Quest hubs, dungeons and raids do not make a game pve any more than adding an arena to FF14 makes it a pvp game.
Now if New World didn't have mobs to fight, such as monsters, undead, and world bosses, the complaint that it doesn't have pve could be valid.
Also of note, PVE means player vs environment, so the devs could make the game's weater system, oceans, lakes, a volcano, quicksand, or what have you the "mob" that players have to survive against. Frost in Skyrim to did this to epic results.
Atlas by a very small team,low budget game that is mostly an ARK mod already had water zones right out of the box.I do mean ZONES,meaning there are several different eco systems from frigid cold to super hot and water zones vary as well.The New World will NOT go as deep as Atlas already had out of the box,with ship building and the ability to run your own server with mods if you like in your spare time.
"all the money they spent"Somebody said this,i sort of went like wtf,i doubt this game is anymore a couple million dollars investment.Developers choose survival games for a reason,same as Arpg's and moba's,they are a low risk very cheap,cost effective way to get your feet wet.
So why is this game getting any hype when it won't even be as good as a low budget ARK mod?Easy it is called marketing and why big business spends so much money on it,HYPE HYPE it up,get people to notice your game.
This is also why they changed from the f2p model to the $40 entrance fee,once they have your money it doesn't matter what you think anymore.If they sell 2 million copies at 40 bucks that is 80 million for a few mil investment...not too shabby.I am sure their shareholders wil be happy in the end,a poorly over rated game but lot's of money in the coffers.
I would entertain what you said, if this was not Amazon. They have a reputation, and this game will either mark them as knowing their shit and able to make a good game, or make them a failed laughing stock.
If this was some start up, or no-name, you might have had a very solid point, but, not so much when it's a very public and established company.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
No NPC towns, so no inn keepers, blacksmiths, storage keepers, general good vendors ... none of that
There are no quest givers or quest NPCs.
No NPCs to tell you lore and backstory etc...
Let that sink in.
The entirety of PvE is fighting waves of mob spawns and some open world boss types.
That is it at launch.
Awesome pve.... right?
Maybe. There are already numerous games that provide what you describe, while there are constant calls for something other than the norm.
This is other than the norm.
I agree. Let's try a new slant on things. Not everyone is happy with the incredibly hackneyed Trinity, quest-givers with yellow exclamation marks over their heads and meaningless PvP where it always just becomes a gankfest and the winner gets points and the loser just pops up alive again, good as new. I'm all for SOMETHING to break the mould.
No NPC towns, so no inn keepers, blacksmiths, storage keepers, general good vendors ... none of that
There are no quest givers or quest NPCs.
No NPCs to tell you lore and backstory etc...
Let that sink in.
The entirety of PvE is fighting waves of mob spawns and some open world boss types.
That is it at launch.
Awesome pve.... right?
Maybe. There are already numerous games that provide what you describe, while there are constant calls for something other than the norm.
This is other than the norm.
I agree. Let's try a new slant on things. Not everyone is happy with the incredibly hackneyed Trinity, quest-divers with yellow exclamation marks over their heads and meaningless PvP where it always just becomes a gankfest and the winner gets points and the loser just pops up alive again, good as new. I'm all for SOMETHING to break the mould.
Yes but this is more like leaving the mould unpoured... it’s not the same...
Is there any mob loot and character progression? If there is, I don't need quests to PvE.
I personally can’t stand quest driven progression. The problem I see with this game is that most PVErs will probably expect it and thus bringing in fewer people. I could be wrong.
Yes but this is more like leaving the mould unpoured... it’s not the same...
You say that like it's a bad thing.
You ever seen how useful a mold is without actually using it?
Now see that is kinda the thing that separates MMO's from Single Player games.. In an MMO's you can pour the mold in parts at a time and even assemble things later, with patches, updates, expansions, etc. You don't need to get the whole thing totally completed by launch day.. you can leave a lot of room for growth and change.
I personally think that is something that game designers have also lost sight of when they make MMO's, that somehow it needs to be a complete game when it launches, and then need to kinda guess and figure out what to do next after the fact, as opposed to making the game from the ground up to be expanded upon.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Yes but this is more like leaving the mould unpoured... it’s not the same...
You say that like it's a bad thing.
You ever seen how useful a mold is without actually using it?
Now see that is kinda the thing that separates MMO's from Single Player games.. In an MMO's you can pour the mold in parts at a time and even assemble things later, with patches, updates, expansions, etc. You don't need to get the whole thing totally completed by launch day.. you can leave a lot of room for growth and change.
I personally think that is something that game designers have also lost sight of when they make MMO's, that somehow it needs to be a complete game when it launches, and then need to kinda guess and figure out what to do next after the fact, as opposed to making the game from the ground up to be expanded upon.
But that is simply a reaction to gamers switching games faster and faster. You only have a month or two to prove yourself, after that player numbers drop of a cliff.
On a somewhat related note,I would love for this site to rereview MMORPGs every year to see where they stand at that time. Some fundamentally change and/or improve along the way. A yearly insight into these games would be much appreciated, some of them have turned into entirely different beasts over the course of a few updates or expansions. Just an idea.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
No NPC towns, so no inn keepers, blacksmiths, storage keepers, general good vendors ... none of that
There are no quest givers or quest NPCs.
No NPCs to tell you lore and backstory etc...
Let that sink in.
The entirety of PvE is fighting waves of mob spawns and some open world boss types.
That is it at launch.
Awesome pve.... right?
Maybe. There are already numerous games that provide what you describe, while there are constant calls for something other than the norm.
This is other than the norm.
I agree. Let's try a new slant on things. Not everyone is happy with the incredibly hackneyed Trinity, quest-divers with yellow exclamation marks over their heads and meaningless PvP where it always just becomes a gankfest and the winner gets points and the loser just pops up alive again, good as new. I'm all for SOMETHING to break the mould.
Yes but this is more like leaving the mould unpoured... it’s not the same...
Is it possible to break the mould and have it too?
It seems many here want change so long as it doesn't involve much in the way of change. How are developers supposed to move beyond the same old when whatever does is often rejected upon the hearing of it, nevermind the trying.
On a somewhat related note,I would love for this site to rereview MMORPGs every year to see where they stand at that time. Some fundamentally change and/or improve along the way. A yearly insight into these games would be much appreciated, some of them have turned into entirely different beasts over the course of a few updates or expansions. Just an idea.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
An excellent idea, in my view. Not only would help keep players up to date in games they may not normally follow much it would also serve as a great introduction to newer players that would be able to learn more about games no longer heavily marketed and publicized, and how some of them still strive to endure and even expand today.
Yes but this is more like leaving the mould unpoured... it’s not the same...
You say that like it's a bad thing.
You ever seen how useful a mold is without actually using it?
Now see that is kinda the thing that separates MMO's from Single Player games.. In an MMO's you can pour the mold in parts at a time and even assemble things later, with patches, updates, expansions, etc. You don't need to get the whole thing totally completed by launch day.. you can leave a lot of room for growth and change.
I personally think that is something that game designers have also lost sight of when they make MMO's, that somehow it needs to be a complete game when it launches, and then need to kinda guess and figure out what to do next after the fact, as opposed to making the game from the ground up to be expanded upon.
But that is simply a reaction to gamers switching games faster and faster. You only have a month or two to prove yourself, after that player numbers drop of a cliff.
On a somewhat related note,I would love for this site to rereview MMORPGs every year to see where they stand at that time. Some fundamentally change and/or improve along the way. A yearly insight into these games would be much appreciated, some of them have turned into entirely different beasts over the course of a few updates or expansions. Just an idea.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That's not really true.
Sure you have an influx of players at launch, but, a lot of that is due to players having no real clue what the game is like. I mean you could have the most balls on polished shiny turd ever, and there will always be a percentage of players that will try the game and simply not like it.
In short you can't expect too retain your launch numbers, what you can do, is expect to attract enough new players to mitigate your turnover. IE: More people coming into the game then quitting.
Turnover is a huge a part of MMO's that is not a part of Single Player Games.
Also MMO's are expected to change over time, look at what WoW was at launch, vs What what become over the course of the last 14 years.
Same with all successful MMO, so, the idea with an MMO at lunch, should not be so much "This is It" but it should be more like "This is the Start"
And I think MMO's developers really fail to embrace that when they build their games.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Yes but this is more like leaving the mould unpoured... it’s not the same...
You say that like it's a bad thing.
You ever seen how useful a mold is without actually using it?
Now see that is kinda the thing that separates MMO's from Single Player games.. In an MMO's you can pour the mold in parts at a time and even assemble things later, with patches, updates, expansions, etc. You don't need to get the whole thing totally completed by launch day.. you can leave a lot of room for growth and change.
I personally think that is something that game designers have also lost sight of when they make MMO's, that somehow it needs to be a complete game when it launches, and then need to kinda guess and figure out what to do next after the fact, as opposed to making the game from the ground up to be expanded upon.
But that is simply a reaction to gamers switching games faster and faster. You only have a month or two to prove yourself, after that player numbers drop of a cliff.
On a somewhat related note,I would love for this site to rereview MMORPGs every year to see where they stand at that time. Some fundamentally change and/or improve along the way. A yearly insight into these games would be much appreciated, some of them have turned into entirely different beasts over the course of a few updates or expansions. Just an idea.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That's not really true.
Sure you have an influx of players at launch, but, a lot of that is due to players having no real clue what the game is like. I mean you could have the most balls on polished shiny turd ever, and there will always be a percentage of players that will try the game and simply not like it.
In short you can't expect too retain your launch numbers, what you can do, is expect to attract enough new players to mitigate your turnover. IE: More people coming into the game then quitting.
Turnover is a huge a part of MMO's that is not a part of Single Player Games.
Also MMO's are expected to change over time, look at what WoW was at launch, vs What what become over the course of the last 14 years.
Same with all successful MMO, so, the idea with an MMO at lunch, should not be so much "This is It" but it should be more like "This is the Start"
And I think MMO's developers really fail to embrace that when they build their games.
I think this depends largely on the content a game has and the type of player playing it. In EQ this was very true considering how long it took for most people to level up and the players all tolerated it. The team had a lot of time to complete the next content because of it.
Now WoW is on the other side of that coin where players are blasting through the content in only a month or two while content comes very slowly by comparison leaving months and months of "dead" spots. I don't think the average WoW player would tolerate it taking 12 months to reach the "next max level" so there was time to generate the next content patch.
This is something indie devs and any small team should consider. Make reaching "the end" either not the goal of the game or long learning times so there is time to generate new content before the players are done.
But that is simply a reaction to gamers switching games faster and faster. You only have a month or two to prove yourself, after that player numbers drop of a cliff.
On a somewhat related note,I would love for this site to rereview MMORPGs every year to see where they stand at that time. Some fundamentally change and/or improve along the way. A yearly insight into these games would be much appreciated, some of them have turned into entirely different beasts over the course of a few updates or expansions. Just an idea.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That's not really true.
Sure you have an influx of players at launch, but, a lot of that is due to players having no real clue what the game is like. I mean you could have the most balls on polished shiny turd ever, and there will always be a percentage of players that will try the game and simply not like it.
In short you can't expect too retain your launch numbers, what you can do, is expect to attract enough new players to mitigate your turnover. IE: More people coming into the game then quitting.
Turnover is a huge a part of MMO's that is not a part of Single Player Games.
Also MMO's are expected to change over time, look at what WoW was at launch, vs What what become over the course of the last 14 years.
Same with all successful MMO, so, the idea with an MMO at lunch, should not be so much "This is It" but it should be more like "This is the Start"
And I think MMO's developers really fail to embrace that when they build their games.
I think this depends largely on the content a game has and the type of player playing it. In EQ this was very true considering how long it took for most people to level up and the players all tolerated it. The team had a lot of time to complete the next content because of it.
Now WoW is on the other side of that coin where players are blasting through the content in only a month or two while content comes very slowly by comparison leaving months and months of "dead" spots. I don't think the average WoW player would tolerate it taking 12 months to reach the "next max level" so there was time to generate the next content patch.
This is something indie devs and any small team should consider. Make reaching "the end" either not the goal of the game or long learning times so there is time to generate new content before the players are done.
EQ was pumping out a new expansion every year since it's inception, sometimes even twice a year, and has kept that up for the last 20 years.
In compairosn to more modern MMO's.
GW2, that took 3 years for it's first expansion, and almost 2 years before it's next one after that, and is now going on 2 years since then, and leveling in that game is, like *Cough* and you get Exp.
ESO took 5 years before it's first real expansion, and then started to release them annually.
BDO, is on it's 5th year, without an Expansion, and I hit the 40th (PvE Max Level when I played, not sure if they changed the rules since) in like a week in that game.
WoW averaged between 1 - 2 years between Expansions.
My main guess why some of them were not keeping up with EQ's expansion schedule, is simply because they never really had a vision of where to go from where they were.
I wager, they built the game like a single player game, with the thought that at launch of it being complete, and had no real idea how to expand upon it or where to go, from where they were, with GW2 being the poster child of that.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
ESO took 5 years before it's first real expansion, and then started to release them annually.
Yeah... not so much. Unless you buy their spin of changing the name of 1 of the 4 yearly DLCs they've been doing all along since year 2 to "Chapter" constitutes some kind of material and significant change.
Their very first 2 DLCs, Imperial City and Orsinium, released in the Summer and Fall of their 2nd year respectively, were every bit as chaptersized as the ones they later decided to call chapters and charge a few extra bucks for over and above the sub. Prior to Morrowind all DLC were included with the sub.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
ESO took 5 years before it's first real expansion, and then started to release them annually.
Yeah... not so much. Unless you buy their spin of changing the name of 1 of the 4 yearly DLCs they've been doing all along since year 2 to "Chapter" constitutes some kind of material and significant change.
Their very first 2 DLCs, Imperial City and Orsinium, released in the Summer and Fall of their 2nd year respectively, were every bit as chaptersized as the ones they later decided to call chapters and charge a few extra bucks for over and above the sub. Prior to Morrowind all DLC were included with the sub.
Oh.. I was just going by a Wiki List.. I never really got into ESO. Thanks for the info.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
ESO took 5 years before it's first real expansion, and then started to release them annually.
Yeah... not so much. Unless you buy their spin of changing the name of 1 of the 4 yearly DLCs they've been doing all along since year 2 to "Chapter" constitutes some kind of material and significant change.
Their very first 2 DLCs, Imperial City and Orsinium, released in the Summer and Fall of their 2nd year respectively, were every bit as chaptersized as the ones they later decided to call chapters and charge a few extra bucks for over and above the sub. Prior to Morrowind all DLC were included with the sub.
Oh.. I was just going by a Wiki List.. I never really got into ESO. Thanks for the info.
Chapters and DLCs are quite different.
Chapters are the addition of large regions to the world along with numerous quests that come along with, and an adventure campaign set in that area. They often add new features to the game beyond that as well. Morrowind introduced Wardens, and Elsweyr necromancers for example. They are akin to the expansions of other MMORPGs, and must be purchased by subscribers and non-subscribers alike.
DLCs are much smaller in scale and tightly focused in comparison to chapters. They are more akin to modules in pnp RPG terms, whereas chapters are more like boxed expansions to a campaign world. These are provided to subscribers at no additional cost. Those not subscribed must purchase them separately.
So, the spin Iselin mentions is more aptly applied to his depiction of the difference between ESO chapters and DLCs than their actual nature.
But that is simply a reaction to gamers switching games faster and faster. You only have a month or two to prove yourself, after that player numbers drop of a cliff.
On a somewhat related note,I would love for this site to rereview MMORPGs every year to see where they stand at that time. Some fundamentally change and/or improve along the way. A yearly insight into these games would be much appreciated, some of them have turned into entirely different beasts over the course of a few updates or expansions. Just an idea.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That's not really true.
Sure you have an influx of players at launch, but, a lot of that is due to players having no real clue what the game is like. I mean you could have the most balls on polished shiny turd ever, and there will always be a percentage of players that will try the game and simply not like it.
In short you can't expect too retain your launch numbers, what you can do, is expect to attract enough new players to mitigate your turnover. IE: More people coming into the game then quitting.
Turnover is a huge a part of MMO's that is not a part of Single Player Games.
Also MMO's are expected to change over time, look at what WoW was at launch, vs What what become over the course of the last 14 years.
Same with all successful MMO, so, the idea with an MMO at lunch, should not be so much "This is It" but it should be more like "This is the Start"
And I think MMO's developers really fail to embrace that when they build their games.
I think this depends largely on the content a game has and the type of player playing it. In EQ this was very true considering how long it took for most people to level up and the players all tolerated it. The team had a lot of time to complete the next content because of it.
Now WoW is on the other side of that coin where players are blasting through the content in only a month or two while content comes very slowly by comparison leaving months and months of "dead" spots. I don't think the average WoW player would tolerate it taking 12 months to reach the "next max level" so there was time to generate the next content patch.
This is something indie devs and any small team should consider. Make reaching "the end" either not the goal of the game or long learning times so there is time to generate new content before the players are done.
EQ was pumping out a new expansion every year since it's inception, sometimes even twice a year, and has kept that up for the last 20 years.
In compairosn to more modern MMO's.
GW2, that took 3 years for it's first expansion, and almost 2 years before it's next one after that, and is now going on 2 years since then, and leveling in that game is, like *Cough* and you get Exp.
ESO took 5 years before it's first real expansion, and then started to release them annually.
BDO, is on it's 5th year, without an Expansion, and I hit the 40th (PvE Max Level when I played, not sure if they changed the rules since) in like a week in that game.
WoW averaged between 1 - 2 years between Expansions.
My main guess why some of them were not keeping up with EQ's expansion schedule, is simply because they never really had a vision of where to go from where they were.
I wager, they built the game like a single player game, with the thought that at launch of it being complete, and had no real idea how to expand upon it or where to go, from where they were, with GW2 being the poster child of that.
EQ was a lot simpler. Zones, NPCs, loot and levels
But that is simply a reaction to gamers switching games faster and faster. You only have a month or two to prove yourself, after that player numbers drop of a cliff.
On a somewhat related note,I would love for this site to rereview MMORPGs every year to see where they stand at that time. Some fundamentally change and/or improve along the way. A yearly insight into these games would be much appreciated, some of them have turned into entirely different beasts over the course of a few updates or expansions. Just an idea.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That's not really true.
Sure you have an influx of players at launch, but, a lot of that is due to players having no real clue what the game is like. I mean you could have the most balls on polished shiny turd ever, and there will always be a percentage of players that will try the game and simply not like it.
In short you can't expect too retain your launch numbers, what you can do, is expect to attract enough new players to mitigate your turnover. IE: More people coming into the game then quitting.
Turnover is a huge a part of MMO's that is not a part of Single Player Games.
Also MMO's are expected to change over time, look at what WoW was at launch, vs What what become over the course of the last 14 years.
Same with all successful MMO, so, the idea with an MMO at lunch, should not be so much "This is It" but it should be more like "This is the Start"
And I think MMO's developers really fail to embrace that when they build their games.
I think this depends largely on the content a game has and the type of player playing it. In EQ this was very true considering how long it took for most people to level up and the players all tolerated it. The team had a lot of time to complete the next content because of it.
Now WoW is on the other side of that coin where players are blasting through the content in only a month or two while content comes very slowly by comparison leaving months and months of "dead" spots. I don't think the average WoW player would tolerate it taking 12 months to reach the "next max level" so there was time to generate the next content patch.
This is something indie devs and any small team should consider. Make reaching "the end" either not the goal of the game or long learning times so there is time to generate new content before the players are done.
EQ was pumping out a new expansion every year since it's inception, sometimes even twice a year, and has kept that up for the last 20 years.
In compairosn to more modern MMO's.
GW2, that took 3 years for it's first expansion, and almost 2 years before it's next one after that, and is now going on 2 years since then, and leveling in that game is, like *Cough* and you get Exp.
ESO took 5 years before it's first real expansion, and then started to release them annually.
BDO, is on it's 5th year, without an Expansion, and I hit the 40th (PvE Max Level when I played, not sure if they changed the rules since) in like a week in that game.
WoW averaged between 1 - 2 years between Expansions.
My main guess why some of them were not keeping up with EQ's expansion schedule, is simply because they never really had a vision of where to go from where they were.
I wager, they built the game like a single player game, with the thought that at launch of it being complete, and had no real idea how to expand upon it or where to go, from where they were, with GW2 being the poster child of that.
EQ was a lot simpler. Zones, NPCs, loot and levels
And leveling a lot slower. Being able to beat the pace of the player is extremely valuable
ESO took 5 years before it's first real expansion, and then started to release them annually.
Yeah... not so much. Unless you buy their spin of changing the name of 1 of the 4 yearly DLCs they've been doing all along since year 2 to "Chapter" constitutes some kind of material and significant change.
Their very first 2 DLCs, Imperial City and Orsinium, released in the Summer and Fall of their 2nd year respectively, were every bit as chaptersized as the ones they later decided to call chapters and charge a few extra bucks for over and above the sub. Prior to Morrowind all DLC were included with the sub.
Oh.. I was just going by a Wiki List.. I never really got into ESO. Thanks for the info.
Chapters and DLCs are quite different.
Chapters are the addition of large regions to the world along with numerous quests that come along with, and an adventure campaign set in that area. They often add new features to the game beyond that as well. Morrowind introduced Wardens, and Elsweyr necromancers for example. They are akin to the expansions of other MMORPGs, and must be purchased by subscribers and non-subscribers alike.
DLCs are much smaller in scale and tightly focused in comparison to chapters. They are more akin to modules in pnp RPG terms, whereas chapters are more like boxed expansions to a campaign world. These are provided to subscribers at no additional cost. Those not subscribed must purchase them separately.
So, the spin Iselin mentions is more aptly applied to his depiction of the difference between ESO chapters and DLCs than their actual nature.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
EQ was a lot simpler. Zones, NPCs, loot and levels
Zones, NPC's, Loot, and Levels.. describes almost every MMO ever made.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
EQ was a lot simpler. Zones, NPCs, loot and levels
Zones, NPC's, Loot, and Levels.. describes almost every MMO ever made.
Yeah but you weren't talking about quest, voiceovers, phasing, story driven stuff. EQ basically plopped NPCs in new zones with loot tables.
There we Lore, and some story-ish stuff.
I mean they didn't hand hold you though the world and pat your bottom telling you how great you were and destined to save the world... because you weren't. In EQ, you were one of many adventures that passed through their gate, and they treated you like it.
But, there was a deep lore and in some cases, active story, if you paid attention. Like Scars of Velious, with the whole war between the giants and the dwarves that went on.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Comments
If this was some start up, or no-name, you might have had a very solid point, but, not so much when it's a very public and established company.
I personally think that is something that game designers have also lost sight of when they make MMO's, that somehow it needs to be a complete game when it launches, and then need to kinda guess and figure out what to do next after the fact, as opposed to making the game from the ground up to be expanded upon.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Sure you have an influx of players at launch, but, a lot of that is due to players having no real clue what the game is like. I mean you could have the most balls on polished shiny turd ever, and there will always be a percentage of players that will try the game and simply not like it.
In short you can't expect too retain your launch numbers, what you can do, is expect to attract enough new players to mitigate your turnover. IE: More people coming into the game then quitting.
Turnover is a huge a part of MMO's that is not a part of Single Player Games.
Also MMO's are expected to change over time, look at what WoW was at launch, vs What what become over the course of the last 14 years.
Same with all successful MMO, so, the idea with an MMO at lunch, should not be so much "This is It" but it should be more like "This is the Start"
And I think MMO's developers really fail to embrace that when they build their games.
Now WoW is on the other side of that coin where players are blasting through the content in only a month or two while content comes very slowly by comparison leaving months and months of "dead" spots. I don't think the average WoW player would tolerate it taking 12 months to reach the "next max level" so there was time to generate the next content patch.
This is something indie devs and any small team should consider. Make reaching "the end" either not the goal of the game or long learning times so there is time to generate new content before the players are done.
In compairosn to more modern MMO's.
GW2, that took 3 years for it's first expansion, and almost 2 years before it's next one after that, and is now going on 2 years since then, and leveling in that game is, like *Cough* and you get Exp.
ESO took 5 years before it's first real expansion, and then started to release them annually.
BDO, is on it's 5th year, without an Expansion, and I hit the 40th (PvE Max Level when I played, not sure if they changed the rules since) in like a week in that game.
WoW averaged between 1 - 2 years between Expansions.
My main guess why some of them were not keeping up with EQ's expansion schedule, is simply because they never really had a vision of where to go from where they were.
I wager, they built the game like a single player game, with the thought that at launch of it being complete, and had no real idea how to expand upon it or where to go, from where they were, with GW2 being the poster child of that.
Their very first 2 DLCs, Imperial City and Orsinium, released in the Summer and Fall of their 2nd year respectively, were every bit as chaptersized as the ones they later decided to call chapters and charge a few extra bucks for over and above the sub. Prior to Morrowind all DLC were included with the sub.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I mean they didn't hand hold you though the world and pat your bottom telling you how great you were and destined to save the world... because you weren't. In EQ, you were one of many adventures that passed through their gate, and they treated you like it.
But, there was a deep lore and in some cases, active story, if you paid attention. Like Scars of Velious, with the whole war between the giants and the dwarves that went on.