i think the trick to it is to provide a solo experience that organically melds into a community. Take eso for example. A dark anchor is a very rudimentary warfront in my view. Ungrouped people come together to win a battle and then shove off. GW2 has something similar but a little better done.
what if this concept was better explored where people could join solo and contribute in an effort that might take a week or more to resolve. This is why i'm all for getting rid of the "group window" because it achieves the opposite.
That's my mantra, but realistically, it'll never happen.
I also blame WoW, for they brought mega dollar signs to publishers' eyes. No longer is a consistent player base of 100K to 500K that pay a set monthly fee good enough. Now, if a publisher isn't raking in the money hand over fist every single month, they won't touch it. So the hobby has become big business and us old MMORPG players are out of luck
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
It will be interesting to see what the next generation thinks of the MMORPGs that are still around; it might be contrary to expectations.
I agree the MMORPG scene could use a blood change. Have kids! The future depends on it
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Start thinking of MMORPG as a feature set rather than your nostalgia.
If you do, MMORPGs fit right in line with this "always-connected" generation.
A game developer will "accidentally" create an MMORPG, but it won't be called an MMORPG. All we can do is hope we're alive and able to play when it happens. All these cash grab developers and kickstarter snake oil salesmen trying to force it aren't going to be the ones.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Start thinking of MMORPG as a feature set rather than your nostalgia.
If you do, MMORPGs fit right in line with this "always-connected" generation.
A game developer will "accidentally" create an MMORPG, but it won't be called an MMORPG. All we can do is hope we're alive and able to play when it happens. All these cash grab developers and kickstarter snake oil salesmen trying to force it aren't going to be the ones.
I certainly hope you're right. An accident or unexpected project seems more likely to move the needle on the next generation of MMORPGs. I'm sure that MMORPG.com members will be on the bleeding edge of arguing if it is an MMORPG or not.
My fear with the unintended origin idea is that the RP element will be lost, or reduced to another gear collection grind. Mendel is not known as the guy with the nifty Ginzu knives. He's a borderline maniac who responsible people do not leave alone on a cold night with an empty woodbin and a room full of fancy French-style chairs.
Do we really want another MOBA?
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
obviously it depends on who's asking. but i believe that the genre is dead(pure nostalgia). the whole point of it was online open worlds where you and friends can dick around and have fun. but that's pretty much standard these days. what made mmorpg's unique has died a long time ago.
It will be interesting to see what the next generation thinks of the MMORPGs that are still around; it might be contrary to expectations.
I agree the MMORPG scene could use a blood change. Have kids! The future depends on it
I have a kid! He turned 32 this year. As far as I know, he isn't much into MMOs even though he played EQ1 back in the day (at 12 or 13). He does enjoy games like Ark, though
I thought the genre had a new audience. Isn't it doing better now, money-wise, than way back when?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
It will be interesting to see what the next generation thinks of the MMORPGs that are still around; it might be contrary to expectations.
I agree the MMORPG scene could use a blood change. Have kids! The future depends on it
I have a kid! He turned 32 this year. As far as I know, he isn't much into MMOs even though he played EQ1 back in the day (at 12 or 13). He does enjoy games like Ark, though
I thought the genre had a new audience. Isn't it doing better now, money-wise, than way back when?
My son hates them. He does play looter shooters. I don't really blame him because even I find them lame. Trying to get my son to play and he ask me why. I really have no answer to the long term point of playing MMORPG that make up for general supbar gameplay.
To clarify when I say new audience. I men moving forward. I always think what MMORPG can become but I don't think MMORPG can become what's needed with the current MMORPG audience. Maybe not even the old school. Concepts of fairness and tradition of how things are done seem too ingrained to have much more than what we have now.
Story telling and content that's not shared or guaranteed. Allowing crafting of individual stories and legends. Unfair advantages to a few to push narratives. You know true rare and legendary existing even if it's not you. Losses that may sting or be brutal to players as well as nice rewards. A ton more of untraditional things that would push things closer to virtual world.
Seems most players these days just want something to do in spare time or trappings of grinding of some sort. Balance and unfairness is not an option. Loss is frowned upon.
Almost all mmorpg are progressionist. Meaning they are rpg players trying to get their character stronger.
And the people that aren't progressionist don't play mmorpg anyway. It have nothing to do with wow players dont' like playing sandbox game or more social mmorpg.
What drives them away are usually forced pvp, forced grouping, forced grinding. The same reason the OP is complaining because he felt forced to do solo forced questline.
Almost all mmorpg are progressionist. Meaning they are rpg players trying to get their character stronger.
And the people that aren't progressionist don't play mmorpg anyway. It have nothing to do with wow players dont' like playing sandbox game or more social mmorpg.
What drives them away are usually forced pvp, forced grouping, forced grinding. The same reason the OP is complaining because he felt forced to do solo forced questline.
Maybe "progressionist" shouldn't be driving the genre. I don't think there is anywhere to go but backwards. Pretty bleak outlook.
MMORPG are just a bad vehicle for single player content IMO. Certainly not why I play MMORPG.
We need game developers that make MMOs to also adjust to new mentality of MMO gamers.
Tradition and dogmatic views are hard to change. Corporate interests even harder. We smaller group of pre-WoW players still holding on to the hope of what they played being modernized. Some of course quit or adopted the WoW view. The post WoW gamers/developers slowly turned the genre into coop RPGs. While cool certainly not something that needs persistent online worlds.
If there is one thing that SOE and SWG demonstrated, is that if you seek to replace your current playerbase with a new one, you end up with no playerbase at all.
I have always felt like the millions WoW brought in simply are not into MMORPG. I feel like if MMORPG focused on what makes MMORPG unique it would drive away a good portion of player base.
Your thoughts?
Very good question that has a lot of layers to any potential answer.
Firstly, do MMORPGs need a new audience, no, MMOs rely on audience churn, most MMOs operate on the assumption that 5-10% of people who tried it / bought it will subscribe at once and of those 5-10% 10-15% will be online at any one time, (In free to play games you can replace subscribe with "purchase" and the number is a little lower at around 4-6%).
The above is a number that has been quoted in shareholder reports of a number of online MMOrpgs and Games as a service platforms
They rely on the positive churn of new and returning players to offset those who drift away. This is why you see so many games running "comeback campaigns" and "Refer a friend schemes" because in a world where only growth = success then your two most valuable target markets are new players and lapsed players.
The former because that is simple growth, a new player is a new player, and the latter because numerous studies have shown that it is 10x easier to get some one to spend a second time than it is to get them to spend a first time (This is why many free to play games give away very appealing bundles for your first currency purchase).
The players you already have are money you have already accounted for in one form or another so retaining them becomes your third priority simply because most online game companies work on the assumption that the first step to losing a customer is getting them. Now this might seem like very glass is half empty thinking, but it is true in multiple ways, it could be you lose their custom, or just their activity but either way MMO companies plan for 90% of their player base to leave and then work on seeing how many they can get back.
The successful ones, basically have a higher positive churn than negative.
Now this is a very longwinded way of saying, MMOS always need a new customer base, but they also need to keep their old customer base popping back, after that they can worry about longer term retention. Most place it in this order because they know long term players likely have other emotional investments than just a love of the product.
Anyway tangent over, but very interesting question, thanks for asking it.
If there is one thing that SOE and SWG demonstrated, is that if you seek to replace your current playerbase with a new one, you end up with no playerbase at all.
Lol can be very true. I don't think SWG had a bad player base. It didn't have WoWs player base. It played bad on many computers and had 1st generation playability.
I have always felt like the millions WoW brought in simply are not into MMORPG. I feel like if MMORPG focused on what makes MMORPG unique it would drive away a good portion of player base.
Your thoughts?
Very good question that has a lot of layers to any potential answer.
Firstly, do MMORPGs need a new audience, no, MMOs rely on audience churn, most MMOs operate on the assumption that 5-10% of people who tried it / bought it will subscribe at once and of those 5-10% 10-15% will be online at any one time, (In free to play games you can replace subscribe with "purchase" and the number is a little lower at around 4-6%).
The above is a number that has been quoted in shareholder reports of a number of online MMOrpgs and Games as a service platforms
They rely on the positive churn of new and returning players to offset those who drift away. This is why you see so many games running "comeback campaigns" and "Refer a friend schemes" because in a world where only growth = success then your two most valuable target markets are new players and lapsed players.
The former because that is simple growth, a new player is a new player, and the latter because numerous studies have shown that it is 10x easier to get some one to spend a second time than it is to get them to spend a first time (This is why many free to play games give away very appealing bundles for your first currency purchase).
The players you already have are money you have already accounted for in one form or another so retaining them becomes your third priority simply because most online game companies work on the assumption that the first step to losing a customer is getting them. Now this might seem like very glass is half empty thinking, but it is true in multiple ways, it could be you lose their custom, or just their activity but either way MMO companies plan for 90% of their player base to leave and then work on seeing how many they can get back.
The successful ones, basically have a higher positive churn than negative.
Now this is a very longwinded way of saying, MMOS always need a new customer base, but they also need to keep their old customer base popping back, after that they can worry about longer term retention. Most place it in this order because they know long term players likely have other emotional investments than just a love of the product.
Anyway tangent over, but very interesting question, thanks for asking it.
That was an interesting read. It seems to me (my observation) that publishers/developers have switched which numbers they watch: from players to money alone. As long as an MMO has whales to spend ungodly amounts, publishers really don't care about how many are playing. The whales may care, which may funnel back to the studio, but only in a monetary fashion.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I have always felt like the millions WoW brought in simply are not into MMORPG. I feel like if MMORPG focused on what makes MMORPG unique it would drive away a good portion of player base.
Your thoughts?
Very good question that has a lot of layers to any potential answer.
Firstly, do MMORPGs need a new audience, no, MMOs rely on audience churn, most MMOs operate on the assumption that 5-10% of people who tried it / bought it will subscribe at once and of those 5-10% 10-15% will be online at any one time, (In free to play games you can replace subscribe with "purchase" and the number is a little lower at around 4-6%).
The above is a number that has been quoted in shareholder reports of a number of online MMOrpgs and Games as a service platforms
They rely on the positive churn of new and returning players to offset those who drift away. This is why you see so many games running "comeback campaigns" and "Refer a friend schemes" because in a world where only growth = success then your two most valuable target markets are new players and lapsed players.
The former because that is simple growth, a new player is a new player, and the latter because numerous studies have shown that it is 10x easier to get some one to spend a second time than it is to get them to spend a first time (This is why many free to play games give away very appealing bundles for your first currency purchase).
The players you already have are money you have already accounted for in one form or another so retaining them becomes your third priority simply because most online game companies work on the assumption that the first step to losing a customer is getting them. Now this might seem like very glass is half empty thinking, but it is true in multiple ways, it could be you lose their custom, or just their activity but either way MMO companies plan for 90% of their player base to leave and then work on seeing how many they can get back.
The successful ones, basically have a higher positive churn than negative.
Now this is a very longwinded way of saying, MMOS always need a new customer base, but they also need to keep their old customer base popping back, after that they can worry about longer term retention. Most place it in this order because they know long term players likely have other emotional investments than just a love of the product.
Anyway tangent over, but very interesting question, thanks for asking it.
That was an interesting read. It seems to me (my observation) that publishers/developers have switched which numbers they watch: from players to money alone. As long as an MMO has whales to spend ungodly amounts, publishers really don't care about how many are playing. The whales may care, which may funnel back to the studio, but only in a monetary fashion.
Firstly, before I reply, thank you for the kind words.
Now onto my reply.
I think you make a very good point there, in that player count is no longer the main driving metric for online game providers.
But the part about whale spending is only half the picture in my opinion. It very much depends on what size studio and what business model you follow.
For example if we look at Actiblizz they report Blizzards numbers as Monthly active users, why is this relevant if some games are free to play and some are not. Well it is because Acti Blizz as a Publicly traded company is also reliant on shareholders and investors to keep their money in the company, and ideally put more money in. In this case your main metric is targeted towards showing them the potential for revenue next year, if you had a good year, you wrap this up as "Next year will be even better" and if you had a bad year, you use this to say "Stick with us, this was only temporary".
It is why we see major studios reporting record income and profits and still doing layoffs, so they can say to investors "next year will be even better". So in the case of large studios the metric is designed to be appealing to investors first.
This same logic can be applied to any of the companies who are trying to launch a "Netflix of games" type service. They look at every product in their lineup as a value add to sell the overall service, rather than as a singular investment in and off its self. As such figures like Monthly Active users are a more valuable indicator of potential future revenues.
Then we have the companies who just produce a game or two, or only have a single or two online games in their portfolio, these are your likes of Funcom for example, and if you look at their reporting, they talk directly about money and income and adjusted revenues, this is because they are selling their products as singular products rather than as a "Package".
Now some might say "But what about NCsoft" well, you have to put into context that NC soft keeps its studios divided and then amalgamates revenue into the parent company, so again for them, revenues are more important than MAU.
Now the fish for whales thing, a lot of people misunderstand the role of whales in keeping a game open, sure you want to attract whales if you can, but whales tend to make up a small fraction of the games income, far larger is the casual player who spends a small amount regularly, these are your bread and butter that keep the lights on. On top of that you have secondary incomes, such as marketing, demographic information in some countries the harvested data.
Whales have their place, but if you drill down into it, whales represent a disproportional amount on a per capita basis but in terms of the overall spend on a game, you will tend to find whales represent a much smaller slice of the overall revenue than many people think.
Remember if something is free, I mean really free, then it is not the product, you are.
I have always felt like the millions WoW brought in simply are not into MMORPG. I feel like if MMORPG focused on what makes MMORPG unique it would drive away a good portion of player base.
Your thoughts?
Very good question that has a lot of layers to any potential answer.
Firstly, do MMORPGs need a new audience, no, MMOs rely on audience churn, most MMOs operate on the assumption that 5-10% of people who tried it / bought it will subscribe at once and of those 5-10% 10-15% will be online at any one time, (In free to play games you can replace subscribe with "purchase" and the number is a little lower at around 4-6%).
The above is a number that has been quoted in shareholder reports of a number of online MMOrpgs and Games as a service platforms
They rely on the positive churn of new and returning players to offset those who drift away. This is why you see so many games running "comeback campaigns" and "Refer a friend schemes" because in a world where only growth = success then your two most valuable target markets are new players and lapsed players.
The former because that is simple growth, a new player is a new player, and the latter because numerous studies have shown that it is 10x easier to get some one to spend a second time than it is to get them to spend a first time (This is why many free to play games give away very appealing bundles for your first currency purchase).
The players you already have are money you have already accounted for in one form or another so retaining them becomes your third priority simply because most online game companies work on the assumption that the first step to losing a customer is getting them. Now this might seem like very glass is half empty thinking, but it is true in multiple ways, it could be you lose their custom, or just their activity but either way MMO companies plan for 90% of their player base to leave and then work on seeing how many they can get back.
The successful ones, basically have a higher positive churn than negative.
Now this is a very longwinded way of saying, MMOS always need a new customer base, but they also need to keep their old customer base popping back, after that they can worry about longer term retention. Most place it in this order because they know long term players likely have other emotional investments than just a love of the product.
Anyway tangent over, but very interesting question, thanks for asking it.
That was an interesting read. It seems to me (my observation) that publishers/developers have switched which numbers they watch: from players to money alone. As long as an MMO has whales to spend ungodly amounts, publishers really don't care about how many are playing. The whales may care, which may funnel back to the studio, but only in a monetary fashion.
Firstly, before I reply, thank you for the kind words.
Now onto my reply.
I think you make a very good point there, in that player count is no longer the main driving metric for online game providers.
But the part about whale spending is only half the picture in my opinion. It very much depends on what size studio and what business model you follow.
For example if we look at Actiblizz they report Blizzards numbers as Monthly active users, why is this relevant if some games are free to play and some are not. Well it is because Acti Blizz as a Publicly traded company is also reliant on shareholders and investors to keep their money in the company, and ideally put more money in. In this case your main metric is targeted towards showing them the potential for revenue next year, if you had a good year, you wrap this up as "Next year will be even better" and if you had a bad year, you use this to say "Stick with us, this was only temporary".
It is why we see major studios reporting record income and profits and still doing layoffs, so they can say to investors "next year will be even better". So in the case of large studios the metric is designed to be appealing to investors first.
This same logic can be applied to any of the companies who are trying to launch a "Netflix of games" type service. They look at every product in their lineup as a value add to sell the overall service, rather than as a singular investment in and off its self. As such figures like Monthly Active users are a more valuable indicator of potential future revenues.
Then we have the companies who just produce a game or two, or only have a single or two online games in their portfolio, these are your likes of Funcom for example, and if you look at their reporting, they talk directly about money and income and adjusted revenues, this is because they are selling their products as singular products rather than as a "Package".
Now some might say "But what about NCsoft" well, you have to put into context that NC soft keeps its studios divided and then amalgamates revenue into the parent company, so again for them, revenues are more important than MAU.
Now the fish for whales thing, a lot of people misunderstand the role of whales in keeping a game open, sure you want to attract whales if you can, but whales tend to make up a small fraction of the games income, far larger is the casual player who spends a small amount regularly, these are your bread and butter that keep the lights on. On top of that you have secondary incomes, such as marketing, demographic information in some countries the harvested data.
Whales have their place, but if you drill down into it, whales represent a disproportional amount on a per capita basis but in terms of the overall spend on a game, you will tend to find whales represent a much smaller slice of the overall revenue than many people think.
Remember if something is free, I mean really free, then it is not the product, you are.
Dollars are the only concrete numbers, even for companies like ActiBlizz. The numbers for players differs from company to company, even day to day within the same company. Are they counting people, or accounts, or characters, or connections, or something else? It gets a bit hazy. You can put money into a bank account, but not people. Consider me a bit skeptical about any customer counts in the gaming industry.
By the way, love the "you are the product" idea, even if it originated in the 1970s. A good truth doesn't change over time, just our appreciation of it.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I have always felt like the millions WoW brought in simply are not into MMORPG. I feel like if MMORPG focused on what makes MMORPG unique it would drive away a good portion of player base.
Your thoughts?
Very good question that has a lot of layers to any potential answer.
Firstly, do MMORPGs need a new audience, no, MMOs rely on audience churn, most MMOs operate on the assumption that 5-10% of people who tried it / bought it will subscribe at once and of those 5-10% 10-15% will be online at any one time, (In free to play games you can replace subscribe with "purchase" and the number is a little lower at around 4-6%).
I joined the most popular guild in a game. And a few month later the 500 people guild have only 10 active player. Statement seems to be true.
I also remember playing GW2 and checking people's achievement I would say only 10% stay active after the game is out for a couple of month. Because their achivement point stops moving. But when I said it I kept getting bashed by GW2 fan boy.
If there is one thing that SOE and SWG demonstrated, is that if you seek to replace your current playerbase with a new one, you end up with no playerbase at all.
Lol can be very true. I don't think SWG had a bad player base. It didn't have WoWs player base. It played bad on many computers and had 1st generation playability.
They are losing players. The problem is after 2 years, very few games can keep their number of active players.
It is probably quite expensive to maintain also because they need to pay more fee for the IP.
I have always felt like the millions WoW brought in simply are not into MMORPG. I feel like if MMORPG focused on what makes MMORPG unique it would drive away a good portion of player base.
Your thoughts?
Companies want a customer base that brings in money. Most MMORPG players don't want to pay a subscription+expansion+cashshop unless it's WoW.
I'm pretty sure MMORPG's are dead in the eyes of companies, it is 2019 afterall (mobile market).
I have always felt like the millions WoW brought in simply are not into MMORPG. I feel like if MMORPG focused on what makes MMORPG unique it would drive away a good portion of player base.
Your thoughts?
Companies want a customer base that brings in money. Most MMORPG players don't want to pay a subscription+expansion+cashshop unless it's WoW.
I'm pretty sure MMORPG's are dead in the eyes of companies, it is 2019 afterall (mobile market).
The two biggest MMORPG's are both subscription based in WoW and FFXIV. Who are these "most" you speak of? Vocal minority? I also have to wonder how many people who play games like ESO subscribe for the perks.
I have always felt like the millions WoW brought in simply are not into MMORPG. I feel like if MMORPG focused on what makes MMORPG unique it would drive away a good portion of player base.
Your thoughts?
Companies want a customer base that brings in money. Most MMORPG players don't want to pay a subscription+expansion+cashshop unless it's WoW.
I'm pretty sure MMORPG's are dead in the eyes of companies, it is 2019 afterall (mobile market).
I'm hoping that publishers start to become wary of mobile the same way they are of Steam/Valve.
Except that keeping Google/Apple happy is a whole lot harder than a company as slothful as Valve. Likewise the stranglehold that those two have over what gets put on phones is positively amazing.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
I have always felt like the millions WoW brought in simply are not into MMORPG. I feel like if MMORPG focused on what makes MMORPG unique it would drive away a good portion of player base.
Your thoughts?
Great question.
The only unique thing about MMOs is the scale - having 500+ players within the same virtual environment. Everything else can be found in regular multiplayer games or single player games.
Hardly any MMOs have actually capitalised on that unique feature. Early MMOs tried to capitalise on it, but their focus was on creating a social environment (virtual world) that made use of the masses of people. That strategy worked for a while, but mass market broadband, followed by social networks, kinda made that pointless.
Since then, what MMOs have even attempted to utilise the fact that they're massively multiplayer? Most game engines fall over when you try to do anything massively multiplayer, and the few that don't haven't put in the effort to make the feature enjoyable. Some of the PvP focused titles have tried, WAR certainly achieved massive numbers in some of the keep and fortress fights (my first fortress fight there were 800+ players just on the attacking team,....) but they never really gave us the tools to make those numbers fun, rather than just a zerg.
Will an MMORPG that focuses on it's unique feature drive players away?
As always, it entirely depends on the implementation. Organising 100s of players is a challenge at the best of times. CU is aiming at 500+ players in a battle, but how are we going to make that fun, and not just a zerg? They are allowing flexible group sizes and raid sizes so that we can at least put everyone in the same raid group (150+ people in a single group....) which is a start. Do developers need to give us military-style chains of commands with built in voice-chat with separate officer/group channels as default? Do we need really good player collision as a way to stop the zerg? Or perhaps friendly fire needs to be turned on?
What about the PvE front?
Personally, I love the idea of a PvE "raid" where 500 of us get together to storm an NPC fortress. But, can you imagine trying to form a raid with 500 people?!?! Nightmare! So, do the devs make groups open, so people can join/leave on the fly? That would potentially give us a nice ebb-and-flow feel to large scale PvE fights. How about some sort of tactical tool for leaders so that they can mark objectives on the map, draw arrows for where people need to go etc? Maybe the individual group leaders also need tools, so that they can report progress back to the leader and maybe request additional backup, or transfer some of their members to other groups who need the help?
This sort of massively multiplayer PvE would then allow me to live out soooooo many of my movie dreams! Attack / defend helms deep, but the number of players/npcs actually makes it feel close in scale to the books. Space battles in Star Wars? Yep, lets have 20 people per big ship, plus 300 others flying single-seater combat fighters and bombers involved in taking on the droid fleet.
Lets take this further, away from the RPG part and just stick with the MMO part.
Lets have Battlefield 1942, but with 500 players on each side and massive maps. Would this scale allow players to start feeling more immersed and to get a better appreciation of the carnage of a real war? Or would it also be zergy? Or would it basically just end up being exactly the same experience, it just happens that over the next hill are 450 other players doing their own thing but who don't really impact my moment-to-moment fun?
I have a particular love of Vikings at the moment. So, how about a game where we can play as vikings (i guess action combat style) and it lets us have 250 v 250 v 250 battlezones? Screw the RPG part, the game only provides the combat in an MMO environment. If it included formations or some such mechanic, could we get to experience the joys/horrors of the shield wall? Or having to charge through a rain or arrows being shot by a squad of 50 archers?
Massively multiplayer as a feature has barely been touched. By anyone. There is sooooo much potential and so many different ways to make use of it that I think it would be great to focus on it and explore what is possible. Would the existing MMO crowd like it or be driven away? Depends on the other features. I expect that if MMORPGs started focusing on making use of being massively multiplayer, it probably wouldn't affect the existing players at all as long as they could continue to play the way they enjoy. So, if it still had enough solo content and small group content to play with your friends, it'd still work.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Comments
what if this concept was better explored where people could join solo and contribute in an effort that might take a week or more to resolve. This is why i'm all for getting rid of the "group window" because it achieves the opposite.
I also blame WoW, for they brought mega dollar signs to publishers' eyes. No longer is a consistent player base of 100K to 500K that pay a set monthly fee good enough. Now, if a publisher isn't raking in the money hand over fist every single month, they won't touch it. So the hobby has become big business and us old MMORPG players are out of luck
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I agree the MMORPG scene could use a blood change. Have kids! The future depends on it
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
If you do, MMORPGs fit right in line with this "always-connected" generation.
A game developer will "accidentally" create an MMORPG, but it won't be called an MMORPG. All we can do is hope we're alive and able to play when it happens. All these cash grab developers and kickstarter snake oil salesmen trying to force it aren't going to be the ones.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
the whole point of it was online open worlds where you and friends can dick around and have fun. but that's pretty much standard these days. what made mmorpg's unique has died a long time ago.
I had fun once, it was terrible.
I thought the genre had a new audience. Isn't it doing better now, money-wise, than way back when?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
He hates them, plays nothing but non MMOs on his PS4 or Switch.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
To clarify when I say new audience. I men moving forward. I always think what MMORPG can become but I don't think MMORPG can become what's needed with the current MMORPG audience. Maybe not even the old school. Concepts of fairness and tradition of how things are done seem too ingrained to have much more than what we have now.
Story telling and content that's not shared or guaranteed. Allowing crafting of individual stories and legends. Unfair advantages to a few to push narratives. You know true rare and legendary existing even if it's not you. Losses that may sting or be brutal to players as well as nice rewards. A ton more of untraditional things that would push things closer to virtual world.
Seems most players these days just want something to do in spare time or trappings of grinding of some sort. Balance and unfairness is not an option. Loss is frowned upon.
And the people that aren't progressionist don't play mmorpg anyway. It have nothing to do with wow players dont' like playing sandbox game or more social mmorpg.
What drives them away are usually forced pvp, forced grouping, forced grinding. The same reason the OP is complaining because he felt forced to do solo forced questline.
MMORPG are just a bad vehicle for single player content IMO. Certainly not why I play MMORPG.
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Very good question that has a lot of layers to any potential answer.
Firstly, do MMORPGs need a new audience, no, MMOs rely on audience churn, most MMOs operate on the assumption that 5-10% of people who tried it / bought it will subscribe at once and of those 5-10% 10-15% will be online at any one time, (In free to play games you can replace subscribe with "purchase" and the number is a little lower at around 4-6%).
The above is a number that has been quoted in shareholder reports of a number of online MMOrpgs and Games as a service platforms
They rely on the positive churn of new and returning players to offset those who drift away. This is why you see so many games running "comeback campaigns" and "Refer a friend schemes" because in a world where only growth = success then your two most valuable target markets are new players and lapsed players.
The former because that is simple growth, a new player is a new player, and the latter because numerous studies have shown that it is 10x easier to get some one to spend a second time than it is to get them to spend a first time (This is why many free to play games give away very appealing bundles for your first currency purchase).
The players you already have are money you have already accounted for in one form or another so retaining them becomes your third priority simply because most online game companies work on the assumption that the first step to losing a customer is getting them. Now this might seem like very glass is half empty thinking, but it is true in multiple ways, it could be you lose their custom, or just their activity but either way MMO companies plan for 90% of their player base to leave and then work on seeing how many they can get back.
The successful ones, basically have a higher positive churn than negative.
Now this is a very longwinded way of saying, MMOS always need a new customer base, but they also need to keep their old customer base popping back, after that they can worry about longer term retention. Most place it in this order because they know long term players likely have other emotional investments than just a love of the product.
Anyway tangent over, but very interesting question, thanks for asking it.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Firstly, before I reply, thank you for the kind words.
Now onto my reply.
I think you make a very good point there, in that player count is no longer the main driving metric for online game providers.
But the part about whale spending is only half the picture in my opinion. It very much depends on what size studio and what business model you follow.
For example if we look at Actiblizz they report Blizzards numbers as Monthly active users, why is this relevant if some games are free to play and some are not. Well it is because Acti Blizz as a Publicly traded company is also reliant on shareholders and investors to keep their money in the company, and ideally put more money in. In this case your main metric is targeted towards showing them the potential for revenue next year, if you had a good year, you wrap this up as "Next year will be even better" and if you had a bad year, you use this to say "Stick with us, this was only temporary".
It is why we see major studios reporting record income and profits and still doing layoffs, so they can say to investors "next year will be even better". So in the case of large studios the metric is designed to be appealing to investors first.
This same logic can be applied to any of the companies who are trying to launch a "Netflix of games" type service. They look at every product in their lineup as a value add to sell the overall service, rather than as a singular investment in and off its self. As such figures like Monthly Active users are a more valuable indicator of potential future revenues.
Then we have the companies who just produce a game or two, or only have a single or two online games in their portfolio, these are your likes of Funcom for example, and if you look at their reporting, they talk directly about money and income and adjusted revenues, this is because they are selling their products as singular products rather than as a "Package".
Now some might say "But what about NCsoft" well, you have to put into context that NC soft keeps its studios divided and then amalgamates revenue into the parent company, so again for them, revenues are more important than MAU.
Now the fish for whales thing, a lot of people misunderstand the role of whales in keeping a game open, sure you want to attract whales if you can, but whales tend to make up a small fraction of the games income, far larger is the casual player who spends a small amount regularly, these are your bread and butter that keep the lights on. On top of that you have secondary incomes, such as marketing, demographic information in some countries the harvested data.
Whales have their place, but if you drill down into it, whales represent a disproportional amount on a per capita basis but in terms of the overall spend on a game, you will tend to find whales represent a much smaller slice of the overall revenue than many people think.
Remember if something is free, I mean really free, then it is not the product, you are.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I also remember playing GW2 and checking people's achievement I would say only 10% stay active after the game is out for a couple of month. Because their achivement point stops moving. But when I said it I kept getting bashed by GW2 fan boy.
It is probably quite expensive to maintain also because they need to pay more fee for the IP.
The two biggest MMORPG's are both subscription based in WoW and FFXIV. Who are these "most" you speak of? Vocal minority? I also have to wonder how many people who play games like ESO subscribe for the perks.
Except that keeping Google/Apple happy is a whole lot harder than a company as slothful as Valve. Likewise the stranglehold that those two have over what gets put on phones is positively amazing.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."