any of them. Watching from the sidelines for their eventual washing out of initial wave of new players eager to try a different game. Eventually seeing that the new game is really an old game in a different skin. And they all are. It will be very hard to recapture that age of wonder which was the 1980's. Granted that technology has improved and has brought many interesting visuals and techniques to the business, but at the same time, copycatting old mediums in order to emulate success of past winners. Leaving us with clones and repetitious cycles that demand much of our time and financial resources to find that feeling of accomplishment and enjoyment that was more easily found before.
We don't need any "new" mmorpg's, we just need the companies to refine and improve on the ones we already have and let us find our way. If we need something new, something we have not done before, we will be sure to let everyone know. Very loudly I expect.
Thank you for reading.
I agree, but all someone has to do is say your definition of an MMO is subjective.
If you put yourself through the metal gymnastics, you can rationalize MMOs to mean whatever you want.
For example, someone will come in here and tell you that MMOs will always be alive because MMOs are all electronic games that require an internet connection. Therefore, MMOs will be around for ever, as long as we can keep rationalizing and making excuses and changing definitions.
Even Online Poker can be a MMO now. I'm actually surprised MMORPG.com hasn't added Online Poker to the game list.