Me saying bad didn't just mean in terms of gameplay and it most certainly included quality. Quality has perhaps been the biggest downfall of most games. Wow wasn't perfect at release and had its share of problems, so I think the wow generation is able to give games a chance as you say. However wow was fun right out of the box, despite its problems. These other games we are talking about games were not suffering from small growing pains. We are talking about games with multiple serious core issues. The list of problems in most games is staggering. Developers continue to rush out games that are terribly broken and there is no reason to put the blame of failure on players for not paying for broken products and wasting their valuable time so that developers might get their acts together in 6 or 12 months after the game has released. Are games really failing, because players now demand perfection or are they failing, because developers are not getting their games done and expect things to be like 1999 where players would waste money and time on the hopes that some game eventually gets fixed and becomes more fun than it is hassle? Why should players stick around a game that sucks when they can spend the same amount of time and money on a game they enjoy? Personally I think rewarding developers with money for releasing poorly developed games is what has help hold back much of the genre.
100% agree with this. With each year that passes and with each product that is released, the MMO players are growing less and less tolerant of developers and their investors who persist in cutting corners and then expect the playerbase to stick around until their game shows signs of improvement.
Once the "honeymoon period" is over (e.g. the first 3 months after launch), the playerbase begins to reduce. However, some MMO's are EVEN challenging that now, by pushing the boundaries on what they think they can get away with.
Just look at STO as an example. Cryptic admitted it has 80 hours worth of gameplay. Now we can only assume that that is based on the "average" player (22 hours per week). That means an average gamer will blow through that content in approximately 3.13 weeks. And funnily enough a lot of people are hitting max even before that time and remarking at the speed of the rate of progression. Now, I distinctly remember "power leveling" in WoW to 60 (pre-xp boost and expansions) in 12 days played. Thats 288 hours. STO has only 45 levels, so in wow i got to level 45 in approximately 216 hours.
80 hours vs 216 hours. That's 3.33 days played vs 9 days played. Quite a difference. Of course, that's based on me "power leveling", but even if you halfed that, it would be more content time than STO currently has.
STO is just one single example of how devs are continuing to find ways to cut corners to the point whereby it is seriously damaging their product and whatever reputation they had.
How can MMO developers hope to persuade customers to subscribe after the "free period" is over when they persist in giving the customers reasons NOT to subscribe?
The reason every one of those games failed isn't because they were bad. Most of them were lead to crappy releases due to circumstance, and leadership. Look at Darkfall or AOC today as two examples, very polished games that have grown ten fold, over the last year or so. Because either the leaders focused on what was important, rather than hype, or listened to feedback and adjusted accordingly.
Erm, am I reading this right? You are claiming AOC and Darkfall to be two examples of very polished games that have grown ten fold?
Compared to what they were at launch yes.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Me saying bad didn't just mean in terms of gameplay and it most certainly included quality. Quality has perhaps been the biggest downfall of most games.
Wow wasn't perfect at release and had its share of problems, so I think the wow generation is able to give games a chance as you say.
However wow was fun right out of the box, despite its problems. These other games we are talking about games were not suffering from small growing pains. We are talking about games with multiple serious core issues. The list of problems in most games is staggering. Developers continue to rush out games that are terribly broken and there is no reason to put the blame of failure on players for not paying for broken products and wasting their valuable time so that developers might get their acts together in 6 or 12 months after the game has released.
Are games really failing, because players now demand perfection or are they failing, because developers are not getting their games done and expect things to be like 1999 where players would waste money and time on the hopes that some game eventually gets fixed and becomes more fun than it is hassle?
Why should players stick around a game that sucks when they can spend the same amount of time and money on a game they enjoy? Personally I think rewarding developers with money for releasing poorly developed games is what has help hold back much of the genre.
I said that is a reason not the reason, there are many reasons. The biggest reason I feel is as I said, they don't try and cater to a play-style, they try and bend designs to fit every play-style. Because they are all shooting for huge success rather than simply succeeding. What you wrote was a blanket statement about 20 games, calling them all bad, without giving any reason as to why they were. That's what i took issue with and pointed out, for you it may have been an oversight, but for the community it's the norm.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I said that is a reason not the reason, there are many reasons. The biggest reason I feel is as I said, they don't try and cater to a play-style, they try and bend designs to fit every play-style. Because they are all shooting for huge success rather than simply succeeding. What you wrote was a blanket statement about 20 games, calling them all bad, without giving any reason as to why they were. That's what i took issue with and pointed out, for you it may have been an oversight, but for the community it's the norm.
I can see that point of view, but I didn't want to get into all the little details of each game and why it each had their own troubles. Most, not all, but most had similar problems, so yes it was a sort of blanket statement.
At the same time, saying games do not cater to specific audiences is in the same boat as my comment as far as general statements.
Not that I really agree with the classification of players into three neat little groups. At this point I think players just want a decent mmo that isn't bogged down by poor mechanics, performance and a team that is incapable of responding to players. There were enough players in the past that crossed borders, so I don't see what would prevent that from happening now if the right game came along.
Comments
100% agree with this. With each year that passes and with each product that is released, the MMO players are growing less and less tolerant of developers and their investors who persist in cutting corners and then expect the playerbase to stick around until their game shows signs of improvement.
Once the "honeymoon period" is over (e.g. the first 3 months after launch), the playerbase begins to reduce. However, some MMO's are EVEN challenging that now, by pushing the boundaries on what they think they can get away with.
Just look at STO as an example. Cryptic admitted it has 80 hours worth of gameplay. Now we can only assume that that is based on the "average" player (22 hours per week). That means an average gamer will blow through that content in approximately 3.13 weeks. And funnily enough a lot of people are hitting max even before that time and remarking at the speed of the rate of progression. Now, I distinctly remember "power leveling" in WoW to 60 (pre-xp boost and expansions) in 12 days played. Thats 288 hours. STO has only 45 levels, so in wow i got to level 45 in approximately 216 hours.
80 hours vs 216 hours. That's 3.33 days played vs 9 days played. Quite a difference. Of course, that's based on me "power leveling", but even if you halfed that, it would be more content time than STO currently has.
STO is just one single example of how devs are continuing to find ways to cut corners to the point whereby it is seriously damaging their product and whatever reputation they had.
How can MMO developers hope to persuade customers to subscribe after the "free period" is over when they persist in giving the customers reasons NOT to subscribe?
Top 10 Most Misused Words in MMO's
Erm, am I reading this right? You are claiming AOC and Darkfall to be two examples of very polished games that have grown ten fold?
Compared to what they were at launch yes.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Me saying bad didn't just mean in terms of gameplay and it most certainly included quality. Quality has perhaps been the biggest downfall of most games.
Wow wasn't perfect at release and had its share of problems, so I think the wow generation is able to give games a chance as you say.
However wow was fun right out of the box, despite its problems. These other games we are talking about games were not suffering from small growing pains. We are talking about games with multiple serious core issues. The list of problems in most games is staggering. Developers continue to rush out games that are terribly broken and there is no reason to put the blame of failure on players for not paying for broken products and wasting their valuable time so that developers might get their acts together in 6 or 12 months after the game has released.
Are games really failing, because players now demand perfection or are they failing, because developers are not getting their games done and expect things to be like 1999 where players would waste money and time on the hopes that some game eventually gets fixed and becomes more fun than it is hassle?
Why should players stick around a game that sucks when they can spend the same amount of time and money on a game they enjoy? Personally I think rewarding developers with money for releasing poorly developed games is what has help hold back much of the genre.
I said that is a reason not the reason, there are many reasons. The biggest reason I feel is as I said, they don't try and cater to a play-style, they try and bend designs to fit every play-style. Because they are all shooting for huge success rather than simply succeeding. What you wrote was a blanket statement about 20 games, calling them all bad, without giving any reason as to why they were. That's what i took issue with and pointed out, for you it may have been an oversight, but for the community it's the norm.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I said that is a reason not the reason, there are many reasons. The biggest reason I feel is as I said, they don't try and cater to a play-style, they try and bend designs to fit every play-style. Because they are all shooting for huge success rather than simply succeeding. What you wrote was a blanket statement about 20 games, calling them all bad, without giving any reason as to why they were. That's what i took issue with and pointed out, for you it may have been an oversight, but for the community it's the norm.
I can see that point of view, but I didn't want to get into all the little details of each game and why it each had their own troubles. Most, not all, but most had similar problems, so yes it was a sort of blanket statement.
At the same time, saying games do not cater to specific audiences is in the same boat as my comment as far as general statements.
Not that I really agree with the classification of players into three neat little groups. At this point I think players just want a decent mmo that isn't bogged down by poor mechanics, performance and a team that is incapable of responding to players. There were enough players in the past that crossed borders, so I don't see what would prevent that from happening now if the right game came along.